LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
March 26, 2008
Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson
U.S. Congress
1133 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Rep. Johnson:
My name is Laurack D. Bray. I am an African American or Black attorney practicing federal law in the state of California. I’ve practiced law for over 20 years, partly in the District of Columbia (I am a member of the D.C. Bar) and partly in California. I am a graduate of the Howard University School of Law and I am primarily a civil rights, criminal defense, and appellate lawyer. You may also find a brief bio of me in the publication “Who’s Who in American Law”. I have also argued several appellate cases which have resulted in published opinions, e.g., Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) and Matter of Crammond, 23 I. & N. Dec. 9, vacated on other grounds, 23 I . & N. Dec. 179 (BIA 2001).
This letter is written in reference to the House Committee Hearing on Justice Dept. Contracts for Monitoring Corporation Settlements held on March 11, 2008, or thereabouts. I am writing to inform you of a case(s) that I am involved with which I believe directly relates to the concepts discussed in the hearing, i.e., “deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs)” and “non-prosecution agreements (NPAs). The case is also illustrative of the concept that you personally raised in the hearing, that is, a “secret process”, except in this case, there is a citizen’s complaint on file. I am also writing to garner any assistance that you may be able to provide in helping my clients and I receive proper restitution for the criminal conduct of the individuals which has caused us harm.
At the hearing, the Committee and the panel discussed DPAs and NPAs, and monitoring, as the concepts relate to both corporations and individuals. While the Committee hearing concentrated on corporations, here, I will concentrate on individuals.
I believe the factual scenario of my (and my clients’) case(s), fit precisely into the definition of a “secret process” as you mentioned and partially described, i.e., non-public. Moreover, the “secret process” in my case was (is) completely unilateral in favor of the accused judges and clerk, that is, unlike a secret process where although an accused is not publicly acknowledged or charged, he is, nonetheless, made to pay a penalty of some kind, usually a fine, and restitution; in this case, the secret process was (is) completely one-sided in that: (1) where federal agents did take some action in reference to certain judges, those judges were allowed to “retire” (with dignity)(and collect their retirement, presumably) without the public knowing the true circumstances of the retirement, and “semi-retire” or, in the case of the Ninth Circuit Clerk, retirement, resignation, or otherwise leaving office, and (2) at the same time, not requiring the judges or the clerk, or the Ventura County or United States governments to pay restitution to the victims, who received irreparable harm from the accuseds’ conduct. This unilateral action causes the “secret process” to be even more egregious. It is one thing when the prosecutorial proceedings are “secret”, but the victims receive restitution for harm directly caused by the accuseds’ criminal conduct, and quite another, when not only are accuseds with sufficient evidence against them for prosecution not prosecuted, but, at the same time, they also avoid paying restitution to the victims whom they have caused harm to.
With the above in mind, here are the brief facts of our case that illustrate why the U.S. Attorney in L.A., Thomas Obrien, has instituted either a de jure or “de facto” unilateral NPA on behalf of the respective accused individuals. On June 25, 2007, I, on behalf of myself and my two clients, both white, Harold James Griffith and Jeanette M. Andrews, submitted a Citizen’s Complaint alleging violation of federal criminal law, and naming multiple judges, both state and federal, and the Ninth Circuit Clerk of the Court as accuseds. The Complaint evolved from the treatment of three core cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: (1) Laurack D. Bray v. Steven Hintz, et.al., No. 04-56274 (prelimary injunction appeal re: the shutdown of my home-law office and practice)(Bray v. Hintz II); (2) Harold James Griffith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 04-55702 ( re: social security disability benefits and retroactive benefits dating back to 1979)(Griffith v. SHHS); and (3) In re Jeanette M. Andrews, No. 05-70961 (mandamus petition directed at the district court re: right to counsel and default judgment against the Navy)(Andrews II)(Andrews I was another—and successful—mandamus proceeding).
Before proceeding further with a discussion of the Complaint, I will inform you here that prior to the submission of the criminal complaint, we filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council, again naming several of the same district court and 9th Circuit appellate judges as accuseds. The Chief Judge (for the purpose of the Complaint) dismissed the Complaint as to all judges, even one, Dickran Tevrizian, who had “retired” after I filed the misconduct complaint (before the misconduct complaint, Judge Tevrizian had put his name in the pool of candidates for the office of U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles—he later withdrew his name). The Judicial Council affirmed the Chief Judges’ dismissals. Thereafter, the criminal complaint was submitted, and included judge Tevrizian as a named accused.
Back to the criminal complaint. In the Complaint, we alleged a general pattern of racial bias in the treatment of the three aforementioned appeals in the Ninth Circuit, which we contended affected the outcome of the appeals. We ,then, became more specific and identified certain judges, this time both state and federal judges, and charged them with certain criminal conduct and/or violations, in response to the U.S. Attorney’s citizen’s report questionnaire. In trying to be brief and for the purposes of this writing, I will center my attention on those judges and the clerk whose conduct federal agents apparently found warranted some action being taken, i.e., retirement, semi-retirement, or resignation or otherwise leaving office. Those judges are as follows:
1. Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Judge Steven Hintz
Complaint charges : Violation of civil rights, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint: Retired the next day after Complaint was submitted
2. Superior Court (CA), Ventura County , Judge Barry Klopfer
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice, violation of civil rights,
conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint: Retired within a week after the Complaint
was submitted.
3. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Judge Dickran Tevrizian
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and violation of civil rights
Effect of Complaint : Retired after a federal misconduct complaint was filed with the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council—he had retired when the criminal complaint was submitted.
4. U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Judge Terry Hatter, Jr.
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint : Semi-retired (went from a regular district judge to a senior judge after complaint was submitted.
5. U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Judge William W. Schwarzer
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
violation of statute providing for relief benefits, i.e., social security disability benefits, and violation of civil rights.
Effect of Complaint : Semi-retired (went from a regular district judge to a senior judge) after the Complaint was submitted.
6. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Clerk of the Court Cathy Catterson
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and fraud on the public.
Effect of Complaint: Retired or resigned or otherwise left office after the complaint was submitted.
From the time of submitting the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney until February of this year, we received no communications from any federal agents, i.e., the Federal Bureau of Investigations or the U.S. Attorney, regarding the Complaint, even after I had submitted a second writing in support of the Complaint (further clarifying the Complaint charges and seeking prosecution of the complained of individuals, especially the retirees). In the meantime, I discovered on my own the various retirements and semi-retirements. During the last two weeks of January, 2008, we (myself, and/or Mr. Griffith, who is disabled, and/or supporters, at various times) protested outside the federal courthouse (because the time established by the U.S. attorney itself for a response to our Complaint had lapsed without a response), petitioning for prosecution and restitution or a response of some kind.
In early February, I received a telephone call from the U.S. Attorney’s office indicating that the Office would respond to our Complaint in 6 to 8 weeks. In March, we received a letter from the USA stating that it is unable to assist us because it “does not conduct criminal investigations.”
Thus, from the submission of our Complaint until the March letter, the entire process has been “secret” as to us, the Complainants, and the public. Furthermore, the USA’s apparent action in not proceeding with prosecution appears to be a “de facto”, if not de jure, NPA between the U.S. Attorney and the accuseds. That is, if there was enough evidence, and we submitted much of the evidence with our Complaint, to require or cause the retirements, then there was enough to support a prosecution. Apparently, the USA has chosen and agreed with the accuseds not to prosecute. Yet, there has been no tender of restitution to the victims. According to U.S. Attorney David Nahmias, at the Committee hearing, NPAs “typically ‘require’ the payment of restitution to victims, and/or fines and penalties, long before such payments could be obtained in most cases through formal charges, protracted litigation and inevitable appeals.” So, the result of this “secret process” has been to allow the USA to refuse to prosecute the judges or the clerk (and there clearly is enough evidence to prosecute the clerk because she made and used a false and fraudulent document) and at the same time not require the payment of restitution to the victims. And, here, restitution is absolutely critical, essential, and/or necessary to the victims (after the unlawful shutdown of my home, law office, and law practice since 2003, my personal life and my life as a lawyer has been ruined. I have spent all of my time and resources since that time litigating on behalf of myself and my clients, Mr. Griffith and Ms. Andrews, trying to regain possession of my home-law office and trying obtain disability benefits for Mr. Griffith , who, for nearly the entire life of his two sons—who are now in their 20s—has, along with his two sons, slept on mattresses in a one-bedroom apartment, surviving on welfare—which has now been discontinued since his youngest son has reached majority age—and housing assistance. He has been disabled since 1979. Ms. Andrews also survives on disability or workman’s comp, and although her circumstance is not as severe as Mr. Griffith’s or myself, she nevertheless needs assistance and was denied her constitutional rights and warrants restitution). Not only does the U.S. Attorney’s actions appear to show favoritism, but also, they deny victims significant rights.
