LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
October 28, 2008
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on October 28, 2008 , on behalf of Harold James Griffith, Jeanette M. Andrews, and Laurack D. Bray, two separate federal criminal Complaints were filed in the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, charging the following individuals with at least the following identified conduct or offenses:
1. Thomas P. O’Brien, U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles (and others)—making and/or using a false or fraudulent statement or document and obstruction of justice.
2. Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—making and/or using a false or fraudulent statement or document.
3. Harry Pregerson, 9th Circuit Judge, individually—obstruction of justice and making and/or using a false or fraudulent statement .
4. Harry Pregerson, M. Margaret McKeown, and N.R. Smith, all 9th Circuit Judges, as a panel—obstruction of justice and making and/or using a false statement or document.
This is and should be a public matter, but, it is up to the public and public agencies and the legal community to make sure that this matter is resolved publically, openly, and fairly to all. A first criminal complaint, although actions took place (e.g., the retirement of three judges, Ventura County judges Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer and federal district court judge Terry Hatter, Jr., and the retirement or resignation of 9th Circuit clerk Cathy Catterson , after the Complaint was filed—but, none of the retirees was assigned a penalty for his or her actions or for the damage caused), was handled secretly, which is why you are probably not aware of it, which, in turn, precluded you from making your own informed determination of whether proper actions were taken or withheld.
The above circumstances, i.e., charges against a U.S. Attorney and his office, as well as the circumstances of the first Complaint (which is still pending), in our view, require the services of a private, independent and special prosecutor. But, it is clear that it will take the public and/or the legal community to demand such, if such is warranted, and to demand that the proceedings be open and fair, if this process or procedure (appointment of an independent prosecutor) is to occur.
cc : Senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, Senate Jud. Comm.
John Conyers, House Jud. Comm.
Linda Sanchez, House Subcomm.
American Bar Association
National Bar Association
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Judicial Watch
L.A. County Bar Association
Association of Federal Defense Attorneys
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Federal Public Defender, Central District of California
California Public Defenders Association
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Alan M. Dershowitz
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Watchdog
By Any Means Necessary
Thursday, November 5, 2009
John Durham memo-letter, Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct, Racial Bias, and Judicial Retirements
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
TO: JOHN H. DURHAM
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
FROM: LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ., AND ON BEHALF OF
JEANETTE M. ANDREWS AND HAROLD JAMES GRIFFITH
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009
SUBJECT: SPECIAL REQUEST FOR A LIMITED EXPANSION OF YOUR
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S USE OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, TO INCLUDE AN EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CASE INVOLVING A HIGH OR MANAGEMENT LEVEL BUSH ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEE
Mr. Durham, this memorandum-letter is a special request for a limited expansion of your investigation or “preliminary review” into the Bush Administration’s use of interrogation techniques. The overriding purpose of the expansion is to review and/or prosecute some cases where citizen criminal complaints have been filed but no formal prosecutorial action has been taken (but some type of action, at least in some cases, has been taken by the FBI ), which means that the cases are still pending. This special request is made for the following reasons: (1) prior to your appointment, we had already called for the appointment of an independent and special prosecutor; (2) the previous prosecutor, U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, who refused to prosecute certain heretofore identified cases and/or individuals, has now been removed or otherwise left office; (3) this is an “exceptional” or “extraordinary” case(s); (4) there is prima facie probable cause evidence for several cases; (5) this case involves high level or supervisory officials; (6) we received no formal response from the previous prosecutor to our complaints, other than a telephone call informing us that we would be getting a response and a subsequent letter containing a false and fraudulent statement indicating that the prosecutor could not proceed with the prosecution; (7) we continue to seek restitution for the losses suffered as a result of the actions of the identified individuals named in the complaints; and (8) if you do not investigate and/or prosecute these cases, who will ?
#1. PRIOR TO YOUR APPOINTMENT, WE HAD ALREADY CALLED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN COMPLAINTS.
