The federal court has sat on this case for more than a year.  I wonder whether they are going to follow suit with the 4th DCA and hold the case in abeyance for three years and then enter a decision that makes no sense.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Sanctions states use of false evidence:

The French are suspicious of American Justice, and not without just cause.  Police in America have become lazy and incompetent, and in order to make it appear that their jobs are being done, police agencies have resorted to manufacturing crimes.  The City of Hollywood, Florida, has ascribed a nomenclature to such falsification of evidence as:

DOING A LITTLE WALT DISNEY ON THE EVIDENCE.

The practice of "Disney'ing" Evidence is so prevalent in Broward County and the State of Florida that the State Attorney for that jurisdiction refused to arrest or charge the Dr. Frankenstein of the Hollywood Police Department who  perfected "A Little Walt Disney" on the Evidence in the Alexandra Torresn-Vilas Case.  MSNBC followed the case: 

 http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32266883/ns/today-today_people/t/tape-reveals-cops-tried-frame-her-crash/ , as did Fox News and most other nationwide news agencies in the United States.  Fox demanded to know, "Who was the Dr. Frankenstein at the Hollywood Florida Police Department that did the Walt Disney on the Evidence" :  

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4FdvBG-Nf44ZjU1YTFiMWYtNDYwNS00MTFkLTg0ODktZTg1M2QzMGRiYzNj&hl=en_US

The State Attorney in Broward county (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) was asked about the corruption in his jurisdiction, and Mr. Michael Satz ran from the room, refusing to respond to the questions posed by news agencies: The following video was removed due to complaints because is showed Mr. Satz in a bad light.
Noting like a little censorship to polish one's image, right Mike?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igQXiMI7Dk&feature=related

Mr. Satz's policy at the State Attorney's Office, for the past 30 years, has been to protect and defend corrupt police officers and police agencies.  A Whistle Blower from the State Attorney's Office recently exposed Mr. Satz' preferential treatment of corrupt police officers and his unwillingness to legally comply with the United States Supreme Court's mandate that the State surrender to a defendant's attorney all exculpatory evidence.  Brady v. Maryland.  Based upon Mr. Satz' recurring, and long-lasting, policy, thousands of persons charged with crime in Broward County have either gone to their deaths or served long terms in prison.  The Broward County Public Defender, (Help-Me-Howard) Finkelstein, complained to Mr. Satz about his policy, but failed and refused to pursue the ill-gotten convictions.

Mr. Finkelstein wrote:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4FdvBG-Nf44MjIzMjg3NWQtNTE1ZC00YmQ5LWIyNGQtMTE0OGRlMDgxMzg3&hl=en_US

Those who have suffered the ultimate penalty (death), or have served, or are serving long terms (as much as 'Life-In-Prison with no chance of parole) in prison have been forgotten, or forsaken, due to financial demands that would have been put upon the Public Defender's Office by ascertaining each and every wrongfully imprisoned person's identity, or others put to death, in order to effect justice in their respective cases.

Mr. Satz' response to the Finkelstein letter: 

 We do not have to surrender exculpatory evidence.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4FdvBG-Nf44Nzc5ZmQyNDUtMjIyZS00YWRlLTk1YjgtNDhiMDczODBmZDRi&hl=en_US

Hollywood, Florida, Police Department is infamous for "Doing a Little Walt Disney on the Evidence."  Here is the link to, yet,  another  Disneyfied Video manufactured by the Hollywood Police Department to manufacture a crime and falsely convict an innocent person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrtQDOc-bk8

Mr. Satz complained to Yahoo.com/Flickr.com about this video having been posted on the internet.  Yahoo, bending to the State Attorney's favor, utterly blocked this writer's Flickr account in concert with Satz to stifle the truth of this matter.  

Mr. Finkelstein's Office and his Assistant, Madeleine Torres, were charged with incompetence in the criminal prosecution against Donald Baker, the subject of the above-shown Disney Video:

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYFdvBG-Nf44ZGNqM2ptMjNfNThoaDN3ZnFmeA&hl=en_US

Mr. Finkelstein phoned substitute counsel, Scott Hecker, and advised that he was aware of the malpractice of Torres, or "deficiencies in judgment".  The following video will explain that conversation.  Listen as you watch what the falsified Hollywood Police Department Video showed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olpIffSYHE4

Howard Finkelstein was advised that his assistant, Madeleine Torres committed perjury against her own client, Baker, by habeas counsel, Melissa Minsk Donoho, Esq.:

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYFdvBG-Nf44ZGNqM2ptMjNfNTVnbm0ydnNwdA&hl=en_US

Judge Michael Gates, who was the presiding judge in the Baker case, acted as an arm of the State Attorney's Office, and even though video expert David Bawarsky, filed his report and testified that the Disney Video from the City of Hollywood was false, as were four additional video versions of the event Disney'fied,

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4FdvBG-Nf44OWVmNDZhOWItNWU3Mi00OWY3LWE1YjYtNmEwZWUwZDg1Zjlh&hl=en_US

and Judge Gates acknowledging that Baker was innocent, proceeded to sentence Baker to serve 60 months in the state penitentiary.  Judge Gates' reasoning:  The Public Defender knew of the falsified evidence all along but did nothing about it.

At the time of the habeas hearing, after years of dilatory delay by the state in continuing efforts to defeat detection of the corruption involved in the Baker case, Baker had served 42 months of the 60 month sentence imposed.  Satz well knew that his evidence was false and altered and that he intentionally convicted an innocent person, removed his Top-Gun Assistant State Attorney, Scott Raft, from his position as chief of the corruptions-prosecutions unit (with only one such prosecution in the past 30 years according to the State-wide-Grand-Jury on corruptions), and set him upon the habeas corpus action filed by Baker.  Indeed, Raft was the prosecutor of the year for the same year that he was assigned to the Baker case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEX9w_L6Q3c&feature=related

As you may have read from the Donoho Letter, above, Madeleine Torres (Baker's former counsel, removed due to incompetence), confessed the truth of Baker's habeas corpus allegations on THE DAY BEFORE THE HABEAS HEARING. Here is the habeas petition:

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4FdvBG-Nf44YmQ4NzEyMzgtZTI1MC00OThkLTkxODEtYjIyNzBkZjIzMTgy&hl=en_US

However, after she confessed, Scott Raft suborned false testimony from her in order to defeat Baker's habeas action.  On the following day at the opening of the habeas hearing, Scott Raft gave extensive prologue as to what the testimony of Madeleine Torres would prove.  Torres took the stand and in compliance with Mr. Raft's requirements of her testimony, testified falsely against her own, erstwhile client, Baker.

The United States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta recently ruled in the Baker case brought under Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 that Mr. Satz and Mr. Raft should not be chastised because they suborned perjury from Ms. Torres, and Ms. Torres should not be chastised because she followed the state attorney's direction to give false testimony against her own client, Baker.  The 11th Circuit ruled that the introduction of false and altered evidence manufactured by the Hollywood Police Department was properly used, because it was used to deny access to the courts and to falsely convict, which was the State Attorney's function.

So the People of France, and the rest of the world, have just cause to doubt the arrest and prosecution of 

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director Of IMF.  Since the passage of the "Patriot Act" (AEDPA), false 

convictions have run rampant in the United States under the pretext of Homeland Security.  The truth of the matter is that prisons have become a for profit institution, and the philosophy held since the time of the founding of this country that "it is better that 10 men go free than have one innocent man convicted" has been reversed.  The policy, today, held by the courts of this country is that it "is better than 10 innocent men suffer wrongful convictions than have one (1) guilty man go free.  The constitution has been trashed and all but flushed down the toilet; the right to be secure in your houses, papers and effects, no longer exists, and as long as a corrupt police officer can conjure up "reasonable suspicion," the 4th Amendment has been scrubbed from existence.

As in the Baker case, a corrupt government may manufacture a crime, manufacture and alter evidence, perjure their testimony as long as it is to convict (and not to exonerate) the accused.  In other words, as long as the perjury and false evidence is used to prosecute, and  not to defend, the government is at liberty to use such dastardly conduct.  But, if a defendant should try the same tactic, then the accused should suffer all the pains of imprisonment that the government can muster.

Citizens of France, and citizens of the world, the United States is no longer the nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all, as it once was.  Pray for us, and the U.S.