When Mr. Nahmias discussed briefly the difference between corporation NPAs and individual NPAs, he stated the main difference is that individual NPAs are subject to conditions, while corporations have monitors. This clarification seems to further support the proposition that a NPA exists between the accuseds and the USA, with the retirements being the essential condition. Yet, the USA has not required the accuseds to meet the remaining requirement of restitution, which we believe is one of the reasons for the secrecy (and for the USA telling us that his office does not “conduct criminal investigations”).
We believe that our discussions here further supports your view and the view that a “secret” NPA process usually invites arbitrariness, unfairness, or bias. This discussion also suggests that perhaps there should be a committee hearing regarding DPAs, NPAs, and individuals (as opposed to corporations), and the secrecy of the processes.
We believe the accuseds in our case(s) are or should be required to pay restitution pursuant to an implied “de facto”, if not de jure, NPA. We do not possess the power and/or authority to require the U.S. Attorney to inform us of what exactly has taken place regarding the investigation of the case and what exchanges have taken place between the U.S. Attorney, the accuseds, and/or the respective governments, i.e., Ventura County or the United States, or whether a DPA or NPA in fact exist. We would appreciate any assistance you can provide us in determining the existence of a de facto NPA and in acquiring any required restitution, pursuant thereto.
In the meantime, we do have the power and authority to do certain things, and one of them is exercise our rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and petition our government for redress; in this case, restitution. Therefore, as of March 31, 2008, we shall continue with our petition-protest for redress from our government, i.e., restitution, or prosecution and/or restitution, until we receive said relief, or comparable thereto, outside the federal courthouse in Los Angeles . We have chosen this date because it begins the week of the day Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, April 4. And so, part of our protest is in recognition of the life and death of Dr. King, and in the spirit of what he stood for. Ironically, Dr. King died in the process of aiding garbage collectors, and Mr. Griffith was a garbage collector when he received his on-the-job and disabling injury.
We would appreciate a prompt response to our letter. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
cc: Rep. Linda Sanchez, Chairman, Judiciary Committee on Commercial & Admin. Law; Rep. Bill Pascrell; and Rep. Frank Pallone
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
March 26, 2008
Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson
U.S. Congress
1133 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Rep. Johnson:
My name is Laurack D. Bray. I am an African American or Black attorney practicing federal law in the state of California. I’ve practiced law for over 20 years, partly in the District of Columbia (I am a member of the D.C. Bar) and partly in California. I am a graduate of the Howard University School of Law and I am primarily a civil rights, criminal defense, and appellate lawyer. You may also find a brief bio of me in the publication “Who’s Who in American Law”. I have also argued several appellate cases which have resulted in published opinions, e.g., Jackson v. Giurbino, 364 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) and Matter of Crammond, 23 I. & N. Dec. 9, vacated on other grounds, 23 I . & N. Dec. 179 (BIA 2001).
This letter is written in reference to the House Committee Hearing on Justice Dept. Contracts for Monitoring Corporation Settlements held on March 11, 2008, or thereabouts. I am writing to inform you of a case(s) that I am involved with which I believe directly relates to the concepts discussed in the hearing, i.e., “deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs)” and “non-prosecution agreements (NPAs). The case is also illustrative of the concept that you personally raised in the hearing, that is, a “secret process”, except in this case, there is a citizen’s complaint on file. I am also writing to garner any assistance that you may be able to provide in helping my clients and I receive proper restitution for the criminal conduct of the individuals which has caused us harm.
At the hearing, the Committee and the panel discussed DPAs and NPAs, and monitoring, as the concepts relate to both corporations and individuals. While the Committee hearing concentrated on corporations, here, I will concentrate on individuals.
I believe the factual scenario of my (and my clients’) case(s), fit precisely into the definition of a “secret process” as you mentioned and partially described, i.e., non-public. Moreover, the “secret process” in my case was (is) completely unilateral in favor of the accused judges and clerk, that is, unlike a secret process where although an accused is not publicly acknowledged or charged, he is, nonetheless, made to pay a penalty of some kind, usually a fine, and restitution; in this case, the secret process was (is) completely one-sided in that: (1) where federal agents did take some action in reference to certain judges, those judges were allowed to “retire” (with dignity)(and collect their retirement, presumably) without the public knowing the true circumstances of the retirement, and “semi-retire” or, in the case of the Ninth Circuit Clerk, retirement, resignation, or otherwise leaving office, and (2) at the same time, not requiring the judges or the clerk, or the Ventura County or United States governments to pay restitution to the victims, who received irreparable harm from the accuseds’ conduct. This unilateral action causes the “secret process” to be even more egregious. It is one thing when the prosecutorial proceedings are “secret”, but the victims receive restitution for harm directly caused by the accuseds’ criminal conduct, and quite another, when not only are accuseds with sufficient evidence against them for prosecution not prosecuted, but, at the same time, they also avoid paying restitution to the victims whom they have caused harm to.
