A Coram Vobis Action

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 4D07-4895 L.T. No.: 03-6863 CF(10)A

DONALD BAKER, Petitioner, Vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _____________________/

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS and, MOTION TO STAY APPEAL

Comes now the Appellant/Petitioner, DONALD BAKER, pro se, and respectfully Moves this Honorable Court to Grant this Petition for Writ of Error, Coram Vobis, and to stay the proceedings in the above-referenced appeal pending the disposition of this Petition, and as reasons therefore would state: Coram Nobis or Coram Vobis relief is available only if, inter alia, "a more usual remedy is not available." Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir.1987). The circumstances and evidence to be presented herein will demonstrate that no other remedy is available to the Petitioner because of illegal, unethical and chicanerous conduct of the representatives of the state which resulted in a meaningless habeas corpus proceeding in the Circuit Court, below, and which denied Appelland/Petitioner, Donald Baker, his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts, and to justice. See, United States v. Darlene Span, et al., 75 F.3d 1383 (9th Cir., 1996), which is particularly instructive under the circumstances of this case.

JURISDICTION:

This Court has original jurisdiction of this case pursuant to article V, section 4(b)(3)(the All Writs provision) of the Florida Constitution. This is not a Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis, which should be brought in the trial court. Cf., United States of America v. JACOB DENEDO, United States Supreme Court Case No. 08-267 (2008). The primary difference between Coram Vobis and Coram Nobis is that Coram Nobis is addressed to the trial court, while Coram Vobis is addressed to the court having appellate jurisdiction. Cf., Brown v. State of Florida, 485 So. 2d 413(Fla., 1986). Coram Nobis means: “In our presence; before us." The office of "writ of Coram Nobis" is to bring the attention of a court to, and obtain relief from, errors of fact (such as a valid defense existing in facts of the case), which, if known, would have prevented entry of the judgment questioned. The essence of Coram Nobis is that it is addressed to the very court which renders the judgment in which the injustice is alleged to have been done, in contrast to appeals or review directed to another court; the words " Coram Nobis," meaning "our court," as compared to the common-law writ of "Coram Vobis," meaning "your court," clearly point this up. Black's Law Dictionary 304-05 (5th ed. 1979). There being no standing trial court, Petitioner, Donald Baker has applied to the lowest appellate court within this jurisdiction for relief from a judgment of the trial court and from a forced acceptance of a release-dismissal agreement whereby the Petitioner/Appellant was forced to withdraw his habeas corpus action under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850 and, further, forced to perjure his testimony under oath and to renounce the truth as a precondition of obtaining his rightful freedom. The truth that Petitioner was compelled to renounce is set forth below.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS:

The following entities and persons have an interest in the outcome of this case; the Florida Bar is named because of the felonious conduct of members of the Bar as herein-below named: The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2300; City of Hollywood, 2600 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, FL 33022-9045 tlyons@hollywoodfl.org; Bruce Jolly, Esq., 2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., #1216, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 bruce@purdylaw.com; David J. Glantz, AAG, 110 S.E. 6th St., 10th Floor, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-5001 david.glantz@myfloridalegal.com; Beth-Ann Herchaft, Esq., 115 S. Andrews , Ave. #423, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-1801 bherschaft@broward.org; Donna M. Krusbe, Esq., Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles, Marino & Ramsey, P.A., 400 Australian Avenue South, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 http://us.mc463.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=DonnaK@bclmr.com; Howard Finkelstein, Esq., 201 Southeast 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; Michael Satz, Esq., 201 Southeast 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; Madeleine Torres, a member of the Florida Bar, 201 Southeast 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301; Scott Raft, a member of the Florida Bar, 201 Southeast 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, Brad Edwards, a member of the Florida Bar, through counsel.

CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE:

In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order, issued on July 13, 1998, and modeled after Rule 28-2(d), Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Petitioner herein, hereby certifies that the instant Petition has been prepared with 12-point Courier New type, a font that is not spaced proportionately.

PARTIES:

In this Petition, Petitioner, Donald Baker, will be referred to herein as “Appellant,” "Petitioner" or "Baker". Respondent, State of Florida, was the prosecution in the trial court and Appellee in the District Court of Appeal on direct appeal in case numbers 4D05-205, and 4d07-1511, will be referred to herein as "Respondent" or "the State". The Exhibits referenced in this Petition are imbedded herein and are viewed by clicking the appropriate link as indicated. Additionally, Petitioner has provided and included an Index to the Appendix along with the physical location of the instrument. The instruments may be viewed by clicking on the imbedded link, or by using the link within the Index. There will be video evidence and slide-show evidence [1]/. As well, there will be references to other judicial proceedings and Baker will ask this Court to take judicial notice in such cases. Reference to the Record on Appeal will be by designating “R,”, followed by the Record Page Number. There are several transcripts involved in this case, and Petitioner will delineate the Transcript and specify the referenced page number and line.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2

PARTIES.................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .. . . . 5

AUTHORITIES CITED . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION . . .. . . .. . . . 15

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 10

DILATORY AND INORDINATE DELAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 

 THE RELEASE-DISMISSAL AGREEMENT, and THE PROSECUTION HAS AN OBLIGATION NOT TO PRESENT FALSE TESTIMONY KNOWINGLY OR TO ALTER EVIDENCE TO ERASE THE EVIDENCE OF ITS FALSITY . . . . . . . . . . 172

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED:
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Passim
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Passim
Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1987...  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passim
Hilton v. Braunskill, 107 S. Ct. 2113(1987) .......  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  167

Lee v. Buchanan, 191 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1966) .....  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935)......  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942)..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Schlanger v. Seamans, 91 S. Ct. 995(1971)........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  167
Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987)........... . . . . . . . . . . .  179
Wardius v. Oregon, 412 US 470 (1973)... passim
United States v. Darlene Span, et al., 75 F.3d 1383 (9th Cir., 1996).... . . 2
State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 177

Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So.2d 190, 193 (Fla. 1988)..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
United States v. Wright, 260 F.3d 568, 570-71 (6th Cir. 2001. . . . . . . . .  69

Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988).............. . . . . . . . . . . . .  69
McNamara v. City of Hollywood, Case Number 05-2699 (Aleman).......  167
 FLORIDA STATUTES: 90.610............................  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   166
112.533.1........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86
112.533.2(2)(a)............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   . . . . . 99

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS: AGO 76-112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  183

Treatises: Andrew Coan, The Legal Ethics of Release-Dismissal Agreements:
          Theory and Practice, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 371 (2005).. . . . 171

Standard 14- 3.1 (h), ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Pleas of
Guilty (3rd ed. 1999) ..................................  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171

Title VI, FLORIDA CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
Chapter 79 HABEAS CORPUS ...  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  166

OTHER:

Magna Carta, Ch. 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

 Prolog Presentation: Before we set forth the grounds sought to be raised in this Petition, Baker wants this Court to view the video provided by the City of Hollywood Police Department on or about May 7, 2003 and used to initiate the prosecution against him. [Right-Click and open in new window to Play]>> [click] THE ABOVE VIDEO IS THE CHARGING-PACKAGE VIDEO BY HOLLYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GAVE THE VIDEO TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WITHIN THEIR BRADY V. MARYLAND EXCHANGE. Hereafter, demonimated as

THE TORRES VIDEO OR THE BRADY VIDEO. This video was provided to the State Attorney in a play-back speed 36-times normal speed, and 18-times normal fast-forward speed.

This above video is the Brady video provided by Ms. Torres to Baker. The “Public Records Video” was secured by Baker’s stepfather, John McNamara, a private investigator for Victor Tobin, Esquire, who now sits as the Chief Judge for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida on September 12, 2003. [Right-Click and open in New Window to Play]>> [click] This video was provided by McNamara to Torres on September 29, 2003. She then gave a copy to ASA Brad Edwards. (The most salient distinctions in the two videos are set forth in the video that follows >> VIDEO COMPARISON<<. As will be shown later in this petition, former assistant state attorney, Brad Edwards, watched the Brady video 55 times and, still, could make nothing of it.) However, it is important to this Petition for Writ of Coram Vobis that the Court understands what it is watching; or, more appropriately, what it cannot watch. If the Court please, use slide bar and return to time stamp 22:37:03 the public records video in order to determine when the initial assaults began and who committed those assaults. At 22:37:07, the Court can see Officer Hoeflinger slam his left-jab into the face of Baker, and the scene shows, also, that Baker did not jump up, scream obscenities and attack Hoeflinger as is alleged in the statements of [Hoeflinger]. Id., at P. 4, last paragraph before jurat. To view all of the parties in this action, i.e., the corrupt police officers, the corrupt state attorney, and the corrupt Public Defender, follow this link>> [link to Terrorism In Blue] (THIS POST WILL BE WORKED ON AND UPDATED AND RE-POSTED WITH ALL POSSIBLE DISPATCH). The links below this line will not work, now, but will in the future. You can continue to read, however, to get a sense of the brutality, cover-up and corruption involved in this case. Upon the direction of this Court, this case was back before the trial court on habeas corpus (Rule 3.850) In that action, the Public Defender was charged with being ineffective based upon the allegations that are set out in the Rule 3.850 Motion. At the hearing on the habeas petition, the ineffective Public Defender, Madeline Torres, perjured her testimony and lied against this Petitioner, her former client, in order to sabotage Baker’s efforts to secure justice. As an initial showing of proof, Petitioner submits the letter of special habeas counsel, Melissa Donoho, Esq., addressed to the Office of the Public Defender advising them of the perjury of Ms. Torres. Click link to read the letter >> Donoho Letter. Apart from the perjury of Ms. Torres, Ms. Torres and the Public Defender’s Office also lost their file on the Baker case, including their copy of the “Brady” video supplied by the state under reciprocal discovery. (Above shown; lobby view only. Brady video has colored squares in upper-left corner of frame). Now, the State (somehow being privy to the Public Defender’s “lost” file), addressed the habeas court [Hearing of 08-29-07], at P. 3, Line 9, and said: 9 “If in fact an independent expert indicates 10 that there is tampering with the tape, any kind of 11 tampering that raises the question that something 12 was hidden on the video tape, that will end the 13 game. 14 We'll agree to undo his conviction at that 15 point and whatever steps need to be taken will be 16 taken * * *. (Emphasis added) Mr. Raft, the State’s attorney, just as quickly, advised the habeas court that neither the state through current counsel or former counsel, nor the Public Defender could identify the false video that was provided in the Discovery-package (Brady) and that this “loss” caused a break in the chain of custody, and the video should not be considered at all. Id., at See, Tr. 10-19-07, P. 140, L. 12. With this chicanery went the majority of Baker’s habeas action. Mr. Raft just buried any and all consideration of the falsified Brady video. This bit of “hide the peanut in the shell lawyering” essentially wiped out the issue of whether Torres was deficient in failing and refusing to secure a video expert and in failing and refusing to cause the jury to see the police efforts to hide the truth in this case by comparing the trial-evidence video to the Discovery-package video, which was totally falsified. This, in concert with the other and continuing perjury (set forth below) deprived Baker of meaningful habeas consideration and denied him access to the courts, and to justice. Before any argument, Petitioner wishes to demonstrate to this court the falsity of the evidence so that there will be no mistake as to the entities that should have been prosecuted in this case. Baker will show, first, the still photos taken from the Public Records video secured by McNamara on September 12, 2003: (If the court’s default picture viewer is set to Windows Photo and Fax Viewer, then click on any picture to be taken to a slide-show of the images. Use arrow keys to move to next image) > Video Link < <<< In this picture, Graham has just struck Shelter in the face. Hoeflinger rushes to the side of Baker Hoeflinger Slams a left jab into Baker’s face, knocking Baker down, onto a bench behind, and follows with a bolo. Click on ICON for Stop-Frame viewing.Use arrows to move forward or backward in video. (Both views are displayed (hallway and lobby). Hoeflinger arrives in one second after the Shelter assault, and one second later, he smashes his fist into the face of Baker.) Next, Petitioner will show the photos as they appear in the charging-package (Brady) video, which became the discovery-package (Giglio/Brady) video: > LINK TO VIDEO < href="http://www.blogger.com/Appendix/DISCOVERY%20STILLS-%20ALL/Frame113.jpeg"> Graham is about to strike Shelter in the face. “T”–1 sec. The dastardly assault upon Shelter and Baker is missing from the police video. Baker is on his back on the bench, and the completed attack now continues. “T”+1 sec. Click ON PHOTO for Stop-Frame view Again, use arrows to move forward/backward in video. This Court will also read about “jump-backs” in the Public Records video, which the Court may have observed when it viewed the public records video, above. Mr. Edwards admits that he allowed Mr. Knapp the authority to redact the jump-backs and to make the video appear “logical”, “the only way that it could be.” [Tr. 11/19/2004] at P. 22, L. 23, et seq., after trial was under way. So, we need to examine the charging-package video and determine, exactly, what happened at the point where the jump-backs would later appear in the subsequent video called the Public Records Video, when no such jump-backs appear in the Brady video. In the charging-package video, at the point where the jump-backs would later appear, the time frame is at 22:37:24 when Mr. Graham is set to deliver a devastating punch and kick (knee) to the head of Baker. Cf., [Probable Cause Affidavit], at P. 5 of 5. In the frame that follows immediately in that video, the time mark is 22:37:29. Therefore, in the falsified charging-package video, five (5) seconds of activity have been excised from the video by the police department. In a graphical (picture context), those photos appear, thusly: [Click on photo(s), then use arrow buttons to go forward or backward.] 22:37:16 Frame 129 Note the second: 16 22:37:26 Frame 130 [10 seconds missing] 22:37:24 Frame 131 [Lost 2 seconds] 22:37:24 Frame 132(Frame within Frame) > video link < 22:37:24 Frame 133(Frame within Frame) 22:37:24 Frame 134(Frame within Frame) 22:37:24 Frame 135(Frame within Frame) 22:37:24 Frame 136(Frame within Frame) >< ^^ Figure 1- Click for Slide show ability ^^ 22:37:29 Frame 137 [advance 5 seconds; missing time] To view these frames as stop-framed,Double-Click on any photo and use arrows>> 22:37:33 Grahams radio on floor. Frame 140 Five seconds of video was excised from the charging package video. In the Public Records video, most of the five seconds (previously excised) was replaced. It is of utmost importance that this Court perceive the corruption involved in this case. The most glaring difference is encompassed in a five (5) second area. The video above- played tells a story of misconduct, and the Court can grasp the continuing efforts to cover up this atrocity. PLAY THE VIDEO Having presented proof that the charging-package video was altered and falsified by the Hollywood Police Department and its agents, and that the video was presented to the state attorney in a condition that prohibited the state attorney from discerning the veracity of the evidence, this Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis follows: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:WAS BAKER IN THIS RULE 3.850 (Habeas corpus) PROCEEDINGDEPRIVED OF MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION AND DENIED DUEPROCESS OF LAW WHERE HIS HABEAS COUNSEL BECOME UNABLE TO ACT AS HIS ATTORNEY DUE TO THE PERJURY OF ERSTWHILE TRIAL COUNSEL WHICH RESULTED IN HABEAS COUNSEL BECOMING A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENDANT? WAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS, TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND MEANINGFUL HABEAS CORPUS WHERE FORMER COUNSEL, TORRES, (ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INEFFECTIVE at the habeas hearing) PERJURED HER TESTIMONY AGAINST PETITIONER (HER FORMER CLIENT) WITH THE INTENT TO DEFEAT THE HABEAS PETITION, AND WHERE FORMER COUNSEL SPECIOUSLY LOST ALL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE (and thus allowed the State to falsely allege thatit, too, lost the exculpatory evidence, which resulted in the exclusion of the evidence because of a breakin the chain of custody)? WAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY FALSELY REPRESENTED TO THE HABEAS COURT THAT A FORMER STATE’S EXPERT WITNESS, Robbie Knapp, WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN FACT, BUT MERELY A PERSON WHO MAKES COPIES OF VIDEOS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRIOR TESTIMONY THAT THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESS ROBBIE KNAPP WAS AND IS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD, AND WHICH FALSE ASSERTION WAS ADVANCED BY THE STATE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE HABEAS APPLICANT BY DELAYING A HEARING ON THE HABEAS PETITION, AND WHERE THE STATE IS SHOWN TO HAVE A HISTORY OF DELAY AND DILATORY TACTICS? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY FALSELY REPRESENTED TO THE HABEAS COURT THAT A FORMER STATE’S EXPERT WITNESS WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN FACT IN ORDER TO DELAY THE CASE BY UNLAWFULLY OBTAINING DISCOVERY IN A HABEAS ACTION UNDER F.R.Cr.P., 3.850, WHICH RULE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR OR PERMIT DISCOVERY, AND FURTHER, THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ALREADY HELD A FULL HEARING ON THE FALSIFIED EVIDENCE AND THE STATE’S EXPERT WITNESS REFUSED TO TESTIFY? WAS THE MATTER RES JUDICATA, AND WAS THE STATE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM RE-LITIGATING THE ISSUE OF FALSE EVIDENCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY FALSELY REPRESENTS TO THE HABEAS COURT THAT IT (HE) HAS LOST THE EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER BY VIRTUE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY OR DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF THE VIDEO EVIDENCE IN HIS OWN POSSESSION, AND WHICH VIDEO WAS CONTAINED IN THE BRADY MATERIAL PROVIDED TO FORMER (INEFFECTIVE) DEFENSE COUNSEL, MADELINE TORRES? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE FORMER COUNSEL (under charge of incompetence in The habeas application) FALSELY REPRESENTS THATSHE HAS LOST HER FILE IN THE CASE, INCLUDING THE ALTERED AND FALSIFIED VIDEO PROVIDED TO HER BY THE STATE ATTORNEY IN VIOLATION OF BRADY V. MARYLAND AND GIGLIO V. UNITED STATES, AND WHERE COUNSEL SPECIOUSLY LOST OTHER VIDEOS LOANED TO COUNSEL BY PETITIONER’S STEPFATHER, AND ALSOLOST ALL ELECTRONIC AND HARD-COPY COMMUNICATIONS? IS A HABEAS APPLICANT DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE LOSS OF EVIDENCE BY BOTH THE STATE AND FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL RESULTS IN THE GRANTING OF A MOTION TO EXCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF COPIES OF THE VIDEO EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO THE HABEAS PETITIONER, BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIOUS “BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY” THAT OPERATED, SOLELY, TO THE DETRIMENT AND DISADVANTAGE OF PETITIONER? IS A HABEAS APPLICANT DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS VIA CIVIL HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE UPON MOTION OF THE STATE, THE PETITIONER’S TESTIMONY IS IMPEACHED ON THE BASIS OF THE CONVICTION WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO HAVE OVERTURNED IN THE SAME HABEAS PROCEEDING, OR UPON OTHER ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS (DECADES OLD), AND IS HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENDED BY F.R.Cr.P. 3.850 WHERE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE IN CIVIL habeas corpus PROCEEDINGS WAS ADMITTED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS UNDER Rule 3.850? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS VIA HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE KNOWS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN PREDICATED UPON FALSE AND ALTERED EVIDENCE AND WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY IS ACTING AS COUNSEL FOR POLICE OFFICERS WHO MERCILESSLY BEAT THE PETITIONER, INITIALLY, AND IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS WHO ALTERED AND FALSIFIED THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AND FILED FALSE POLICE REPORTS, SECRETED OTHER VIDEOS, AND UNLAWFULLY EXERCISED THE STATE’S POWER IN AN EXTORTIVE FASHION TO OFFER THE PETITIONER FREEDOM IN EXCHANGE FOR IMMUNITY FOR THE OFFENDING OFFICERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO FALSIFIED EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE EFFECTED A SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, BY FORCING THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW HIS HABEAS PETITION AND RENOUNCE THE TRUTH? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS VIA HABEAS CORPUS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY CONSPIRES WITH FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO CONTRIVE TESTIMONY UNDER A PROMISE OF IMMUNITY, AND FOR FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL TO FALSELY TESTIFY AGAINST HER OWN CLIENT IN ORDER TO SAVE HER OWN SKIN, AS WELL AS TO PROTECT THE STATE ATTORNEY FROM SUIT BECAUSE OF A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND WORKING IN CONCERT WITH POLICE OFFICIALS TO FABRICATE EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS TO AFFORD ALL THE WRONG-DOERS A SENSE OF IMMUNITY FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTS BY FORCING THE HABEAS PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW HIS HABEAS PETITION AND RENOUNCE THE TRUTH, WHICH, THE OFFENDERS BELIEVED, WOULD ESTABLISH AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN HECK V. HUMPHRIES? IS A HABEAS PETITIONER DENIED MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS VIA HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHERE THE STATE EX PARTE’S THE COURT TO FORCE THE HABEAS COURT TO ACCEPT A RELEASE-DISMISSAL AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE HABEAS PETITIONER WOULD WITHDRAW HIS HABEAS PETITION AND RENOUNCE THE TURTH IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS RIGHTFUL, AND UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD, LIBERTY, WHERE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION, THE HABEAS JUDGE HAD PREVIOUSLY, AND STRONGLY INDICATED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY SUCH AN AGREEMENT, BUT THAT WITHIN DAYS OF THE EX PARTECOMMUNICATION BY THE STATE, THE HABEAS COURTAGREED TO ACCEPT THE TENDER OF THE STATE? WHERE THE PETITIONER IS FACED WITH THE FACTS THAT HIS FORMER COUNSEL HAS PERJURED HER TESTIMONY AGAINST HIM; WHERE THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS COMBINED THE POWER OF THE STATE WITH FORMER COUNSEL TO COMMIT PERJURY AND EFFECT A TOTAL SPOLIATION OF ALL EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER, AND IN CONCIDERATION OF ALL OTHER ELEMENTS OF THIS CASE, AND TO TENDER FREEDOM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PETITIONER PERJURING HIS TESTIMONY IN RENOUNCING THE TRUTH, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW HIS HABEAS PETITION AND VOLUNTARILY RENOUNCED THE TRUTH? PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: Other than the writ sought herein, Petitioner/Appellant has no remedy available to him at law or in equity. Below, Petitioner had a habeas corpus action, which was thwarted by the fact that Petitioner’s erstwhile appointed counsel, Ms. Madeline Torres, willfully, feloniously, and intentionally perjured her testimony to injure this Petitioner/Appellant at the habeas hearing in order to defeat Baker’s allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and to deny Baker meaningful access to the courts. This is a preliminary issue and will be fully proved below; however, the allegations of this Petitioner are so damning that they border on the unbelievable. Indeed, for a criminally accused in a habeas proceeding to allege that his own attorney intentionally perjured her testimony in order to save her own skin (to defeat an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel) is the height of treachery and unethical conduct, albeit, criminal. Because of that fact, a person reading these presence might immediately conclude that the allegations cannot be true. Therefore, in order to show this Court, initially, that Baker’s allegations are true, in fact, Baker has attached the letter from Melissa Minsk-Donoho, Esq., (his special-habeas-counsel, imbedded above) dated November 16, 2007 and addressed to Diane Cuddihy (a top assistant to the elected Public Defender for the 17th Judicial Circuit, Howard Finkelstein, Esq.), advising the Public Defender’s Office of the false testimony of Ms. Torres. Proof, beyond clear and convincing evidence, will be set forth herein so that this Court can properly conclude that the Petitioner/ Appellant was deprived of an adequate and meaningful hearing below, and that Baker’s “renouncement of truth” as well as his withdrawal of his habeas petition was not voluntary but, in fact, a natural and foreseeable consequence of the concerted unethical and illegal acts of the players as herein described, which amounted to extortion and the utter abuse of judicial process. Because it is necessary to present proof positive and not merely conclusory allegations, this petition will be rather lengthy. For the reasons set forth herein, Petitioner asks that this Court Grant his Petition for Writ of Error, Coram Vobis, appoint a special prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings where appropriate, and to Grant the Petitioner such other affirmative relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION: The first thing that Baker wishes to prove is the falsity of the video evidence that was used by the Hollywood Police Department to form probable cause for the prosecution of the Petitioner. At this point, Petitioner will provide the Court with a brief factual background. This Court had the direct appeal in this case in case number 4D05-205. The following link will advise the Court as to the facts of this case as related in the local newspaper, as well as quoting Mr. Edwards as to the issue of whether Mr. Knapp was an expert witness and whether Mr. Edwards relied upon Knapp as an expert. When Edwards was interviewed by the news media, the article reads, and Edwards is quoted as saying: “At trial, Assistant State Attorney Brad Edwards knew the tape was problematic but didn't believe it was edited. He sold the jury on Hollywood Police Det. Robert Knapp's assertion that a video "duplex" -- when two surveillance cameras record to a single video -- can cause a tape to appear edited. "It still didn't make much sense to me," Edwards admits today. "But I told Knapp, 'If that's your explanation, I'll put it in front of a jury. '" “ See, http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2004-12-09/news/tale-of-the-tape/, (not presented as proof but to state a historical background with quotes from the state attorney and his reliance upon Mr. Knapp as an expert witness; photos in the article are police photos). Mr. Edwards reasons for putting false evidence before a jury was quite astounding and demonstrated a total absence of knowledge, training and supervision. However, the facts of this case suggest something even more sinister. On April 18, 2003, Petitioner was beaten mercilessly by two police officers of the Hollywood Police Department while two Broward Sheriff’s Deputies stood by and watched; a second of the deputies guarded the entrance door where the beating was taking place. A surveillance video captured the treatment of the Petitioner at the area known as the sally-port gate, where Petitioner was removed from the police car. Another surveillance camera captured the transportation of the Petitioner from and within the elevator. Finally, another surveillance camera captured the events within the holding area where another prisoner was attacked by officer Graham, and thereafter, Petitioner was attacked by Officer Hoeflinger. Both Hoeflinger and Graham then set about to either murder the Petitioner or beat him so viciously that death might be eminent. There were so many videos and other written instruments that Mr. Cantor, attorney for the police department, required that McNamara provide an initial deposit of $100.00 towards the duplication of these records pursuant to his [Request for Public Records]. See, [Mr. Cantor’s letter] dated August 14, 2003. Subsequently, McNamara’s deposit money was returned. See, [Mr. Cantor’s letter dated August 27, 2003], indicating that records sought were no longer in existence. The City of Hollywood acknowledged that there should have been additional records including the elevator video and sally-port video. See, the City’s [Response to McNamara’s Interrogatories] at Items 1, thru 7. See, also, the [City’s Response to Request for Production]. Here, the City of Hollywood represents that the original 72-hour VHS video does not exist. See, Answer as to Number 1 thru 7. “The tapes do not exist.” Yet, Mr. Raft’s experts claim that the city of Hollywood Police Department is in possession of the original VHS video. See, r-335-341, [agreed Order with proffer]. Baker will tie this all together below. Initially, the proffer conflicts most acutely with the testimony of Mr. Knapp, the state’s erstwhile video expert (now represented to not be an expert). Mr. Knapp, as well as video expert Bawarsky testified that the machine that transfers the images from VHS to digital is a forensically sound device, and that no frames are lost, or gained. Mr. Raft’s expert contradict that at Ibid., P. 4, next to last paragraph. Ms. Carroll, uses a bit of slight-of-hand forensics in the last paragraph on page 4, stating that both, “the DVD and the collection of ‘still’ images” were compared to the images on the original VHS videotape. The City asserts, above noted, that the video does not exist at all, and that there is no chain-of-evidence or other log, which might be used to track the original video or its progeny. Therefore, someone is lying or using trickery or magic. Ms. Carroll’s comparison in the converse states that the trial video (absent the stills) is not a copy of the original video. Plain and simple. More trickery is set forth at page 5 of her report when she implies the veracity of the original (non-existent) video amalgamating, again, “The DVD and (collection of) ‘still’ images are a fair and accurate depiction of the images contained on the “original” VHS videotape for the time period identified at [“22:36:43” through “22:37:32” ] and date stamped “4-18-03” (at R. 341). Cf., Mr. Bawarsky’s Report as well as the City’s Answers to Interrogatories and Production, supra. Therefore, according to Raft’s “Expert”, less than ONE MINUTE of the video can be authenticated. This report was nothing more than an effort to fool the habeas court using fallacies of extraction. To determine the importance of the attempt to trick the court by these so-called experts, we have to look to the representations of Assistant State Attorney, Scott Raft, at the [Hearing of 08-29-07], at P. 3, Line 9, where Mr. Raft represented to the habeas court: 9 If in fact an independent expert indicates 10 that there is tampering with the tape, any kind of 11 tampering that raises the question that something 12 was hidden on the video tape, that will end the 13 game. 14 We'll agree to undo his conviction at that 15 point and whatever steps need to be taken will be 16 taken assuming evidence supports that position. 17 Until we have somebody review the tape other than 18 the people that have done it. That's why we're 19 saying to set the hearing. (Emphasis supplied) However, even while making this statement, Mr. Raft was contriving a way to secret the evidence and prevent the evidence from being examined. McNamara, indeed, received copies of the State Attorney’s videos pursuant to subpoena; every video! Mr. Raft’s promises as above stated were worthless and were never intended to be completed. This is proven beyond all doubt by the fact that Raft secreted the discovery (charging-package) video (first-above shown), and even his experts were not given access to those videos. Nothing in their report even addresses the charging-package or discovery-package video. Mr. Raft later represented the inabilities of everyone to identify the falsified video. In essence, Mr.[Raft claims that they lost this discovery-package video] (first-above shown). Mr. Raft’s thinking: if they can’t use the video, they cannot claim that it is false. Further, Mr. Raft wanted to delay Baker’s release; to deny meaningful habeas corpus consideration and to use unauthorized and unwarranted discovery to force the delay of the case. Under habeas corpus or Rule 3.850, there is no discovery; it is not provided for or allowed. Yet, Mr. Raft cajoled the habeas judge to allow discovery and investigations that had already been done by the state attorney’s office, as well as the court. See, evidentiary hearing transcript of November 19, 2004. If Ms. Carroll was in possession of the falsified charging-package or discovery-package or the public-records video and failed to report the truth as to those videos, Ms. Carroll has subjected herself to liability and unimaginable damage to her career. More likely, Mr. Raft did not ask for examination, and otherwise secreted, the Brady video as well as the Hollywood charging-package video. Petitioner was kicked in the head, kneed in the head, and his head and face was smashed into the concrete floor over, and over, and over again. The police reports indicated that Petitioner was taken to the hospital, treated for his injuries and released. Thus indicating that Petitioner suffered only minor injuries. Examples of the effect the falsified reports as to the minimization of the injuries to Baker is observed in the following documents: [Cantor Letter] dated August 14, 2003, first paragraph; and [State’s Motion for Continuance] at Paragraphs 6-7. The truth of the matter, however, was that Petitioner remained in the hospital for four days and was removed from hospital care and treatment upon the assurances of the sheriff’s deputies to hospital personnel that his injuries could be cared for at the hospital facility at the Broward County Jail, when in fact, there is no hospital facility at the jail and Petitioner’s pain and other medications were deprived him upon arrival at the jail facility, and he was left to languish in severe and excruciating pain in a cold jail cell where, for the following six weeks, he was largely incapable of moving, and was provided only aspirin to treat his severe pain and suffering. As stated above, there were surveillance videos capturing all the events occurring from the time Petitioner arrived at the Hollywood Police Department until the time he was taken from the holding facility to the hospital. However, all videos except for the videos of the holding area became unavailable notwithstanding a [public records request] containing an admonishment that the videos will be used as evidence and should not be altered or destroyed; see, first paragraph. The videos of the holding area that captured the merciless and ruthless beating of Petitioner were altered and falsified by the Hollywood Police Department to excise the attack by Graham upon another prisoner, Dennis Shelter, and the vicious attack and beating of Petitioner by both police officers, John Graham and Francis Hoeflinger. The altered video (first-above shown) was supplied to the state attorney for purposes of initiating a prosecution against Petitioner on a multitude of charges, and [delivered in 72-hr format]. This Court has just viewed about seven minutes of activity in approximately 14 seconds. Baker has to ask the Court: what did the Court observe in the video? This Court is aware of the proceedings in the above referenced appeal and in a subsequent Mandamus action before this Court because of the inordinate delay after this Court affirmed without prejudice and directed Petitioner to file a Rule 3.850 (habeas corpus) action in the trial court. The Record is replete with Baker’s attempts to move this case along, as well as the state’s inexhaustible efforts to delay the case. Subsequently, this Court entered an Order directing that the trial court do certain acts. The habeas (3.850) court ignored the order of this court and refused to allow Baker 10 days to respond to the answer of the state before Judge Gates adopted the answer of the state as the order of his court. In that Order Granting and Denying, Judge Gates allowed Baker 30-days to appeal. Baker asked for clarification, but his pleading was ignored by Judge Gates. Petitioner will re-state that one of his issues in his habeas action was that his erstwhile appointed counsel was ineffective because, inter alia, she sat on the altered and falsified video and did nothing about it, which allowed other acts of corruption to evolve in protecting the police who mercilessly beat and tortured the Petitioner, (video second-above shown), as well as others who altered and falsified the last-remaining surveillance video. Counsels’ incompetence would later result in a total miscarriage of justice and, subsequently, a [Motion to Discharge the Public Defender] was filed, and granted. These allegations are renewed here, and were incorporated in Baker’s habeas petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850. A good starting point in this action will be to prove to this Court with clear, convincing and overwhelming evidence that, in fact, the video provided by the police department upon which Petitioner was charged and prosecuted was altered and falsified to redact the attack upon Petitioner from that video. Baker has already shown that there is absolutely no evidence of a chain of custody, but we’ll now look at the evidence itself: In May of 2003, when Baker first met face-to-face with his appointed public defender, Ms. Torres, she advised him that he must plead guilty because the state has a video (the charging-package (Brady) 72-hr video, (first-above shown), supra) of the events giving rise to the multitude of charges against him, including two counts of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer; Resisting arrest with violence, resisting arrest without violence, and depriving an officer of his means of communication in an emergency (R. 1). “GREAT!” Baker exclaimed; that is, until he viewed that video as provided to Torres by the State Attorney pursuant to the requirements of Brady v. Maryland and reciprocal discovery, and could discern absolutely nothing from the video (as shown above), except that the video appeared to be intentionally super-fast and totally indiscernible. “That video is a fraud!” Baker told Torres and requested that she provide him with a copy of that video so that it could be examined by an expert for purposes of tampering and authenticity. (Nearly 3 months later, Torres provided Baker with a copy of the discovery-package video (one view, (the lobby view))) in 72-hour format, (meaning that a 2-hour VHS tape captures 72 hours of events), which (because of the speed of playback) prevented anyone observing the video from discerning the events being shown. (14 second video, supra). At the same time, Baker’s stepfather, John McNamara, mounted a campaign to secure from the City of Hollywood a copy of the video pursuant to the Public Records Laws of the State of Florida, as well as the other videos alluded to above. McNamara was stifled and put off until finally, McNamara threatened litigation if the City of Hollywood Police Department persisted in their obstruction of obtaining the public records version of that and other videos and evidence. At this juncture, Petitioner will ask this Court, again, to view, first, the [charging-package video], (same as 14 second video, first-above shown) provided by Torres to Baker. Perhaps the Court should re-click this link and view the video again, for certainly, this Court has to be as nonplussed with this video as was Baker when he first observed it. Next, Petitioner will ask that the Court view the [Public Records video], (second-above shown) secured by McNamara through Public Records, Ch. 119, F.S. on September 12, 2003. (The Court may have noticed the jump-backs of Officer Graham and might want to play the video again. If so, click on the link and view the video again). The jump-backs appear at time stamp 22:37:24, et seq. Baker is first attacked at 22:37:07. The Public Records video clearly shows that Hoeflinger attacked Baker, and not vice versa. The video clearly shows, also, that the charging-package video was a fraud and a clear attempt to deprive Baker of his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts, and to obstruct justice. The following pages will demonstrate through slow-down and stop-frame, and contrast of the charging-package (subsequently, the discovery-package video) provided to Torres by the State Attorney’s Office in violation of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, with the Public Records video subsequently obtained on September 12, 2003 by Baker’s stepfather, John McNamara. While the attack on Baker is taking place, Mr. Graham’s radio falls to the floor. (See, click last photo, above). Both officers would file their report as to the events occurring at this time period and report that Baker ripped Graham’s radio from his uniform and threw the radio into the air. See, statements/forms of [Hoeflinger, sworn], (P. 2 and P. 5 of 5, first paragraph), and [Hoeflinger 2], at P. 6. See, Also, [graham depo at P. 19, L. 22]. Even these allegations appear to be lies; may the court please view the public records video at time frame 22:41:18, which shows that the photo of the alleged ripped Epaulet is a fabrication. The still photo at that time slot, and others, shows that Mr. Graham’s [uniform was not ripped by Baker], but was unbuttoned later by either himself or another co-conspirator. Pay particular attention to photos at 22:41:18, 19 and 20. The photo taken by the police at a later time AFTER HIS EPAULET WAS UNBUTTONED AND A BUTTON REMOVED, THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN PLACE, shows the [Epaulet hanging over] the HPD emblem. And Baker asks the question: what are the tailor chalk x’s doing on the epaulet area? That is pitiful, but sufficient to fool the state attorney. But, not to fool the surveillance camera. An additional photo shows that “Him, [him got-ah boo-boo].” Poor baby. Otherwise, the officers alleged that Baker was combative and used the most vile of language throughout their encounter with him, and that he had threatened to “slap the shit outta you” when the handcuffs were removed. Cf., Hoeflinger Affidavit, P. 3 of ??, et seq. One of the videos secured by McNamara from the State Attorney is a video created by Mr. Bawarsky, which reads from these police reports while the video is playing, and the narrator is trying to match the report with the actual events taking place. Absolutely nothing matches. It can properly be concluded that the arrest reports represent a collection of lies and nothing more. In the Public Records Video, Graham’s radio can be seen at frame 22:37:31, et seq., laying on the floor under Graham and Hoeflinger, who are now on top of Baker. However, in the charging-package video, the radio is not seen until frame 22:37:36. The most important thing to observe at this juncture is that in the charging-package video, there are no jump-backs. There is a redaction of the attack upon Baker by Graham, but there is no jump-back. This begs the question, why were there jump-backs in the public records video, while there were no jump-backs in the Brady video? McNamara brought this matter to the attention of Joel Cantor, the attorney for the City of Hollywood Police Department and asked that Mr. Cantor supply him with a true copy of the original video. Mr. Cantor responded that the Public Records version of the video was a true and exact copy of the original surveillance video, and that if the City provided another copy of the video, it would be the exact-same video produced pursuant to McNamara’s original request for public records. A copy of Mr. Cantor’s 2/3/05 letter is hereto attached. [Click here to view] Otherwise, the answer is simple, the VHS video was edited to redact the assaults, and then spliced to re-introduce them when they were caught falsifying the video and the City had to re-construct a Public Records video. Each separate frame within the video has a set number of sub-frames, numbering from 15 to 30. There are 241 still photos in the discovery-package video, and each such frame has at least 15 sub-frames. The cameras capture 30 frames per second. See, Tr. [11-19-04] at P. 63, L. 21. Mr. Knapp reported to Mr. Edwards that there were only 39 frames in the entire public records video. That number is patently false. That number represents less than 2 seconds of camera capture. This strange number is important, because when an edit occurs, especially in a 72-hr surveillance video, if a frame is cut, you might have ½ of the 16 photos on one side of the cut, and the other 8 (or so) snaps on the other side. A professional editing machine does not chop frames in half; it transfers the entire frame (including all sub-frames). When a frame is improperly cut, such as you see on many of the frames, especially in the charging-package video, there appears ghosting. Meaning that the subjects will appear in two or more separate frames as ghosts. This is kind of like being teleported from the Starship Enterprise and only half of the body being transported due to failure of the teleporter. In fact, with just the still-frames demonstrated in the public records version, there are 209 stills (and that’s not all of them) and each still has at least 15 sub-frames, for a total number of frames being 3135 frames. Mr. Knapp was heavily involved in falsifying the video, originally. When Mr. Edwards told Knapp, after trial was under way, to make him another video that made sense, “the only way that it could be,” (Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 22, L. 23, et seq.) Edwards allowed the fox to guard the henhouse. It is no wonder, therefore, that Knapp produced only 39 still photos, as the record reflects. Cf., Mr. Edwards quoted comments to news media at: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2004-12-09/news/tale-of-the-tape/; Page 2 of 2. Edwards is quoted as saying: "But I told Knapp, 'If that's your explanation, I'll put it in front of a jury. '" See, [Tr. 11-19-04] at P. 24, L. 24, et seq. Specifically, P. 25, L. 18. But, Cf., [Tr. 10-19-07] at P.43, L. 16 where Mr. Raft elicits the inference that there were no more than 39 frames within the video from Mr. Edwards, and that based upon those 39 photos, there was no reason to compare the charging-package video with the public records video. At that exact coordinance, Mr. Raft corruptly implies that the public defenders complained about police brutality based upon their viewing of the charging-package video. And, not to belabor the issue, but Photo Number 34 (contained within the 39 frames allegedly copied from the trial-evidence video) did not come from the video produced at trial, but from the Public Records video, as alluded to above. See,[Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 54, L. 22,] et seq. Of course, the goal of both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Knapp at that time was to protect the police department and the police officers, and now, the state attorney’s office and the Public Defender from civil liability, and where appropriate, from criminal prosecutions. In recent days, we have seen that the policies of the Hollywood Police Department to conspire against the civil rights of citizens is alive and well. Nothing has changed within the Hollywood Police Department from the time of the Baker incident. The State Attorney’s next objective was to exclude all consideration of the falsified charging-package video. In doing so, the state attorney and Mr. Edwards had to falsely represent that they knew that Robbie [Knapp WAS NOT an expert, P. 28, L. 12, et seq.;(P. 29., L. 2)] in the field of video forensics. See, especially, Id., at P. 34, L. 25, et seq. At the hearing [held on 06/11/04], Mr. Edwards advised the Court that he would have to call his video expert back, (i.e., Knapp) P. 3, L. 18. At the hearing of 08/24/07, P. 6, L. 8. Robbie Knapp was again referred to as the video expert for the City of Hollywood. Only Robbie Knapp had been referred to as the state’s video expert until that time. Why was this non-expert called upon by Mr. Edwards to testify as to how we got from “A” to “B” to “C” in anticipation that defense counsel was “going to at least try to make this into a police-edited-a-video-tape trial.” Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 26, L. 25, et seq. And, at the habeas hearing, what would have been the purpose of Mr. Raft in calling the NON-EXPERT, Mr. Knapp, to testify at the hearing of [10-19-07] at P. 34, L. 15 if, in fact, he was not an expert theretofore? At Tr. 11-19-04, [P. 15, L. 1], et seq. The sequential question to be answered by defense counsel, (agent provocateur), Madeline Torres, Esquire, is: why would she testify at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007 that she did not have a clue that the discovery video had been altered and falsified, and why would Mr. Edwards assume that Ms. Torres would attempt to make a defense on the basis that the police edited the video tape? Further, why would she (Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 30, L. 17) assume that the new video (produced after commencement of trial, and viewed for the first time after trial had begun), was not just another altered video, as were all other videos before? Cf.,[ Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 26, L. 3, et seq.] When Torres testified that they looked the same, [Ibid., at P. 30, L. 17] did she mean that it looked the same as the discovery video, the Public Records video, or the Knapp deposition video, the trial video? What? What did they look like! (Note: This is opinion testimony,and Mr. Raft assured the habeas court that Knapp “was not an expert.”) Mr. Edwards, under the tutelage of Mr. Raft, also asserted that Knapp was not an expert. See, Tr. 10-19-07 at P. 30, et seq. See, also, Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 28, L. 24, et seq., and P. 30, L. 10. Was Mr. Knapp an expert, and did the state maliciously, falsely and corruptly misrepresent to the habeas court that Mr. Knapp was not an expert? The facts of the case will provide this court with an adequate answer, based upon testimony and truth, that the habeas court, obviously concluded differently: Petitioner will demonstrate the expertise that Mr. Knapp, himself, touted in pre-trial matters. After demonstrating that Mr. Knapp was in fact an expert, Petitioner will address the issue of the video presented during the Knapp deposition of October 2, 2003, which video is different from the discovery-package video and, also, different from the Public Records video secured by McNamara. Mr. Knapp appeared for his deposition on October 2, 2003. A copy of Mr. [Knapp’s deposition] is hereto imbedded. In addition to Edwards calling Knapp as a person who will explain away all the differing versions of the videos and to thwart the defense in demonstrating to the jury how the video was altered to excise the attack on Baker (hence, an expert witness), in Knapp’s Deposition, beginning at page 2, Mr. Knapp declares himself an expert in the field of video forensics and delineates his duties of seven years with the Hollywood Police Department: “I'm currently a Detective assigned to the Economic Crimes Unit and my duties include computer forensics as well as video forensics.” At Page 9, and on cross-examination by Assistant State Attorney, Ms. Dizon, at Line 6, “* * * and I guess you are an expert in this type of field?” Mr. Knapp responded: “Yes, I'm the computer forensics.” Continuing, then, Mr. Knapp goes into his professional training in the field. Therefore, let no one be deceived by Mr. Raft’s and Mr. Edward’s false representations that Mr. Knapp was NOT, and IS NOT, a video expert. The colloquy begins at Page 12 of the [Transcript of 10/19/07] at P. 14, L. 22, and Mr. Edwards begins testifying that he could not discern the events depicted in the charging-package CD-ROM video, and he set out his reasons for calling Knapp (as an expert) to explain the videos, but at Page 25 Edwards states that he didn’t know if Knapp was an expert, and, then, at Page 30, L.10, Mr. Knapp was never considered to have been a video expert. See also, P. 34, L. 25, et seq. But, see news link, supra. Edwards also implies (P. 15), that the case was new when Torres and Schweiker viewed the video with him. Because of the chicanery involved in this case, this Court keep must keep in mind that Schweiker was not assigned to this case until September 29, 2003 upon discovery of the Public Records video and the falsity of the Brady video. In fact, Mr. Raft acknowledged that Mr. Knapp was the State’s video expert at Page 3 of the Transcript of 8/29/07 at P. 3, Line 4, et seq., of the Supplemental Record. Mr. Raft’s and Mr. Edward’s subsequent false representations that Knapp was NOT an expert raises the questions then as to why the state had to lie in representing Mr. Knapp in the negative and as a non-expert. Cf., Tr. 10-19-07 at P.29, L. 24, simply because Mr. Knapp could not explain the vacuum of frames and the substitution of frames at the point of jump-backs. Baker will answer the question with the bare facts: At the Evidentiary Hearing of November 19, 2004, all evidence presented proved to Judge Gates and everyone else that the charging package video (the discovery-package video) had been altered and falsified. Mr. Knapp was brought in by Mr. Edwards as an expert witness to refute expert witness Bawarsky’s testimony and report, and to explain the differences between the charging-package video and the public records video, and to further explain the jump-backs (the leprechaun effect) demonstrated in the public records video. However, after the Court’s expert Bawarsky explained the falsity of the videos to Judge Gates, the witness, Knapp, pulled a Houdini act, disappeared, and refused to testify. Oh, Knapp was present to testify; he just didn’t testify. The issue of whether the videos were altered and falsified was determined at that hearing on November 19, 2004. The issue was res judicata, and Mr. Raft was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issue in this, subsequent, habeas action. Judge Gates would not allow Baker to state his position in this matter, even though Baker was not represented by counsel at the time. See, Tr. 08/24/07 at P. 5, L. 9. And Judge Gates treated Baker as an interloper, who had not right to speak or present his position. Instead, Mr. Raft represented that he needed continuances to have his new experts examine the videos; videos that Mr. Raft and Mr. Edwards represented could not be identified or the origins determined, or authenticated (hence, lost), See, Tr. 10-19-07, P. 140, L. 12, and videos that Mr. Raft caused to be excluded due to a “break in the chain of custody.” Petitioner will more fully explain the paradox of Mr. Raft’s specious representations below. However, and based upon the true fact of the above-referenced altered evidence, this Court may need to go no further in this petition. The representations that neither Edwards or Torres could identify or determine the origins of the state’s own videos is preposterous. McNamara secured a copy of all of the videos in the state attorney’s file and can certainly identify the videos that the City of Hollywood foisted off on the state attorney to initiate this prosecution. The respective dates of creation of the videos evidences which video(s) were supplied by the City of Hollywood, and the lobby view thereof is identical to the lobby video provided by Ms. Torres to Baker. See, Case Events Notes]at 5/30/03 entry and 6/4/03 entry. Due Process of Law commands that the government may not make promises that it does not intend to keep. In this case, Mr. Raft represented that if any video was altered, or something was hid within the video (or taken OUT), he called the ball-game over. He would agree to undo the conviction. Simultaneously, Mr. Raft immediately hid the videos from his own so-called video expert, and because of hiding the falsified videos from his experts, they had nothing to say about the Brady (discovery-package) video and reported as to the other videos in the most oblique of fashions, and related to only less than one minute of authenticity of the trial-video. Mr. Raft also implied that the City was in possession of the original VHS video. The problem with that is that the City has never given up a true copy of the video. See, the Court’s Expert witness Report. The City’s response to McNamara’s Interrogatories and their Response to McNamara’s Request for the production of documents tells us that there is no original of the video; that the Public Records video was the best they had, which was provided to McNamara. As Mr. Cantor stated, the surveillance equipment was in proper working order, but the City has only two VHS videos and the statements and affidavits of the Officers. See, Mr. Cantor’s letter dated 8/27/03, and nothing more. Both, the sally-port video and the elevator videos are gone (never to be seen again). Spoliation of evidence designed to thwart Baker’s constitutional right to access to the courts. At this early juncture, this court should conclude that, in fact, the Brady video from the Police Department is Giglio-corrupt, as well as the video provided to Ms. Torres from the State Attorney is, likewise, Giglio-corrupt. These facts, in and of themselves, should establish that Petitioner did not receive a fair habeas hearing below; that the videos are corrupt and falsified, and that the conviction against Petitioner, without anything more, should be Vacated and Set Aside. At the Knapp deposition on October 2, 2003, Mr. Knapp brought and presented a newly-prepared video. In the habeas proceedings below, the state misrepresented that frames might be lost in the copying process from the VHS surveillance to the digitized CD-ROM. Mr. Knapp neutralizes that assertion during his deposition at P. 10, L. 18, et seq. Ms. Dizon insures that there is no loss at P. 11, L. 1, Q. “So you never lose anything from the original tape?” “A. Correct. It's a forensically sound system that just takes an exact copy of what you are getting and then that tape is put back into evidence and then we work off the digital copy.” See, also, P. 12, L. 1. Petitioner would also ask this court to re-view the Public Records video where McNamara has placed both views (hallway and lobby) together, and seldom is there more than two seconds missing. >> COMBINED VIDEO <<. The representations of the state attorney as well as the City of Hollywood that there can be 5 seconds or 8 seconds or 10 seconds missing, or that the video can repeat frames in the absence of human intervention editing is purely preposterous, as the viewing of this video clearly proves the falsity of such a position. Petitioner would point out at this time that when Mr. Raft’s “experts” tried to examine the videos, Baker believes that the editing equipment at the Hollywood Police Department had already been replaced. Also, at Page 12, (Knapp Deposition), Mr. Knapp tenders copies of the videos and the state took possession of those tapes; Ms. Dizon advising: “I'll take them and have Brad (Edwards) copy them. * * *.” A copy of this video remained exclusively in the possession of the state attorney. No supplemental discovery was ever provided by the State, save that of adding witnesses based upon the after-discovery that Baker was not merely looked at and released from the hospital, but that he remained in the hospital for four days. See, Motion for Continuance, dated, 1-16-04. See, also, supplemental discovery notice dated __ January, 2004. AT P. 20, L. 8, Mr. Edwards states that he received a VHS video from Ms. Torres, and believed that she received the VHS video from Detective Knapp at his deposition. Tr. 10-19-07, at P. 15, Mr. Edwards testified that the Knapp VHS video “was a VHS in hyper-speed vacillating between the two views and once again it didn't clearly depict anything as far as watching it in fast speed. You couldn't tell what was going on.” The only video in existence at that time that was not in “hyper-speed” was the Public Records video, and it was the public records video (“a true copy of the original”) (Cantor letter, copy of the original), that was altered and falsified by Mr. Knapp at the direction of his attorney, Mr. Edwards, after trial had begun Baker has no problem identifying the video in the state attorney’s file (secured under subpoena) that was created by John Baker, brother of the Petitioner; Petitioner has no problem identifying the video created by Mr. Bawarsky which audio-tracked the actions and movements of Hoeflinger and Graham while comparing those actions to the video. Further, Baker has no problem identifying the charging-package video and the charging package still, which were created on May 7, 2003. In fact, the state attorney has two charging-package videos with these files identified in the file identification, and one such video is without any outward identifying marks, but, as stated, the files are positively identified within. However, there is a video obtained by McNamara from the files of the state attorney that shows that even before McNamara received the Public Records video (with jump-backs included), the state attorney was exclusively in possession of another exculpatory video having a date of the creation of 8/29/03 at 1:22 p.m. The video is in AVI format. The jump-backs have been removed from this video. However, the frame that would ultimately be named as photo number 34 is not contained within the video. The following still photo is photo No. 34. The time sequence is noted as 22:37:24 (one of the 15 frames within Photo No. 34). Time sequence noted as 22:37:25, where Graham delivers a knee or kick to the side of Baker’s head is missing from every single video, except the original video which has been seen by no one. See, Mr. Bawarsky’s Expert Witness Report. This video, therefore, is not a copy of the charging-package video; and, it is not a copy of the public records video. The video is, certainly, not a copy of the original video, because in the original video, with absolute certainty, Photo 34 has to be there, but it is not in the video of 8/29/03. The real problem with this video is in the fact that it is a video in “real-time”, and the attack upon Baker is observed in the video. Yet, while it is apparent that the state attorney was in possession of the video from the time it was created, the state attorney did not turn this video over to the defense as required by Brady v. Maryland. The video is certainly more accurate than the charging package video, or the video provided by Torres to McNamara. Indeed, this video was highly exculpatory, but secreted. How do we explain this? How do we explain an original charging-package video that could not be discerned with the human eye, according to Edwards, Torres, Baker, the video expert, and others, including the author of the ultra-fast video, and the Dr. Frankenstein of the trial-evidence video, Robbie Knapp. It isn’t as if Mr. Knapp did not know what he sent to the state attorney to initiate this prosecution. See, Mr. Knapp’s deposition testimony at P. 5, L. 10, et seq. But, more importantly, may the court please compare Mr. Knapp’s trial testimony. Cf., P. 173, L. 20, et seq.; he slowed it down where it could be viewed with the human eye. Plainly, Mr. Knapp knew how to slow down the video; he testified that he did slow down the video, and we know that that is not true. Baker asks, then, why not in the Brady video, and why did Mr. Knapp only provide a video discernible to only the super-human? The video that Knapp did slow down was the Wardius-violative video made up after trial had begun, and even that video was not a copy of the true original (Photo 34, inter alia, is missing). And, Baker asks, where are the hundreds of missing frames from the original charging-package video? Mr. Bawarsky explained all this to the court. A copy of Mr. [Bawarsky’s Expert-Witness] Report is imbedded and provides further and extremely convincing evidence as to the falsity of the videos in this case. Now, as Mr. Edwards has testified, on April 26, 2004 he either directed or allowed Mr. Knapp and the Hollywood Police Department to make a new altered video. That new altered video was presented by Knapp to Edwards on April 27, 2004, after trial had begun. The State Attorney, therefore, must have a copy of that video in their file and the creation date of that video must correspond with the date of its purported creation, vis-à-vis, on April 26, or April 27, 2004, as testified to by both, Mr. Knapp and Mr. Edwards, and confirmed by Torres. The following videos have been secured from the State Attorney pursuant to subpoena. A copy of the receipt for payment of the State Attorney’s Records is hereto attached and contained in the appendix. A subsequent Request for Public Records was filed with the State Attorney after Mr. Raft and Mr. Edwards falsely represented to the habeas court that the videos in the state attorney’s possession could neither be identified nor their origins determined. This last video had no markings on the face of the video, at all, and no markings on the sleeve/cover. Nevertheless, as indicated above, the files on the disk itself and the dates of creation of those files, as below-noted, clearly establish that the unmarked video was another copy of the charging-package video in 72-hour format; the hallway view and the lobby view, and a still photo purporting to represent the initial contact between the police officers and Baker; all of which were created on May 7, 2003 (two days after Mannix filed her report). The videos received from the state attorney’s office pursuant to subpoena are: 1. State Attorney Titled: HPD Detention. File Names on Disk: “03-61985 HlwdDetention C1” Created on: 8/29/2003, which is an exculpatory Video that was never turned over to defense; 2. State Attorney Titled: DVD Donald Baker 036863CF10AFile Names on Disk: Jacket_P, OpenDVD, and Video_TSCreated on: May 26, 2004Created by John Baker [brother of Donald] showing a side-by-side comparison of the discovery-package video with the Public Records Video; 3. State Attorney Titled: Baker 03-61985File Names on Disk: Audio_TS, and Video_TS. These files were created on May 20, 2004; however, the files within the titles were created on February 20, 2004. Created and menu-driven by Hollywood Police Department. Photo 34 not contained within this video; therefore, not a copy of original surveillance video (Again, the state attorney had these files long before trial and didn’t provide copies to the defense; 4. State Attorney Titled: 036863CF10A. Donald BakerFile Names on Disk: DplexHallway; DplexMainLobby2; and MainLobbyPush1. (72-hour format)Date of creation of files: May 7, 2003 at 07:26 A.M.This is, yet, another copy of the charging-package video, allegedly unidentifiable to Mr. Raft and/or Mr. Edwards. The Torres Brady video shows only one view (lobby), and is unique by colored squares on the upper-left section of the video; therefore, that video is not copy of original; 5. State Attorney Titled: “Donald Baker. 11/19/04, DVD 036863CF10A. Donald Baker”Files created on 11/18/2004 by Author, David Bawarsky, the defense video expert. In these videos, Mr. Bawarsky reads from the police officers’ statements as the video plays to demonstrate in real time the utter falsity of the police officers’ statements. 6. State Attorney Titled: “Donald Baker”File Name, “Dons 4”This is a copy of the Public Records Video. The file was created on September 25, 2003.On September 29, 2003, Torres gave Edwards a copy of this video, and this video was the video compared to the charging-package (discovery-package) video on the 10th Floor of the courthouse building in the State Attorney’s IT Unit. 7. State Attorney Titled: [NO TITLE and NO MARKINGS]McNamara received this video from the State Attorney under a separate Public Records Request.The file names on the video are: DplexHallway; DplexMainLobby2; and MainLobbyPush1. The creation dates of each file is shown as May 7, 2003, starting at 07:26 hours. This creation date corresponds with the testimony of Officer Barbara Mannix, who represented that she created the video on May 5, 2003. Mr. Knapp also represented that he created the video, but he has not provided any time frame for the creation of such videos. This may be the charging-package video, but it is not the video provided to Torres under Brady (72-hour format); What we do not find in the State Attorney’s file is a video created at the commencement of trial on April 26 or April 27, 2004, as testified about by Mr. Edwards and Mr. Knapp. Baker cannot stress upon this court too much the irreconcilable conflicts between these videos. There was also an assault on a third prisoner that night, if it pleases the court: [Third Assault]. This Court may observe that these police officers seemed to derive some pleasure from mistreating Shelter, Baker, and the third victim, Angel Castro. Now, something that the Court must observe, but probably has not observed thus far, is that the positioning of the surveillance cameras, and how they overlap so that both cameras cover the same area. Records are not available from the City of Hollywood as to the original positioning of the cameras, but it is clear that there is a tremendous blind area where, Petitioner has discovered, is the usual area where prisoners are beaten and tortured. Either the cameras were deliberately mal-positioned initially, or wrongfully repositioned at a later time in order to generate a play-ground where cops can inflict pain and torture on prisoners without being under surveillance. See, McNamara’s Request for Public Records and the City’s Response to his Interrogatories, and his Request for Production. The Court will now see why the state fought so hard and for so long to exclude this evidence. At no time, subsequent to the state’s discovery that the video evidence was altered and false, did the state seek justice. The attorneys, Edwards and Raft, did every conceivable act of chicanery to shield and protect their police officer clients and their client, the City of Hollywood. This was not a case where justice should be done, but a case where felonious police conduct and a corrupt police force should be protected. Truth has been the adversary of the state in these proceedings, which is so contrary to the intended ends of justice under constitutional mandates. What attorney acting on behalf of the state would countenance the idea of altering a purported original video to make it appear “logical”? “The only way that it could be?” in the mind and eye of a prosecutor working for the state, or in the mind and eye of the author of the original falsified video? Repeat: EHT Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 17, L. 3. Indeed, the Rule of Best Evidence is law school 101 material. Every attorney is taught that you do not alter or modify or, especially, falsify evidence to make it speak your truth, or to make it appear “logical.” The evidence should speak for itself. The City reaffirmed that the Public Records video was, in fact, a true and exact copy of the original. By what constitutional authority, therefore, did Mr. Edwards alter the evidence in this case, or direct Mr. Knapp to alter the evidence. Clearly, Mr. Edwards actions were designed and undertaken to protect the corrupt police agency and officers. Under federal due process standards, when Mr. Edwards first discovered that his evidence was false, he had a constitutional obligation to dismiss the charges against Baker and to charge the police officers with perjury and attempted obstruction of justice. Cf., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999); Riley v. City of Montgomery, 104 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 1997); Whiting v. Traylor, 85 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 1996). Mr. Edwards put these corrupt police practices above the law. This fact becomes even more profound when one of the corrupt police officers, Forrest Jeffries, testified at Baker’s trial and charged the jury that Baker did not have a right to resist excessive force; that he had to curl up, but had no right to defend himself. See, P. 74, L. 15, et seq., and defense counsel didn’t have a clue that a jury instruction on self-defense was appropriate. Ibid. This Court knows better, and the circumstances of this issue was not raised as fundamental error in the original direct appeal. See, the original appellate briefs in this case in case number 4D05-205. Because the false evidence and perjury directly related to the exercise of Baker’s Constitutional Right to meaningful access to the courts, and designed to oppose and/or obstruct Baker’s constitutional rights, the acts of Edwards in protecting the police officers and a corrupt police department violated federal law proscribing “Misprision of Felony” under Title 18 U.S.C. §4. See, Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 408 U.S. 696, n. 36 (1972). To buttress and clarify the irreconcilable differences between the charging-package video and the Public Records video, Still Photos from the discovery-package video are herewith included in the directory; click on this box-link, below, then use arrows to go forward or backward in the still photos>> Discovery. Use next button to browse through the video, still-frame to still-frame. May the Court pay particularly close attention to the events occurring at time stamp 22:37:03,then, forward by one. One Ping, only! Click here >> LINK TO (Brady) ATTACK <<>> LINK TO STILLS << href="http://www.blogger.com/Appendix/BOTH%20VIDEOS%20ARRACKS/Torres%20Brady%20Video_0001.wmv">Brady Stills Link ]. Look closely at 22:37:08 and you can see Officer Hoeflinger’s ghost still standing at the table. Five seconds of action is missing between the two photos; yet, Hoeflinger’s ghost is still there. Why? Because the cut left one or more of the (16) frames, which is now combined within the last frame at 22:37:08. Having viewed the still photos and the videos provided, there can be no question but that the charging-package video was altered and the assault upon Baker was (Giglio/Youngblood) removed. In order to thwart discovery or detection, the video was presented to the state attorney by the City of Hollywood Police Department in 72-hour format. For these reasons, the charging-package video will not inform, except in the negative. The video was, and is, a fraud designed to bamboozle the state attorney (succeededly so; although it is hard to believe that a law school graduate could be so naive), and to commit a fraud upon the court, and, more importantly, to deprive Baker of his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. During the presentation of this Petition, please keep in mind that Ms. Torres (Baker’s counsel) was in possession of this video from early May of 2003, and it wasn’t until September 29, 2003 when McNamara was able to provide her with the Public Records version of the video that demonstrated that the discovery-video was in fact a fraud, just as Baker had advised her at the outset when he first observed that video, that she decided to act. In other words, Ms. Torres was not an expert in video forensics as she would later be presented at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007 by Assistant State Attorney Scott Raft. Had she had even a rudimentary knowledge in video forensics, she would have known that the video provided under Brady was a fraud (Giglio-violative), and designed to obfuscate the facts and events of this case and to deprive Baker of meaningful access to the courts, as Baker advised her at their very first meeting. When McNamara showed Torres the glaring differences and the redactions in the video evidence, according to the testimony of Mr. Edwards, when Torres gave him a copy of the video, she exclaimed, “and you have this guy charged with battery on a law enforcement officer?” See, Transcript of evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004 at P. 8, L. 9, et seq. (proof that originally, the only video possessed by Edwards was a CD-ROM that he received at the beginning of the case). Mr. Edwards then testified that he asked the police department to provide him with another video that could be discerned. Until the time that the McNamara Public Records video was provided him, he had no video other than the discovery CD_ROM. Ibid. Mr. Edwards in his testimony attempts to persuade that he never intended to go to trial based upon the charging-package (Brady) video and that he always intended to use the (non-existent) VHS video for trial. Of course, we know that this is not true, because this case was set for trial on several occasions [e.g., Tr. 10-19-07 at P. 53, L. 18] prior to the September 29, 2003 video, and Mr. Edwards had announced “READY” on each of those occasions [TR. 11-19-04, at P. 12, L. 14. Contrast, Tr. 11-19-04, P. 13, L. 2. In fact, on September 29, 2003, Mr. Edwards, again, announced “ready.” May the Court keep in mind that the only video that has jump-backs in it is the Public Records Video secured by McNamara on September 12, 2003. Mr. Edwards’ own testimony was that he had no other video until Torres provided him with the McNamara Public Records video. The state attorney’s possession of the video of August 28, 2003 renders Mr. Edwards assessment of the facts as doubtful, at best. Indeed, it proves a serious Brady violation. Yet, Edwards falsely advised the court that he always intended to use a (discovery) VHS video for trial. Also, why did Mr. Edwards provide Torres with the Discovery-Package CD-ROM video, if in fact he intended to use a VHS video (which Knapp and Mannix reported is not sent to the state attorney at all, but goes back to property and the CD-ROM is sent to the state attorney)? One other thing that Baker asks the Court to keep in mind is that at the habeas hearing of 10-19-07, Mr. Raft in concert with Mr. Edwards joined together in tricking the habeas court into believing that Ms. Torres’ outrage was predicated on the Brady video. It was not. Her outrage only occurred after McNamara presented her with the public records video on 9/29/03, showing the falsity of the Brady video: “and you have this guy charged with battery on a law enforcement officer.” Baker will caution the Court that Mr. Raft is slicker than greased baby owl do-do, and will secrete and boot-leg the truth inside what may appear to be a fact, but, upon closer examination, is not a fact at all. Petitioner will expose some of Mr. Raft’s chicanery herein. Because of the actions of the state in its opening statements at the habeas corpus hearing of October 19, 2007, Baker will ask that this Court read the letter of special counsel, Melissa Minsk-Donoho advising the Public Defender of the perjury of Ms. Torres once again at this time. [Click here to read]. This is necessary, because, at the habeas hearing of October 19, 2007, Mr. Raft (the State) opened by providing a prolog of the perjury that Ms. Torres was about to provide, asserting, inter alia, that there was no need for a comparison of the videos, and that in fact, there was no comparison of the videos by Mr. Edwards, Torres, Schweiker, or anyone else. Cf., Page 8, L. 24, et seq; P. 43, L. 8, et seq. At P. 43, L. 23, Mr. Raft advises that the Public Defenders advised Edwards of “police brutality” based upon their viewing of the Brady (discovery-package) video, and Mr. Edwards said, “That’s correct.” Specifically, the colloquy went: 23 Q If I understand your testimony, from the outset 24 you said you turned over copies of the CD Rom or the first 25 copy you received from the Hollywood Police Department to 0044 1 the public defenders, correct? 2 A Correct. 3 Q If I understood you testimony correctly, after 4 they reviewed it they came to you and said, "We think there 5 is a case of police brutality, please, look at it and drop 6 the case," is that correct? 7 A Correct. 8 Q They thought the videotape was beneficial to 9 them? 10 A From the beginning, yes. This colloquy was a follow up initiated at Page 14, L. 22, et seq., where Mr. Edwards (with the coaching of Mr. Raft), states that Torres, Schweiker, et al., viewed the CD-ROM that he had when he first got this case, meaning May of 2003, and with the unintelligible CD-ROM. At Page 15, L. 2, Ms. Donoho asked if he (Edwards) had ever viewed the CD-ROM, and he responded that he gave the CD-ROM to Torres on the first day he received it she contacted the state attorney’s office and “she and/or Larry Schweiker contacted the state attorney’s office and we all viewed it together * * *” * * * “we all met on the 10th floor * * ITU and ordered the computer unit to slow it down.” Notice the trickery here. First, Raft stated and Edwards agreed that the original Brady CD-ROM was provided by Edwards to the Public Defender(s). (Only Torres was on board as an attorney at that time), and it is true that Edwards provided the falsified video within his discovery package to Torres. (NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT) Then, and here comes the chicanery: Mr. Raft asserts, and Edwards acknowledges, “that after they reviewed it, they came to you and said, ‘We think there is a case of police brutality, look at it and drop the case,’ is that correct?” Answer, “ Correct.” (“it”, being the falsified Brady video.) Then, Raft represents: “They thought the (Brady) videotape was beneficial to them?” And Edwards responded: “From the beginning, yes.”Cf. Tr. 10-19-07 at P. 50, L. 1, et seq. The problem with the premise is that “from the beginning”, the only video that existed was the falsified Brady video, and even Mr. Edwards testified that he watched the video 55 times and couldn’t make anything of it. Likewise, Torres could make nothing of it. In other words, the video was totally useless and could not be used as a basis for asserting “We think there is a case of police brutality.” In fact, that “brutality” assertion did not come “from the beginning,” as represented by Edwards and Raft; it came after McNamara discovered the Public Records video and when it became obvious that the Brady video was false. In fact, as late as August 18, 2003, Ms. Torres spoke with civil rights attorney, Peter Feld, and advised Mr. Feld that nothing could be made of the video. Mr. Feld so advised Baker, and his letter is imbedded. If Torres had thought that this was a case of police brutality or excessive force, it seems to Baker that she would be liable for advising Mr. Feld that nothing could be made from the video. The most salient fact that belies Mr. Raft’s and Mr. Edward’s premise is that Mr. Schweiker (present on the 10th Floor at the ITU Unit when the video was slowed down), was absolutely not involved in this case until the day the news media picked up the case, which was on the same date that McNamara provided Torres a copy of the Public Records video, i.e., on September 29, 2003. This Court needs to know and apply this knowledge to the violations of ABA standards employed by Raft, Edwards, and Torres in these proceedings. Baker is representing, and asking the court to accept the fact that these state players had not a scintilla of intention to bring forth the truth or to seek justice in these proceedings. The above is just an example of the unethical conduct of the state actors in these proceedings. To further illustrate the avoidance of the truth, Cf., Tr. 10-19-07 at P. 17, L. 2, et seq., and P. 19, L. 9. Where Edwards again testified that it was at the time of arraignment when the Brady CD-ROM was compared to the Public Records video. Note, again: McNamara did not receive the Public Records video until September 12, 2003, and he provided that video to Torres on September 29, 2003. On September 29, 2003 Ms. Torres provided Edwards with a copy of the Public Records video. Every assertion or attempt to assert that the videos were compared at any time prior to September 29, 2003, simply, cannot be true. Also, may the Court keep in mind that Mr. Schweiker was not assigned to Baker’s case until Mr. Finkelstein became aware of the public records video and the fact that the Brady video was false, which was on September 29, 2003. This is asserted so that Mr. Raft and Mr. Edwards cannot try to convince the court that Ms. Torres’ outrage occurred at any time prior to that date. It should also be noted that the trial that was underway on September 29, 2003 was not going to be bumped from the trial calendar, but Mr. Edwards ex parte’d Judge Gates with the information as to the new Public Records video, and without further adieux, Judge Gates granted Mr. Edwards’ Motion to strike the case from the trial calendar. There was no hearing in open court at that time. More chicanery from Mr. Raft: Ms. Torres has testified over and over, again, that absolutely nothing could be discerned from the Brady video. Mr. Edwards, in fact, until the time of being ex-parted by Mr. Raft (suborning perjury), Mr. Edwards, himself, declared over and over again that absolutely nothing could be made from that video. In fact, Mr. Edwards testified (cited elsewhere herein), that he viewed the video 55 times (P. 36, L. 3, et seq.) trying to discern the events, but couldn’t, and that it was not until McNamara provided Torres the Public Records video that he was able to discern what had happened. After viewing the Public Records video and, finally, being able to discern what had happened, Edwards and the group met at the Information Technologies Unit where the ITU experts slowed down the charging-package video and compared that video to the Public Records video. So, let there be no misunderstanding, all those present well knew that the charging-package video was false. It, simply, cannot be otherwise. Experts conducted the comparison. Mr. Raft concluded that if he could hide the evidence and the facts, he would never have to honor his promise to undo the conviction against Baker. Again, Baker apologizes to this Court, and he prays that the court will understand the need to expound upon the utterly unethical and immoral conduct of the state actors in this case, such as has been just described, above. Mr. Raft’s conclusion that because Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Knapp to provide him with a still-frame for every frame in the video obviated the need for comparison without any proof that the entire video contained only the 39 frames represented by Knapp is disingenuous, at best. Indeed, had Mr. Knapp provided the Three-Thousand (plus) still photos as were contained within that video, the need for comparison might have been obviated, but that is still doubtful. Especially if Mr. Knapp (the Dr. Frankenstein of the initial falsified Brady video) would be the person to extract the still frames, as it were. The better thing to have been done, and which was within the capabilities of the State Attorney’s IT Unit experts would have been to have presented a complete stop-frame slide show, as has been done herein-above. Click on this >>LINK<< to view the slide show again, and the Court might also note the absence of missing seconds as the video goes from one view to the other in a textual depiction: ( [Hallway and then Lobby] ). This graphic shows very few missing seconds. The State, through Knapp, represented that the missing seconds in the discovery (Brady) video (sometimes as much as 10 seconds), is explained by the fact that the camera is looking at the opposite view during such times. The Public Records Video seldom shows a loss of more than 2 seconds. This Court can properly conclude that when the state has 5 seconds missing, then 10 seconds missing, then gaining two seconds and falling back eight seconds, the video has been tampered with. This Court can go frame-by-frame through the entire Public Records Video. At no point will the court find evidence such as is demonstrated in the discovery (Brady) video. (use arrows to go backward and forward). Knowing that the Brady video was false, Mr. Edwards chose to abandon his responsibilities as a state attorney and chose, instead, to act as the attorney for the City of Hollywood and the police officers who tortured Baker and then falsified the evidence. In order to protect his clients after the discovery of the false evidence, Edwards, thereafter, persistently offered Baker his freedom in exchange for a guilty plea. When Baker refused, Mr. Edwards would continue the case and continue the case. Mr. Raft misrepresented to the habeas court that Baker was satisfied with the video presented to the jury, and that Baker’s only complaint was that the video was not slowed down enough. More chicanery, and pure hockey-puk; we only need to look at the still photos at time frame 22:37:04 through 22:37:07, shown in vivid detail above, and below in order to ascertain that the police attacked Baker, and that Baker did not jump up, scream “fuck off asshole” and attack Hoeflinger, as the charging officers statements and probable cause affidavits purport. Again, the Court may re-view the slide show here >> BOTH VIEWS >> >>LINK<< << href="http://www.blogger.com/Appendix/101907%20st%20v%20baker.txt">See, P. 10, L. 1]. Precisely, Mr. Raft asserted: “I am going to present expert testimony to demonstrate to you that the original tape that was in the possession of the Hollywood Police Department is, in fact, the original and it can properly be authenticated with scientific certainty, and [the DVD copy and thirty-nine stills] are fairy and accurately representation of what existed on the original videotape.” After reading Mr. Raft’s statements, the Court must ask itself: what did he say? Baker will try to explain it, shortly. Frankly, however, it is totally immaterial whether the City had the original, in fact. The issue is: why didn’t defense counsel, Torres, receive a copy of the original video[2]/, rather than a bastardized Brady video? Why did the City who was in possession of “the original video” (Raft) not provide that video as required by Brady, Giglio and Youngblood, to even the state attorney? Why did the City conceal the other sally-port and elevator videos? Finally, why did the City falsify the Brady video by excising the Hoeflinger and Graham attack on Baker, and then submit the video to the state attorney in 72-hour format? Baker has never contended that the City did not (at one time) have an original video, initially; that’s a foregone conclusion: there had to be an original. There may no longer be a non-corrupted video because the original has been corrupted by slicing and splicing the video. In fact, in Mr. Raft’s next sentence, he suggests that the video was altered and falsified, in fact, but that the falsification of the video was immaterial. The conclusions of Mr. Raft’s expert concluding that the City, to a scientific certainty, had the original is, simply, an oxymoron. It cannot be otherwise. Who else would have had the original? However, Baker can state with more than a scientific certainty, based upon the sworn responses to McNamara’s Interrogatories and Request for Production, that there is no longer any chain of custody records relating to that video, and the video is worthless in any court of law where the rule of best evidence controls, and where chain of custody must be proved by the state as well as by a defendant. Chain of custody should work both ways, and not only to the detriment of an accused, and the failure to preserve materially exculpatory evidence violated Baker’s right to due process regardless of whether the government acted in bad faith. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984); Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988); United States v. Wright, 260 F.3d 568, 570-71 (6th Cir. 2001). Although we can conclude with absolute certainty in this case that the city and its corrupt officers did not act in good faith. The City of Hollywood is presently embroiled in another controversy that is on all fours and identical to the falsification and fabrication of evidence in this case: the city provided a falsified video to the state attorney to initiate the prosecution, then mistakenly provided a semi-true copy of the same evidence under the Public Records Laws of the State of Florida. It should be clearly obvious to this Court that there can be no question of good or bad faith in this case. Altering evidence so that an accused is denied meaningful access to the courts cannot be done in any good faith way; we cannot commit crime in good faith. Mr. Raft and Mr. Edwards well knew that the video was false, because of the slow-down or stop-frame viewing by the IT Expert at the State Attorney’s ITU Office on the 10th Floor of the courthouse. Mr. Edwards testified that it was a virtual impossibility for the video to show Officer Graham in retreat and then moving forward with a number of frames missing at that point, and then being back at the same starting point. [Id.,] at P. 25, L. 12, et seq. Baker would, again, refer to the news link, above, to confirm what Mr. Edwards did after his concerns were unsatisfied by Mr. Knapp. According to the court’s video expert, Bawarsky, the jump backs were caused by the original excision of the attack on Baker, and the person falsifying the video re-started the video at an incorrect point and that mis-start resulted in the same frames being duplicated, as well as skewed time stamps on the video, as elsewhere illustrated herein. There is no way that a camera can return in time. Mr. Edwards was correct: the duplication of the frames was a virtual impossibility UNLESS[!] the video was edited. See, [Tr. 11-19-04], at P. 13, L. 2, et seq. Mr. Edwards well knew that the video was altered, but he made a political decision to protect the City of Hollywood Police Department and the arrant felons (so-called police officers) from prosecution and/or civil liability. Id., at P. 27, L. 3, et seq. So, Mr. Knapp took a video that was represented by the City of Hollywood to be a true copy of the original and, upon the suggestion of Mr. Edwards (his attorney), redacted jump-backs and other evidence of alteration. Then, the redacted video was re-presented to be the original video. It was this proof of alteration that Mr. Edwards allowed Mr. Knapp to excise from yet another video that was created and produced after trial had begun. Baker never had an opportunity to view that video, and for Mr. Raft to represent that Baker was satisfied with the trial-version video is patently preposterous. It should also be noted at this juncture that Mr. Knapp, in excising the frames demonstrating prior alteration, also excised what became known as Photo 34, which was shown as a still-frame (picture) at trial, but Photo 34 was taken from the Public Records video, (not shown at trial) and was not contained within the version of the video that was shown at trial. Photo 34 will be addressed in more detail below. As to the number of frames missing from the discovery-package video, expert witness, Mr. Bawarsky, named the number as “A ton of frames.” Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 82, L. 5. When Mr. Raft took over this case, and in order to determine whether Baker’s allegations of the false charging-package video and the false discovery-package video were true, he, of necessity, was compelled to review each and every video in the state attorney’s files. How else could he guarantee the court that if he found any evidence of tampering, he would ask the court to undo the conviction. Regardless of whether he could identify any of them, or not, he had to view them and determine if any video was first, super fast, as testified to by all of the witnesses, including Mr. Knapp, Mr. Edwards, Baker, and Torres. Next, he had to determine the date of origin, which date in imbedded in the file name and clearly visible even to the computer novice, and would prove to the state attorney that they received such a video within the charging-package on or about May 7, of 2003. For Mr. Raft to represent that the videos could not be identified or their origins determined is the height of folly, and chicanery. Indeed, in the absence of such a review, Mr. Raft secreted the videos. Baker would submit that Raft made not the slightest effort to review the falsified videos which remain within the state attorney’s files, and which have been secured by McNamara pursuant to subpoena. This is, simply, more trickery on the part of Mr. Raft. Edward’s support of Raft’s proposition was the product of subordination and attorney misconduct of the highest order. Mr. Edwards, likewise, did not review any of the videos and simply acquiesced in Mr. Raft’s fraudulent misrepresentations to the habeas court. Mr. Raft coached the witnesses, Torres and Edwards: there could not be a comparison of the videos; they, and each of them, could have no idea that the videos were altered; Baker was satisfied with the video re-falsified and produced after trial had begun, and which he, Baker, had never had the opportunity to view or compare; Edwards could not have considered Knapp as having been an expert; none of the witnesses could have compared the videos or have been put in contact with a video expert; and finally, it was Baker’s idea to go to the police department and provide a Mirandized statement to the police. In other words, Raft coached Edwards and Torres to become unsophisticated un-initiates in their own field of expertise, which would negate baleful intent, due to ignorance. Baker submits that baleful intent is made even worse by perjury and this kind of deplorable conduct. The state actors in this case should not be permitted to defend upon the inference that they had their heads buried in the sand. For example, when you slow down and view a slowed-down video, you must conclude that you viewed a slowed-down video and not interpose a concept that the expert(s) who slowed it down for comparison didn’t slow it down, or didn’t slow it down enough. Edwards under the coaching of Raft is suggesting just that: he viewed the video slowed down by IT experts, yet, he suggests that he, (and Torres flatly states that she), didn’t have a clue that the video was altered and falsified. Indeed, give the court a break. Give us all credit for having the sense that god gave a goose, and don’t proceed as if those seeking truth and justice are imbeciles. We slowed the video, also, and we looked at it. It is false; it is altered. And, because you looked at the same slowed-down video that we have looked at, it is impossible for us to reach different conclusions. Yet, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Torres imply, and emphatically state that they “didn’t have a clue that the video was altered.” Baker and McNamara advised both, Edwards and Torres on September 29, 2003 that the video was not only presented in 72 hour format so that no one could view it, but that the video was also edited to redact the assault on Baker. Hence, Ms. Torres cursed Mr. Edwards: ‘and you have this guy charged with battery on a law enforcement officer.’ The specious inabilities of Edwards, Raft and Torres to recognize or identify their own videos from the State Attorney’s own files speaks loudly and clearly that Mr. Raft caused Mr. Edwards to testify falsely in order to deny Baker meaningful access to the courts and to foreclose meaningful habeas consideration. At the hearing of October 19, 2007, Mr. Edwards testified that he did not compare any videos. Ibid., P. 40, L. 14. (Internally inconsistent with his other testimony). However, the following colloquy demonstrates the non-reliability of Mr. Edwards’ testimony. At the transcript of hearing of November 19, 2004 at P. 8, Mr. Edwards testified: 24 The Public Defender's Office, specifically25 Madeleine Torres, contacted our office, and by that IPage 9 (VHT): 1 mean they called over to the State Attorney's Office, 2 and said I believe that you need to look at this CD-ROM 3 that we have as evidence of police brutality and you've 4 charged this guy with battery on a law enforcement 5 officer. I had my supervisor, Jeff Marcus, call back on 6 my behalf to the Public Defender's Office and arrange a 7 meeting where we all met in our ITU unit, or computer 8 unit, up on the tenth floor, and it was myself, Jeff 9 Marcus, Madeleine, Torres, and Larry Schweiker all 10 watching and having somebody slow down the CD-ROM 11 version; and that is a day after the arraignment of 12 Donald Baker.[3]/ (Emphasis added) At the time of arraignment in May of 2003, the only video that existed was the CD-ROM charging-package video, and the Hollywood police returned the VHS video to property/evidence. The police officers reported and testified that the State Attorney was provided ONLY the CD-ROM, and not the VHS. At other points in Mr. Edwards testimony (depending on how he wants the wind to blow) that the only thing that he had was “the CD-ROM” (Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 14, L. 19), and at another point “the VHS video”. Since Mannix and Knapp both testified that only the CD-ROM was sent to the State Attorney, and because the state attorney provided Torres only a CD_ROM in the discovery-package, and because at the time of arraignment, Mr. Edwards had only the CD-ROM, we must conclude that until the time that McNamara presented Torres with the VHS video and the CD-ROMS containing the videos, that the only video possessed by Edwards was the CD-ROM. It would be four months later when McNamara was able to obtain the Public Records video from the City of Hollywood. Baker will again advise the Court that until the time that McNamara secured the Public Records Video and presented that video to Torres, and she to Mr. Edwards on September 29, 2003, (as trial was in fact, on that day, under way, and would not be bumped from the trial calendar (P. 2, L. 23)), there was no other video with which to compare the falsified charging-package (discovery-package CD-ROM) video. Mr. Raft and Edwards represented to the habeas court that it was the Brady video that was viewed by Torres when she exclaimed, “and you have this guy charged with battery,” etc., and that that viewing occurred on or about May of 2003. No, in fact Ms. Torres’ outrage was predicated upon the Public Records video, and not the bastardized Brady video. Mr. Raft knew that; there can be no question about that. But, his plan was to trick the habeas court and deny Baker meaningful habeas consideration, as well as meaningful access to the court. At the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004, the colloquy went: 6 Q. Good. I'm a little confused, on direct you 7 said you never received a tape, a VHS tape, from 8 Mr. McNamara, or the State Attorney's Office? 9 A. There was a VHS tape in my file, which I 10 copied for Mr. Hecker, I'm not sure if I got that from 11 the State or Mr. McNamara. What I thought it was was a 12 copy of the DVD: that Mr. McNamara gave me, and then I 13 subsequently gave it to the State. I'm not exactly sure 14 where it came from, if it was just a copy we made, or... 15 Okay. Let's go to the DVD that Mr. McNamara 16 gave you. When did he give you that DVD? 17 A. I don't know the date. I could look back in 18 my file. (NOTE: the file was lost) (Emphasis added)19 Q. It was prior to trial?20 A. Yes.21 Q. Okay.22 A. It was at one of the trial dates. (9-29-03; emphasis added)23 Q. Was that tape any different from the tape that24 you received from the State Attorney’s Office?25 A. Yes. Page 32 1 Okay. What was different about that tape? 2 A. It's a DVD or a CD-ROM. The one that I got3 from Mr. Edwards that I played' on my computer, the way 4 it played out it was maybe 20 or 30 seconds, it was just 5 very, very, very fast, so you couldn't really perceive 6 what was going on, it kind of looked like just something 7 on fast forward. The one that I subsequently got from 8 Mr. McNamara was more in real-time. (Emphasis added) The Court can therefore see that Mr. Raft’s apparently pre-staged inquiry with Mr. Edwards was nothing more than a trick to deceive the habeas court and deny Baker a fair habeas hearing. It was not the discovery video that prompted Torres to exclaim, “and you have this guy charged with battery on a law enforcement officer”, but, in fact, the public records video. That’s when Edwards met with the folks at the ITU Unit of the State Attorney’s office and slowed down the discovery-package video and compared it to the Public Records video, as has been done herein-above for the court’s observations. Nothing less was done for Edwards, Torres and Schweiker by the State Attorney’s IT expert at their lab on the 10th Floor of the courthouse. These guys are experts, not imbeciles. The proposition of Mr. Edwards that the comparisons drew no conclusions is preposterous. Did this Court draw any conclusions based upon the same evidence and viewing as was done at the ITU by video experts, who are certainly more qualified to make that assessment than Baker, or this Court? Yet, it is so blatantly obvious that no one could miss the fact of falsification. At the scheduled trial date of September 29, 2003, Mr. Edwards was ready for trial; he had announced “ready”, and Judge Gates had advised that this case would not be bumped off the trial calendar. In fact, Judge Gates had admonished that the case was on a one-hour standby. The only video in Mr. Edwards possession at that time was the Brady (charging-package/ Discovery-package) video. On that day, and at that time, Baker presented Torres with the original VHS video secured by McNamara, with several copies transferred onto CD-ROM. At that time, she presented the Public Records video, both on VHS and on CD-ROM, to Mr. Edwards. Baker thought at that time that his attorneys would blindside the state; let them submit their falsified video, and WHAM! Show the jury the true facts of the case. There would have been no Brady violation in this regard, because the video possessed by the defense should have been the same-exact video provided to the state by the City of Hollywood Police Department. At that time, Mr. Edwards (in an ex parte manner) told Judge Gates that he was no longer ready for trial and subsequently secured a continuance from Judge Gates, who, previously, was not going to let this case be bumped from the trial calendar. Ibid., at P.2, L. 22. (Unless the state asked for it). Judge Gates was made aware of the falsified evidence on that date, in the absence of any further in-court proceedings, granted a continuance to the state, thus, in contravention of his own admonition, “bumped this case off” of the trial calendar. On December 28, 2004, Judge Gates acknowledged that the evidence, if not withheld would have required a different verdict, and despite this knowledge of innocence, Judge Gates sentenced Baker to serve five-years in the State penitentiary. Hence, the subsequent suggestion of disqualification; unanswered, but nevertheless valid. Baker has never known of a case where a sitting judge is 100% knowledgeable that the accused is innocent, yet sends the innocent defendant to prison. Does this happen often in this country? Mr. Edwards was either confused, or intentionally mistaken, as to the date when all of the parties met with the Information Technologies Unit experts to slow down and compare the video evidence, as Baker was arraigned on May 27,2003. Mr. Schweiker (present at the ITU slow-down) was not assigned to the case until September 29, 2003, when Mr. Finkelstein was made aware of the second, more accurate (but still falsely edited), public records video. Cf., Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 14, L. 19, et seq. This sequence clearly demonstrates that the State Attorney’s Information Technologies Unit, (experts in the field), slowed the charging-package video down and compared that video with the Public Records video secured by McNamara and presented to Torres on September 29, 2003. The slowed-down discovery-package video was either on a frame-by-frame comparison, or slowed to such an extent that all observing those presence would discern that the charging-package video was totally fabricated and designed to obstruct justice. There could be no other reason for “experts” to have done this work on the falsified video, since they had the knowledge and the technology to physically compare the two videos, side-by-side. Indeed, upon information and belief, one of the Assistant State Attorneys present at that meeting where the video was slowed down and compared, opined that this prosecution could go no further. That ASA’s name is believed to be either Marcus, or Springer.[4]/ Further, in the testimony of Torres where she alleges that she 1) did not speak of Edwards on the issue of alteration; 2) she did not compare the videos and did not view the slowed-down version, let the court be aware that she is not telling the truth. The Torres testimony is imbued with perjury and falsity. See, and compare, Tr. 10/19/2007 at P. 14, L. 19, et seq.; and P. 16, L. 2, et seq.; P. 19, L. 9, et seq. After having the state attorney’s IT Unit experts slow the video down and compare it to the public records video, Edwards went to the City to find out why there were missing frames from the charging-package video as well as extra frames (e.g., jump-backs) in the public records video. Knapp could not explain anything. Yet, Mr. Knapp was called upon by Edwards at trial to explain everything, even though Edwards (now acting as the attorney for the Police Department and the arrant police officers), directed Knapp to redact the evidence of prior alteration from the prior videos and to create and produce a new re-altered video after trial had begun that made sense; the only way it could be. Ibid., at P. 30, et seq. A Wardius/Giglio/ Youngblood violative video. This case has been one cover-up after another cover-up, after another cover-up. Initially, it was to prevent detection of the beating and attempted murder of Baker. Then, it became a continuing quest to deny Baker meaningful access to the courts and to obstruct justice. The false police reports, the alteration of evidence, the re-alteration of the video, the perjury, etc., were intended to deprive Baker of his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. Baker will further advise the Court that upon information and belief, and to the credit of Mr. Edwards, Assistant State Attorney, Brad Edwards, resigned his position with the State Attorney’s Office because of being forced to continue with this malicious prosecution. Indeed, Mr. Edwards called substitute special counsel, H. Scott Hecker, Esq., on a Saturday from the State Attorney’s Office and Mr. Edwards informed Mr. Hecker that he (Edwards) felt that the State Attorney was intending to cause the blame for this prosecution to fall on his shoulders and that he was making notations in the file so that he would be protected from that happening. Mr. Edwards has denied the fact, but, perhaps, Mr. Edwards can muster up some semblance of character and come forward to finally tell the truth, lest we have to subpoena all the other state attorneys present at the IT Unit when the video was compared and who announced that this prosecution could go no further. The testimony of Mr. Edwards and Ms. Torres at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007 is in diametric opposition to their own testimony at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004. Mr. Raft advised Baker’s witnesses as to how he wanted them to testify so that Baker would be denied meaningful consideration of his habeas application and denied meaningful access to the courts. In addition to alleging that Torres perjured her testimony against Baker to deprive him of meaningful access to the courts, Baker is also charging that Ms. Torres and the Public Defender’s Office, speciously, lost, or purported to have lost, their file on Baker’s case, thus effecting a third-party spoliation of evidence that was indispensable to the presentation of Baker’s habeas action, and as will be shown below, because of their loss of this evidence, the State Attorney, Mr. Raft, was able to falsely represent, in essence, that he lost his copy of the evidence, also, and moved, essentially, in limine to exclude consideration of the video evidence relating to the alteration and falsification of the discovery-package video. Transcript 10-19-2007 at P. 140, L. 2. These facts stand in stark contrast to Mr. Raft’s representations that if he found that any of the videos were altered or falsified, he would have the court undo the conviction. Specifically, and repeated here because of its importance, See, Tr. Of 8/29/07 at P. 2, L. 17, et seq: 17 MR. RAFT: Judge, here is what I will suggest. 18 I had a couple of conversations with Ms. Donohue. 19 So there is no delay in this case we agree we 20 should set an evidentiary hearing date sometime 21 down the road. Not too far, but something that 22 will allow us to have an afternoon blocked off. 23 We figure that is what it will take is an 24 afternoon. What the State had offered, and I 25 indicated to the Court before, what I have decided 0003 1 to do -- I don't want to break it up. I have taken 2 over the whole case now. The 3.850 and everything 3 associated with it. 4 I will review the trial transcript myself. 5 But separate and apart from that, we have had an 6 opportunity to have another independent expert. [pause] (WHO GAVE MR. RAFT THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE “ANOTHER INDEPENDENT EXPERT” THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY IN THIS PROCEEDING WHERE DISCOVERY IS NOT PERMITTED?) [resume] 7 They had their experts and we had an expert from 7 the Hollywood Police Department. (emphasis added) [pause] 8 (AND NOW THEY ARE GOING TO ALLEGE THAT MR. KNAPP WAS NOT AN EXPERT). [RESUME] 9 If in fact an independent expert indicates 10 that there is tampering with the tape, any kind of 11 tampering that raises the question that something 12 was hidden on the video tape, that will end the 13 game. 14 We'll agree to undo his conviction at that 15 point and whatever steps need to be taken will be 16 taken assuming evidence supports that position. 17 Until we have somebody review the tape other than 18 the people that have done it. That's why we're 19 saying to set the hearing. There are some very significant aspects of Mr. Raft’s representations: Mr. Raft acknowledges that Baker had his expert, Mr. Bawarsky, (Id., at Line 7) and, the State had its expert from the Hollywood Police Department; and that would be Detective Robbie Knapp. The State Attorney’s Office told Special Agent Manny Suarez of the FBI on or about October of 2003 that the State Attorney’s Office was investigating the falsified evidence. See, also, the Case Events Notes of the Public Defender (See entry of 12/11/03). Why would the state wait until this case came back on habeas corpus to investigate the falsified videos? Baker served 42 months in prison before he was able to get his case back before the trial court, and that was only upon the quasi-Mandamus Order of this Court. The question, therefore, is: why was Knapp acknowledged as the state’s expert, only to be disavowed as an expert in this habeas corpus action? Further, if the State Attorney’s Office advised the FBI that it was investigating the falsified evidence, did they lie to federal officers, or did they fail to conclude their investigation? If they did investigate, why were there no indictments or informations file against the Hollywood Police Department or the Hollywood police officers who falsified the video evidence? At this point, it is very important for this Court to make its own independent finding as to whether the charging-package video, or the initial Brady-video were in any way falsified. Baker suggests that there is no conclusion other than that the videos were altered and falsified, and criminal charges should have been filed against the felons who undertook and perfected those unlawful acts. Due Process does not permit the state to make promises, such as Mr. Raft’s, only to hide the evidence so that an independent expert can not make a valid determination based upon the evidence. In this case, Mr. Raft speciously lost the charging-package (subsequently, the discovery-package) video by being unable to identify or authenticate the video. That video was never examined by Mr. Raft’s so-called independent expert (from the Broward County sheriff’s Office). Baker submits that the proffer from Mr. Raft’s expert as relating, only, to less than one minute of the ultimately (Wardius-violative) trial video can be explained by these facts. Mr. Bawarsky’s expert-witness report spells out that none of the videos that he forensically examined is an identical copy of any of the other videos and this fact leaves no conclusion other than that none of the videos can possibly be a true copy of the original video. But, Mr. Raft assured the habeas court that the City certainly had the original at some point in time. If the City had the original, why has the city refused to cough it up, even defying a court Order to do so. The City’s responses in the McNamara case, also, have been set out above, and establishes that there is no original video in the possession of the City of Hollywood. Baker submits that the original video no longer exists because it has been corrupted by alteration and falsification. These contrivances served to deprive Baker of meaningful access to the court, and to coerce Baker into renouncing the truth and withdrawing his habeas action in exchange for his rightful freedom. It became very apparent to Baker that the state and his former counsel were working together to hide all the evidence necessary to adequately present his case to a competent habeas court. It also appeared that Judge Gates was providing the state with the widest of latitude in his evidentiary rulings and in wrongfully allowing the state discovery in these habeas proceedings, and in wrongfully impeaching Baker’s habeas testimony, and in defying this Court’s Order directing Judge Gates to allow Baker 10 days to reply to the answer of the state as to the habeas (3.850) petition, and in totally ignoring Baker in his attempt to demonstrate that the issues of falsified evidence was res judicata (at Judge Gate’s own hand) and that the state was collaterally estopped from attempting to re-litigate that issue, especially since they had previously represented to the FBI that they were investigating. Baker could not express that the State had waited 42 months to get an “independent” expert; they should have done that before they knowingly sent an innocent man to prison. The tactics of the state and former defense counsel was to hide the evidence and offer Baker freedom in exchange for Baker’s perjurious renouncement of the truth and the withdrawal of his habeas corpus action. Witnesses, who were formerly expert witnesses (e.g., Robbie Knapp), were suddenly “NOT” expert witnesses. The true facts of the case were turned up-side-down by the perjury of Torres, the spoliation of evidence by the Public Defender and the State Attorney, Edwards and Torres (under the tutelage of Mr. Raft), and justice was denied because of the efforts of all the players to protect the arrant police officers and a corrupt police force from detection, criminal and/or civil liability. To that end, Baker’s life and liberty were forfeited. Baker was prepared to demonstrate his evidence and to elicit the truth from the witnesses. Instead, former defense counsel, in concert with the state attorney, Raft, rendered it impossible to advance the evidence, because they each lost the evidence, and Mr. Raft coached Torres on perjuring her testimony in order to defeat Baker’s habeas corpus petition. These illegal and utterly unethical acts of treachery cannot be reviewable on direct appeal, and the actors believed that their criminal conduct would forever be laid to rest by forcing Baker to withdraw his habeas action and forcing Baker to renounce the truth of the allegations contained in his habeas action. Baker reiterates his initial proof of the perjury of Ms. Torres; that being the Melissa Minsk-Donoho, Esq., [Donoho Letter]. In this letter, Ms. Donoho advises the Office of the Public Defender as to the false testimony of Ms. Torres. Ms. Donoho states that she was shocked by the difference in the Torres confession on the day preceding the evidentiary hearing and her testimony at the hearing. Indeed, Ms. Donoho was so taken aback and so shocked that she advised Baker, after Torres had testified, that she (Donoho) could no longer act as Baker’s attorney, because she (Donoho) had just become his (Baker’s) witness, because of the perjury of Torres. That proof is but the tip of the iceberg, as will be shown now. Because of the perjury of former appointed counsel Ms. Torres, Coram Vobis is appropriate because there is no other avenue of relief that will be fair and complete, because, in conjunction with the perjury of Madeleine Torres, testifying falsely against this Appellant/Petitioner at his habeas hearing, Torres combined herself with the Assistant State Attorney, Scott Raft, and upon information and belief, (as has been pointed out above, and will be pointed out herein-below) contrived her testimony specifically to deprive Baker of his constitutional rights to meaningful access to the courts and to obtain meaningful habeas corpus consideration. Ms. Torres and the Public Defender committed serious acts of malpractice as set forth herein, and to save their own skin Torres committed perjury, and the Public Defender acquiesced in the perjury of Ms. Torres. Remember that the design of the perjury (and the intentional loss of exculpatory evidence) was to obstruct Baker’s First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to meaningful access to the courts. As stated elsewhere herein, these acts violated Title U.S.C. §241-242 (Civil Rights Act/KKK Act). When these actors, Finkelstein, Satz, Edwards, Raft, Keuthan, Cuddihy, and others knew of these felonies and did nothing about them, but, in fact, concealed and acquiesced in the commission of the crimes, they and each of them are guilty of violating Title 18 U.S.C. §4, “Misprision of Felony,” and are accessories after-the-fact. Further, Petitioner/Appellant avers, based upon information and belief, and based upon certain circumstances arising in the testimony and facts as set forth above, and below, that Assistant State Attorney, Raft, promised Torres Immunity for her perjurious testimony, and that the elected public Defender for Broward County, Howard Finkelstein, was fully aware that Torres would falsely testify against Appellant/Petitioner, and that she did testify falsely against the Appellant/Petitioner, and that each such entity committed acts of misprision of felony in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. These entities have made absolutely no attempt to advise the Courts or other prosecuting authorities of the perjury of Ms. Torres designed, in concert with others, to deny Baker’s constitutional rights as proscribed in Title 18 U.S.C. §241-242, hence violating Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, as stated. Even knowing of the perjury of Torres, Mr. Finkelstein has maintained her employment with the Public Defender’s Office. While Ms. Donoho attempted to be extremely diplomatic in advising the Public Defender of the perjury of their assistant, Torres, the point was raised, and a transcript of the Torres testimony was ordered by the Public Defender. [5]/ Ms. Diane Cuddihy was present at the Office of Ms. Donoho on October 18, 2007, the day preceding the habeas hearing held on October 19, 2007 where Torres perjured her testimony, and Ms. Cuddihy was fully aware of the perjury of Torres when Ms. Torres admitted to Donoho the allegations contained in Baker’s habeas application. Other employees of the Public Defender’s Office, including Finkelstein, himself, Catheryn Keuthan, Diane Cuddihy, and others, advised the McNamaras, Mr. Hecker, and others, that the Public Defender would appear before Judge Gates and confess error, assume the responsibility of paying the expert witness, Bawarsky’s, fees in the approximate amount of $11,300.00, and to otherwise do the right thing for Baker. On the following day at the habeas hearing, however, and after Mr. Raft coached Ms. Torres, she took the stand and, with venom in her demeanor, totally reversed that which she had admitted to Donoho on the preceding day. The issue herein is, also, not only that Torres lied against her own client, Baker, but that Torres and the Public Defender lost the exculpatory, altered and falsified charging-package (discovery-package) video evidence, which was indispensable in Baker’s habeas corpus petition, as well as all other communications by and between Baker and/or McNamara and the public defender’s office, including all electronic mail and hard-copy communications. The specious loss of electronic mail is impossible to believe, because electronic mail can not be lost selectively, except by intentionally deleting it. Some of those lost communications by Torres and the Public Defender will be presented herein as elements of proof of the perjury of Torres. For example, and indeed, the most compelling perjury of Ms. Torres’s perjury is that, prior to trial, Ms. Torres and Mr. Schweiker continued to put pressure on Baker to file an Internal Affairs complaint with the Hollywood Police Department. In other words, counsel forced Baker to provide the police with a statement, and which statement the head of Internal Affairs, Forest Jeffries, characterized (at trial) as a confession by Baker. Indeed, both Torres and Schweiker advised Baker that unless and until he filed the Internal Affairs complaint, Baker’s case could not, and would not, be going to trial. This constitutional error was raised in Baker’s Habeas Corpus petition, below. This is one of the admissions of Torres to Donoho the day before testifying falsely against Baker, who was her own client, and which Donoho addressed in her letter, cited and included above. Baker had previously written to the City of Hollywood and advised the City through, among others, Joel Cantor, Esq., counsel for the police department, the Chief of Police, the Mayor and the City Counsel, that they, the police department, had altered the video evidence; Baker charged that the City is corrupt from the top to the bottom, and Baker advised emphatically that he would not be filing a complaint with Internal Affairs. These communications, and each such communication, were copied either by email or hand delivery to Ms. Torres. There can be no dispute that 1) Ms. Torres knew that the video evidence had been altered and falsified; and 2) that she and co-counsel Schweiker forced Baker to go to the police department to provide a statement. Until the time of trial, neither Torres nor Schweiker were apprised that the City had a policy holding that a citizen ‘does not have a right to resist excessive force and must curl up’ (in a fetal position and accept whatever beating or torture that the police officer may deliver), Tr. 10-19-07 at P.74, L. 5, et seq., which was the primary fundamental error issue on Baker’s original appeal in case number 4D05-205. Be that as it may, Torres admitted these facts to Ms. Donoho on October 18, 2007; however, on October 19, 2007, Ms. Torres after the coaching of Mr. Raft, took the stand and falsely testified that it was Baker’s idea to go to the police station to provide a statement. Torres took the following words out of Baker’s mouth and represented that they came from the mouth of Mr. Schweiker, “If you think that filing an internal affairs complaint will cause the state attorney to cease this prosecution, that ain’t going to happen.” In fact, Ms. Torres advised Donoho that their (Torres and Schweiker’s) plan was to have the police officers take the Fifth Amendment, because they would know of the IA investigation, and the trial judge would be pressed to dismiss the charges. She advised Donoho that, mostly, it was Larry Schweiker who forced Baker to go to the police department to file the complaint. In truth and fact, however, both, Torres and Schweiker, exerted extreme pressure on Baker to file an internal affairs complaint. As examples of proof of the perjury of Torres relative to the issue of whether Baker wanted to file a complaint with the City of Hollywood, or whether it was upon the command of Torres and Schweiker, Petitioner would refer the court to, inter alia: Ms. Torres and Mr. Schweiker’s own “Case Events” Notes (Imbedded as “Case Events-Notes” Cf., [Page 8 of 13]: (entry of 10/7/03), “Larry and I explained that strategically trial should coincide with IA Investigation. Understand that he (Baker) is wantign (sic) to go to trial soon, but not ready; (Entry of 10/07/03), “Explained that (Baker) needs to go file complaint so IA case will be opened. Said OK.”; (Entry of 10/07/03), “Spoke with Sgt. Jeffries-no IA case open yet. Waiting for Donald to make formal complaint.”; (entry of 10/08/03), “Spoke with Donald and John. Paged me after hours. Explained waiting for IA investigation to open up and for officers to be informed”; (Entry of 10/09/03), “Larry spoke to btoh (sic) Donald and John. Explained again issues about IA case and why case can not and should nto (sic) go to trial immediately. Keep going over and over everythin (sic) over and over, BTU John and Donald feel they know it all.” Another entry: (12/11/03), “FBI and Broward State say they are looking into it.” The reference in entry 10/09/03 “BTU (But Thank You), * * * they know it all.” References Baker’s and his stepfathers request to counsel to file a sworn motion to dismiss demonstrating the false evidence, which “BTU” counsel, Torres and Schweiker, thought that such a sworn motion to dismiss does not exist in Florida, and they refused to entertain a sworn motion to dismiss at his request. As stated above, Baker was denied the right to act as co-counsel in his own case and counsel Torres allowed Baker to make no decisions as to his defense, based largely on total inexperience and incompetence. While we are considering the experience of counsel, Torres, let the record reflect that the hiring practice of the Public Defender for the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida requires two years of criminal trial practice before a newly hired attorney will be allowed to handle a criminal felony case. At the time Ms. Torres was assigned to Bakers case, she had been a member of the Florida Bar for less than two years, and according to statements made by the assistant state attorney Brad Edwards, Torres had only one or two trials under her belt before the Baker case. Cf., also, Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 66, L. 19. Contrast, Id., P. 67, L. 11, et seq. See, also, Id., at P. 47, L. 20. Torres, on the other hand, advised Baker that Edwards was a putts, and that he had never won a case against her. Now back to the proofs of the perjury of Torres: A copy of the McNamara letter to the Hollywood Police Department’s Legal Advisor dated September 10, 2003 is imbedded and made a part hereof. In part, the letter relates: “* * * the detention tape that was provided to the state attorney as a basis for prosecuting the case against Donald Baker was redacted and totally incomplete. It is our position that the tapes have been altered, and in order to prove the falsity of the tapes (and, hence, the innocence of Baker), it is necessary that we receive full, accurate and unadulterated copies of the detention tape (as well as every other tape) beginning one-half hour before Baker was brought into your facility * * *. I reiterate my initial request for public records and expect to receive them within ten days of your receipt of this letter.” Emphasis added. Copies of this letter and every other letter having to do with the prosecution against Baker were either emailed to Ms. Torres, or hand delivered to her. See, also, Imbedded, the McNamara letter to Jeffries dated October 3, 2003. (Begin with 4th paragraph on first page). The documents described as Cantor letter 8/14/03; Letter to Cantor dated 9/10/03; Letter to Jeffries dated 10/03/03; Letter from Jeffries re altered 10-06-03; Letter to Chief of Police dated 10-10-03; Cantor letter 8-27-03; Letter to Jeffries dated 8-16-03; and Letter to Torres of 12-16-03( written and delivered on 12/16/03) were, also, either hand delivered to Torres, or emailed to her. See, R. 162, L. 16, et seq. Each such document militates against any statement or conclusion that Torres was unapprised that the video evidence was false. On October 6, 2003, merely days before the IA inquisition, McNamara received a letter from the head of Internal Affairs, Forrest Jeffries “Jeffries Ltr Oct 6, 2003”. With this letter in mind, why would Jeffries (only three days later), fail to include in his IA inquiry the fact of altered and falsified evidence? The transcript of that IA hearing does not indicate that Jeffries even asked about the altered and falsified video, except with an acknowledgement that Baker provided him with copies of the videos. [Transcript of IA Hearing]. More importantly, why would Jeffries Mirandize Baker rather than to swear him, in giving testimony? The IA inquiry was a ruse, a sham, and a set-up; they had no intention of investigating this case. IA well knew in advance that the videos were falsified. It was later found that Jeffries was a co-conspirator in falsifying the evidence, and the video was in his exclusive possession at the time it was altered. Instead, they misused this investigation to get Baker on record stating that he “touched” the officer. There are similar reported cases where the police used a polygraph test to obtain statements from an accused. The Courts held that the polygraph was nothing more than a ruse. Baker submits that the IA inquiry in this case, likewise, was a ruse and a sham, and used as a shield to protect the wrong-doers from civil liability or criminal prosecution. The recent discovery of like circumstances relative to a Hollywood police cover-up and falsification of records should lay no trust in Internal Affairs, especially if Sgt. Jeffries is still in that unit. The record in this case fully demonstrates that Internal Affairs took every effort to protect the felons a/k/a police officers, and used the IA inquiry as a means to circumvent Miranda and Escobedo. Baker would now ask the court to consider Sgt. Jeffries communication to McNamara, dated October 6, 2003, pleading for the filing of the Internal Affairs complaint. The only issue of the Jeffries’ letter was upon the fact of the altered and falsified video evidence. NOT ONE WORD; NOT ONE SENTENCE WITHIN THAT specious transcript PERTAINS TO THE ALLEGED BASIS FOR THE HEARING, i.e., the falsified evidence. The transcript, itself, demonstrates that the intent of the inquiry was to circumvent Miranda and Escobedo in getting Baker to state that he “touched” officer Hoeflinger. However, before the reverberations of Baker’s testimony could leave the confines of the interrogation room, Sgt. Jeffries had selectively transcribed Baker’s testimony and transmitted that transcript to the state attorney. Edwards then sought a continuance of the trial. Still, no supplemental discovery clarifying or replacing the falsified (Brady) CD-ROM. On the date of this filing, Mr. Edwards had been fully briefed by his ITU experts and knew that he was prosecuting Baker upon false evidence. As to Mirandizing the complainant (Petitioner), Florida Law provides that a complainant is not to be treated as an adversary. In this case, Baker was Mirandized and treated as an adversary in the IA inquiry. First, Ch. 112.533.2(2)(a), F.S., does not provide for Mirandizing a complainant, thus wrongfully treating the complainant as an adversary, 112.533.1, F.S., and thereafter using the complainant’s words against him in a court of law, and opine that based upon that custom, policy or practice, the citizen (Baker) admitted guilt by testifying that he “touched” the police officer while the police officer was attempting to murder the complainant, and that Baker had no right to resist excessive force, seems to violate Due Process at its core. This is especially true where the IA transcript and later report does not even mention the primary cause for the investigation, ab initio: that the police department, itself, altered and falsified the evidence in order to protect the arrant officers from criminal prosecution and/or civil liability. Plaintiff’s stepfather has requested public records relating to the custody of the altered video and the City of Hollywood has responded that there are no records relating to custody or a chain of custody. Detective Knapp contradicted the City’s assertion in his deposition testimony wherein he stated that there was an evidence log of the video. It is therefore necessary to reconstruct the chain of custody of the falsified video: In a statement dated May 5, 2003, Detective Barbara Mannix stated that she initially retrieved the video from Det. Jeffries. When McNamara was seeking to secure the public records, police officials in the records division advised McNamara that the video was in Sgt. Jeffries’ safe and was not available. Subsequently, McNamara threatened litigation, as above related. Det. Mannix reported that she used the original video to make a CD-ROM, at which point the video was returned to property, and the CD-ROM was sent to the state attorney. Det. Knapp testified that it was he who obtained the video and made the CD-ROM copy, and returned the original to evidence. Now, either the City of Hollywood Police Department has an inexcusably lackadaisical procedure for the protection and preservation of evidence (which may affect every case ever handled by them), or, their representations that there are no records relating to the chain of custody of the video is not to be believed. A copy of the City’s Response to [written interrogatories] and request for the [production of documents] are imbedded. Baker would note, also, that the City admits that at the time of the beating of Baker, there were other surveillance cameras in operation and that McNamara’s Request for Public Records requested copies of those videos. The City acknowledged these facts but represented that the videos should be available, but are not available. Ibid. The City represented that McNamara had not requested those instruments, but see Request for Public Records at Paragraph 2. There is no indication as to when Det. Knapp allegedly copied the video; however, the date of creation of the charging-package video, which appears on the file information section of the CD-ROM, does not comport with the date that Mannix declared that she made the CD-ROM. Nevertheless, the City of Hollywood has falsely represented, under oath, that there is no record of an evidence or log tracking the chain of custody of the original video, which was altered and falsified while that video was in the custody and exclusive control of the head of Internal Affairs officer, Forrest Jeffries, or immediately thereafter by either Mannix or Knapp. Jeffries actions in covering up the alteration of the video suggest that he was complicit in that obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence. Where is the testimony relative to the altered and falsified video evidence? The IA hearing was nothing more than an overt act in an overall conspiracy to deprive Baker of Meaningful Access to the Courts and to deprive Baker of his constitutional rights in that regard. What a dastardly way to avoid Escobedo and Miranda and cause a defendant to believe that Internal Affairs was investigating the misconduct of the police, and not merely getting the accused to admit “touching” the officer(s) who were mercilessly beating and torturing him, and which ruthless beating resulted in Baker being hospitalized and hooked up to machines for four days. On October 10, 2003 McNamara responded to Jeffries letter by writing to the Chief of Police and advising the highest authority within the Police Department as to the existence of altered and falsified video evidence, and as to the person, probably, most responsible for the alteration of that video, based upon his exclusive possession at the time of alteration. A copy of McNamara’s letter to the Chief of Police dated October 10, 2003 is imbedded. The person, in whose custody and exclusive control the video laid at the time of its alteration was Forrest Jeffries, the head of Internal Affairs who testified at Baker’s trial and advised the Jury that Baker “had no right to resist excessive force.” See, Report of Barbara Mannix, (Second Paragraph), who retrieved the video from Jeffries. On December 16, 2003 McNamara wrote to Ms. Torres and re-advised her, again, of the altered and falsified video, and of what the Baker expected of counsel in representing him. A Copy of McNamara’s December 16, 2003 letter to Defendant Torres is imbedded. (Date of letter noted on 3rd page top paragraph, referring to the day of writing). At the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Torres initially admitted that she received this letter, but soon recanted when she realized that the letter would have shown that, indeed, Torres knew well that the video evidence had been altered and falsified. Torres falsely testified that she did not have a clue that the discovery-package video was altered and falsified. A fortiori, with her experience and expertise as an employee for her husband’s closed circuit TV company she, today, does not believe that the video was altered. This, after she contacted the video expert who advised her of the falsified videos Tr. 11-19-04, at P. 32, L. 16, et seq. This after Baker and McNamara repeatedly advised her that the videos were altered and falsified, and in fact, put counsel in touch with Mr. Chuck Schultz, a federally-qualified forensic video expert, and Mr. Schultz also told counsel that the videos were altered and falsified. Did the Public Defender Torres and the Public Defender’s Office really lose the exculpatory evidence in this case? Or, are they simply hiding it, or, have they intentionally destroyed that evidence? Initially, Ms. Torres denied that she had lost anything. On September 9, 2004, in an email addressed to John McNamara with Ms. Torres’s return email address as being mtorres@browarddefender.com , Ms. Torres wrote as follows: “I have returned everything I have and was ever given. I did not lose any items given to me my you. It has all been returned to Scott Hecker. Please direct any further inquiries to Mr. Baker’s attorney, Scott Hecker. Thank you. “Madeleine Torres” (Emphasis supplied) Link to this E-mail: [Torres Sep 9, 2004]. However, On August 6, 2004, Mr. Hecker filed a Motion to Compel the Public Defender’s Office to provide those items known to be missing from those portions of the Baker case file as were forwarded to Hecker, in contravention of the Circuit Court’s Order dated July 2, 2004 requiring the Public Defender to surrender to Mr. Hecker “[I]t’s entire file, including any video tapes and correspondence between (Baker) and any P.D. within 10 days from the date of this Order. A copy of the Court’s Order and a copy of counsel Hecker’s Motion to Compel are hereto imbedded as Motion to Compel, and “Order Compelling”. This Court will, please, take judicial notice of the Subpoena, duces tecum, addressed to the Office of the Public Defender in the matter of John McNamara vs. The City of Hollywood, 05-002699(21) (Aliman), requesting a copy of the Public Defender’s entire file on the Baker case, as well as the objection by the Public Defender against that subpoena. On the 11th day of January 2006, the Public Defender filed their objection to the subpoena; a copy of which is imbedded “Public Defender Objection to Subpoena”. The Public Defender’s Objection was predicated on the fact that they lost the Baker file. See Paragraph 2. The Public Defender “initiated an office-wide search”, but found only one portion of the missing file, which was in an attorney’s (coincidently, Ms. Torres’) office. Id., at Paragraph 3. At paragraph 7, the Public Defender reiterates that they have been unable to locate the majority of the file, but then asserts: “* * * it appears that Mr. Hecker has a complete copy of this office’s trial file and would have any other information requested by the subpoena.” Cf., and contrast, Mr. Hecker’s Motion to Compel, supra. Now, however, in order to determine whether the discovery-package video was indeed lost, Baker will refer this Court again to the [Case Events Notes] of the Public Defender. See, data entry of 11/07/05 where the Public Defender begins contemplation as to how to avoid the subpoena. Entry of 01/09/06, “still cannot locate file. Madeline Torres found a small portion of the file that I will go through in relation to the subpoena and use to respond to the subpoena.” Entry of 1/11/06 [2], “will supply tape upon payment of reasonable costs (in advance) and we have 2 privileged letters * * * rest of file has not been located.” Entry 1/11/06 [2] is rich, because the Public Defender is going to sell back to McNamara the videos that McNamara “LOANED” to the Public Defender, which loan Torres has denied having received, notwithstanding the following from the Case Events Notes: “* * * VHS TAPE WE HAVE IS SAME AS DVD, WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY MCNAMARA HIMSELF. DVD HAS 2 VIEWS OF DETENTION CENTER. * * * LOTS OF CORRESP (sic) IN FILE, BUT CANNOT LOCATE, HOLLY COPIED FOR HECKER, SINCE THEN, DONNA, MADELINE, LARRY, LEIGH, BEYARDI ETC HAVE ALL LOOKED IN ARCHIVES, FILE ROOM AND OFFICES TO LOCATE-NO SUCH LUCK.” (Emphasis added) In Torres’ testimony of November 19, 2004, she was so adamant that McNamara had not provided her with any VHS video. See, Transcript of November 19, 2004, at P. 30, L. 2. At Page 31, Line 6, on cross-examination, where she acknowledges that she received a VHS tape, but did not know whether she received it from Mr. McNamara or the state. At P. 31, L. 23, Torres was asked whether the CD-ROM given to her by McNamara was any different than the discovery-package video provided to her by the state attorney. Her response: Id., at L. 25, et seq. “The one that I got from Mr. Edwards that I played on my computer, the way it played out it was maybe 20 or 30 seconds, it was just very, very, very fast, so you couldn't really perceive what was going on, it kind of looked like just something on fast forward.” Id., at P. 32, L. 1. Torres explains that the major difference that she perceived was that one (the discovery-package video) was recorded so fast that nothing could be discerned, while the “DVD or CD-ROM” (she still doesn’t know the difference) provided by McNamara was “more in real time”. (Note: Now, the Public Defender wants to sell McNamara’s video back to him.) THAT’S RICH! Also, at the habeas hearing of 10-19-07, Mr. Raft had the court believe that Torres concluded “police brutality” based upon the discovery-package video. Baker would ask this court to view again the discovery-package video and determine whether the court might make out a case for police brutality based upon that video, alone. It cannot be done, and for Mr. Raft to suggest it smacks of malpractice and violations of the standards for prosecutorial conduct as elsewhere specified herein. Why would the City of Hollywood provide a video to the state attorney to charge Baker that did not accurately depict the events as they occurred, or that was not discernable to the human eye? Why would the City alter and falsify that charging-package video? Next, why would, and how could, the State Attorney rely on a video that could only be discerned by §uperman, and why was it that McNamara had to go through the labor and expense to secure a slowed-down video of those events in order to try to bring forth the truth? Certainly, the Police Department had the ability and professional equipment to provide a real-time video. Proof of that fact is that they did provide a further-edited (falsified) video to McNamara pursuant to his Public Records Request, and another edited video for trial that were slowed down; albeit, not a copy of the original. One of the videos in the State Attorney’s possession that they (state attorney personnel, or friends) cannot identify or determine its origin is entitled, “DVD Donald Baker 036863CF10A” which is a video prepared by John Baker, the brother of Petitioner. The video was provided to Judge Gates as well as to the State Attorney. The video is a side-by-side comparison of the police version of events (Torres says that it was 20 to 30 seconds in length), but the comparison video shows that the video is only 14.44 seconds in length and covering the time period of 22:35:30 to 22:41:56, while the Public Records video covering the same time span, i.e., 22:36:07 to 22:41:56 is 4 minutes and 38 seconds in length. The allegedly unidentifiable videos in the state attorney’s possession should be called up before this court, and this Court should play and view these videos in order to grasp the gravity of the redactions and falsifications in the police version (discovery-package) video, and most importantly, to establish for itself the chicanery perfected by the state in order to maintain the stealth of the videos that would have proved Baker’s innocence and entitlement to habeas corpus relief. This Court needs to be aware of the trickery of the state attorneys in this case and of the false representations to the lower court that the videos could not be identified or authenticated. This video was created on 5/27/04, and the label of this video appears in the state attorney’s file, thusly: Because of the utterly unethical conduct of Mr. Raft, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Torres, Petitioner, Baker, is fearful that the state will dispose of the video evidence in this case, and he implores the court to take all actions necessary to protect the video evidence from spoliation, modification, or destruction. Mr. Hecker was provided a copy of this video, as was Mr. Finkelstein. The Court’s Video Expert, David Bawarsky, presented the evidence of falsification to the trial court, Judge Gates. See, Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 53, et seq. Mr. Bawarsky testified that the videos were intentionally altered, and that there could be no other reason for the videos to appear differently, as they had. Judge Gates held that the false evidence was in the possession of the public defender all along and they did nothing about it; therefore, the evidence was not newly discovered, and Rule 3.580 (NOT 3.850) did not afford an avenue to relief, nor did Rule 3.600(b)(8), as alleged in the Motion for New Trial, because Rule 3.600(a) stood in the way. Baker’s Motion for New Trial is imbedded. Because Judge Gates was presented proof of the falsification of the videos, and because of various other reasons demonstrating prejudice against Baker, Baker filed his suggestion of disqualification. Judge Gates ignored Baker’s pleadings and the suggestion even though Baker was not represented by counsel. Judge Gates knew that the discovery video was altered and that a different result would have obtained had the jury been made aware of the falsified evidence. Cf., Transcript of sentencing at P. 3, L. 4, et seq; Judge Gates well knew that the evidence was altered and falsified and, still, he denied Baker’s Motion for New Trial, Ibid., at P. 7, L. 15, and knowingly sent an innocent man to prison for five years. Judge Gates ignored Baker’s Motion for New Trial based upon Rule 3.580 (REPEAT: NOT RULE 3.850), and Rule 3.600 (a)(2), and 3.600(b)(8), and ruled that the evidence was not newly discovered as required under Rule 3.600(a)(3), which was NOT before the court at all, because, in the amended motion for new trial, Newly Discovered Evidence was noted as not being a ground upon which Baker relied upon or sought a new trial there-under. A fortiori, the State Attorney’s Office, through Mr. Raft, represented to the habeas court that the State Attorney was in possession of seven videos, but that they could not identify or determine the origin of any of the videos. In other words, the State Attorney’s Office lost their copy of the exculpatory, altered and falsified video evidence, upon which Petitioner’s habeas action was largely predicated. Mr. Raft advised the habeas court as to their inabilities and caused former assistant state attorney, Brad Edwards to testify that he, too, could not identify or determine the origin of any of the videos in the state attorney’s possession, thus corroborating Mr. Raft’s specious, false, representations of loss. The questions is: what could the state attorney discern from the discovery-package video as contained in the charging package presented by the City of Hollywood Police Department. Mr. Edwards explains everything that was discernible from the charging-package video supplied to his office by the City of Hollywood Police Department: Tr. Of 10-19-2007, Page 0021: 5 “A I received a second VHS tape that was done at my 6 direction. 7 Q Why was that? 8 A So far all I had were two video tapes that no 9 human eye could actually tell what was going on. If you 10 pushed play, you would not know who touched who first and 11 who the characters were.” (Remember, Mr. Raft AND Mr. Edwards represented to the habeas court that the discovery video just referred to ignited the outrage of Torres.) This Court must look for a supplemental discovery in the record of this case in order to authenticate M. Edward’s representations. This Court will find no such supplemental discovery, because there is only one supplement, and that supplement related only to the addition of witnesses, not to the production of a second or successive video. If, in fact, Mr. Edwards had such a video, Brady required him to surrender a copy of it. He did not. In fact, there was no other video except for the Knapp video, which the testimony of Edwards said vacillated and was also unintelligible. To be perfectly honest, however, of the videos that McNamara secured from the State Attorney’s Office, one of the videos is entitled on its face, “HPD Detention”. The video file within is named: “03-61985 HlwdDetention C1”, which is a video clip, and the file was created on August 29, 2003 at 1:22 p.m. This date precedes the Knapp deposition of October 2, 2003, and this creation date predates the date that McNamara secured the Public Records Video, which was on September 12, 2003. It appears that, in fact, Mr. Edwards was in possession of this CD-ROM, and it also appears that this video is not the same as the Charging-Package Video, nor is it the same as the Brady-video, and it is not the same as the Public Records video, and it is not a copy of the original video. Photo Number 34 is not in the video, so, the video cannot be a copy of the original. The jump-backs are not in this video, so, it cannot be the same as the Public Records video; the video has hundreds of frames more than the charging-package or discovery-package video. The ultimate question that the state must answer, therefore, is why was this video withheld from the defense? Why was there no supplemental discovery provided? And, why was Mr. Edwards so surprised on September 29, 2003 when he received copies of the Public Records Video when, in fact, he was already in possession of a video that, except for the excision of the jump-backs, practically mirrored the Public Records version? At P. 140, L. 1 of the evidentiary hearing transcript of October 19, 2007, the importance of the lost video by the State and by Torres is made evident. Mr. Raft forces the issue of a “break in the chain of custody” to the detriment of Baker, but in fact, the break in the chain of custody relates back to the first alteration, and that break in the chain of custody should have operated to prevent the state from entering any subsequent modification of the video into evidence in the first place. Because Torres, Schweiker and Finkelstein lost the evidence, and because the State lost their evidence, Baker was prevented from demonstrating the original falsified charging-package video. Due Process demands something more than that. Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 153-155, demands that no version of altered and falsified evidence be allowed. Brady v. Maryland demands that no altered or falsified evidence be permitted, and Wardius v. Oregon demands that original evidence not be altered at the time of trial to make the evidence appear logical, (Cf., EHT Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 17, L. 3, and Transcript, 10-19-07 at P. 27, et seq.), blind-siding a defendant with falsified eleventh-hour and fifty-ninth minute discovery. . . especially, false discovery. What protections did the State Attorney put in place to protect Baker (or any other citizen) from a malicious prosecution based upon false evidence? What training was there for an assistant state attorney to go before a judge and say: this is the best evidence we have and this evidence establishes probably cause. Had the State Attorney, Satz, put protections in place or trained and supervised his subordinates to look for falsified evidence (or evidence that simply made no sense); this malicious prosecution of Baker would have never occurred. The constitution makes no distinction between life and liberty (Gideon). When a state attorney receives evidence supporting probable cause, it has a constitutional obligation to authenticate the evidence. In this case, the video was not latent and unobservable to the human eye; it was visible, but nothing could be made of it; why? Why was the video provided in 72-hour format? The answer is simple: the police did not want the state attorney to know what really occurred at the time of the dastardly attack upon Baker. The City relied upon the incompetence of the State Attorney, and the city relied upon the incompetence of the Public Defender. And, rightfully so; because, had it not been for the tenacity of McNamara in securing the public records video, Baker would be serving 18 to 22 years in prison, today, just as the state attorney had demanded when these bogus charges were filed against Baker, but before the discovery of the public records video (as will be set out below), which immediately changed the state attorney’s demand for a sentence from 18 to 22 years to “we’ll give you your freedom right now if you will plead guilty to something.”. The same is true for Mr. Finkelstein for the Public Defender’s Office. Had there been training or supervision, this prosecution would have not traversed the desk of the magistrate. The evidence was clearly mangled and indiscernible to the human eye, as testified by both Torres and Edwards. Cf., Tr. 10-19-2007, at P. 21 at Line 8, et seq. As will be pointed out below, in a separate action by McNamara against the City of Hollywood, the State Attorneys Office was subpoenaed and was directed to provide and produce every document and every video in their possession relative to this case, and the State Attorney’s Office complied with that subpoena, for the most part. To the best of Baker’s knowledge, the only records not provided were the notes and reports of the forensics video expert who slowed the charging-package video down on the 10th floor of the courthouse and made the comparison between the discovery-package video and the public records video. The State Attorney represented that there are absolutely no records or notes or reports of that event. Each of the videos supplied by the State Attorney were clearly marked and clearly identifiable, and such videos are presently in the possession of McNamara and will be presented to the Court as proof of the fraud perpetrated on the habeas Court, below, as to the issues of the lost altered and falsified video evidence. Indeed, because the State Attorney purportedly lost his ability to identify the videos or determine their origins, and because the Public Defender lost their copy of the same exculpatory, altered and falsified video evidence (necessary to prove alteration of the evidence in the habeas hearing below), Mr. Raft Moved the lower court in limine to remove the videos from consideration because there was a “break in the chain of custody”. The lower court granted the motion to exclude consideration of falsified videos, and did not provide Baker with an opportunity to submit his own copies of the videos secured from Torres and from the City of Hollywood Police Department, as well as from the State Attorney, himself. Indeed, if there was a break in the chain of custody resulting in the exclusion of the videos as evidence, it should have been at the trial court level, for surely, as this court has observed above, the evidence was altered and falsified and incompetent as evidence, except as evidence in a criminal prosecution against those who altered and falsified that evidence. These videos were garbage. Mr. Edwards testified that the reason he could not identify the discovery-video was because it was so fast that no one could identify it. See, Transcript of October 19, 2007 at P. 35, L. 13, et seq.. See, also. R. 161, L. 2; Ibid., P. 36, L. 21. This is truly rich; to have a video that is so corrupt that nothing can be made from it and to charge a citizen with a felony based upon that corrupt video, then to fail to identify the video because it is so corrupt and indiscernible, that is certainly a Catch 22 for a criminally accused. How is it possible to defend against such illogical considerations. Indeed, it is unlikely that this Court will ever see a case that is so imbued with corruption and cover-up again, or to have ever seen one in the past. Let us examine some of the differences in the videos at this juncture: The first video is entitled, “HPD DETENTION,” and the file name on the CD-ROM is “HlwdDetention C1” and the video was created on August 29, 2003. This was a video that would have proved that the Bady-video was false and corrupt. This video was in the possession of the State Attorney, and this video was never turned over to the defense as mandated by Brady v. Maryland. The Court will note that the jump-backs of Officer John Graham are not in this video. Photo Number 34, likewise, is not in this video. The next video is entitled “Baker 03-61985” (which number is the Hollywood Police Arrest Number). The file name of the video is “03-61985 HlwdDetention C1” and is a DVD and was created on May 20, 2004. The files making up the DVD were created on February 20, 2004. The creation date of this video actually makes no sense, because it was not the discovery video; it was not the public records video; the creation date does not correspond with the Knapp-deposition video or the trial video, and there is no jump-back of Graham in this video and Photo Number 34 is not included within the video. Further, the testimony of Edwards and Torres rules out that this video was received by either of them, because neither had a version of the video different from the charging-package and discovery-package video until McNamara gave them a copy of the Public Records video on September 29, 2003. However, and again, the date of the creation of this video and its viewing fully demonstrates that this is a video that was in the possession and control of the state attorney and was exculpatory, and Brady required the surrender of that video to the defense. It was not surrendered to the defense. Further, the possession of these videos by the State Attorney clearly demonstrates that the state attorney was fully aware that the charging-package (original Brady-video) were false and that the state was prosecuting an innocent defendant. In her testimony of November 19, 2004, at P. 29, L. 1., Ms. Torres indicated that she did not know the difference between a CD-ROM and a DVD. Torres testified that she received the VHS video and the DVD from McNamara. Ibid., at P. 29, L. 10, et seq. The fact that Ms. Torres was less than knowledgeable in video forensics is important, because at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, assistant state attorney, Raft, held Ms. Torres out to be a quasi-expert in video forensics, and that based upon her experience and expertise in the area of video forensics, she could determine that the Brady video provided to her by the state was not altered. The manner in which Mr. Raft asks the questions to qualify Torres as a semi-expert is more than astounding, because, never (NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE WAS THERE ANY HINT OR SUGGESTION THAT MS. TORRES WAS ANY KIND OF EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF VIDEO FORENSICS). Had it been otherwise, Baker would have called Ms. Torres as his forensic video expert for trial. But, at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, and like a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Assistant State Attorney, Raft, asked a series of questions never before even thought of, and considering the fact that Torres sat on the false discovery-package video from May of 2003 to September 29, 2003 (when McNamara presented her with a copy of the Public Records video), and based upon that video, exclaimed to Mr. Edwards, “and you have this guy charged with battery on a police officer?” gives little credence to an assertion by Torres and Mr. Raft that she is a quasi-expert in the field of video forensics. This theory is also bolstered by her communication to Civil Rights Attorney, Peter Feld, when, on August 18, 2003, she advised that the video showed nothing. A copy of the [Feld Letter] dated August 18, 2003 letter is imbedded. This Court may also consider the recalcitrant behavior of the state’s witnesses as well as the state attorney in defying subpoenas and in refusing to comply with Brady relative to reciprocal discovery. See, e.g., Transcript of 09/29/03.Since those photos should have depicted the injuries to Baker, Brady required their disclosure without the need for subpoena. At the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004, Ms. Torres testified that McNamara provided her with a video expert, and that the videos were compared. See November 19, 2004 Tr. at P. 32, L. 16. R. 161, L. 16, et seq. See, also, this Court’s factual findings in http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-20-06/4D05-205.op.pdf . P. 2, 4th paragraph. Mr. Edwards testified that Ms. Torres and Mr. Schweiker were present when the State Attorney’s ITU expert slowed down the discovery-package video and compared the video against the Public Records video provided to Torres on September 29, 2003 by McNamara; the “real-time” version. Both, Baker and McNamara advised Torres and Schweiker, REPEATEDLY, over and over again that the video was altered and falsified. As stated earlier, they even tried to have Torres and Schweiker file a sworn motion to dismiss and present the altered video evidence in support of the motion. At the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Ms. Torres testified McNamara did not put her in contact with a video expert, and that she had not compared the videos. She testifiedthat she did not know that the video was edited and falsified, and Mr. Raft began questioning of Torres as to her expertise in the field of video forensics. The Transcript 10-19-2007 at P. 81, L. 10 relates: 7 Q Just by way of background if you can, is there 8 anyone in your family that has any experience in 9 close-circuit television? 10 A My ex-husband owns a close-circuit TV company. 11 Q You have some familiarity? 12 A Yes, I worked at that company for a little while. 13 Q Anything about this videotape or surrounding 14 circumstances in your involvement in this case, caused you 15 alarm thinking the videotape, as his lawyer, was altered in 16 any way? 17 A To this day I don't think it was altered. 18 Q Do you know what a Nelson Hearing is? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you recall the Nelson Hearing happening during 21 the start of this trial where Mr. Baker complained to Judge 22 Gates that he was unhappy with some of the things you and 23 Mr. Schweiker were doing? 24 A At the beginning -- I think it was before trial 25 got rolling Mr. Baker said he thought he wanted to tell the Page 0082 1 Court something and Judge Gates basically said, "We are 2 going to treat this as a Nelson Hearing.” There was a similar Faretta hearing earlier in these proceedings where defense counsel’s asserted, only, “We have a strategy, Judge.” Defendant’s motion, DENIED! And, earlier, still, when Baker sought to invoke his right to have some control over his defense by being appointed as co-counsel. Torres argued against Baker. Again, motion DENIED! There, Baker was forced to accept the unqualified representation of Ms. Torres who, in contravention of the policies of the Public Defender, had not been a member of the Bar for two years, and she did not have two years of criminal trial practice, and here she was apocryphally representing Baker. This brings us to the point where we may invoke our logic to conclude when a player has been coached. In this case, Mr. Raft aside from providing the prolog of the perjury of Torres to come, (out of the clear blue sky, and totally unexpectedly), inquired of Ms. Torres as to her prior association with a closed circuit TV Company. Torres testified that her ex-husband owned a closed circuit TV company, and because of her experience with the TV company, she testified that she did not believe that the video evidence was altered or falsified. Ibid., at Line 17. All who should see these presents disserve a break from this type of child’s play lawyering. It is clear that Mr. Raft ex parte’d Ms. Torres at some point after Ms. Torres provided her truthful statement to Ms. Donoho on October 18, 2007, but before giving her false and perjurious testimony on October 19, 2007. It is also clear that Ms. Torres opted to perjure her testimony on the following day based upon the promises and assurances made to her by Mr. Raft. Were it otherwise, and she had no assurances of impunity, would Torres risk flushing her career down the tubes and risk going to jail or prison for perjury? Indeed, Mr. Finkelstein knew, and knows of the perjury of Torres. Yet, Ms. Torres is still in the employ of the Public Defender’s Office of Broward County. Baker can only ask, “Why?” Mr. Finkelstein acknowledged to conflict counsel, Hecker, that indeed there was malpractice on the part of the Public Defender. Further, Baker asks why Mr. Finkelstein on the 18th day of October 2007 assured McNamara and others that the Public Defender’s Office would go before judge Gates and confess error and that the Public Defender would assume the obligation of paying the expert witness fees of Mr. Bawarsky in the amount of $11,300.00, and why Mr. Finkelstein remains mute, when all it would have taken at the time was one word from Mr. Finkelstein and justice might well have been served. That would have been the right thing to do. This is precisely why, under federal law, we have the crime of Misprision of Felony under Title 18 U.S.C. §4, because we have those of weak moral fiber and absence of character who would rather see an innocent person in prison that to face the truth of their own incompetence. Torres testified that she did not have a clue that the discovery video was altered; she denied that she spoke with Edwards concerning the video; she denied having compared the videos; she denied directing Baker to file the IA complaint, she denied having been put in contact with a video expert, and in every event tried to protect her own skin by testifying falsely against Baker, her client. Let there be no mistake; from the point in time when Mr. Edwards, Ms. Torres, Mr. Schweiker and various other assistant state attorneys met at the Information Technologies Section of the State Attorney’s Office on the 10th Floor of the courthouse, and under the observing eye of the state attorney’s experts, compared the charging-package (discovery-package) video with the Public Records Video secured by McNamara, the purpose of the prosecution of Baker was not because of the guilt of Baker; the sole purpose of the prosecution was to protect the City and all the arrant police officers and subsequent conspirators from liability or criminal responsibility. It was at that time confirmed that the video was altered, redacted and false. The lawful purpose of the prosecution against Baker was abandoned, and a new unlawful course of action embarked upon to protect the City of Hollywood from corruption charges and to protect the arrant police officers from civil and/or criminal liability; to protect the state attorney’s office from charges of malicious prosecution; and to protect the Public Defenders from liability for malpractice and denying Baker his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to the effective assistance of counsel. Baker’s guilt or innocence, after the discovery and confirmation of falsified evidence, was not the issue; the issue became, “how do we protect ourselves and our comrades from criminal prosecution and/or civil liability?” Why else would Baker’s intent to sue the culprits come into play at his habeas hearing? What was Mr. Raft’s purpose in bring up the fact of Baker’s intent to sue? Cf., Tr. 10-19-07 at P. 45, L. 20; P.79, L. 10, and the objection of conflict counsel, Donoho, as to relevance was overruled by Judge Gates. Ibid., at L. 19. All the players in this case believed that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphries would protect them, if they could force a guilty plea or force the withdrawal of the habeas petition and to renounce the truth. Baker resisted filing the IA complaint until counsel advised him that he would not be going to trial unless and until he filed the IA complaint. Meanwhile, Ms. Torres was communicating with the chief IA Officer, Forrest Jeffries, advising Jeffries that she was sending Baker down to file the complaint. See, Public Defender Case Events Notes, cited above, at Entries of 10/07/03. What other possible reason could Torres have had in communicating with the head of Internal Affairs, Forrest Jeffries, the most hostile adversary of Baker? The Assistant State Attorney, Raft, represented to the court that he needed continuances so that he could investigate the issue of altered evidence. Yet, as early as the last case event entry (cited above), the State Attorney’s Office was, allegedly, already investigating the issue of altered evidence. Indeed, when Baker filed a complaint with the F.B.I., he was advised by Special Agent, Manny Suarez, that the State Attorney’s Office was already investigating the case. [6]/ The records received from the State Attorney’s Office under the McNamara subpoena provide no evidence that the State Attorney was, truly, investigating the fact of falsified and altered evidence. Mr. Raft tricked the habeas court into allowing discovery, where discovery is not permitted, by falsely representing that 1) Knapp was not an expert, (even though Raft admitted that Knapp was, in fact, an expert); and 2) that he needed to investigate the issue of falsified evidence. In reality, Mr. Raft’s conduct was effected solely for the purposes of delay so that he would have a better chance of forcing Baker into withdrawing his habeas petition. This type of dilatory delay violates the very essence of our founding principals. Cf., Magna Carta, Ch. 40. Baker submits that Mr. Raft ex parte’d Judge Gates and without Baker’s presence caused Judge Gates to agree to accept the offer of the state to Baker to withdraw his habeas application and renounce the truth in exchange for his freedom. What leverage the state placed against Judge Gates is not known, but it is clear that at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Judge Gates was outraged at Mr. Baker based upon Baker’s suggestion of disqualification and for his comments towards Judge Gates regarding Judge Gates’ ex parte communications with counsel for the state, and . . . well, let the record speak for itself: Page 0159 1 THE COURT: I shouldn't put my foot in my mouth, 2 but I will. This is the same Mr. Baker who said I had 3 an off-the-record proceedings with the attorneys. The 4 same Mr. Baker who said I wasn't going to give him a 5 fair trial. 6 MR. RAFT: That is correct. It is my 7 understanding those allegations are being withdrawn. 8 THE COURT: He testified under oath. 9 MS. DONOHO: I don't think he testified to that. 10 He assumed there were off-the-record conversations 11 about the jury instructions. He just assumed that 12 because of what his lawyers told him. 13 THE COURT: That is not what I heard. 14 MS. DONOHO: Okay. 15 That is not what I heard. 16 THE COURT: How long is your proffer going to 17 take, five minutes? You have five minutes. 18 Mr. Bawarsky, you want to step down, please. 19 With the understanding I will consider it, I am 20 not ruling on it today. 21 MS. DONOHO: Okay. 22 THE DEFENDANT: Forget it. 23 THE COURT: You threw it on my lap. 24 THE DEFENDANT: If I withdraw the motion and he 25 denies my mitigation, I do the rest of my sentence. The transcript does not seem to follow at this point, (line 18), because, in the memory of Baker, McNamara and others, Judge Gates stated at that time that he would not be bound by the recommendation of the state, and at which time, Baker said, “Forget it.” It really doesn’t matter how the colloquy occurred; what does matter is that within the next day, or so, Judge Gates gave assurances to the state that he would be bound by the offer. Baker was brought back into court on November 6, 2007 and released. Of course, as previously stated, Baker was required to renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas corpus petition as a pre-condition of that freedom. Otherwise, the state would continue this case, and continue the case, until Baker’s sentence expired. (Perhaps another 7 months remaining on a 60 month sentence) Because of the fact that Torres lost the case file in this case, and counsel could not produce the evidence at trial, instead of defending Baker, counsel joined with the state, Mr. Satz and Mr. Edwards to force Baker to plead guilty to crimes he had not committed. This combination had the design of shielding all the Defendants from civil liability under §1983 by virtue of Heck, if they could persuade Baker to plead guilty. Baker will address the efforts of the state attorney (in concert with his public defenders) to coerce a guilty plea, and later, to renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas petition in exchange for his rightful freedom. Again, at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Torres testified that it was Baker’s idea to provide the police with a statement; Torres also testified that she did not have a clue that the video evidence was altered or falsified. She testified further that she was not put in contact with a video expert, and that she had not compared the videos and that she had not talked to Mr. Edwards as to the jump-backs or falsified videos. Torres also testified that she referred to Officer John Graham as being a leprechaun, because he was cute, and not because Graham had the ability to jump back and forth in time on the Public Records video as attributed to Torres by Mr. Edwards. Transcript of October 19, 2007 at P. 76, L. 15. Cf. Tr. 11-19-04, P. 14, L. 15: 15 Q. Isn't it true that you also called Detective 16 Knapp to testify assuming that there would be a question 17 as to why there were two different tapes? 18 A. There were questions -- there were 19 conversations between myself and Mr. Schweiker, as well 20 as myself and Madeleine Torres, regarding the videotape 21 and the apparent jumping back of Officer Graham, which 22 during those conversations Madeleine Torres would speak 23 of Officer Graham as a leprechaun, and that's referring 24 to his ability to appear, disappear, and reappear in 25 that one scene. So we had that conversation. At the Transcript of 10-19-07 at P. 77, L. 1, Ms. Torres testified: 0077 1 A No. 2 Q Why would you comment the officer looked like a 3 leprechaun? 4 A He was short, young, cute, and he was standing 5 there. He looked like the lucky charm leprechaun. 6 THE COURT: Cross 8 BY MR. RAFT 9 Q Ms. Torres? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q As a defense counsel sitting in this case, when 12 you heard Sergeant Jeffries tell the jury that the only 13 thing Mr. Baker was entitled to do if he was being beaten 14 to death was curl up and lay on the floor? Did that 15 disturb you as defense counsel? (Emphasis supplied) 16 A I am not sure if I specifically heard that part, 17 but it would have raised my eyebrow, yes. I am not sure if 18 I actually heard it, to be honest with you. Mr. Edwards thought that Torres and Schweiker were going to raise the edited video as a defense, but they did not. See. Transcript of October 10, 2007 at P. 28, Line 16, et seq. Now, having addressed the testimony of Torres as to jump-backs and her use of the term “leprechaun”. In her sworn testimony at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Torres testified, thusly: At Page 11, line 10, the following colloquy occurred: Q. Did it ever come to your attention when you were reviewing the media that there were jump back scenes? A. No. Q. Did you ever discuss that with the prosecutor in the case, Mr. Edwards? A. No. Q. He never told you or pointed out to you there was some piece of the tape in which one of the sequences – to make simple for the record, we refer to frame 24 goes to frame 25 and jumps back to frame 24? A. Mr. Edwards and I never discussed as far as the frames and tapes or anything like that. (Emphasis supplied) At R. 141, Page 12, L. 18, Mr. Edwards has something to say about the previous comments by Torres: Q. And you were in constant communications with the defense counsel concerning the tape, tapes, or DVD tapes; correct? A. We probably talked about that issue more than I talked to them about any other case that I've ever had with them. (Emphasis added) No other videos were given to Torres by the State Attorney. In fact, Torres provided Mr. Edwards with a copy of the Public Records video that was given to her by McNamara. Cf., (Tr. 11-19-04, at P. 35-12). Why would Torres be required to furnish the State with evidence? Because, according to the testimony of Ms. Torres at Ibid., Page 36, L. 15, “* * * That first one (the discovery video) was so -- you couldn't have compared it if you wanted to.” (bracketed language supplied) Edwards fully intended to prosecute Baker on the basis of that false video evidence, contrary to his testimony at the evidentiary hearing of November 19th, 2004, where he testified that he never intended to go to trial based upon the discovery-package video. At Page 12 of that transcript, Mr. Edwards testified: “* * * Each phase we were planning on using a VHS Version of this for trial.” But, cf., [Tr., 10-19-07] at P. 14, L. 22. See, also, Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 21, L. 2, et seq: Mr. Edwards: “The CD-ROM, the original copy that came in evidence. We don't usually get the VHS Version because it's just too bulky for an arraignment that may plea out at arraignment. So we got the CD-ROM, and that's the original version.” At the habeas hearing, Mr. Edwards acknowledges that it would have been impossible to go to trial based upon the Brady video, because no human being could discern its contents. See, Tr., [Tr., 10-19-07], P. 38, L. 19. Patently, a lie, given the fact that, first, there was no VHS video until it was secured by McNamara on September 12, 2003, and there were many occasions prior to September 29th, 2003, when this case was scheduled for trial, but continued after Mr. Edwards had announced “Ready.” No continuance was ever sought on the basis that the State or Defense Counsel needed a slowed down version of the video. It was, in fact, on September 29, 2003 that Edwards demanded a continuance because the first (Public Records) VHS video (and CD-ROM) was presented to Torres by McNamara, and to Edwards by Torres. Officer Knapp did not produce a VHS video until October 2, 2003 at his deposition. At TR. 10-19-07, P. 20, L. 6, et seq., Mr. Edwards testified that the Knapp deposition video was also unintelligible. Specifically, see Line 15, et seq. Petitioner has addressed this issue, above, as well as the video bearing a creation date of August 29, 2003. The only video that had jump-backs in it was the Public Records video, which, on the day of trial, Mr. Edwards represented that he had Mr. Knapp excise those jump-backs. Mr. Edwards testimony that he always intended to use a VHS for purposes of trial cannot be squared with the facts and circumstances of this case. Officer Knapp testified that the original VHS tape is returned to police property unit (thus indicating that there is an evidence log or chain-of-custody log, (later [denied to exist by the City] of Hollywood. See, also, Appendix\Cantor ltr 8-27-03 - no other videos.pdf. Paragraph 1.b.), and from that point (the point of copying the VHS to CD-ROM), they work only with the CD-ROM copy, which is sent to the State Attorney.) The [Mannix] Report is in accord. (See, last paragraph before jurat) Finally, there is no submission of supplemental discovery in the circuit court case file supplementing discovery with a second version of the video, and there is no demand from Defense Counsel for production of a better video, even though Torres testified that she asked for a video that could be discerned, as did Mr. Edwards. See, [EHT 2], October 19, 2007 at Page 51, at 11. The testimony of Torres and Edwards to the contrary is but a feeble attempt to shield themselves from responsibility. Indeed, how could either of them prosecute