John McNamara

mcnamara.john6@gmail.com

johnmcnamara@terrorisminblue.com

Petition for Rehearing to the 11th Circuit

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYFdvBG-Nf44ZGNqM2ptMjNfNzlmaGdkZGRkNA&hl=en#_ftnref3

The 11th Circuit recently sanctioned the state's use of perjury to defeat Baker's constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts via habeas corpus.  As we see from the record in this case, Assistant State Attorney, Scott Raft, the State Attorney's 2nd in command and 22 year veteran of the State Attorney's Office and Person In charge of the (Lame Duck) Political Prosecutions Unit, (due to the total political prosecutions numbering less than two (2) over the past 30 years), and known by the State Attorney to be utterly corrupt, was assigned to defeat Baker's habeas corpus action at all costs and by whatever means.  Did I mention that Raft was the Prosecutor of the Year for 2007, the same year that he was set upon Baker's case to defeat access to the courts. Baker, a lowly 52 year old pro se litigant was falsely convicted upon evidence manufactured by the City of Hollywood, Florida.  The City ascribes a nomenclature to the fabrication of evidence as "DOING A LITTLE WALT DISNEY ON THE EVIDENCE," and it is now, and has been the policy of the City of Hollywood for years and years.  The following link will direct you to one of the more recent episodes of "Doing a Little Walt Disney on the Evidence".  You heard that the City of Hollywood Police Department is historically corrupt, and that the video in the Torrens-Vilas case had been doctored to excise the comments by the conspiring police officers as to Doing a Little Disney on the Evidence.  The video that you are about to see was sent to the State Attorney for the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida as proof that Donald Baker attacked two police officers, ripped a radio from their uniform and tossed the radio through the air so that the two cops "could not summon assistance."  Here is the "Charging-Package-Video," which was subsequently provided to defense counsel, Madeleine Torres, as proof of these batteries.  Torres was a recent law-school graduate and was assigned to Bakers case in violation of the Public Defender's assignment policy that Torres could not represent a defendant in a felony case unless and until she had two (2) years of criminal felony trial experience.  Torres, according to the Assistant State Attorney assigned to this case had only one or two felony trials under her belt.  In other words, she was incompetent to be appointed to the Baker case, but, because of underfunding by the County of Broward, State of Florida, and the absence of qualified attorneys, she was set upon this case.  Torres advised Baker that he "had to plead guilty, because the State has a video proving his guilt."  She played the Brady video, and Baker asked her where her brain was located; because, even Ronald McDonald cast in stone in the front of McDonald's Hamburgers could see that this video was false; yet, she could not?  Torres sat on this falsified video for nearly three months and accepted that video as the gospel, notwithstanding the common knowledge that Hollywood had a chronic history of falsifying evidence and framing those persons arrested in Hollywood.  See, e.g., http://www.trevoraaronson.com/story/?storyID=30, and http://www.trevoraaronson.com/story/?storyID=33, and http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/related/to/Hollywood+Police+Department/  The corruption within the City of Hollywood and its corrupt police department goes on, and on, and on.  Still, the State Attorney, Michael Satz, actively protects, defends and represents these arrant and corrupt police officers and this corrupt City.  (For other videos relative to this case, see:  http://www.youtube.com/user/lawservicescenter .

I don't want you to gather the impression that this video supplied to Torres by the State Attorney was not know to them to have been altered and falsified, because that is not the case.  Even while the State Attorney was seeking to prosecute Baker on the basis of this FALSE Brady video, the State Attorney was in possession of another video that would prove the falsify of the Charging-Package-(Brady)-Video.  This link will demonstrate the major falsity in the Charging-Package-Video, and the exculpatory video in the State Attorney's possession, whilst still prosecuting Baker.  Why would Michael Satz, the State Attorney, continue with the prosecution of Baker whilst knowing that Baker was innocent?  It was only recently found that until the time of the prosecution of the Torrens-Vilas (Disney) cops (and only 2 of the 5), that in the past 30 years, Mr. Satz has only prosecuted two corruption cases.  TWO!  At most.  Then, it was found through the whistle blower, assistant state attorney, Sheila Alu, Esq., (now, no longer with the State Attorney's Office), that the State Attorney, Michael Satz, had a policy lasting 30 years refusing to prosecute corrupt police officers or a corrupt police agency, such as Hollywood, or other "elite.".  Howard Finkelstein, the Public Defender, of "Help-Me-Howard" television celebrity of WSVN, Channel 7, conducted his own investigation into the non-prosecution policy of the State Attorney.  Mr. Finkelstein, in this link, notes that he received more Brady (exculpatory evidence declarations) in the past few weeks than he had received in the past 30 years.  This was due to the Alu disclosure, and not because Finkelstein had conducted any prior independent investigations concerning the preferential treatment given to police officers (and other "elite"), as well as the blanket suppression of exculpatory evidence that the United States Supreme Court mandated in Brady v. Maryland.  Every case that has ever been tried in Broward County should be re-visited in order to determine whether the accused was denied a fair trial and Due Process of Law by the policy of the State Attorney in secreting exculpatory evidence.

After Baker had served 42 months on a 60 month sentence for battery on a Hollywood police officer, Francis Hoeflinger, and after delay, after delay, after delay, caused by the State in the appeals court, the 4th District Court of Appeal directed Baker to file a habeas corpus action in the trial court and the State delayed the case for, yet, another year by asking for continuance after continuance, after continuance, after they defaulted in the initial 60-day time limit for filing a response to Baker's habeas action.  Usually, under any Judge other than Michael Gates, a habeas petition would require an answer within 15 days.  Judge Gates gave the State 60 days. Then, they dafaulted, and on the 101st day, the State's prayer:  "Judge, we're out of time.  Give us another 30 days."  and, Judge Michael Gates, who at and before the time of the original sentencing admitted that he knew that the evidence was false and altered, and knowingly proceeded to sentence an innocent man to serve 60 months in the state penitentiary, automatically granted the continuances.  You see, the corruption only began with the Hollywood cops.  The State Attorney actively protected, defended and represented Hollywood and its arrant cops, because of his non-prosecution policy, opting instead to prosecute the innocent in order to perpetuate that policy.  The State Attorney was caught with his prick in his hand, falsely prosecuting Baker while simultaneously secreting the exculpatory video.  The Public Defender was also on the hook for assigning, essentially, a non-attorney to represent Baker.  The most dastardly acts committed by Torres, after she and Jeffries (See, Case Events Notes, 4th Entry of 10/07/03) at had contrived a way to convict Baker, directed Baker to go to the Hollywood police department and file an Internal Affairs complaint against the two police officers who smashed his face and head into a concrete floor for a minute and fourteen seconds and left a pool of his blood 2' in diameter on the floor.  After EMTs were called and Baker was  cleaned up, this is how he appeared.  Unlike an investigation where a police officer was injured and left a pool of blood on the ground, the police photographer failed and refused to photograph the extreme amount of Baker's blood left on the floor where he was beaten so badly that one of the Broward deputies retreated back down the hallway to guard the entrance to defeat detection.  Neither deputy intervened to stop this felony in progress, and in depositions, each deputy testified that they saw nothing and remembered nothing, and neither deputy filed an incident or any other report relative to this case.

    

For the next four days, Baker was in intensive care at Memorial Regional Hospital and he incurred hospital bills in the amount of $17,000.00++.  Plus, he was forcibly removed from the hospital by Broward Sheriff's Deputies who assured hospital personnel that the "hospital at the jail could adequately care for Baker's injuries."  NOTE: THERE IS NO HOSPITAL AT THE JAIL, AND BAKER'S PAIN AND OTHER MEDICATIONS WERE TAKEN FROM HIM AND HE WAS LEFT TO LANGUISH IN A COLD JAIL CELL, UNABLE TO WALK OR MOVE, FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX WEEKS!

  Meanwhile, bail was set at $30,000.00, (ten times the standard amount), and Torres recalcitrantly assured that because of her experience and expertise, the bond amount was correct.  When she was shown that the bond amount was not correct, she blamed her error on the Sheriff of Broward County.  She moved for a bond reduction to $10,000.00, which was, still, more than three times higher than the standard amount.  Naturally, Judge Gates granted the reduction.

Next, as stated above, Torres commanded that Baker file an Internal Affairs complaint with the police at Hollywood. Baker had already written to Hollywood and stated that the City of Hollywood was corrupt from the top to the bottom, and that he would not be filing an IA complaint.  Baker advised the police department that they should clean their own house, because it needed a serious cleansing, but there would be no complaint being filed by himself.  Torres was even more forceful in her commands that the IA complaint be filed and assured Baker that his criminal case would not be going to trial unless and until he filed that complaint.

Baker succumb to the demands and went to Hollywood, not only to discuss the brutality, but the falsification of the video evidence, and carried with him a CD-ROM copy of the falsified Charging-Package-Video, as well as a copy of the Public-Records-Video.  Upon arrival, IA Head, Forrest Jeffries, Mirandized Baker, which is what police do when they are interrogating a suspect.  This was a pretext investigation that Torres was involved in prior to the time that Baker went to the police.  Her Case Events Notes, supra, strongly bolster that fact starting at Page 8, entries of 10-07-03, because there would be absolutely no reason for Torres to communicate with Jeffries to ask whether Baker had arrived to file an IA complaint.  After another year of delay by the learned State Attorney, Scott Raft, the 4th DCA intervened and Ordered Judge Gates to set an immediate hearing; to allow the State 10 days to Answer; and then to allow Baker 10-days to Reply to the State's Answer.  Judge Gates gave the State their 10-days to Answer, however, upon his receipt of the State's Answer, he decided to reject the District Court of Appeal's Order, and Gates refused to allow Baker to Reply.  Instead, Gates automatically adopted the State's Answer as the Order of his Court, and directed Baker to file a Notice of Appeal as to the issues denied, and proceed on to habeas on the issues not denied.  In other words, to bifurcate the proceedings whereby part of the action would be in the DCA, and the rest of the case would be before him.  Baker filed his suggestion of Disqualification, which Judge Gates Ignored.  It truly appeared that Gates was acting as an assistant state attorney pretending to be a judge.

Notwithstanding Judge Gate's persistent admonishments to Baker to "Sit Down!, and shut up." (paraphrased), the habeas action was set for a hearing on October 19, 2007.  On October 18, 2007, Finkelstein was met by Baker's mother and stepfather on the bridge walkway from the parking garage to the courthouse.  Finkelstein assured them that the Public Defender would do all in his power to insure Baker's release, and that the Public Defender would go before Judge Gates and confess error.  Another top assistant to Mr. Finkelstein, Catheryn Keuthan, Esq., had already conducted an investigation into the conduct of Torres and stated dto McNamara that she "could not believe the incompetence involved here." (paraphrased)   Finkelstein also advised special counsel, Scott Hecker, Esq., that the Public Defender would assume the responsibility of paying Baker's defense expert fees in the amount of $11,300.00.  The Defense Expert, David Bawarsky, testified at the evidentiary hearing on Baker's supplemental motion for new trial and advised Judge Gates that the videos provided by the City of Hollywood were, each and every one, false and altered, and that none were an identical copy of any of the other videos, and that the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the videos were false, and that the City had never produced a true copy of the original.  Here is the Expert Report of Bawarsky.  There was no question but that Judge Gates well knew that he was sentencing an innocent person to the state penitentiary.  Judge Gates is just one of the many people who was infected by the virulence of the disease of corruption.

Also, on October 18, 2007, Ms. Torres appeared at habeas counsel, Melissa Donoho's Office, in the presence of a top assistant to the Public Defender, Diane Cuddihy.  At that meeting, Torres admitted the truth of the allegations of Baker's habeas action and stated that she would testify to those facts on the following day at the evidentiary hearing.  Enter, Scott Raft, the corrupt  extraordinaire of the State Attorney's Office in charge of the corruptions unit, who ex parte'd Torres and advised her that not only would the State Attorney's Office be in jeopardy over this case due to the malicious prosecution, but that everyone else, from the police to the Public Defender have been caught in malpractice, misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption, and the list goes on and on, and on, including a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Baker as proscribed under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242  (The Criminal side of the KKK (Civil Rights) Act.)  This is criminal law 101 material; an attorney should not allow their client to speak with the police, especially in the absence of counsel.  So, what was Torres' reason for sending Baker to the police to make a statement?  Ms. Donoho's letter to Finkelstein explains the idiopathic logic in Torres' demands of Baker.  Viz:  That the police would take the Fifth is they knew that there was an IA investigation under way.  Of course, Torres did not know that Jeffries was in on the alteration and falsification from the very beginning, and that the video was falsified whilst that video was in his exclusive possession and control.  Because of that, as noted, Jeffries exhausted not one work, and not one sentence, addressing the issue of the falsified video, even though that issue was strongly advanced by Baker at the time of the interrogation of Baker, under the pretext of conducting an IA investigation. 

 Torres agreed to testify falsely against Baker, alleging, inter alia, that no one knew that the videos were altered; that she had never been put in contact with a video expert; and that it was Baker's own idea to go to the police to give a statement.  (Consider, Escobedo v Illinois, "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59.")  You are about to witness the most despicable act of treachery ever recorded in the annals of jurisprudence;  On the following day at the habeas hearing, Raft opened by stating that the testimony would prove that it was Baker's own idea to go to the police, that no one had a clue that the videos were falsified, and that she was not put in touch with a video expert.  Actually, the video expert who contacted her and advised that the videos were altered and false was Chuck Schultz, the NBC TV producer of "the Regis Show," and many others.  Mr. Schultz had been federally qualified as a video expert in forensics in federal actions where the authenticity of video evidence was in question.  Raft knew at the time of giving his opening statements that Torres would lie under oath, and without having interviewed her and suborning her perjury, he could not have even assumed that Torres would testify in diametric opposition to the language of her confession on the previous day.  Ms. Donoho was totally shocked that Torres would lie under oath after having confessed on the previous day.  Ms. Donoho, wrongfully, excused Torres from the stand rather that treating Torres as a hostile witness and dragging the truth from her lying lips.  Donoho informed Cuddihy and Finkelstein as to the perjury of Torres in lying against her own client, Baker, in diametric opposition to her confession.  Here is the Donoho letter to Finkelstein.

I want to give you the results of the Internal Affairs Investigation:  Baker was Mirandized, rather than being sworn to tell the truth, as would be the normal practice in such situations; In the final report, Jeffries made not one mention of the falsified videos provided to him at the inquisition; and, Jeffries testified at Baker's trial and opined that Baker admitted guilt by the fact that he (Baker) touched Hoeflinger.  (Naturally, when someone punches you in the face, you touch their fist with your face, and according to the Hollywood Police Internal Affairs Unit, this is battery); then, at trial, Jeffries testified that a citizen does not have a right to resist excessive force by a Hollywood cop and must "fall down and curl up" and accept whatever torture, beating or death that the officer might want to deliver.  Torres failed to object to this testimony, and Judge Gates did not give the jury an instruction on self-defense.  This left Jeffries' assessment of the law as the law of the case, and this is the only reason that Baker was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer.  I am going to direct you, now, to a slide-show taken from the public records video secured by McNamara after the police delivered the false video.  Click here to view the slide show.  Use Arrows to move forward or backward in the video, and note that prisoner Dennis Shelter and Baker were attacked without provocation in less than one minute after entering the facility at Hollywood.  Hollywood destroyed two other videos of importance to this case, and the City bastardized the last-remaining video, as shown above.

By the way, if you know of anyone who has been charged with a crime in Broward County, be advised that Ms. Torres is still employed by the Office of the Public Defender.  Their Office is underfunded, so there is a strong likelihood that an attorney has been assigned to the case who is totally unqualified to defend even the slightest of crimes, let alone criminal felonies.Charging-Package-Video (Police Version)

THE INNOCENCE COMMISSION

On July 2nd, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court implemented an Innocence Commission to look into the growing number of false convictions in Florida. The recent nationwide publicity and outrage over the Hollywood Florida Police doing what they called, "Doing a Little Walt Disney on the Evidence" has brought corruption and false convictions to the forefront. Likewise, the same police department altered and falsified video evidence after two Hollywood Police Officers tortured and nearly killed Donald Baker, who was thought to be "homeless scum," according to Officer Francis Hoeflinger of the Hollywood Police Department, who quipped, "We are going to do the city of Hollywood a favor and get you homeless scum off the streets this weekend." Baker was arrested on a $25 warrant, and the police entered into their paperwork that Baker was homeless and unemployed. Both assertions were not correct. On Baker's way home from work as an electrician with All Electric out of Plantation, Florida, and for no reason, Hoeflinger demanded of Baker that he "Show me your Papers," to which Baker objected, and when Baker advised Hoeflinger that he was leaving, Hoeflinger screamed, "Get back here, ass hole, I didn't tell you you could leave." Baker responded that he did not need Hoeflinger's permission to leave and that he, Baker, was going to go home and eat the hot sub sandwiches that he had just purchased from the sub shop. Hoeflinger and another police officer, John Graham, then set about to smash Baker's face into the trunk and hood of the police car. At the station, as shown elsewhere in this site, the torture and beating continued, and Hoeflinger and Graham attempted to murder Baker by smashing his face and head into the concrete floor, over and over, for more than a minute and 14 seconds. Baker was rendered unconscious and spent the next four days in intensive care at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Cf., Cantor Letter. The surveillance videos at the sally-port gate and the surveillance video from the elevator were immediately destroyed by the police department in order to protect these arrant police officers, and other officers joined in to falsify the surveillance video of the torture and beating [view charging-package video]. How do we know that the Hollywood Police Department altered and falsified the video? [Proof of Alteration] The video expert, David Bawarsky, gave extensive testimony and visual proof that the videos were altered and falsified: [video-expert report] . Judge Gates agreed that the evidence was tainted; he knew that the evidence was false. Notwithstanding, Judge Gates knowingly sentenced an innocent man to serve 5 years in the state penitentiary. The testimony and report of the video expert, David Bawarsky, stood and stands controverted. The State subpoenaed or brought in the State's video expert, Detective Robbie Knapp, to refute the evidence presented by Mr Bawarsky. However, after hearing the testimony of Mr. Bawarsky, Robbie Knapp beat feet out of the courthouse and was never heard from again. The record in this case demonstrates beyond contradiction that, in fact, Mr. Knapp was the Dr. Frankenstein of the falsified video in the first place. Thus, when this case was called upon again to be heard at the habeas proceeding, Mr. Raft caused Mr. Edwards (the former prosecutor, who made the notes in the State Attorney's file and subsequently resigned his position), to falsely testify that Knapp was never considered to be an expert. See, Transcript of 10/19/2007, Page 12, et seq.; Page 30-10; 30-15; 30-18; 34-25; 35-7. But, cf., Page. 28, L. 24, and Tr. 08/24-07 at P. 0006-8. How could Knapp be the State's expert when the City was encouraged to "Do Disney" on the evidence, but became a non-expert, an unsophisticated uniniiate, when his testimony was most necessary at the hearing on habeas corpus? Mr. Raft was using, again, a little Chicanery on the Court. The City called it "Disney," and Raft used Chicanery. Raft wanted to delay this case so that it would never be herd; he suborned the perjury of Torres, lost the evidence, turned his expert into a non-expert, and dictated to the court that he would and is conducting discovery in this case, even though discovery in Rule 3.850 (habeas) proceedings is not allowed. The inquiry should be limited to the record, alone. To the four corners of the petition. Raft knew this, see Tr. 10/19/07, at Page 156, L. 21