With the above in mind, here are the brief facts of our case that illustrate why the U.S. Attorney in L.A., Thomas Obrien, has instituted either a de jure or “de facto” unilateral NPA on behalf of the respective accused individuals. On June 25, 2007, I, on behalf of myself and my two clients, both white, Harold James Griffith and Jeanette M. Andrews, submitted a Citizen’s Complaint alleging violation of federal criminal law, and naming multiple judges, both state and federal, and the Ninth Circuit Clerk of the Court as accuseds. The Complaint evolved from the treatment of three core cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: (1) Laurack D. Bray v. Steven Hintz, et.al., No. 04-56274 (prelimary injunction appeal re: the shutdown of my home-law office and practice)(Bray v. Hintz II); (2) Harold James Griffith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 04-55702 ( re: social security disability benefits and retroactive benefits dating back to 1979)(Griffith v. SHHS); and (3) In re Jeanette M. Andrews, No. 05-70961 (mandamus petition directed at the district court re: right to counsel and default judgment against the Navy)(Andrews II)(Andrews I was another—and successful—mandamus proceeding).
Before proceeding further with a discussion of the Complaint, I will inform you here that prior to the submission of the criminal complaint, we filed a judicial misconduct complaint with the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council, again naming several of the same district court and 9th Circuit appellate judges as accuseds. The Chief Judge (for the purpose of the Complaint) dismissed the Complaint as to all judges, even one, Dickran Tevrizian, who had “retired” after I filed the misconduct complaint (before the misconduct complaint, Judge Tevrizian had put his name in the pool of candidates for the office of U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles—he later withdrew his name). The Judicial Council affirmed the Chief Judges’ dismissals. Thereafter, the criminal complaint was submitted, and included judge Tevrizian as a named accused.
Back to the criminal complaint. In the Complaint, we alleged a general pattern of racial bias in the treatment of the three aforementioned appeals in the Ninth Circuit, which we contended affected the outcome of the appeals. We ,then, became more specific and identified certain judges, this time both state and federal judges, and charged them with certain criminal conduct and/or violations, in response to the U.S. Attorney’s citizen’s report questionnaire. In trying to be brief and for the purposes of this writing, I will center my attention on those judges and the clerk whose conduct federal agents apparently found warranted some action being taken, i.e., retirement, semi-retirement, or resignation or otherwise leaving office. Those judges are as follows:
1. Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Judge Steven Hintz
Complaint charges : Violation of civil rights, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint: Retired the next day after Complaint was submitted
2. Superior Court (CA), Ventura County , Judge Barry Klopfer
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice, violation of civil rights,
conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint: Retired within a week after the Complaint
was submitted.
3. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Judge Dickran Tevrizian
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and violation of civil rights
Effect of Complaint : Retired after a federal misconduct complaint was filed with the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council—he had retired when the criminal complaint was submitted.
4. U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Judge Terry Hatter, Jr.
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate civil rights.
Effect of Complaint : Semi-retired (went from a regular district judge to a senior judge after complaint was submitted.
5. U.S.D.C., Northern District of California, Judge William W. Schwarzer
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice,
violation of statute providing for relief benefits, i.e., social security disability benefits, and violation of civil rights.
Effect of Complaint : Semi-retired (went from a regular district judge to a senior judge) after the Complaint was submitted.
6. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Clerk of the Court Cathy Catterson
Complaint charges: Obstruction of justice and fraud on the public.
Effect of Complaint: Retired or resigned or otherwise left office after the complaint was submitted.
From the time of submitting the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney until February of this year, we received no communications from any federal agents, i.e., the Federal Bureau of Investigations or the U.S. Attorney, regarding the Complaint, even after I had submitted a second writing in support of the Complaint (further clarifying the Complaint charges and seeking prosecution of the complained of individuals, especially the retirees). In the meantime, I discovered on my own the various retirements and semi-retirements. During the last two weeks of January, 2008, we (myself, and/or Mr. Griffith, who is disabled, and/or supporters, at various times) protested outside the federal courthouse (because the time established by the U.S. attorney itself for a response to our Complaint had lapsed without a response), petitioning for prosecution and restitution or a response of some kind.
In early February, I received a telephone call from the U.S. Attorney’s office indicating that the Office would respond to our Complaint in 6 to 8 weeks. In March, we received a letter from the USA stating that it is unable to assist us because it “does not conduct criminal investigations.”
Thus, from the submission of our Complaint until the March letter, the entire process has been “secret” as to us, the Complainants, and the public. Furthermore, the USA’s apparent action in not proceeding with prosecution appears to be a “de facto”, if not de jure, NPA between the U.S. Attorney and the accuseds. That is, if there was enough evidence, and we submitted much of the evidence with our Complaint, to require or cause the retirements, then there was enough to support a prosecution. Apparently, the USA has chosen and agreed with the accuseds not to prosecute. Yet, there has been no tender of restitution to the victims. According to U.S. Attorney David Nahmias, at the Committee hearing, NPAs “typically ‘require’ the payment of restitution to victims, and/or fines and penalties, long before such payments could be obtained in most cases through formal charges, protracted litigation and inevitable appeals.” So, the result of this “secret process” has been to allow the USA to refuse to prosecute the judges or the clerk (and there clearly is enough evidence to prosecute the clerk because she made and used a false and fraudulent document) and at the same time not require the payment of restitution to the victims. And, here, restitution is absolutely critical, essential, and/or necessary to the victims (after the unlawful shutdown of my home, law office, and law practice since 2003, my personal life and my life as a lawyer has been ruined. I have spent all of my time and resources since that time litigating on behalf of myself and my clients, Mr. Griffith and Ms. Andrews, trying to regain possession of my home-law office and trying obtain disability benefits for Mr. Griffith , who, for nearly the entire life of his two sons—who are now in their 20s—has, along with his two sons, slept on mattresses in a one-bedroom apartment, surviving on welfare—which has now been discontinued since his youngest son has reached majority age—and housing assistance. He has been disabled since 1979. Ms. Andrews also survives on disability or workman’s comp, and although her circumstance is not as severe as Mr. Griffith’s or myself, she nevertheless needs assistance and was denied her constitutional rights and warrants restitution). Not only does the U.S. Attorney’s actions appear to show favoritism, but also, they deny victims significant rights.
When Mr. Nahmias discussed briefly the difference between corporation NPAs and individual NPAs, he stated the main difference is that individual NPAs are subject to conditions, while corporations have monitors. This clarification seems to further support the proposition that a NPA exists between the accuseds and the USA, with the retirements being the essential condition. Yet, the USA has not required the accuseds to meet the remaining requirement of restitution, which we believe is one of the reasons for the secrecy (and for the USA telling us that his office does not “conduct criminal investigations”).
We believe that our discussions here further supports your view and the view that a “secret” NPA process usually invites arbitrariness, unfairness, or bias. This discussion also suggests that perhaps there should be a committee hearing regarding DPAs, NPAs, and individuals (as opposed to corporations), and the secrecy of the processes.
We believe the accuseds in our case(s) are or should be required to pay restitution pursuant to an implied “de facto”, if not de jure, NPA. We do not possess the power and/or authority to require the U.S. Attorney to inform us of what exactly has taken place regarding the investigation of the case and what exchanges have taken place between the U.S. Attorney, the accuseds, and/or the respective governments, i.e., Ventura County or the United States, or whether a DPA or NPA in fact exist. We would appreciate any assistance you can provide us in determining the existence of a de facto NPA and in acquiring any required restitution, pursuant thereto.
In the meantime, we do have the power and authority to do certain things, and one of them is exercise our rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and petition our government for redress; in this case, restitution. Therefore, as of March 31, 2008, we shall continue with our petition-protest for redress from our government, i.e., restitution, or prosecution and/or restitution, until we receive said relief, or comparable thereto, outside the federal courthouse in Los Angeles . We have chosen this date because it begins the week of the day Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, April 4. And so, part of our protest is in recognition of the life and death of Dr. King, and in the spirit of what he stood for. Ironically, Dr. King died in the process of aiding garbage collectors, and Mr. Griffith was a garbage collector when he received his on-the-job and disabling injury.
We would appreciate a prompt response to our letter. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
cc: Rep. Linda Sanchez, Chairman, Judiciary Committee on Commercial & Admin. Law; Rep. Bill Pascrell; and Rep. Frank Pallone