On October 28, 2008, through a written announcement, we called for the appointment of an independent and special prosecutor for the investigation and prosecution of the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, California, Thomas P. O’Brien (and several of his Assistant United States Attorneys—AUSAs), and other high level officials or officers, i.e., federal appellate judges and a clerk. See attached letter containing the announcement. If you review the Complaint filed against Mr. O’Brien and find that O’Brien (and his AUSAs), especially, and the others named in a separate, but concurrently filed complaint, should be prosecuted by an independent special prosecutor, then, in terms of prosecutorial economy and resources, it would be both practical and efficient for you to investigate the original Complaint as well as the subsequent ones, to determine whether the complaints should be prosecuted. It certainly would be in keeping with what some perceive as your overall mission and purpose, that is, “to review the Bush administration Justice Department’s decisions not to prosecute CIA personnel who broke the agency’s own rules in their zeal to wring information from suspected terrorists.” L.A. Times, “Eric Holder’s Military Allies”, Doyle McManus, October 4, 2009 (emphasis added). We believe, at minimum, that there is sufficient evidence for certain cases to be submitted to a grand jury.
Clearly, the Department of Justice and another U.S. Attorney from that Department cannot prosecute O’Brien and the other AUSAs, basically and primarily because of conflict of interest, but also because of a denial of basic due process to the victims, e.g., a lack of impartiality. This is so clear, on its face, that any more than a superficial discussion of the matter should not be required.
The false statement and fraud committed by the Citizen’s Complaint Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is obvious and the documentary evidence speaks for itself. The statement, indicating that the U.S. Attorney Office could not continue with prosecution of the case because it does not conduct criminal investigations, is no different from the false statement cases that are prosecuted regularly by the Justice Department. The letter containing the actionable statement is part of the Complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.
#2. O’BRIEN, THE PREVIOUS U.S. ATTORNEY IN LOS ANGELES, WHO REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE OR PROSECUTE THE IDENTIFIED CASES OR INDIVIDUALS, HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED (APPARENTLY BY RESIGNATION).
Thomas P. O’Brien, the former Los Angeles U.S. Attorney, who refused to investigate and/or prosecute the individuals in our first complaint, has now been removed, apparently by resignation. Therefore, that complaint, which is pending, can and should be investigated and prosecuted by your office, especially regarding those individuals whom the FBI took some action against, i.e., caused to retire. We wrote the Inspector General, Glenn Fine, and copied the Attorney General, suggesting that O’Brien be removed as U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles for several reasons, including the false and fraudulent statement and failing to respond to the victims of the Complaint or the Complainants.
It would be fairer to the complainants that we receive investigation and prosecution of the Complaint by an independent, special prosecutor as we requested in our aforementioned letter . It would just be too difficult for another U.S. Attorney out of the Justice Department to be fair and impartial, with the knowledge that a fellow U.S. Attorney has been complained about and likely removed (through resignation) by or through the efforts of the complainants.
#3. THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CASE FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
This is an extraordinary case because several high level officials were caused to retire or resign (“retirees”) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after a single federal criminal complaint was filed by complainants. The “retirees” were both state and federal judges, and a Ninth Circuit Clerk. Further, the case is extraordinary because the FBI actually took action (persuasive action) against the judges and official itself, rather than just turn over its investigative evidence to the prosecutor.
Yet, the case is also exceptional because the prosecutor, a Bush administration appointee, refused to prosecute any of the individuals, which suggests that, for whatever reason, the prosecutor has held the individuals above the law. If the FBI found enough evidence to cause the individuals to retire, and in one case, the retirement occurred almost immediately after the complaint was filed, there was sufficient evidence to convene a grand jury. And, the Complaint is still pending, as it has not been dismissed based on a lack of evidence.
The case is also extraordinary because the very prosecutor charged with prosecuting certain crimes, ended up committing the same crime(s) himself, we charge, through his office. Further, his AUSAs also, we charge, committed the same crimes, i.e., fraud and false statement. “The question now is whether any of their rule-breaking deserved criminal prosecution----and whether the Bush administration made the right calls when it decided not to prosecute.” L.A. Times, supra.
Finally, this case is exceptional because the very individuals charged with upholding the law, i.e., state and federal judges, are charged (in the Complaint) with violating the law, and, indeed, by extension, the Constitution. Moreover, these individuals are “officers of the court”, and the rights of the victims involved are fundamental or basic rights. “A force that doesn’t enforce its own rules will quickly turn into undisciplined rabble.” Id.
Those individuals named in the first, July 25, 2007 federal criminal complaint who retired or resigned after the Complaint was filed (and after FBI investigation) were as follows:
1. Judge Steven Hintz – Superior Court of California, Ventura County
Charge in Complaint: Racial discrimination and conspiracy to deprive the undersigned (Bray) of his constitutional rights based on race. Judge Hintz caused the closure of the undersigned’s home-law office and law practice through an unlawful and discriminatory eviction that he caused through his actions.
2. Judge Barry Klopfer –Superior Court of California, Ventura County
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny Bray his constitutional rights based on race (or racial discrimination); he also filed a false statement in a written opinion.
3. Judge Terry Hatter, Jr. – United States District Court for the Central District of California
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny Mr. Griffith his constitutional rights to due process through or by ignoring the law.
Judge Hatter retired to senior judgeship.
4. Clerk Cathy Catterson --United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Charge in Complaint: Filing a false and fraudulent document for the purpose of covering up other misconduct.
OTHER RETIREES
5. Judge Dickran Tevrizian –United States District Court for the Central District of California
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice, racial discrimination or conspiracy to deny Bray and Andrews their constitutional rights based on Bray’s race (Black).
Judge Tevrizian was “allowed” to retire (rather than face the allegations of a misconduct complaint) after we filed a federal misconduct complaint against him. We then filed the federal criminal complaint, seeking restitution for his criminal conduct.
6. Judge William Schwarzer -- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Charge in Complaint: Conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and racial discrimination based on a federal statute criminalizing deprivation of public benefits based on race(in this instance, I relied on my race in asserting a claim for Mr. Griffith, who is white) and conspiring to deprive Mr. Griffith of his constitutional rights .
Judge Schwarzer was already a retired judge (senior status) when the criminal complaint was filed .
In October, 2008, we filed two additional federal criminal complaints. From those complaints, there has been at least one resignation (and I believe one other “retirement” is anticipated)(and I also believe several AUSAs have left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles—but this I cannot support with evidence in my possession, so this is speculation). That resignation is:
7. Thomas P. O’Brien –U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles (or the Central District of California)
Charge in Complaint: Submitting a false and fraudulent statement in a letter to complainants and obstructing justice. While we did not charge it in our complaint, it appears that O’Brien, through his office’s Citizen Complaint Unit, also committed mail fraud, and so, we hereby charge O’Brien and the AUSAs with mail fraud as well.
#4. THERE IS PRIMA FACIE PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE FOR SEVERAL CASES.
For several cases, there is clearly probable cause evidence, sufficient to submit to a grand jury. Some of the cases are as follows (we will simply summarize some of the evidence):
1. Cathy Catterson : There is both testimonial (at least myself) and document evidence available showing the essence of the fraud. Two separate documents show the fraudulent changes made to a filed document. Ms. Catterson’s case, from an evidentiary standpoint, is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, of all the individuals. Her case presents prima facie probable cause evidence. There is also testimonial (again, myself) and documentary evidence available against her regarding Mr. Griffith’s civil case ( however, the main fraud occurred during a mandamus proceeding) in terms of violation of a federal statute directed to discrimination.
2. Dickran Tevrizian: There are multiple pieces of document evidence in the record showing multiple acts of judge Tevrizian denying both Bray and Andrews constitutional and statutory rights.The document evidence shows him denying a TRO (and, consequently, a preliminary injunction as well) without a hearing, and violating a local rule which requires a preliminary injunction hearing date be set upon denial of a TRO, denying counsel without a hearing and without considering tendered evidence, granting the Navy summary judgment without jurisdiction , and making an illegal transfer of a case for the purpose of denying a party due process or a fair trial . In all, we would be able to show that judge Tevrizian violated the law, ignored the law, and acted without authority.
3. Steven Hintz: There is both transcript and document evidence regarding judge Hintz’s answering a jury question that was required to be answered by the jury itself (and I contend that it was done intentionally) and his stating in open court that he would not grant me a stay of eviction, even though I had not given even a hint that I would be asking for one. Moreover, after he was informally ordered, via a telephone call to Superior Court (by a Ventura County appellate court--which should have ruled on the motion itself) to hold a hearing, there is transcript evidence showing that he intentionally set the money bond too high for me to obtain a stay.
