Douglas Carpa, Pro Per
Morgan Street Jail
1301 N. Morgan Street
Tampa FL 33602
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 96-64-CR-T-23(e) Plaintiff
United States Government,
Douglas J. Carpa,
MOTION FOR PROTECTION UNDER CERTAIN TREATIES; MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AND RELEASE FROM CUSTODY MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE NEW TRIAL.
Now comes Pro Per Defendant Douglas J. Carpa and motions the Court for protection under certain treaties and international agreements declaration of mistrial and release from custody, dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, a new trial.
1. All legal authorities in the Memorandum and Points and Authorities in Support of Grounds for Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed on November 7, 1997 are incorporated in their entirety by reference herein.
2. I was convicted of Title 18 §§ 371, 372 and 1503 charges on August 13, 1997. The essence being conspiracy and jury tampering originating from Co-defendant Ippolito’s common law court activities.
3. Defense attorney Thomas Ostrander notified the court of "juror misconduct" on November 04, 1997. The perpetrator of this misconduct is any anonymous male juror who is a convicted felon allegedly on probation during the twelve weeks of trial.
4. As of this writing, the Court has not released the findings of its investigation.
5. This juror, if on probation, is under the direct control and supervision of the prosecution. The Court is aware that nothing happens in government unless it is planned and meant to happen.
6. It is ironic the government brought this action for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and jury tampering organized, investigated and anchored by two IRS Inspectors who are highly trained in deception and court room decorum.
7. It appears IRS deception continues with the ‘planting’ of a "controlled" juror to guarantee my conviction. This is prosecutorial lawlessness that is intentional and inherent in governmental obstructionism characteristic of the IRS to prevent defendants from obtaining a fair trial on the political issues raised in trial. The juror deceived the Court when he denied his criminal record during the Court’s voir dire.
"It is clear, knowledge of his criminal record would have worked to his disqualification." Burt v. Panjaud, 99 US 180, 25 L Ed 451.
"‘A talesman when accepted as a juror becomes a part or member of the court." (Emphasis mine) Clark v. United States, 289 US 1, 53 S Ct 465, 77 L Ed 993.
"Neither party can have a vested right to a corrupt or prejudiced juror, who is not fit to sit in judgment in the case."’ United States v. Morris, 26 F Cas 1323 (No. 15815) (CC Mass 1851) at 1328.
Therefore, if the juror is corrupt, then his acceptance infected and corrupted the Court.
"[W]hatever jeopardizes for a moment the integrity of a trial by jury ought to be strictly scrutinized and condemned."’ Webster v. Reid (1850) 52 US 437, 13 L Ed 761.
8. I testified in trial and proved the IRS conducted its Hashimoto investigation to "sanitize"’ the entire jury pool in the San Francisco proceeding. I allege this same investigation and sanitization was performed on this jury pool, thus identifying its own "controlled" juror.
9. The IRS and the prosecution were caught red-handed in the "‘institutional " bad faith for the third time. The first instance was brought to the Courts attention when the IRS issued a 2039 Summons for me to appear in Illinois during the trial in an attempt to violate my release conditions. This psychological warfare was designed to tamper with my ability to put on my defense. The second instance was the IRS intimidation of defense witness Gary Hunt by issuing a Notice of Levy ten days after a subpoena was issued for him to testify on behalf of acquitted defendant Richard "Toby" Brown. This last and most outrageous instance of prosecutorial misconduct certainly polluted this criminal prosecution so as to require dismissal of the indictment.
10. I also claimed protection under certain treaties and international agreements in pre-trial motions. All citations of law supporting treaty enforcement in the Memorandum and Points and Authorities in #1 above are incorporated by reference herein. The Court heard undisputed testimony and the case record is set that I exercised my Constitutional right to be protected by the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. The full text of this treaty is in the Court record. This treaty specifically identifies government and prosecutorial lawlessness and corruption in the judicial processes of the member States of the Organization of American States (OAS). The United States is such a member and signatory to this treaty.
It is now clear this trial has been irrevocably infected by government misconduct to the extent it is unconscionable to allow the government to proceed. I am irretrievably prejudiced and the only appropriate remedy is dismissal of the indictment and immediate release from custody.
In the alternative, if the Court is still beguiled and deceived by this government lawlessness, then, pursuant to Article VI, cl. 2, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution for the United States, I invoke and claim relief under the aforementioned self-executing treaty and demand jurisdiction to hear this case pass to the international legal community under the aegis of the OAS.
"All courts, state and national must take judicial notice and be governed by a treaty of the United States as a law of the land." (Emphasis mine) United States v. Rauscher, 119 US 407, 7 5 Ct 234, 30 L Ed 425.
"Treaty is law of land as act of Congress is whenever its provisions prescribe rules by which rights of private citizens or subjects may be determined." (Emphasis mine) Head Money Cases (1884) 112 US 580, 28 L Ed 798, 5 S Ct 247, 3 AFTR 2473.
Further relief is sought under the United Nations chartered Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14, freedom from political persecution.
"Treaty, within limits of treaty making power, by express words of Art. VI, cl. 2, is Supreme Law of Land, binding alike national and state courts, is capable of enforcement, and must be enforced by them in litigation of private rights.’" (Emphasis mine)
Maiorano v. Baltimore & O.R.R.Co., (1909) 213 US 268, 53 L Ed 792, 29 S Ct 424.
GROUNDS FOR MISTRIAL AND DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT
"Neither party in a criminal case has a right to have case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias." Arizona v. Washington, 434 US 497, 98 S Ct 824, 54 L Ed 2d 717.
"In essence, the right to a jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial "indifferent"’ jurors."’ Irvin v. Dowd, 366 US 717, 81 5 Ct 1639, 6 L Ed 2d 751; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 US 466, 85 St Ct 546, 13 L Ed 2d 424; Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 US 505, 91 5 Ct 490, 27 L Ed 2d 571.
"The bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied; that is, it may be bias in fact, or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’" United States v. Wood, 299 US 123, 57 5 Ct 177, 81 L Ed 78.
"‘In a trial by jury to which is secured by the Seventh Amendment both the Court and the jury are essential factors...only through co-operation of the two, each acting in its appropriate sphere, can the constitutional right be satisfied,..." Slocum v. New York Life Ins. Co., 228 US 364, 33 S Ct 523, 57 L Ed 879.
"... that certain types of official misbehavior require reversal simply because society cannot tolerate giving final effect to a judgment tainted with such intentional misconduct.’" quoting Justice Harlan dissenting Berger v. United States, 295 US 78, 79 L Ed 1314, 55 S Ct 629.
The Supreme Court is clear in protecting the trial process. When misconduct is piled upon misconduct, there is no other remedy then declaration of a mistrial and dismissal of the indictment.
GROUNDS FOR MISTRIAL
"Bias should be implied and a new trial granted where juror conceals information that would have resulted in disqualification for cause." Smith v. Phillips, 455 US 209, 71 L Ed 2d 78, 102 5 Ct 940, footnote 19 citing McCoy v. Goldston, 652 F2d 654 (CA6 1981); United States v. Allsup, 566 F2d 68 (CA9 1977).
"‘In Deschenes v. United States, 224 F2d 688 (CA10 1955) (dictum) (in some circumstances prejudice must be presumed and court, as a matter of law, must grant a new trial.) Cauness v. United States, 187 F2d 719 (CA5 1951).
"[W]hatever jeopardizes for a moment the integrity of a trial by jury ought to be strictly scrutinized and condemned.’" Webster, supra.
"He who defiles a decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing. If sane, he hardly may be heard to say he knew not what he did. Of course, willful cannot be made definite that which is not defined, but willful violations of Constitutional requirements, which have been defined, are in no position to say they had no adequate notice that they would be visited with punishment when they acted willfully in defiance or reckless disregard of Constitutional requirements." (Emphasis mine) Screws v. United States, 325 US 91, 65 S Ct 1031, 89 L Ed 1495.
The discovery of this juror’s misconduct has undermined the judicial process by infecting the sanctity of the jury and the integrity of the Court. This, and similar issues were expressed by Co-defendant Ippolito in his documents that lead to the formation of his common law court and this indictment. Codefendant Jack Wade Warren was permanently removed from the trial for his direct attack on the integrity of the Court before the jury. There is one remaining question. Has this latest incident of government-juror misconduct proved them right?
The political implications of this trial will test the quality of the mettle that comprise the elements of American justice.
Finally, Baha’u’llah, Founder of the Baha’i Faith, has given this warning:
"If justice is not dealt out, if these oppressions are not removed and if thou dost not obey God, the foundation of thy government will be razed, and thou shalt become evanescent, become as nothing." (‘Abdu’l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace at 233, quoting Baha’u’llah.)
For all the above reasons and in the interest of justice, this motion should be granted.
Respectfully submitted this 19 day of November 1997.
Douglas J. Carpa, Pro Per
Return to Tainted Jury