Adjust the Size of the Font and Playing Links

To adjust the size of the font on this site, hold down the control (CTRL) key and use the mouse-wheel to increase or decrease the size of the print.

The history of the Hollywood (FL) police department is sickening. Some of their atrocities are noted on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtnNsQVGXSU&feature=related

Immediately below, you will see the attack and assault upon Baker, which occurred in less than 60 seconds after entering the holding area. The cops and the City of Hollywood manufactured a video and redacted these frames (among many others), before sending the video to the State Attorney's Office for prosecution.

Friday, June 18, 2010

FBI - Lazy or Incompetent?

The Miami Field Office of the FBI received the complaint on the Baker case in or about October of 2003. The FBI, via Special Agent Manny Suarez and Special Agent Reggie Burns were provided with copies of the charging-package video (subsequently, the Brady video), as well as a copy of the video secured under the Public Records Laws of the State of Florida. A copy of a follow-up letter to the original complaint is linked here. Clearly, with only a cursory examination of the video evidence, federal charges could have been brought against various agents of the City of Hollywood, Florida, under divers federal statutes, including but not necessarily limited to Title 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, Title 18 U.S.C. §4, Title 42 U.S.C. §14141, et al. Obstruction of Justice, Tampering with Evidence, and the list of crimes goes on, and on, and on.
However, the FBI communicated with the State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Michael Satz, and Mr. Satz informed the FBI that the State Attorney was investigating the falsification of evidence in this case. Meanwhile, and to the contrary, Mr. Satz was actively defending and representing the arrant police officers in order to maintain his two-tiered system of charging crimes, wherein police officers and other "elite" are exempt from prosecution. The Public Defender, Howard Finkelstein, conducted a thorough investigation to ascertain whether the State Attorney had, in fact, investigated the falsification of evidence by Hollywood police officers and found no such investigation.
Mr. Satz lied to the FBI; he was not investigating the corruption in the police department at the City of Hollywood; he was protecting them. How do we know this?Mr. Satz' refusal to prosecute police officers is made abundantly clear at Page 3 of the Finkelstein Letter, supra, first paragraph. Other proof of the FBI's and the State Attorney's apocryphal investigations can be found in the Public Defender's Case Events Notes. [See entry of 12/11/03, "FBI and Broward State Attorney say they are looking into it." During the entirety of the proceedings against Donald Baker, Hollywood Detective Robbie Knapp was represented to be the State's video expert. The State Attorney relied upon the expert opinions and advice of Mr. Knapp in all things relating to the videos presented to the State Attorney. Indeed, Mr. Knapp is the Dr. Frankenstein of the original "Charging-Package-Video." In other words, Knapp was the corrupt police officer who altered and falsified the charging-package video, ab initio. Mr. Satz' assistant, Brad Edwards, had sufficient confidence in Mr. Knapp's editing abilities that on the eve of trial, Mr. Edwards directed Mr. Knapp to take the video back to the City of Hollywood and redact all evidence of prior falsification and to present the new (now, Walt-Disney'ed Evidence) after trial was under way on the following day. The United States Supreme court has condemned the production of evidence after trial is under way. See, e.g., Wardius v. Oregon, and Brady v. Maryland. More importantly, the Supreme Court has historically condemned the use of false and altered evidence to obtain a conviction. "As long ago as Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 (1935), this Court made clear that deliberate deception of a court and jurors by the presentation of known false evidence is incompatible with "rudimentary demands of justice." This was reaffirmed in Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213 (1942). In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), we said, "[t]he same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." Id., at 269. Thereafter Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S., at 87, held that suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial "irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." See American 154*154 Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and the Defense Function § 3.11 (a)." I used the term, "Walt Disney", above, not because I thought it up, but because the City of Hollywood in their continuing corruption denominated their falsification of evidence as, "Doing a Little Walt Disney on the Evidence." The following is a link to that "Disney Evidence" in this case. Ultimately, after the 4th District Court of Appeals refused to consider the falsified evidence on direct appeal and affirmed without prejudice to Baker's right to bring the matter to the attention of the court by way of Habeas Corpus. Mr. Satz had to protect himself from federal prosecution for his support and defense of police corruption, Mr. Satz specifically assigned Scott Raft, a 20-year veteran of the SAO, his second in command, and prosecutor of the year for 2007 to defeat Baker's claims of false evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel by the Public Defender, Howard Finkelstein and Madeleine Torres. Certainly the motive was to preempt Baker's claim of malicious prosecution by the State Attorney which, in an advisory capacity, coached the City of Hollywood Police Department in further altering and falsification of video evidence. Mr. Satz policy of protecting and not prosecuting police officers and secreting evidence of police corruption in violation of Brady would have been exposed, and Satz may have found himself doing time at the federal penitentiary in Atlanta. He therefore took action to thwart Baker's constitutional rights to meaningful access to the courts. Satz authorized Raft to suborn the perjury of witnesses including Baker'w own erstwhile attorney, Madeleine Torres, and the State Attorney's now-resigned assistant, Brad Edwards. Satz further authorized Raft to "lose the evidence". In the habeas proceedings, Raft falsely represented to the habeas court that the State Attorney "lost the evidence, including the Brady (charging-package video), initially provided to the Public Defender, Madeleine Torres. Ms. Torres falsely advised the habeas court that the Public Defender "lost their entire file on this case, including the Brady video provided to them under Brady." Before losing the video evidence, however, Raft promised the habeas court:
"If we find any evidence that any of these videos have been altered in any way, we will ask that this conviction be undone."
In reality, what Mr. Raft did was to Move the habeas court in limine to give the videos no consideration, because the videos were lost by the Public Defender and could not be identified by the State Attorney. Of course, being a good prosecutor (pretending to be a judge), Judge Gates granted Mr. Raft's Motion In Limine. Baker at this time had already served 42 months on the 60 month sentence imposed. The amount of time left to totally satisfy Baker's sentence was then about eight (8) months. Thus, we have the second-in-command set upon this pro se litigant to prevent Baker from securing relief from this 7 or 8 months left on his sentence. We have to ask, "Why?" Why would Mr. Satz set his top-dog on this lowly pro se litigant? The following circumstances will explain fully: The state delayed this case interminably and the majority of Baker's confinement resulted from the State chicanery; the State asked Judge Gates, ex parte, to allow them 60 days to respond to the habeas petition, instead of the standard 15 days; when after 101 days and a blatant default, the State asked Judge Gates for another 30 day extension, and this was also ex parte as Baker was denied the opportunity to respond. The State then removed the clerk's file from the clerk's office and secreted that file in the State Attorney's Office so that when Baker would file any pleading, the pleading would go into a holding box in the clerk's office until the file was returned. The State did not return the file to the clerk's office and the case found its way into limbo until, finally, Baker was compelled to file a petition for writ of Mandamus with the 4th DCA to force Judge Gates to set a hearing. The 4th DCA directed Gates to set a hearing, allow the state 10 days to respond, and to then allow Baker 10 days to reply to the state's answer. The State responded, and the state ex parte'd Judge Gates and caused Judge Gates to reject the directive of the 4th DCA and to adopt the state's answer as the Order of the Court on the 6th day after filing, thus denying Baker the 10 days as mandated by the 4th DCA. Prosecutor Gates was doing well for the State but was certainly damaging the system of justic in Broward County, Florida.
  • An Evidentiary hearing was set for October 19, 2007;
  • Habeas Counsel Melissa Minsk Donoho was appointed to represent Baker;
  • On October 18, 2007, Baker's former attorney Madeleine Torres appeared at the office of Ms. Donoho with her own counsel, Diane Cuddihy, Esq., Mr. Finkelstein's 2nd in command'
  • Ms. Torres, at that interview, admitted the allegations contained in Baker's habeas petition and agreet to testify to the truth on the following day at the habeas hearing;
  • Raft intervened after that confession, and either with or without knowledge that Torres already confessed, suborned Torres to perjure her testimony to be given on the following day at the habeas hearing;
  • On October 19, 2007, during opening statements by Mr. Raft, Mr. Raft gave extensive prologue as to the false testimony that he would be eliciting from Torres;
  • Torres took the stand and lied against her own former client, Baker, and testified exactly as Mr. Raft portended in opening statements. The perjurious testimony that was give by Ms. Torres was in diametric opposition to the confession she gave to Donoho in the presence of Cuddihy on October 18, 2007;
  • Ms. Donoho sent a letter to Finkelstein and Cuddihy advising them that Ms. Torres had perjured her testimony against Mr. Baker.
    • Raft realized after taking the sworn false testimony of Torres that he was caught in the most dastardly and unethical act ever perpetrated in a court of law: to suborn the perjury of Baker's own, erstwhile, attorney to testify falsely against her own client.
    • Raft offered Baker freedom in exchange for Baker's renouncement of the truth and the withdrawal of his habeas petition. Raft's plan was to continue this case for as long as it took to cause the habeas petition to become moot due to expiration of sentence and Baker being no longer in custody.
    • To set up a basis for further and never-ending continuances, Raft suborned the perjury of former assistant state attorney, Brad Edwards. Mr. Edwards would have to testify that Detective Robbie Knapp was never considered to be an expert witness, which would require that Judge Gates grant Raft leave to obtain an expert witness, because there had never been an adversary proceeding relative to the falsification of evidence.
    • On November 19, 2004, however, the State opposed Baker's Motion for New Trial based upon falsified evidence, and it called its expert, "Robbie Knapp", to testify in opposition to defense expert, David Bawarsky's expert testimony and expert's reports.
    • After Bawarsky testified and Judge Gates accepted his expert testimony, the State's Expert Witness, Robbie Knapp, quietly left the courthouse and refused to testify. The State, indeed, had its chance in an adversary proceeding to support its position that none of the videos were altered or falsified. The adversary proceeding was concluded and the matter became res judicata;
    • when the case was continued, again, Baker's resolve collapsed and he succumb to the extortion demands of Mr. Raft that he renounce the truth and withdraw his habeas action as a precondition of obtaining his rightful freedom.
    • Judge Gates, however, who was angered by Baker's suggestion of disqualification for prejudice, came out of his chair and in a loud and angry voice said, "I shouldn't put my foot in my mouth, but I will: Isn't this the guy who said that he could not get a fair hearing in front of me? And, isn't this the guy who said that I had ex parte communications with the state?"
    • Baker immediately withdrew his acquiescence to the State's demands, and the case was continued for another three (3) months.
    • Raft again ex parte'd Judge Gates and on November 6, 2007, Baker was recalled to court and Judge Gates ordered him released.
    • There is presently pending an appeal before the 4th DCA questioning whether under these circumstances, Baker's renouncement of the truth and withdrawal of his habeas action was voluntary, or whether it was coerced by perjury, false evidence, false promises, and other despicable acts of chicanery and treachery.
    Internal Affairs of the Hollywood Police Department begged Baker to come in and file an IA Complaint. Baker's attorney, Torres and Schweiker demanded that Baker go to the police and file an IA Complaint, and counsel assured Baker that unless and until he filed such a complaint, his case would not be going to trial. Baker advised counsel that he would not be filing such a complaint, because Hollywood was the author of the original falsified video, and the City was corrupt from the top to the bottom. Counsel persisted. But, see: Case Events Notes, throughout, especially the dates closest to the IA filing; Ltr. to Jeffries dated 10/3/2003; Joel Cantor Ltr., 8/14/03. In addition, Internal Affairs sent a letter to McNamara and asked McNamara to file an Internal Affairs Complaint relative to the falsified video evidence. Armed with the falsified videos, Baker went to Internal Affairs and presented Jeffries with copies of the videos as well as providing detailed explanations as to how the videos were altered and falsified. In the report of Internal Affairs, and it the specious transcript, there is not one word or sentence addressing the falsified video evidence. See, Jeffries Ltr., dated October 6, 2003. Finally, Jeffries testified at Baker's trial and announced the policy of the city of Hollywood, "A citizen does not have a right to resist excessive force by a Hollywood Police Officer and must fall down and curl up--" (and accept whatever the cop may want to deliver.) Does it take a real genius to look at the falsified charging-package video, created by the Hollywood Florida Police Department, and know that something is wrong? [Police Video, frame by frame (Play at your own speed)] The FBI had the capabilities to stop-frame this video and failed to do so, which is self-evident, for, had they done so, the culprits would have been arrested. On the other hand, if they did stop-frame the falsified video and did nothing about it, that is evidence of incompetence and the Director should be really pissed at their inaction. Now, we have had a chance to look at the Frankenstein (Police) version of the video; it is only fitting that we stop-frame the Public Records Video (also altered, but at least semi-truthful) >> [Public Records Video]. The FBI closed out its case on this investigation finding that there was no wrong done by the Hollywood cops in attempting to murder Donald Baker and in altering and falsifying evidence, including the video evidence. Did Special Agent Suarez and Special Agent Reggie Burns act in a way to protect the police officers? Did they rely on a corrupt internal affairs investigation to make their conclusions for them? Or, did they rely on a State Attorney, whose internal policy forbids charging police officers or other elite? Was the action, or inaction of the FBI a sign of laziness, or Incompetence. John McNamara johnmcnamara@terrorisminblue.com