4. Barry Klopfer: There is document evidence (his written appellate decision, along with other panel members) showing that he (and the panel) falsely stated in his (their) opinion that an apartment manager testified to certain information, when he (Klopfer)(and the panel) knew that the apartment manager did not; and thereafter, he (Klopfer) attributed other information to the false apartment manager which made all of the information false . It was the purported manager’s son that actually testified, and the son was not the purported apartment manager. And, the apartment manager had to testify for foundational and hearsay purposes.
5. Thomas P. O’Brien: There is clear evidence that O’Brien, through his Office, falsely stated or lied in a letter to complainants-victims that the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not conduct criminal investigations, when, in truth and fact, it does. And, we offered some evidence to show that it does. Further, the letter also stated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was unable to proceed with the investigation and/or prosecution of complainants’ complaint because it did not conduct criminal investigations. The document evidence is the letter sent to complainants. The letter is also document evidence of mail fraud, which would be supported by my testimony.
#5. THIS CASE INVOLVES HIGH LEVEL OR MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
This case is not about low-level clerical personnel, or other agents, such as law clerks or paralegals; it is about state and federal judges and high level officials, i.e., Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals and the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles. Therefore, that fact should provide added incentive for your office to investigate and prosecute, for these officials are held to a higher standard. And, if they are not investigated and/or prosecuted for the same crimes that ordinary citizens are prosecuted for, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are being held above the law; especially for the false statement charges, which U.S. Attorney offices prosecute often. “Higher-ups should be held accountable too.” Id.(L.A. Times).
Some other officials named in our Complaints, where the accusations or charges remain pending (and not dismissed because of a lack of evidence) are as follows:
Superior Court of California, Ventura County judges:
David Long and Ken W. Riley (Obstruction of justice and racial discrimination)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit judges:
Richard Tallman (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice)
Ronald Gould (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and racial discrimination)
William W. Schwarzer (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and racial discrimination)
Mary Schroeder (formerly Chief Judge—the actions charged against judge Schroeder were those that occurred when she was Chief Judge)
Harry Pregerson (Obstruction of justice and false statement—judge Pregerson is charged in the criminal complaint in his role as assigned chief judge(of the Judicial Council) of a federal misconduct complaint and in his role as a member of a mandamus panel. In his role as chief judge, he is charged with intentionally delaying processing a misconduct complaint for the purpose of allowing a complained about federal district court judge, Dickran Tevrizian, to retire rather than face discipline or sanctions for his misconduct in the district court. Further, we charged that in order to delay the processing, judge Pregerson had to violate a federal statute calling for expeditious treatment of the Complaint . Finally, judge Pregerson, in order to coverup the delay and violation of the federal statute, tampered with the file(by removal of a document )and returned the document(where I protested the delay citing to the federal statute) to me.
M. Margaret McKeown (Obstruction of justice and false statement)
N. Randy Smith (Obstruction of justice and false statement)
#6. THUSFAR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINTS
Although there is a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. sec. 10607, that requires either the U.S. Attorney or the FBI to contact the victims of crimes to report and gather information, neither the U.S. Attorney nor the FBI contacted us to report the status of our Complaints or to advise us of our rights. Therefore, your office should at least act to comply with federal law and inform us of the status of our Complaints and our rights, since the prosecutor is charged with enforcing the law.
#7. WE CONTINUE TO SEEK RESTITUTION FOR THE LOSSES SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS.
Our quest for restitution is no different than that sought by the victims in the Bernard Madoff case. And, in our case, the damage is fundamentally more serious. Whereas in the Madoff case, citizens voluntarily invested excess money, such as savings (and later lost that money through Madoff’s criminal acts), in our case, the accused’s action deprived us of the opportunity to acquire money or excess money to invest. In my case, I am seeking restitution for the unlawful and/or illegal and racially-motivated closure or shutdown of my law office (which was also my home) and law practice. I was deprived of fundamental rights, the basic rights, supposedly, of all Americans, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. My law office has been shutdown since 2003, and since that time, I’ve been fighting through the so-called “justice” system to get it back. Moreover, the Ventura community was deprived of a needed service, see 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).
Mr. