Obstruction of Justice

Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom

May 28, 1998

Where it all began


The current "Obstruction of Justice" story had its foundation set years ago when Phil Marsh, his wife, Marlene and several others were indicted in California. On November 29, 1993, a grand jury indicted Marsh and others for conspiracy to defraud the United States. The trial spanned four months and the jury was hung. They could not agree on a verdict because the authors of certain letters submitted into evidence were also available to testify. Defense attorneys were able to discredit the witnesses since their accusations of fraud by Marsh, et al, seemed to be self-motivated and not proof of a crime.

Subsequently, in 1996, a retrial was held. At this second effort, the Prosecution managed to enter the letters into evidence by stipulation, and the Defense was afforded no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Convictions were obtained from this second jury.

The primary crime:

18 USC 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (note: not District) decision on the appeal, cited as 98 C.D.O.S. 3974, reversed all but a few charges in the original (second) proceeding. The Court held that "summary witnesses" do deny the opportunity to cross-examine and that the instructions to the jury were deficient in addressing the true nature of the letters.

So, we have a first trial that ends in a hung jury obviously no crime here. Then the government, in their zeal to prosecute the defendants, adds some charges and retries the case learning from the first trial, and sneaking in the letters WITHOUT the witnesses who wrote them. Now, this may or may not be Obstruction of Justice. Only a jury may decide whether it is, but there is no way to get a federal grand jury to hear a matter and issue a true bill without the blessings of the United States Attorney who just happens to be the prosecutor.

The United States Code (book of rules) defines Obstruction of Justice as being a threat or any means of negative approach to prevent justice from prevailing. Of course, it does not address the granting of awards to achieve the same end as happened when Matthew Finch"s 59 days in jail was waived because he served his country, even though on the jury against the appropriate provisions of the Code. Likewise, the judge (Merryday) who allowed the felon to sit as a juror and did nothing to enforce the law did no "negative" in the process.

The Tampa trial was based upon the defendants attempting to educate judges and juries that treason would constitute violation of the Constitution in convicting people for crimes they did not commit. The first jury determined that Marsh, et al, did not commit a crime. The second jury was denied the evidence (witnesses, i. e. Sixth Amendment right) that prevented conviction in the first trial. However, this is not Obstruction of Justice. Perhaps, however, it is Obstruction of the Constitution. It was these concerns that prompted the Tampa Common Law Court to advise the jurors and the judges that they were not acting in their proper capacity in the Marsh second trial.

Now those who understood and risked themselves to attempt justice in the Marsh trial have been proven correct in their determination that the trial was "illegal." Otherwise the Court of Appeals would not have reversed the decision of the jury.

Doug Carpa spent thirty months in prison based upon the conviction in California. With the Appellate ruling, the conviction is invalid. The perpetrators of this injustice, the judge and the prosecutors, have probably gotten raises in pay, and will suffer not at all for their "Obstruction of Justice" by divisive means. Those in Tampa who attempted to stop the injustice before it began have been in jail for nearly three years now and have been convicted by an illegal jury. They have yet to be sentenced, but there is little doubt that judge Steven Merryday and prosecutors Peluso and Monk will walk freely and receive raises for their charade of justice that is until the American People wake up and seek justice as it was sought two hundred years ago.

The Grand Jury must be removed from governmental control and return to the control of the people so that those truly guilty of Obstruction of Justice can be tried for their crimes. That the petit jury be returned to control of the people so that they can judge both fact and law, without the need for the judge and the prosecutors to proffer, tamper, omit, falsify or otherwise taint evidence and testimony so that the juror is truly evaluating the facts in the case.

By what means this return to justice rather than law will be achieved is yet to be determined. We might, however, turn to the example given by San Francisco when corruption filled the local government with evil men and contempt for justice. Vigilantism only appears when necessary. When justice again prevails, vigilantes retire from their work. For if the enforcers of law fails, and there is no other remedy, then the people must prevail by whatever means necessary.

return to Obstruction of Justice #3

go to Obstruction of Justice #5

Return to Florida Common Law Court page