or defend this case on the basis of a video that made absolutely no sense to either one of them? And, why did neither exhaust any effort to correct this ‘constitutional’ Brady/Giglio infirmity? The problem is that Torres and Edwards have been caught in testifying falsely in a court of law. In each case, the false testimony was intended to shield either themselves or the police and city from liability for their wrongful conduct and to deny Baker’s constitutional right to access to the courts. Baker would refer this Court, again, to the letter of [Peter Feld], Esq., civil rights attorney, who on August 18, 2003 (after relying on the observations of Ms. Torres) declined to accept Baker’s Civil Rights complaint because the discovery-package video, according to Torres, showed nothing. The statements of Mr. Edwards that he intended to use a VHS video for trial was pure fiction. Clearly, he intended to use the Discovery-Package video. On September 29, 2003 Mr. Edwards had announced ready; Judge Gates admonished that the case would not be bumped off the trial calendar; McNamara gave Torres the Public Records video; Torres gave a copy of the Public Records video to Edwards; Edwards asked for the continuance; Judge Gates (as expected) granted Mr. Edwards continuance. The point is, he announced “ready”, and the only video in his possession at that time was the discovery-package video provided to his office by the City of Hollywood. That video was falsified and corrupt. Clearly, in an effort to defeat the Baker’s habeas action, Mr. Edwards, in his individual capacity, lied under oath [7]/. Of equal import, then, why did Edwards fail to provide Torres with a copy of the VHS (or other) video that he allegedly planned to use at the trials scheduled for any date prior to September 29, 2003, or April 26, 2004, as mandated by Brady and Giglio? The simple truth is that until September 29, 2003, when McNamara presented the Public Records Version of the video to Torres, there was no other video, VHS, or otherwise, in the possession of the State Attorney, save that of the charging-package video. Mr. Edwards testified to this fact, exactly, at Tr. 11-19-04, at P. 21, L. 2. If there had been such a video, the State would have been compelled, and was constitutionally obligated, under Brady v. Maryland to cough it up. The State did not provide such a video to defense, because they had no other video. The witness, Edwards, lied under oath and is responsible for that perjury, since he was acting as a witness and not under the protection of the State Attorney’s immunity, and his acts were designed and effected for the purpose of depriving Baker of his constitutional right to access to the court and otherwise intended and effected to shield the City and the police officers from corruption and malicious prosecution charges. Baker submits that Torres and Edwards perjured their testimony; that is clear from the language quoted above. The more egregious perjury was effected by Ms. Torres, because she was Baker’s attorney. Her false testimony goes to the very core of injustice, and she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not only because of the commission of this crime, but because she betrayed her client, Baker, in the worst possible way: to perjure her testimony to cause the conviction of Baker to stand while a Motion for New Trial was before the court; and, because she again betrayed the Petitioner in order to insure that his habeas corpus action would not afford him any relief. Torres’ actions were ruthless, brutal, unethical, and merciless. This case should insure that Ms. Torres should never, ever, ever practice law in this State or in any other state again. Because Mr. Finkelstein, an attorney, Catheryn Keuthan, Esq., an attorney, and Diane Cuddihy, Esq., an attorney, and each, members of the Florida Bar, well knew of the perjury of Torres and each violated the federal Misprision of Felony statute, and each should be disciplined and punished by the Florida Bar due to their cover-up and failure to report the crimes. Each are equally complicit with Torres because they took no affirmative action to protect the constitutional rights of their client, Baker. Torres never received a slowed-down copy of the video from the State. See, October 19, 2007 at Page 51, L. 11. Again, Mr. Raft’s representation that Torres based her excessive force or brutality hypothesis upon the Brady video provided by the state is simply unworthy of credence in any form or manner. Mr. Raft’s colloquy was a trick designed and implemented to fool the habeas court. Oddly, in the McNamara v. City of Hollywood (public records litigation), the Office of the Public Defender was subpoenaed to produce all of their records in this case. In the Case Events Notes, cited herein-above, there are entries directed as to how to defeat the subpoena duces tecum. See Entries of 11/07/2005; 01/09/2006; 01/11/2006; 01/11/06 [2]; 01/11/06 [3]. The 3rd Entry for 01/11/2006 is interesting, because the entry indicates 1) that there was a lot of correspondence (which was not turned over to conflict counsel, Hecker; 2) On January 11, 2006, Torres and the Public Defender had in their possession a DVD with 2 views of the detention center. McNamara had only a CD-ROM of the detention center, necessarily meaning that the Public Defender did have possession of the original discovery-package video, which, unless there were two incidents of loss of the Baker file, it is still in the possession of the Public Defender and Torres, and was not turned over to H. Scott Hecker, Esq., conflict counsel, and with even stronger force, was in the possession of Ms. Torres at the time of the Evidentiary Hearing on October 19, 2007; and at which time, Torres represented that the videos were lost. Meanwhile, Mr. Raft (privy to the lost videos) moved the court in limine to prevent Baker from introducing a copy of the same videos, which the public defender was simultaneously secreting. See, Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 140, L. 12; P.141, L. 15, et seq. The Public Defender filed an objection to the subpoena duces tecum on the grounds that the Public Defender had lost the file. A copy of the [objection filed by the Public Defender]is imbedded. The case events notes relate: DATE:01/11/06 TYPE: COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHERS SUB TYPE: COMMENTS: SPOKE TO MADELINE-RE: SUBPOENA AND FILE-VHS TAPE WE HAVE IS SAME AS DVD, WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY MCNAMARA HIMSELF. DVD WAS 2 VIEWS OF DETENTION CENTER. VIDEO RECD FROM STATE WAS SAME THING-ADMITTED AT TRIAL AS EVIDENCE. LOTS OF CORRESP IN FILE, BUT CANNOT lOCATE, HOLLY COPIED FOR HECKER, SINCE THEN,-DONNA;MADEL1NE;LARRY;LEIGHT;BEYARDO ETC HAVE ALL LOOKED IN ARCHIVES, FILE ROOM AND OFFICES TO LOCATE-NO SUCH LUCK (Emphasis supplied) When the Public Defender employs an attorney who betrays their client, lies against their own client, loses all exculpatory evidence and otherwise ushers her innocent client into prison and then perjures her testimony in a habeas hearing to keep the innocent client in prison, we have to inquire as to the employment practices of the Office of the Public Defender, as well as their retention practices. The Office of the Public Defender will hire attorneys fresh out of law school to start at entry-level cases. However, the Public Defender’s Office requires “Two-years Trial Experience” in order to be hired to handle felony cases. The Help Wanted for the Public Defender’s Office, historically, has read, and reads: We have entry level positions requiring no legal experience as well as felony level positions where two years criminal trial experience is required. All candidates are expected to submit resumes, cover letters and references. (Emphasis added) To require anything less in criminal felony cases would be to subject the public to the extreme danger of being falsely convicted and serving a prison sentence or being put to death because of representation by an inexperienced attorney. Ms. Torres was appointed to Baker’s case on May 16, 2003. However, Ms. Torres did not become a member of the Florida Bar until 09/13/2001. Even if Torres had Felony-Trial Experience from day one with the public defender, still, she could not have met the criteria to handle felony cases, and the Public Defender was deficient, in a Sixth Amendment Sense, in allowing such an inexperienced lawyer to work on felony cases. In fact, Baker noted that Torres was inexperienced early on and submitted a Motion to the Court to allow him to act as co-counsel so that he might have some control over the way he was being represented. On July 17, 2003 Ms. Torres argued against allowing Baker to proceed as co-counsel and the court denied Baker’s Motion, thus relegating Baker to the assistance of counsel not qualified even under the Public Defender’s own standards. It is of little wonder why Ms. Torres became so frightened that she resorted to perjury to try to save her own skin. Mr. Finkelstein is absolutely responsible for the incompetence of Torres as counsel in this felony case, because of her inexperience and being unqualified, and because of Mr. Finkelstein’s utter failure to train and supervise Ms. Torres. A fortiori, Mr. Finkelstein has acquiesced in the perjury of Torres and is guilty of Misprision of Felony, as above stated, but he is also guilty of being an accessory before the fact, and after the fact of Perjury. DILATORY AND INORDINATE DELAY Petitioner, Donald Baker, was the defendant in the trial court and Appellant in the Fourth District Court of Appeal on direct appeal in Case No. 4D05-207. After this court affirmed the conviction without prejudice to Petitioner bringing a habeas action in the trial court under F.R.Cr.P. 3.850 on September 20, 2006, Petitioner followed the direction of this Court and on October 6, 2006 filed his habeas action in he trial court. Because of serious inordinate, unexplained and unnecessary delays by the state, the case found itself in limbo until nearly a year later when, upon Baker’s application for a writ of mandamus to this court (assigned case no. 4D07-1511 on April 16, 2007), this Court intervened and ordered the trial court to provide this Court with a status report on July 9, 2007. This Court’s Order directed the trial court to set a date for the hearing; to allow the state time to respond to Appellant’s Habeas Petition under Cr.P.R. 3.850; and to allow the Habeas Petitioner “Ten Days” to respond to the State’s Answer. The Habeas Judge, Michael Gates, ignored the Order of this Court and within six days of receiving the state’s response and without allowing Baker to respond at all, or allowing Baker the 10 days as mandated by this Court, Judge Gates adopted the position of the state as the court’s own order. Judge Gates gave the Petitioner 30-days to appeal, but refused to permit the Petitioner to respond to the position of the state. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed strenuous objections to the order bifurcating the proceedings, (filed in this Court in Case Number 4D07-1511 on July 20, 2007) and two (2) suggestions of disqualification as to Judge Gates, each of which have been, and continue to be, ignored, as were Plaintiff’s protests (via motions to strike and to correct) the order allowing the state to dictate the order of the habeas court, for the court, in defiance of this court’s order and in turning the proceeding into an ex parte case where the state was the only party to be heard. Indeed, even before the time for Baker’s reply to the position of the State, Judge Gates had summarily denied Baker’s habeas action and allowed Baker 30 days from the date of that Order to Appeal his ruling, essentially ignoring the “without prejudice” provision of this Court’s Order of affirmance and Mandate. Therefore, we have two distinct Orders that are the subject matter of the present appeal and/or Coram Vobis Action. Finally, in August of 2007 the trial court set a hearing date, and a status conference was called on [August 24, 2007]. At that status conference, the Assistant State Attorney, Scott Raft, advised the Court that he wanted an expert who was not associated with the Hollywood Police Department. Ibid., at P. 4, L. 23. Mr. Raft also represented that the Public Defender asked him to look into the falsified evidence issue. Ibid. Later, at a subsequent hearing, Mr. Raft advised the habeas court that the state’s erstwhile video-expert, Hollywood Detective, Robbie Knapp, was not an expert and that he, Raft, needed yet another continuance to have (new) experts examine the video, which Petitioner had alleged was altered and falsified as one of the issues raised in his habeas action. Petitioner objected to the re-litigation of the veracity of the video evidence, because that matter was fully argued and briefed at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004. At that time, Baker was un-represented and was representing himself, pro se. Judge Gates prevented Baker from setting out his objection to further continuances based upon the state’s wishes to re-litigate a matter that was res judicata. Ibid., at P. 5, L. 9. The state had years to investigate; the state had represented to the FBI as early as 2003 that it was investigating, and it certainly had the opportunity prior to trial to investigate the falsified videos. The state purports that it was ignorant of the fact of the falsification. Yet, after Baker had served more than 3 years in prison (42 months, exactly), then in order to delay the case further, asserted a desire to investigate the falsified video. Further, Baker begs the question: why would counsel (the Public Defender) removed from this case due to inadequate representation ask Mr. Raft (a nemeses seeking to perpetuate the unlawful confinement of Baker) to look into the falsified video evidence? Certainly, Baker would not trust the Public Defender to purport to act in his behalf in any fashion. Certainly, he would not allow the public defender to ask Mr. Raft to investigate anything on his behalf. Baker has had enough treachery in this case. Baker asks the Court to now consider Mr. Raft’s promise to the habeas court above-quoted as to the ultimate disposition of this case, should Mr. Raft discover any alteration of any of the videos. Now, Petitioner would ask the Court to consider the fact that Mr. Raft now hides the falsified video evidence and asks the habeas court not to consider it because the Public Defender lost their file (and the falsified video evidence), and because the state has lost its copy of the falsified video evidence (by virtue of being unable to identify any of the seven videos in the state attorney’s possession). Mr. Raft should have been a magician, for he is certainly a slight-of-hand expert. He hid the evidence from his so-called (independent) (sheriff’s employee) expert and then represents that the City of Hollywood truly has the original of the video, and the experts address less than one minute of the video. The really sad part of this episode is that Baker was forced to accept the truth of Mr. Raft’s chicanery, or serve out the remainder of his unlawful sentence by virtue of continuance, after continuance, after continuance, after continuance. Mr. Raft coached Mr. Edwards to testify that Detective Knapp was not an expert (See., e.g., Transcript of October 19, 2007 at P. 24, L. 25, et seq., P. 30, L. 10, et seq. So, if Mr. Edwards did not believe that Detective Knapp was an expert, why then, did Mr. Edwards rely on the opinions of Mr. Knapp in attempting to conclude that the videos were not edited, altered or falsified? How was Mr. Knapp’s opinion testimony allowed at trial, where Mr. Edwards knew that Knapp was getting his information from some other unknown individual, and that Knapp merely related the expert testimony back to Edwards? Why was Knapp allowed to re-edit the previously-altered video to make it appear logical after trial had begun? Tr. 11-19-04 at P. 17, L. 3. Finally, if Knapp were not an expert, why was he testifying at Baker’s criminal trial as an expert? Baker will repeat: Mr. Knapp testified that he is an expert in video forensics. It is also true that the State Attorney reported to the FBI that it was conducting an investigation into the altered and falsified videos. It is also true that Mr. Knapp was present to testify at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004, but that he refused to testify after defense expert Bawarsky testified. Therefore, why did Mr. Raft falsely represent that he needed unauthorized discovery in this habeas hearing and then allow his so-called experts to proffer testimony relating to only one minute of the video evidence? The answer is simple: he wanted to delay the Baker case for as long as was necessary to force Baker to renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas action. Finally, if Mr. Edwards truly believed that Mr. Knapp was not an expert, why did he not retain his own expert to testify as to the altered video evidence at any time prior to this habeas proceeding, wherein discovery is not permitted? Mr. Edwards testified that he did not believe that Knapp was an expert, and he testified that he did not seek out an expert to advise him. See, Tr. 10-19-07 P. 24, L. 25; P. 30, L. 10, et seq. Cf., P. 35, L. 10. Edwards did not consider getting his own expert, notwithstanding that, in fact, the State’s own IT experts had already concluded that the video was falsified, but Edwards did not want to allow his own experts to testify. But, in that event, who was the expert at the State Attorney’s Information Technologies Unit on the 10th Floor of the Courthouse where the falsified video was slowed down and compared to the Public Records video secured by McNamara on September 29, 2003? Mr. Edwards testified that he viewed the ultra-fast discovery-package video 55 times ([Tr.10-19-07], P. 36, L. 6); had the unintelligible video slowed down by his IT experts, and still concluded that Baker attacked Officer Hoeflinger. Specifically, the transcript relates: 0019 20 Jeff Marcus and myself looked at the videotape 21 and thought that prior to anytime where the police officers 22 engaged in any combativeness with Mr. Baker, Mr. Baker had 23 already committed the crime of battery on the law 24 enforcement officer. And so we went forward with the case. 25 Q And you determined that from looking at the 0020 1 slowed-down version of the tape or the CD Rom? 2 A And from the officer's Probable Cause Affidavit 3 and what they said and everything else. Nothing about the 4 video negated what the officer said about the crime being 5 committed, if that is what you are asking. (Emphasis added) Petitioner would again refer this Court to the Public Records Video, against which Mr. Edwards compared the unintelligible charging-package video. Baker submits that Mr. Edwards is not blind. To view the video 55 times and still conclude that Baker attacked Hoeflinger first is beyond preposterous; it cannot be anything other than an intentional deception of the court, if not a deception of his own mind. Mr. Edwards well knew what he was doing, and that was to continue the prosecution against Baker in order to protect his clients, which were 1) The city of Hollywood, and 2) Officers Hoeflinger and Graham, and 3) those responsible for altering and falsifying the video evidence. Baker has already explained in picture-supported detail how many seconds it was between the time the cuffs were removed from his wrists and when Hoeflinger planted his fist in Baker’s face. Mr. Edwards representations simply cannot be squared with reason, or fact. P. 19, L. 20. This Court must realize that this case, under the direction of those on the opposite side, was not supposed to survive this long, and Baker was not supposed to have any avenue of redress. Should this action fail, the state will have succeeded. Mr. Edwards testified that the video was slowed down by the IT experts so that he could view the events both before and after the assault on Baker. See., [Tr. 10-19-07], at P. 18, L. 23, et seq. The Court must also realize that each time there is an assertion that Mr. Raft and Marcus and Schweiker, et al., slowed the video down and compared the two of them, we must say, “But, see, [Tr., 10-19-07] at P. 38, L. 16,” where Mr. Edwards denied ever having compared the videos. Then, Mr. Edwards testified at the evidentiary hearing of [11-19-04] that, in fact, he did a frame-by-frame comparison of the videos. Id., at P. 21, L. 21, et seq. At Tr., [Tr., 10-19-07], Page 35, L. 13,, Mr. Edwards, then Raft, go on tirelessly to prevent and foreclose all consideration of the fast-forwarded, redacted and falsified charging package video. Delay and conceal the truth is not a duty of the state attorney. Neither is defending arrant police officers or corrupt police departments. However, that is exactly what the state attorney’s office did in this case. At P. 38, L. 16, et seq., Edwards denies that he ever compared the videos. What then was the big meeting at the IT Unit on the 10th Floor of the courthouse? Then, at Page 45, L. 4 Mr. Edwards testified that the discovery-package video was slowed down and compared to the Public Records video, and that the video could be watched. Therefore, Mr. Edwards, other assistant state attorneys, Ms. Torres and Mr. Schweiker observed the same thing that this Court is capable of observing at this time and place. All persons present at that comparison well knew that the charging-package (discovery-package) video was false and altered, and they knew who the person was at the Hollywood Police Department that Edwards purports to have relied upon at the first slow-down of the charging-package video? “Robbie Knapp.” See, Tr. [10-19-07], P. 34, L. 25, et seq. Mr. Raft’s statements were false and designed to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. Knapp was, in fact, an expert; the evidence suggests that Knapp is the person responsible for altering and falsifying (albeit, unprofessionally) the surveillance videos. At the status hearing of 08-24-07, in order to delay this habeas action, Mr. Raft related: 0004 18 If you set status a week from now, counsel and I 19 will both have the opportunity -- what I am trying to 20 do, if the Court recalls one of the central issues is 21 the videotape. This case is something that I am 22 walking with. She is really handling the 3.850. 23 I was asked by the Public Defender's Office to 24 look into the question of the videotape. I want to 25 find an expert for both sides, not somebody employed 0005 1 by the Hollywood Police Department. (Emphasis added) Firstly, the Public Defender was removed from this case based upon Baker’s allegations of incompetence as alleged in his Motion for Discharge of the Public Defender, as well as that the Public Defender intentionally sabotaged his defense. It seems ironic that the Public Defender had no interest in the falsified video while they were defending Baker, but after they were removed for incompetence and ineffectiveness, they became sufficiently interested in the falsified videos to ask Mr. Raft to look into it. (right!) Also, Mr. Raft strongly indicates that Robbie Knapp (an employee of the City of Hollywood Police Department) was an expert, but Mr. Raft didn’t want to use him again. This was a bit conflicting, because Mr. Raft anticipated Knapp’s arrival at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007. See, P. 34, L. 15. Baker protested a continuance based upon the state’s specious desire to find the truth as to the tampering with evidence allegation and asserted, essentially, that the matter was res judicata and the state was collaterally estopped from re-litigating that matter. It was already concluded at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004. In reality, Mr. Raft employed this as a delay tactic, and as the court can see from the state’s so-called video experts proffer, it was also designed to trick the habeas court. The record in this case is inundated with unwarranted and inordinate state continuances. A history of the state’s dilatory tactics was presented to this Court in Baker’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Case Number 4D07-1511. Even after this Court’s action in this case, Baker was compelled to file additional strenuous objections and motions to strike the continuing continuances of the state. Mr. Knapp is unquestionably responsible for re-altering the video evidence and redacting the evidence of prior alteration and which altered video was produced to Torres and Schweiker by Edwards on April 27, 2004 after trial had begun (See, [Tr. 10-19-2007] at 41, L. 1, et seq.; See, also, (EHT 1, at Page 20-6), and counsel raised no objection to the Brady and Wardius violations; Mr. Knapp testified about the videos and still frames, which still frames were later found to have come from a video not presented as evidence at trial. Knapp testified as fact his opinions relative to the video evidence, and as an expert doctored the trial evidence, redacting the evidence of prior alteration proved up [8]/ by the jump-backs of Officer John Graham, the leprechaun, and delivered the new video to Mr. Edwards after trial had begun. By excising the evidence of prior falsification, the City would be protected from charges of corruption and falsification of evidence, hence obstruction of justice. Indeed, Defendant Edwards anticipated that Torres and Schweiker would turn this case into a “police-editing-a-video trial”, “because I was asked several times about this video, and specifically concerning this photo by the public defenders * * *”. (Tr. 11-19-04, at Page 20-6) Defendant Torres testified that McNamara had put her in contact with a video expert (Tr. 11-19-04, Page 32, at line 16), and Defendant Edwards testified that Defendant Torres and Schweiker were present when the fast discovery-package video was slowed down and compared to the Public Records video (Tr. 11-19-04, Page 8, Line 24, et seq., through Page 10. This Court in the direct appeal in this case concluded that the Public Defenders were put in contact with a video expert. The true fact is that Torres was put in contact with a video expert, but she falsely testified at the habeas hearing of 10-10-07 that she was not put in contact with an expert. Rather, she was put in contact with a friend of the family. Tr. 10-19-07, P. 58 L. 1, et seq. Ms. Torres was ready for the question and didn’t even give Ms. Donoho time to complete the question before she interrupted with an answer. That was due to the practice session with Mr. Raft. All thanks to Mr. Raft, a co-conspirator to deny Baker access to the courts. Simultaneously with the request for another continuance, Mr. Raft assured the habeas court that if it appeared that any of the videos were found to have been altered, he (Raft) would re-appear before the court and ask that the conviction be undone. Tr. Of 8/29/07 at P. 3, L. 14. These representations were acts of pure chicanery on the part of Mr. Raft, because, in his own words, he could not identify or determine the origin of any of his seven videos, and the Court can be more than 100% certain that the altered and falsified video was not provided to Mr. Raft’s purported experts, and they were not requested to make an analysis of the falsified charging-package (discovery-package) video. Mr. Raft well knew that the charging-package video had been altered and falsified. But, in order to protect the arrant police officers who nearly killed Baker, and to protect those who altered and falsified the video evidence, and to protect the state attorney’s office from civil liability, Mr. Raft lost his ability to identify his own evidence or to determine the origin of his own evidence, including the charging-package video, which was provided to the State Attorney by the City of Hollywood, and thence provided to the Public Defender by the State Attorney under reciprocal discovery, Brady v. Maryland. Mr. Raft well knew that “discovery” was unavailable in habeas corpus or Rule 3.850 proceedings (3.850 Non-Summary Record, at Tr. P. 156, L. 21): 21 MR. RAFT: Judge, it sounds imminently 22 reasonable. The difference is unlike trial procedure, 23 3.850 does not provide for Discovery. In fact, very 24 candidly speaking, we agreed we are trying to come to 25 some resolution. We actually had spend an extended –“ (emphasis added) Mr. Raft did not advise the habeas court at that time that he could not identify any of his videos. In light of the fact of alteration, it is submitted to this Court that Mr. Raft withheld the altered and falsified charging and discovery-package video from his so-called experts. A copy of the Public Records version of the video has now been viewed by this Court, and this Court has had the opportunity to examine and compare those videos. Baker would refer this Court to the Video Expert Bawarsky’s Report and incorporate that [Bawarsky Report]. The still photos, incorporated above, should demonstrate conclusively, and to the satisfaction of the Court, that the charging-package video and the discovery-package video were altered and falsified. Further, the acts of those persons responsible for the alteration and falsification, as well as those, whose acts were designed to thwart detection of the obstruction of justice and to deny Baker’s constitutional rights to access to the courts in a conspiratorial fashion are sufficient to raise the issue of conspiracy to violate Baker’s constitutional rights in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§241-241, and to expose each of the players to prosecution for misprision of felony in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §4, and for which the Petitioner will ask the Court to refer these matters to the proper prosecuting authorities for prosecution, and to the appropriate Florida Bar authorities for disciplinary action appropriate under the circumstances of this case, which circumstances are so egregious, outrageous and unethical as to shock the conscience and require forfeiture of their respective Bar Licenses. The attorneys in this case are guilty of violating rule 3-4.3 (prohibiting the commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice); rule 4-3.3(a)(1) (providing that a lawyer shall not make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); rule 4-8.4(c) (providing that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and rule 4-8.4(d) (providing that a lawyer should not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) or the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. The trial court concluded, therefore, that the video was not newly discovered and could not form the basis for relief under Rule 3.600(b)(3)8, F.R.Cr.P., or Rule 3.580, F.R.Cr.P. (Not Rule 3.850 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure), as sought in Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial. A copy of Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial is imbedded. See, also, Transcript of sentencing at P. 3, L. 4, et seq; Judge Gates well knew that the evidence was altered and falsified and, still, he denied Baker’s Motion for New Trial. Ibid., at P. 7, L. 15. In the habeas proceeding, below, not only did the Assistant State Attorney know that discovery is not available in habeas proceedings, (Tr. 156, L. 21, but he also knew that the matter was res judicata and that the State was collaterally estopped from re-raising and re-litigating the issue (once concluded), where the State’s video expert, Robbie Knapp, was present to testify, but refused to testify after defense video expert Bawarsky gave testimony and his presentation to the court fully proving that the charging-package video was altered and falsified. Ibid. Clearly, Mr. Raft was not in search of the truth; his quest was to delay Baker’s release and force Baker to renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas action as a pre-condition of obtaining his rightful liberty, and to set up a Heck defense to a civil action under the Civil Rights Act. Notwithstanding the request for expert examination of the videos, the assistant state attorney, Raft, at a subsequent evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2007, represented to the habeas court that the State Attorney could not identify or determine the origin of any of the seven videos in the possession of the State Attorney, (Tr. 10-19-07, P. 140, L. 12, et seq.) and that because the public defender had lost their copy of the charging-package (discovery-package) video, the chain of custody was broken and that Petitioner should not be allowed to introduce evidence of the alteration and falsification of that video. The habeas court tacitly agreed and the altered and falsified charging-package video would not be accorded any consideration. Yet, Mr. Raft proffered the testimony of his (new) video experts, which proffer concluded that an amalgamation of all the videos and the still photos [9]/ might represent the events of April 18, 2003, when police officers from the City of Hollywood viciously attacked and nearly killed the Petitioner. (A copy of the proffer of the State’s experts is attached to the Order wherein Petitioner accepted the State’s demands that he perjure his own testimony by renouncing the truth and to withdraw his habeas action, as a precondition of obtaining his rightful freedom.) See, R. 341. It is obvious that Mr. Raft did not provide his experts with a copy of the discovery-package video, based upon his own testimony that he could not identify or determine the origin of any of the videos in his possession. Further, the state and the City of Hollywood represented that the Public Records Version of the video was an exact copy of the original video in the possession of Hollywood. Mr. Raft’s so-called expert, Marla Carroll, tried to indicate that the video evidence used at trial was a true copy of the original. See, R. 341, “Based upon the examination conducted on October 9, 2007, the VHS videotape identified as number “03-61985” is within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, an authentic original recording.” “The DVD and ‘still’ images admitted into evidence at Baker’s trial are a fair and accurate depiction of the images contained on the original VHS videotape for the time period identified as “22:36:43 through “22:37:32” and date-stamped “4-18-03”.” Id., at R. 341). THIS REPRESENTS THE HEIGHTH OF TRICKERY; LEGAL CHICANERY IN ITS PUREST FORM. Neither Baker or any representative of Baker has ever asserted that the City of Hollywood did not possess the original; the fact is that the City has never provided Baker with a true copy of that, purported, original. As stated, above, when Baker re-asserted his right to a true copy of the original, the City responded that they would only provide him with another copy of the public records video that was already provided to McNamara pursuant to his request for public records. [City’s Response], and assertion that no other video exists [City’s further response]. Mr. Raft’s expert spoke of less than one minute of the video as being authentic, and not the entirety of the video. Indeed, if the video were “authentic”, why then did Mr. Edwards allow the City of Hollywood to re-alter the evidence on the day of trial to redact the evidence of prior alteration. Consider Mr. Edwards testimony at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004 (R. 138, P. 9, L. 13, et seq.: L. 21: Q. “At any time during the trial of Mr. Baker did you know that originally it was a VHS tape? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever seek to obtain the original VHS tape that the CD-ROM was prepared from? P. 10, L. 1 A. Yes. I did. Q. Okay. Did you ever get it? A. I feel certain - - At the time I felt certain that I had the original VHS tape. Anything contrary to that I’ve only learned through speaking with other attorneys, such as yourself. Mr. Edwards goes on to testify that the VHS video that was provided him was provided by McNamara, (which was provided to Torres by McNamara), and that the news media would air the videos at some point. Channel 4 Television reported that Gaping holes in video leaves gaping answers to be addressed by the City of Hollywood. At R. 141, L. 24, Mr. Edwards begins to explain why he allowed the Hollywood Police Department and Robbie Knapp to re-alter the evidence on the day of trial, and of his travels to the City of Hollywood after the comparison of the videos at the ITU Unit of the state Attorney’s Office (Ibid., at R. 142, 12). Also important to the issue of the perjury of Ms. Torres, aside from the fact that she testified that she had never talked to Edwards about the videos and had never compared the videos, Mr. Edwards testified about Ms. Torres referring to Officer Graham “as a leprechaun, and that’s referring to his ability to appear, disappear, and reappear in that one scene.” Ibid., at L. 18, et seq.) This testimony squarely contradicts the testimony of Ms. Torres’s perjurious testimony concerning the leprechaun appearance of Officer Graham at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, wherein Torres testified, 10 BY MS. DONOHO 11 Q Ms. Torres, I am almost done. 12 I want to take you back previously to the video 13 part of my questioning? 14 A Um-hum. 15 Q Do you recall having a conversation with Mr. Brad 16 Edwards regarding Mr. Baker looking like a leprechaun in 17 the videotape? 18 A Mr. Baker? 19 Q Sorry, but one of the officers looking -- 20 MR. RAFT: John Graham. 21 BY MS. DONOHO 22 Q Looking look like a leprechaun? 23 A I believe he looked like a leprechaun. 24 Q And that was because the jump back and because he 25 appears and reappears again? 0077 1 A No. 2 Q Why would you comment the officer looked like a 3 leprechaun? 4 A He was short, young, cute, and he was standing 5 there. He looked like the lucky charm leprechaun.See, also, Tr. 10/19/2007 at P. 65, L. 6, et seq. At R. 144, Mr. Edwards admits that on the day of trial, he brought the newly re-edited, redacted, video into trial and allowed Torres and Schweiker to view that video. He didn’t allow Baker to view it, and Baker was still under the impression that in fact this was going to be a “police-edited-the-video” trial, and that defense experts would be testifying in his behalf to demonstrate the falsity of the video. (See, also, R. 146, 3) Mr. Edwards stated that he did not want Torres and Schweiker to turn the trial into a “police editing-a-video trial” (R. 149, 6). See, also, R. 155, L. 25, et seq. The copy of the original video would have fully proved that at the point where Hoeflinger initially assaulted Baker, the video was sliced and spliced at the point where Graham delivered a devastating knee or kick to the right side of Baker’s head, which caused the leprechaun affect to happen. Defense expert Bawarsky testified as to the jump-backs in the video. See, also, the deposition testimony and trial testimony of Detective Knapp: no frames can be lost in the copying process. Mr. Raft’s promise to the habeas judge that if he found any of the videos to have been altered or falsified, he would return to the court and ask that the charges against Baker to be dismissed, was purely a fraud upon the Court. The most salient evidence of the maliciousness of Mr. Raft’s acts is found at R. 21, and R. 22, which demonstrates, fully and unequivocally, the falsification of the charging-package video in juxtaposition with the Public Records Video. Mr. Raft had no intention of ever allowing the Court to consider the falsified video evidence, and Mr. Raft would go to any extreme, use any unlawful act, or do any unethical act to preclude consideration of the falsified video evidence, in order to protect the arrant police officers and to prevent detection of the unlawful acts of the police, he would suborn perjury; promise immunity for perjury; effect a spoliation of the evidence; make false and misleading representations to the court; offer Baker freedom in exchange for perjury and to renounce the truth. Baker submits that for all of those attorneys who knew of this cover-up and did nothing; they should be disciplined. For all those attorneys who actively participated, they should be disbarred, prosecuted and imprisoned. Mr. Raft caused the exclusion of the video evidence with the following language (Tr. 10-19-07 (3.850 NON-SUMMARY RECORD, P. 141: 15 “MR. RAFT: We had Madeline Torres on the stand. 16 If Madeline Torres had a chance to look at the CD ROM 17 assuming there were identifying marks and she was 18 capable of saying that is what she received from the 19 State in Discovery and then it was given to 20 Mr. McNamara, I have no objection. 21 I have an objection to somebody outside the 22 chain, starting with Mr. McNamara, saying this is the 23 one. This is not the chain. 24 MS. DONOHO: The file was lost, so we are sitting 25 here with best evidence problems. That is the 0142 1 problem. 2 Ms. Torres was not going to be able to come in 3 here and look at the CD ROM and say that is the one 4 because the file is gone. She couldn't even remember 5 correspondences that went back and forth. 6 The best interest(sic)(evidence) rules talk about evidence 7 missing and if there are copies and if there is a 8 person that can do that. 9 I don't know what else to do. The file is 10 missing and we have a person who can testify, and you 11 can make the judgment of credibility however you want 12 to do it.” Mr. Raft exploited the Public Defender’s loss of her file and evidence, and compounded the exploitation by alleging that he, essentially, had lost his own evidence. McNamara did not need to identify the videos by the one given to him by Ms. Torres, because he had subpoenaed the State Attorney’s entire file and had received the videos which were, purportedly, unidentifiable to Mr. Raft, Ms. Torres, and Mr. Edwards, but which were totally identifiable to Mr. McNamara. Mr. McNamara is presently in possession of the videos secured under subpoena and is prepared to testify before this court as to the identification and origin of all, and each, of the videos at the plenary hearing in this matter. To insure that McNamara is not perpetrating a fraud upon this court, such as Mr. Raft’s fraud, the State Attorney’s Records Custodian can be brought in and, there and then, the videos can be re-examined under the supervision of this court. However, with the history of the State Attorney, the Court might want to issue an Order to protect the evidence against spoliation or destruction. Petitioner testified at the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007. However, the State sought to impeach Petitioner’s testimony as a consequence of having been convicted of a crime. The habeas court judge impeached Petitioner’s testimony based upon the Motion by Mr. Raft. See, Tr. 10/19/2007 at P. 111, L. 10, et seq. What purpose is a hearing on a habeas corpus when the Petitioner’s testimony may be impeached because of a felony conviction? Petitioner submits that by interposing Rule 3.850 in the stead and place of habeas corpus, Rule 3.850 constitutes an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus in direct violation of both state and federal constitutions guaranteeing writ of habeas corpus. Cf., Suarez v. Dugger, 527 So.2d 190, 193 (Fla. 1988). As a consequence, Coram Vobis or Coram Nobis are the sole remaining legal procedures to secure justice. For precisely these reasons, Baker is now before this Court on this Petition for Writ of Error, Coram Vobis. The question is posed: may a Petitioner’s testimony be impeached in a habeas corpus action, which is a civil action, RATHER THAN CRIMINAL? Lee v. Buchanan, 191 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1966).[10]/ Although a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850 is criminal in nature, and because the Rule is a bulwark against writ of habeas corpus, the rules that govern a civil action habeas corpus proceeding must apply to and control evidentiary matters in a proceeding under F.R.Cr.P., to insure that Rule 3.850 does not act as a tool to suspend Habeas Corpus. Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. See, Title VI, FLORIDA CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, Chapter 79, HABEAS CORPUS; AGO 76-112. The major differences between a civil action (habeas corpus), and a proceeding under Criminal Procedure Rule 3.850, is evidentiary admissibility, and the provisions of Ch. 90.610, F.S. must control matters of evidence admissibility. Wrongfully, Mr. Raft relied upon 90.609 and 90.610 to impeach Baker’s testimony. However, the operative distinction is that Ch. 90.610, F.S., prohibits the use of a prior criminal record to impeach a witness’ testimony in civil cases, whereas, in a criminal proceeding, such evidence is allowable. In this case, Baker cannot discern the purpose of such an inquiry, since, obviously, the defendant is seeking to overturn a criminal conviction, and, ergo, the criminal conviction is used against the defendant to destroy his credibility. It simply makes no sense, either in fact or at law. With stronger force, such an evidentiary situation eviscerates the efficacy of habeas corpus and suspends the writ. Habeas petitions have customarily been viewed as civil in nature. Hilton v. Braunskill, 107 S. Ct. 2113, 2118 (1987); Schlanger v. Seamans, 91 S. Ct. 995, 998 n.4 (1971). At the evidentiary hearing of October 19, 2007, Mr. Raft offered the testimony of Brad Edwards (the former Assistant State Attorney that prosecuted the Petitioner in this matter), and Mr. Edwards testified that, as Mr. Raft, he could not identify or determine the origin of any of the videos in the possession of the State Attorney,[11]/ closely echoing the false representations by Mr. Raft. Petitioner submits that Mr. Edwards’ testimony was false, and that Mr. Raft suborned the perjured testimony of Mr. Edwards, as will be more fully set out below. Appellant’s stepfather, John McNamara, subpoenaed the State Attorney’s Office in a separate civil litigation entitled McNamara v. City of Hollywood, Circuit Court Case Number: 05-002699, and the seven videos, received under subpoena, and later, purportedly, unidentifiable to the state attorney, were clearly identifiable to McNamara and to the Petitioner/ Appellant, especially the charging-package video which is date stamped, 05/07/03. On January 8, 2008 the State Attorney’s Office provided McNamara with another copy of another video having no markings on the video whatsoever; however, that video, also, was a copy of the falsified charging-package video provided to the State Attorney by the City of Hollywood as forming the basis for the prosecution against this Petitioner. That video shows a creation date of May 7, 2003, which is the same date recorded on the charging package video supplied by Torres to McNamara; however, the video given to McNamara by Torres showed only one view and did not contain a still photo of Officer Graham attacking Baker. (COINCIDENTLY, CORRESPONDING TO PHOTO NUMBER 34). On September 12, 2003, the City provided two VHS videos to McNamara. These videos, as well as the original discovery-package video were examined by video expert, Chuck Schultz, an NBC Television Network producer and a federally qualified video expert. Mr. Schultz communicated with defense counsel and informed them of his findings that not only was the discovery-package video altered and falsified, the Public Records video was also altered and falsified. (See, R. 335, L. 20). At Tr. 10-19-2007 at P. 57, L. 18, Torres falsely testified that neither Baker nor McNamara ever asked her to hire a video expert to look at whether the video was complete and accurate or edited or fake or true? Cf., Tr. P. 57, L. 1, et seq. Compare R. 335, L. 16 with Tr. 10-19-07 P 58, L. 1, et seq. A cursory juxtaposition of her testimony at the November 19, 2004 P. (32, L. 16) hearing with the testimony provided at the October 19, 2007 hearing clearly and unequivocally evidences the blatant perjury of Ms. Torres. Cf., Tr. 10/19/2007 at P. 58, L. 1, et seq. Until the time that proof was provided to the state attorney proving that his evidence, upon which he had charged the Petitioner, was false, Mr. Edwards was demanding that Petitioner be sentenced to 18-to-22 years in prison. Within a few days of the revelation of falsified evidence, Edwards called a meeting with the IT experts on the 10th floor of the courthouse building where the experts slowed or stop-framed the charging-package video and compared that video with the public records video secured by McNamara. Edwards then went to the City of Hollywood. According to Edwards, as related by Edwards to Ms. Torres, the City demanded that the case proceed regardless of the outcome. Perhaps Ms. Torres may have a memory recovery relative to this issue. Within a few days after September 29, 2003, defense counsel Torres (now joined by co-counsel, Larry Schweiker), Edwards, and various other assistant state attorneys, met at the State Attorney’s ITU (Information Technologies) Unit on the state attorney’s office on the 10th Floor of the Broward County courthouse. Tr. 10-19-2007, P. 44, L. 17, et seq. There, the state attorney’s expert technician slowed the charging-package video and compared that video with the Public Records video secured by McNamara, frame by frame, establishing beyond any doubt that the video evidence produced by the City of Hollywood in their charging package was edited, redacted and false. The State Attorney’s Office, apocryphally, has no record of this meeting or the slow-down of the video. A copy of the State Attorney’s response to McNamara’s request for records of that meeting is hereto attached and incorporated in the appendix. In that receipt, the State Attorney initially acknowledges that it found the records, but advised that they have no records of the meeting, and charged McNamara only $10.00 for only the unmarked charging-package video date stamped May 7, 2003 with two views and one still photo, which is another copy of the charging-package video contrived by the City of Hollywood. After confirmation of the falsified evidence, Mr. Edwards, and with consultation with the City of Hollywood Police Department, undertook to represent police officer Francis Hoeflinger and police officer John Graham, who mercilessly beat the Petitioner on April 18, 2003, as well as IA Officer Jeffries, Mannix and Knapp, who altered and falsified the video, and Edwards set about to establish a Heck defense [12]/ and to protect the police officers from criminal prosecution and/or civil liability by offering Petitioner his freedom in exchange for a guilty plea to any crime. Edwards, because of finding that his evidence was false, abandoned his demand that Baker serve 18 to 22 years in prison. Instead, if Baker would plead guilty to anything, Baker could obtain his constitutional right to liberty. The American Bar Association’s standards prohibit prosecutors from threatening meritless prosecutions to extract civil liability waivers. “[T]he prosecuting attorney should not bring or threaten to bring charges against the defendant or another person, or refuse to dismiss such charges, where admissible evidence does not exist to support the charges or the prosecuting attorney has no good faith intention of pursuing those charges.” Standard 14- 3.1 (h), ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Pleas of Guilty (3rd ed. 1999). See, also: Andrew Coan, The Legal Ethics of Release-Dismissal Agreements: Theory and Practice, 1 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 371 (2005) In this case, however, the false video was slowed down and compared with the charging-package video. The State well knew that its evidence was false. Instead of dismissing the charges, the state sought to protect the city, the arrant police officers, and others from criminal prosecution or civil liability. Indeed, Mr. Edwards acquiesced in the demand of the City that the malicious prosecution go forward notwithstanding the discovery of the false and altered evidence. THE RELEASE-DISMISSAL AGREEMENT, and THE PROSECUTION HAS AN OBLIGATION NOT TO PRESENT FALSE TESTIMONY KNOWINGLY OR TO ALTER EVIDENCE TO ERASE THE EVIDENCE OF ITS FALSITY: A much older and more fundamental due process rule than the disclosure requirement announced in Brady is the rule against obtaining a conviction based upon perjured testimony or false evidence. In Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935), the Supreme Court stated that due process is violated: “if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation. This holding was underscored in Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942), where the Court stated that "allegations [of the use of perjured testimony to obtain a conviction] sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to release from his present custody." In 1959, the Court held that "[t]he same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). “Consistent with this longstanding series of decisions, ABA Prosecution Standard 3-5.6(a) provides that: A prosecutor should not knowingly offer false evidence, whether by documents, tangible evidence, or the testimony of witnesses, or fail to seek withdrawal thereof upon discovery of its falsity. Citing Napue, the Commentary to ABA Prosecution Standard 3-5.6(a) states that the Standard applies to evidence going to the credibility of a witness, as well as directly to the guilt of the defendant. ABA Prosecution Standard 3-5.6 cmt. at 101-02 & n.2.” In this case, the testimony of the prosecuting attorney, Brad Edwards was that he knew that the Public Records Video showing, inter alia, Officer Graham moving backward in time was a virtual impossibility. He testified that he did not want to allow the defense to raise the issue of altered evidence, so he ordered the City (his client), through Robbie Knapp (his client) to re-alter the evidence and excise the evidence of prior alteration of that evidence, and after trial had begun, he disclosed his Wardius-violative conduct to Torres and Schweiker, who acquiesced in that conduct because of their inexperience and incompetence and not being trained and/or properly supervised. From the beginning of this case in April of 2003, until McNamara presented Torres with the Public Records video, the state (Edwards) was demanding that Baker be sentenced to 18 to 22 years for all of the crimes charged. However, upon the discovery (by virtue of the Public Records video) that the state’s evidence was false and altered, the state continuously offered Baker his freedom in exchange for a guilty plea to any crime; and, even after conviction, to abandon his right to appeal and plead guilty to any crime, Baker could have his freedom. At every step in the proceedings subsequent to the discovery of the falsified evidence, Baker could have taken his liberty at any time. Then, after nearly a year delay in his habeas proceeding, Baker was offered his freedom if he would renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas application. Still, and with Baker having an abiding confidence that justice and truth would set him free, Baker refused. Then the state and former counsel lost the evidence necessary to establish the truth; the evidence in this case strongly suggests that Mr. Raft promised Torres immunity for the perjury she would give against Baker, and former counsel, Torres, in fact perjured her testimony against Baker. Mr. Edwards was coached by Raft as to how he had to testify in order to defeat the habeas action; he had to be unable to identify the charging-package (discovery-package) video; allege that Knapp was not an expert, etc., etc. The following testimony is instructive: 25 Q You testified you did not believe Larry Knapp was 0035 1 an expert, but did you consider getting an expert to review 2 the case? 3 A Robert Knapp. 4 Q Mr. Knapp? 5 A Officer. 6 Q Officer Knapp. 7 You testified your belief is he was not an 8 expert? 9 A Right now, no, I didn't believe he was an expert. 10 Q Did you ever think about getting your own expert 11 to review the tape? 12 A No. Line 12 contradicts Mr. Edwards statements at Line 3 as to who he viewed as an expert witness. But, “Right now, no, I didn’t believe * * *. In fact, the answer at line 9 is internally inconsistent; it does not jibe with itself. This type of testimony and transposition of times and events will inform this Court as to that which Baker has had to endure in this case subsequent to the discovery and presentation of the Public Records video which showed, conclusively, that Hoeflinger attacked Baker (and not vice versa), and that the charging-package (Brady-video) was false. Judge Gates would impeach Baker’s testimony in this civil habeas proceeding based upon a rule of evidence that states that Baker’s testimony in a civil proceeding cannot be impeached by a prior criminal felony. The final act of chicanery by Mr. Raft was to present his so-called experts to testify about less than one minute of the falsified video, and that if the court combines all the videos, as well as the excised photos, together, the sum of it all might reflect what was contained in the original video that, as yet, has never been produced by the City of Hollywood. The video evidence herein-above set forth fully establishes that none of the videos alluded to in this case can be a true copy of the original. BUT! If the Court amalgamates all the videos AND the still photos that are not in the video produced at trial, we might have something that looks like the original video, which the City of Hollywood had at some point in time. And, who was it that put all of these videos together? Detective Robbie Knapp, the original author of the falsified charging-package video. And, why did Mr. Knapp provide a video that was indiscernible to the human eye, initially? That is a question for which this Court must compel an answer. This Court must not allow an answer by way of song and dance, bob and weave, or duck and dodge by Mr. Raft or any other state actor, such has been the pattern since the inception of the prosecution against Baker. It is well past time to apply the law and rules of evidence to the facts of this case, and this Court should not assume that the police will not violate the law, such as Mr. Edwards has postulated in accepting as true the probable cause affidavit of Mr. Hoeflinger, for example, and that there were only 39 frames within the video as represented by Mr. Knapp; or that Ms. Torres was outraged because the discovery-package video demonstrated police brutality, as Mr. Raft and Mr. Edwards would have the court believe. However, Baker’s abiding belief in the court system and in truth collapsed under the knowledge that justice was not going to be done, and that the state had no interest in truth or justice, and that the intent of the state was to protect the felonious and corrupt police officers and their corrupt department, as well as to cover the rear ends of the state attorneys who knowingly prosecuted this case on falsified evidence in order to protect the felons and the wrong-doers. The State’s offer of freedom in exchange for a guilty plea or, in exchange for a renouncement of the truth and withdrawal of Baker’s habeas corpus petition is, simply stated, extortion and an abominable use of the judicial process. It may properly be characterized as a “forced Release-Dismissal Agreement.” These release-dismissal demands (offers of freedom) continued throughout the entire proceedings. At trial, Mr. Edwards advised Petitioner that if he did not plead guilty to something, notwithstanding his innocence, Edwards would seek to have Petitioner sentenced as a habitual felony offender.[13]/ This plea offer, as well as others in the past, was read into the record. The trial court in fact, noted at sentencing that the state “amended the plea form“ (Sentencing at P. 9, L. 6), and that Baker was charged as a habitual felony offender at the time of sentencing without any fair and adequate notice. Baker would point out that for the ten (10) years previous to the charge herein, Baker’s only conviction was for possession of residue (coke) in Dade County. Ibid., at P. 11, L. 24. As a matter of fact, at sentencing, the new assistant state attorney, Velma Meyers, upped the HFO designation to HVFO. Ibid., at P. 9, L. 22, et seq. But, see, State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2007). In no wise did Baker qualify for Habitual Felony Treatment, let alone HVFO. At the sentencing transcript at P. 13, L. 18, Ms. Meyers indicates, properly, that Baker was sentenced in 2001 on a violation of Ch. 813, F.S., based upon a charge dating back to 1998. There was no sentence in that case, and the clock should have started running in 1998. It was of no fault of Baker that the state left this case in limbo for nearly 3 years. The state had charged all occupants of a vehicle for residue, and the state wanted to wipe the case off the books after nearly three-years of total inactivity. So, there was not a sentence, and Baker submits that unless a convicted person is sentenced to in excess of one year, there is no felony conviction. In the absence of any sentence (because of the circumstances of the case), the conviction was not a qualifying factor under 775.084, F.S. The sentencing court found, specifically, that the case 98-261127 where Baker was un-sentenced was not violations of statute 893. Ibid., at P. 14, L. 23, et seq., esp., P. 15, L. 5. Baker is totally unaware of the thought process of Judge Gates as to this issue. Clearly, the 98-261127 was charged as a violation of Ch. 893, and for Judge Gates to find otherwise simply defies the facts, logic and reason. A fortiori, Judge Gates well knew exactly what the state was doing in their persistent offers of freedom in exchange for a guilty plea which came about only after the falsified evidence was discovered and personally known to Judge Gates. At the sentencing hearing, the issue was addressed by Baker’s mother at P. 17, L. 17. Solely because Baker would not plead guilty to crimes he had not committed for the purposes under the prosecutor’s thinking of getting a conviction so that Baker would not be able to sue the wrong-doers, Edwards told Meyers who told Judge Gates that Edwards wanted Baker sentenced to 10 years. Ibid., at P. 20, L. 16. Ms. Meyers said at P. 20, L. 24, “In addition, I have here a plea memorandum that was given at the arraignment which was originally 60 months Florida State Prison then it went up to 75 months Florida State Prison [14]/. Now I stated that the prosecutor recommended which I standing behind, 10 years.” Baker wants this Court to consider that at the time of the 60 Months offer at arraignment, Baker was charged with a multitude of charges as specified above. At sentencing, Baker had been acquitted of all but one charge, so was it fair or reasonable to go back to the sentencing calculation that existed when Baker was facing the many charges? Does it violate Due Process to sentence an innocent man under these circumstances? The tactics of the state violated Baker’s right to due process of law and denied his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts. Cf., Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1987); Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386 (1987). In concert with the continuous offers or freedom in exchange for a guilty plea to any charge, even a misdemeanor, the state set about to delay this case infinitely[15]/, and ultimately this Court intervened to end the dilatory delay by Ordering the lower court to set a hearing immediately; to allow the state time to respond to the petition, and to allow Baker ten days to reply the state’s answer. Baker set about to preempt any further delay (R. 53-55), and even suggested disqualification as to Judge Gates because Judge Gates ignored this Court’s Order to allow Baker 10 days to reply to the state’s answer. Within SIX (6) DAYS of the filing of the State’s Answer, Judge Gates adopted the position of the State as the Order of the habeas court, and refused to allow Baker to respond, which refusal was in direct violation of this Court’s Order. (R. 70-71) Judge Gate’s actions were utterly without lawful authority or jurisdiction and subjected Judge Gates to civil liability as noted in the subsequent suggestion of disqualification. The Order of Judge Gates required a bifurcation of the proceedings, because he denied some of Baker’s claims and granted others and allowed Baker 30 days to appeal (R. 293). Baker asked for clarification, (R. 294-315), but Baker was again ignored, and nothing was done by the trial court. Subsequently, a second and successive suggestion of disqualification (R. 342-363) was filed, and both suggestions remain unanswered. In order to preempt the efficacy of this Court’s Order compelling an immediate hearing, the state sought and obtained unauthorized discovery in this habeas proceeding as set forth above. The purpose was solely to delay the case and cause the continued incarceration of Baker in hopes that he would finally succumb to the lure of freedom in exchange for a renouncement of truth and withdrawal of his habeas corpus action (R. 320-328). On October 19, 2007 when, due to the unauthorized discovery granted by Judge Gates, and continuing delay, Baker’s resolve collapsed. Baker had already served 42 months imprisonment on principal (he could have pled guilty to even a misdemeanor on the day after Mr. Edwards discovered that his evidence was false, but Baker refused to do so, relying instead upon our system of justice to exonerate him.) But, on October 19, 2007, the case was continued again to December 7, 2007. It was at this time that Baker succumb to the call of freedom and accepted the state’s offer of freedom in exchange for falsely representing to the court that none of this was true; that the public defender did a wonderful job of representing him; that the state did not falsify and alter the evidence; that the witnesses did not lie, etc., etc. However, and the transcript of the proceedings is incorrect at this point, because Judge Gates did not merely defer ruling on the State’s request that he mitigate Baker’s sentence, to the best of Baker’s and other’s recollections, Judge Gates stated, after berating Baker, “Isn’t this the guy who said he could not get a fair trial in front of me,” etc., etc., he would not be bound by the state’s recommendations. At that point, Baker stated, “Forget it.” As noted above; thereafter, the state ex parted Judge Gates and convinced him that he should go along with the offer that Baker renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas action in exchange for freedom. On November 6, 2007, Baker was called back before Judge Gates with the assurances that Judge Gates would now honor the state’s deal and release Baker. On November 6, 2007, Judge Gates accepted the deal offered by the state and released Baker when Baker renounced the truth and withdrew his habeas corpus action. As fully demonstrated herein, this was not a voluntary act on the part of Baker, and he asks that this Court hold Mr. Raft to his promise, find that the video evidence (especially the charging package video) was altered and false, and direct that the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon Baker be vacated and set aside and that Baker be discharged from any further prosecution in this cause. This petition for extraordinary writ of Coram Vobis is indeed the last and only opportunity that Petitioner will have to obtain justice and meaningful access to the courts. As this court can determine from the circumstances of this case, there doesn’t seem to be another like it in the history of jurisprudence. Here, the attorneys pretend to be unschooled and untrained in the requirements of law and due process of law. Edwards, Torres, Finkelstein, Schweiker and finally Raft look at a video that is too fast for the human eye to comprehend and pretend that their education taught them to do nothing but to accept that evidence as what it is purported to be by the police. Not one of these law-school graduates is worthy of calling themselves an attorney, and each should be sanctioned by the Florida Bar, if not prosecuted in the criminal court system; especially, Ms. Torres. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Donald Baker, asks that this Court Stay the Appeal, and Grant this Petition and Order that the Judgment of the Circuit Court be Vacated and set at naught and Petitioner discharged from any further prosecution in this case. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Error, Coram Vobis, and Motion to Stay Appeal, has been furnished the Office of the Attorney General, 1555 N. Flagler Drive, 8th Floor, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 by U.S. Mail this 18th day of August, 2009. ______________________________ Donald Baker, Petitioner/Appellant 3300 N. State Rd. 7 (A077) Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel.: (954)682-6056 donalddeanbaker@yahoo.com [1] . If your computer is set to MS-Paint for picture viewing or to another program that does not have the capabilities of slide-show or proceeding to the next JPEG image from within the program, please set your computer to view JPEG images to Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. See Index for directions for changing. [2] . Not that she would have done anything with it, however. [3] . Mr. Schweiker was not assigned to this case until September 29, 2003 when Mr. Finkelstein was made aware of the altered and falsified discovery-package video. Mr. Finkelstein first notified the news media and then assigned Schweiker to assist Torres in this case. [4] . McNamara requested the notes of this meeting in his subsequent Request for Public Records. In response to subpoena seeking the notes of the slow-down meeting, the state attorney’s office represented that there are no records relative to that meeting. [5] . The Public Defender subsequently provided McNamara a copy of the “Court Proceedings, Excerpt). (43 pgs) [6] . The F.B.I. closed their investigation and relied upon the State Attorney’s Investigation as well as the finding of the Hollywood Police that the police officers had followed policy and that Baker deserved everything he got, in concert with the criminal conviction; however, no one was aware, until the time of trial, that the policy of Hollywood holds that a citizen has no right to resist excessive force by a Hollywood Police Officer. [7] . Absolute witness immunity applies to his perjury; however, the perjury was but a step in the over-all plan to deny Baker meaningful access to the courts, thus violating Baker’s 1st Amendment rights, and others. [8] . See Expert Witness Bawarsky’s report. [9] . The term “and the still photos” is important, because still photo (Trial exhibit photo #34) did not come from the trial-evidence video. In fact, Photo #34 came from the Public Records video. [10] . See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Habeas_corpus [11] . Each of the videos were clearly marked as to their identity, and the dates of origin of the videos could conclusively show their respective dates of creation, especially the charging-package video which bore the only date of creation in Month of July, 2003. [12]. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). [13] . Petitioner did not qualify as a HFO, because his earliest felony conviction not a violation of 839.19 was 10 years previous to the current conviction, and there was no other record of felony within the past 5 years. [14] . Baker wouldn’t plead guilty, so the stakes were raised. [15] . The Record of this case fully demonstrates the multitude of continuances by the state in this case. Indeed, simply because of the continuances, Baker served more than two years imprisonment, all because of the continuing attempts to cover up illegal conduct.