A CORRUPT VIDEO BY HOLLYWOOD FL POLICE

THE CORRUPTION IN THIS CHARGING VIDEO GOES BEYOND HOLLYWOOD'S NORMAL "DOING A LITTLE WALT DISNEY ON THE EVIDENCE," IT IS MORE LIKE "DOING A LITTLE ALFRED HITCHCOCK/PSYCHO ON THE EVIDENCE."

The City of Hollywood is fully aware that its police department falsified the videos that will be shown in this post. Still, they have taken no remedial action. Hence, they are as corrupt and unethical as the police officers who altered and falsified the videos with the specific intent to deprive Donald Baker of his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts.

WE WILL ADDRESS THE INITIAL

CHARGING-PACKAGE VIDEO:

Keep an eye on the time stamps and watch how much time was excised by the Hollywood Police from the video that they hoped would convict Baker. In later proceedings, Hollywood would allege that time is lost by the equipment, which explains the extensive missing times, sometimes as much as 10 seconds. Watch closely [use arrows to go forward or backward]. Later, I will play another video which will show that the assertions by the Hollywood Police that time is lost is, simply, not true. Watch as Officer Francis Hoeflinger sneaks around to sucker-punch Baker in the face before leveling a volley of punches against Baker. But for now, please watch this slide show>> Right Click on the link below and open in a new window. Use the arrow keys to move forward and backward in this slide presentation. Close window when finished. >>

http://picasaweb.google.com/mcnamara.john6/POLICEVERSIONOFSURVEILLANCEVIDEO?fgl=true&pli=1#5431993672862516066

The City of Hollywood Police Department's charging-package video is now set forth in its entirety exactly as it was received by the State Attorney's Office. >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/terrorinblue/4601230667/

Later, McNamara forced the production of a second video. We will call this video, "The Public Records Video."

>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/terrorinblue/4033429166/

You will note that the 8 seconds, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, and so on, do not appear in this video. However, in this video where the police ineptly sliced and spliced the video in certain areas, the actors have the ability to jump in and out of time. The video expert set out many points demonstrating the falsify of the videos and points out, inter alia, that the ghosting and the jumping back and forth in time are the most blatant and glaring evidence of the corruption of the video.

>> A copy of the video expert's report can be viewed at this link>>. VIDEO EXPERT REPORT

At all times material, the State of Florida had their own video expert (namely, the Dr. Frankinstein of the original charging-package video by the Hollywood Florida Police Department), Robbie Knapp. Mr. Knapp was subpoenaed to testify at an evidentiary hearing on November 19, 2004, to refute the testimony of the the defense video expert, Bawarsky. Bawarsky testified and the court was provided with a copy of his report. Knapp skipped out and refused to testify. Judge Gates (if you can really call him a "judge") ruled that if the jury would have been made aware of the falsified evidence, Baker would have been found "Not Guilty." Specifically, Gates held that Baker had met the first prong of Rule 3.600(a)(3), F.R.Cr.P., but went on to state that the evidence was not newly discovered; "defense counsel" Torres was in possession of the evidence all along but did nothing about it. Later, Gates would knowingly sentence this innocent man to serve 5 years of his life in the state penitentiary. (This is one of the many reasons why we should end the judgeship of Judge Michael Gates in Broward County, Florida.)

Forty Two Months Later, at a state habeas corpus proceeding, the State would try to undo the earlier findings of Judge Gates by calling upon another purported "independent" (former sheriff's office employee) video expert. The State, through its State Attorney, Mike Satz, and his top assistant (and Prosecutor of the Year), Scott Raft, would falsely advise the court that this video expert would examine all of the videos. Raft then promised the court, as will be shown in the transcribed testimony, below, that if there appeared to be any evidence that any of the videos were altered, he would ask Judge Gates to undo this conviction. Mr. Raft then, as is the policy of the state attorney for this judicial circuit, secreted the Brady (discovery-package) video and told judge Gates, falsely, that the videos were lost, because of the state attorney's inability to identify or determine the origin of any of the seven videos in the state attorney's possession. Speciously, if not out-right falsely, Baker's former attorney (removed for incompetence), purported that she (and the Public Defender's Office) lost the entire case file on this case. This appeared to be a combination by and between the state and former defense counsel to sabotage Baker's habeas corpus action. Within this combination and conspiracy, as will be shown below, Mr. Raft suborned the perjury of Torres to testify falsely against her own former client, Baker. Habeas counsel, Melissa Minsk Donoho, Esq., advised Mr. Finkelstein (The Public Defender), and his top assistant, Diane Cuddihy, Esq., that Torres perjured her testimony and lied against her own client, Donald Baker. The Donoho letter>> The American Bar Association holds this conduct as the "Ultimate Act of Treachery", and betrayal. I would invite you to re-view Mr. Raft's acceptance of the "Prosecutor of the Year Award," and juxtapose his words with his actions in suborning the perjury of Baker's former counsel, Torres. Mr. Raft's promise of impunity was honored by The Public Defender, Finkelstein (of "Help-Me-Howard" fame on WSVN, Channel 7 Television, took no remedial action as to Torres; he did not advise Judge Gates or any other person of authority that his assistant, Torres, had lied under oath; she was not prosecuted, and she is still in the employ of the Public Defender. This, after committing the ultimate act of treachery and betrayal. How safe is your liberty? Think about it!

Even though discovery is not allowed in habeas proceedings, Raft dictated to Judge Gates that he had conducted discovery by having his "new" independent (former sheriff's office employee) expert review the videos. (NOTE: Raft LOST the videos, as did Ms. Torres; yet, he purports that the new video expert examined the videos. (RIGHT!!) What was Raft's reason for having a "new" video expert examine the videos? "Because Robbie Knapp (the theretofore video expert for the State and for the City of Hollywood), now, "WAS NOT A VIDEO EXPERT." "WAS NOT A VIDEO EXPERT"?? Why did Knapp testify at Baker's trial as a video expert, and why was his opinion testimony allowed at Baker's trial?? (All evidence relative to the "Non-Expert" characterization of Knapp is set out in the Petition for Writ of Coram Vobis, listed under "older posts" at the very bottom of this first page. Knapp, himself, declared himself to be an expert and set out his credentials. To the best of our knowledge, Knapp is still the video expert for the City of Hollywood, Florida, Police Department. Perhaps Mr. Knapp was also involved in the Terrens-Vilas Case, wherein the City of Hollywood Police Department, denominated their falsification of video evidence, "DOING A LITTLE WALT DISNEY ON THE EVIDENCE."

This new "expert's" report is a piece of work: First, she states that the City of Hollywood "Had the original video"; no doubt about that. Next, she states that when all the videos are amalgamated, you might have a picture of what the original looked like. Thirdly, she concludes that less than one minute of the video can be authenticated. But, what was Mr. Raft's guarantee to the court? A copy of this so-called expert's proffer is attached. Click this link: [Expert's Proffer]. The extent to which this Expert's proffer is at best misleading, and false, is set out in the Coram Vobis petition, cited above. A fortiori, Raft represented to the court that the videos were lost. So, what was Raft's new expert looking at??? Indeed, based upon Mr. Raft's loss of the video evidence, and based upon the Public Defender's loss of their entire file, Raft moved the court ("Judge" Gates), in limine, to exclude from consideration the videos, which Raft now asks you to believe were examined by his own video expert.

At the status conference of 08/24/07, the following occurred: Page: 0004

1. if you qualify.
2. MR. RAFT: Could you put it on recall?
3. THE COURT: I will.
4. (Thereupon, other unrelated proceedings were had,
5. after which the following proceedings were had:)
6. THE COURT: Let's go back on State versus Baker.
7. Mr. Baker qualifies for appointment of the Special
8. Public Defender. As soon as we can we will get on the
9. wheel and find somebody to represent Mr. Baker.
10. MR. RAFT: What I am going to ask you to do is --
11. THE COURT: Set another status?
12. MR. RAFT: I want to do this on an expedite
13. basis. I received a Motion to Suppress and I am
14. interested to try it this evening on an expedite basis
15. and I have an objection to any kind of continuance.
16. Usually I set this two or three weeks down the road,
17. but I rather be here to find out who the lawyer is.
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

Page 0005

1. by the Hollywood Police Department.
   
   [NOTE: The Public Defender was removed from this case for treachery and the fact that a corpse was propped up in a chair at the defense table to act as counsel for Baker. Baker would condemn any request by any Public Defender to the State Attorney to do any act for or against himself. Having been so removed, why would the Public Defender ask the State to "look into the question of the falsified video tape?" In reality, the only thing that Mr. Raft and Ms. Torres discussed was the perjury of Torres and the means by which Baker's habeas corpus action would be thwarted.]
   

2. 
   
   I think in the Motion for New Trial, there was
3. some concern about somebody for both sides who we will
4. feel comfortable with to view the original tape, if we
5. don't already have it, and get answers to the
6. questions before we go any further with any other
7. proceedings. That is an essential interest in this
8. case.
   
   [NOTE: Baker was satisfied with the presentation of his expert witness, David Bawarsky, who demonstrated to "Judge" Gates that the videos were false and altered. Baker wanted Robbie Knapp (the State's Expert) to testify, but Knapp refused and beat feet out of the courthouse when it came his turn to testify. At this juncture, Baker tries to explain to Judge Gates that he had already ruled that the evidence was tainted and that the matter was res judicata and the state was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the matter in this habeas proceeding. SIMPLY STATED, JUDGE GATES TOLD BAKER TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP; "You will get your turn." BAKER NEVER GOT HIS TURN, BECAUSE RAFT WENT FORWARD WITH HIS UNAUTHORIZED HABEAS DISCOVERY AND DICTATED TO THE COURT (GATES) WHAT GATES WOULD DO.]
   

9. THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, can I just say
10. something, please? We have already had a hearing. My
11. expert has testified.
    
    [Note: Here, Baker was without counsel, but he was trying to advise Judge Gates that this matter was res judicata; the court had already ruled that the evidence was tainted. Judge Gates, essentially, told Baker to shut up!]
    

12. THE COURT: Mr. Baker?
13. THE DEFENDANT: Any testimony that was pertaining
14. to them taping should have been made -- he is waiting
15. until the eleventh hour. Now, he wants an expert. He
16. had years and years. We already of testimony.
17. THE COURT: Mr. Baker?
18. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
19. THE COURT: Just wait your turn. Somebody will
20. be here. We will get your attorney on it.

Baker's turn never came. When Judge Gates said, "Mr. Baker?", "Mr. Baker?" It was not as a question, but as a "Shut up Mr. Baker!!" "Shut up Mr. Baker!!" entonement. "Just wait your turn!" But, Baker's "turn never came." The issue of whether the evidence was altered was previously concluded at the evidentiary hearing of November 19, 2004, where Judge Gates found that the evidence was tainted. The matter was res jucicata, and the State was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issue. Mr. Raft acknowledged that discovery is not aollowed in habeas proceedings, but he undertook to bamboozle the court with Ms. Carroll's proffer, supra. Judge Gates either didn't know better, or simply allowed the prosecutor to dictate to him the course of events that would transpire in this case. At Line 23, supra, Mr. Raft asserts that "somebody from the Public Defender's Office asked ME to look into the falsified video evidence." The Public Defender had previously been removed from this case due to incompetence, and had absolutely no authority to ask Mr. Raft to look into anything on the Defendant's behalf.

Next, Mr. Raft assured the court as follows in the transcript of 08.29.03, at Page 0003:

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.

You must remember that Raft is God's Right-Hand-Man in the State Attorney's Office, and why he was assigned to defeat Baker's habeas corpus is left to speculation, especially since Baker had already served 42 months of the 60 month sentence imposed, and had but, perhaps, 6 months left to totally satisfy the terms of the sentence imposed. Below, in this site, you will see that in the same year of 1977, Mr. Raft was "The Prosecutor of the Year." The award ceremony is presented. Why did the State Attorney, Michael Satz, specifically assign Raft to thwart Baker's petition for habeas relief? We assert that Raft is known by Satz to be ruthless, corrupt, and willing to cause the introduction of false evidence and perjury in order to defeat an opponent; in this case, a lowly pro se habeas corpus litigant. Satz knew that Raft would suborn the perjury of Torres and use all forms of trickery and chicanery to defeat Baker's habeas action. He would falsely represent that he has lost the favorable evidence; he would move to impeach Baker's testimony, because "Bakjer was convicted of a felony." (DUH!), and he would ask Gates to reverse himself on a previous ruling and conduct discovery where neither are allowed. And what was Mr. Satz motive in these regards? As addressed elsewhere, Satz maintains a two-tiered system of charging people with crime. Indeed, when Satz found that his evidence against Baker was false; when his IT Experts concluded that the charging package video was altered and falsified, what did Satz do? Did he desist in the prosecution of Baker? No. In fact, what Satz did do was to actively undertake to represent the arrant police officers and a corrupt police department. Satz hid the Brady video that was already in his possession, and he directed his assistant, Brad Edwards, to have Robbie Knapp (the Dr. Frankenstein of the original falsified charging-package video) to take the video back to Hollywood, re-edit the video and excise any evidence of previous falsification. After trial was under way, Knapp delivered a re-edited version of the video to Edwards, along with some still frames that were taken from another video; hence, Marla Carroll's assertion that the trial video and the amalgamated still frames and videos might look like an original.

The hearing on habeas corpus was held on October 19, 2007. As shown in the Donoho letter, on October 18, 2007, Madeleine Torres appeared at her office and, there, she confessed the truth of the allegations in Baker's habeas petition. Her confession was taken in the presence of Diane Cuddihy, one of Mr. Finkelstein's top assistants. Mr. Finkelstein, himself, confessed malpractice to Broward County Attorney, H. Scott Hecker. Mr. Hecker here reflects, here, on the Finkelstein confession. Mr. Finkelstein's other top assistant, Catheryn Keuthan, Esq., conducted her own independent investigation and concluded that the habeas petition spoke the truth. "I cannot believe what I am reading and finding," she advised McNamara. "The Public Defender will go before Judge Gates and confess error. Additionally, the Public Defender will assume the obligation of paying video expert Bawarsky's Expert Witness Fees in the amount of $11,300.00".

Torres was Baker's witness and not subject to ex parte interview by Raft. So, here is what we know:

• Torres confessed on October 18, 2007
• Raft gives opening statements on the next day, October 19, 2007, and
• Advises the Court as to how Torres will testify and what she will testify about; and,
• The proffer of the Torres Testimony is in diametric opposition to her confession from the previous day; and,
• Torres takes the stand and testified exactly as Raft had proffered.

How did Raft know that Torres would testify in diametric opposition to the confession she gave on the previous day? Did Torres lie to Donoho for some unforseen reason? No. Torres confessed the truth to Donoho and to Cuddihy and admitted the Public Defender's malpractice in this case. Catheryn Keuthan, a top assistant to Mr. Finkelstein conducted her own investigation into the malpractice of Torres. Ms. Keuthan advised McNamara that Mr. Finkelstein would go before Judge Gates and confess error. Indeed, Mr. Finkelstein advised McNamara and Baker's mother that the Public Defender would confess error and do all things possible to lift this conviction from the shoulders of Baker.

At this juncture, we will add two documents:

• The Amended Motion for New Trial; and
• A copy of Baker's Rule 3.850 (habeas corpus) petition. (to be completed soon)
  
  There can be only one conclusion: Raft Suborned the Perjury of Torres. Torres lied under oath.
  

The extent of Madeleine Torres' perjury and proofs of the perjury is set out in the copy of the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Vobis, at the link below. If any person reading these presence has any lingering questions or needs additional proof of the allegations made on this web site, please submit your inquiry to: John McNamara

mcnamara.john6@gmail.com or,

johnmcnamara@terrorisminblue.com