Except in Broward County, Florida, under the administration of State Attorney, Michael J. Satz, these corrupt police officers would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison. Because Mr. Satz has a history over the past 30-years of refusing to prosecute those that he considers his "elite," which included police officers, [see proof here], the wealthy and the politically connected, the cops were given immunity for their vicious attacks on Baker and on two other prisoners that were with Baker at that same time, i.e., Dennis shelter, and Angel Castro. In fact, the evidence shows that Mr. Satz directed his assistants to protect the police department and the police officers from civil liability and/or criminal prosecution. Mr. Satz hid exculpatory evidence, and when he detected that evidence of alteration even existed in the hidden exculpatory evidence, he directed his assistant Brad Edwards to join with the City of Hollywood in re-altering the videos to excise the evidence of previous alteration. Edwards complied with Satz' directives, but also made a clandestine entry into the State Attorney's Office and made notations in Mr. Satz' files in order to protect himself. Edwards telephonicly communicated with attorney H. Scott Hecker, Esq., from the State Attorney's office on that Saturday and advised Hecker that he felt that Satz intended to "hold him out" to take responsibility for this malicious prosecution, and further advised as to the notations being made in the State Attorney's files. Thus we had altered and falsified evidence contrived by the City of Hollywood, with the willful, albeit baleful, acquiescence of the Mayor and the City Commission, who refused and continue to refuse to take any remedial action in this case; we have the State Attorney protecting and actively representing the corrupt police department and the corrupt police officers what falsified records, altered and falsified videos, testified falsely, falsified their reports, and so on, and so on. Because of other reasons addressed elsewhere in the Coram Vobis portion of this web site, the case managed to traverse the appeal process with the court of appeal affirming without prejudice to Baker's right to seek relief by way of habeas corpus. On October 6, 2006 the habeas petition was filed. The State, knowing that this was a false conviction and malicious prosecution, delayed the case using dilatory tactics until July of 2007, when Baker sought a writ of Mandamus with the court of appeal. The Court of Appeal, 4th District, Ordered Judge Michael Gates to set an immediate hearing; to allow the State 10-days to Answer the Petition; and to allow Baker 10-days to reply to the State's Answer. Judge Gates met with the State Attorney's agents and decided that the case could best be resolved allowing only the State to have a position. Judge Gates rejected the directive of the court of appeal to give Baker 10-days to Reply and adopted the State's Answer as "the Order of His Court." Baker was not allowed to respond. Baker filed his suggestion of disqualification as to Judge Gates, which was also ignored, ex parte. Judge Gates demeanor demonstrates that he will accept dictation from the state, but will listen naught from the defendant. There is no need to reiterate the facts and circumstances relative to Mr. Satz putting his 16" Gun against the lowly pro se habeas litigant, Baker. Scott Raft, the second in command at the SAO, and the Prosecutor of the Year for 2007, was the only person that Satz had sufficient confidence in his corruption to direct him to suborn the perjury of Baker's former counsel, Madeleine Torres, and to cause her to testify falsely against her own client, Baker. Just so the reader does not wrongfully assume that there is no evidence that Torres perjured her testimony against her own client (which is the most unethical and despicable act that an attorney can do, and which requires disbarment immediately), I offer the letter of habeas counsel Melissa Minsk Donoho, to whom Ms. Torres confessed her malpractice less than 24 hours before she took the stand and testified falsely against Baker at the behest of Mr. Raft. This letter, as noted elsewhere in this site, was addressed to Howard Finkelstein the elected public defender for whom Torres was employed, and to Diane Cuddihy, Esq., Mr. Finkelstein's second-in-command, and who was present when Torres confessed her malpractice, and who was also present when Torres took the stand and lied her ass off. The Question is, "Why would Torres perjure her testimony after having confessed the truth less than 24 hours earlier? The truth is that, unless she was promised immunity, there is no way that she would have perjured her testimony against her own client. Her boss, Finkelstein, knows of her perjury; still, she is still under his employ. Certainly, Mr. Satz knows that she lied under oath, and, still, he has not prosecuted her. Now, we know why he has not prosecuted Raft, and that is because Raft was acting at the direction of Satz when he suborned the perjury of Torres, and the perjury of Brad Edwards. Raft was working at the direction of Mr. Satz when he falsely represented to the habeas court that he had lost the exculpatory evidence in this case, and with Torres also testifying that she lost Baker's entire file, well, how can one obtain justice when this type of conspiracy exists to seal the courthouse doors against you. The "lost evidence transcript" is readable at the link. The most despicable act . . . one of the most despicable acts . . . was that Raft promised the habeas judge that if there was any evidence of alteration, he would ask that "the conviction be undone." [Tr. 08-29-07] at. P. 0003-4. THEN, HE LOSES THE MOST FALSIFIED VIDEO, and was able to get by with that hoax/chicanery, because Ms. Torres also lost the exculpatory video, at P. 0052-10, et seq. Coincidence? If you believe that, I've got a bridge, somewhere, that I want to sell you. So it is that the Supreme Court has had enough of the chicanery, falsified evidence, corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, perjury, secreting evidence, spoliation of Brady Material, and so on, and so on. The Innocence Panel is long overdue, and hopefully, some corrupt prosecutors, corrupt police officers, corrupt police agencies, corrupt public defenders, and the like might be brought to justice, as they should be brought to justice in the Baker case. The annals of jurisprudence mark not an instance where corruption has so infected a case (by virtue of seeking to cover up illegal conduct having come before), that there is no ability to find anything other than corruption and incompetence. I want to personally thank the new Chief Judge of the Florida Supreme Court for implementing the innocence panel/commission, and I would suggest that the panel be expanded John McNamara johnmcnamara@terrorisminblue.com [Link to Order]

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

CORAM VOBIS LINK

Link to Petition

To read all of it, you will need to have some free time on your hands. The reading is interesting, because it shows how corrupt the Hollywood Police Department is, and how inept and incompetent the judicial system in Broward County is. The State Attorney is supposed to prosecute felons, but in reality, he has been protecting and actively defending the arrent cops due to a policy within the State Attorney's Office of not prosecuting police officers for criminal conduct, or other of the State Attorney's "elite", his "BASE" as George Bush would call them. In other words, if they are politically connected, they are immune from prosecution under the two-tiered system of charging crimes within the SAO. We will address this aspect of the corruption in Broward County, infra.  Howard Finkelstein has asked the U.S. DOJ and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Satz, for protecting corrupt police officers and corrupt police agencies within Broward County, Florida, thus fostering a "culture of corruption".

Public pressure finally forced Satz to prosecute (only) two of these corrupt police officers in the Torrens-Vilas (Walt Disney cops) case, but Mr. Satz refuses to arrest and charge the Dr. Frankenstein of the false and altered evidence in that case, or in the Donald Baker case.  Mr. Satz has sent hundreds of citizens to prison or to their deaths by using false evidence manufactured by his Walt Disney Cop co-conspirators, while Satz secreted the exculpatory evidence.

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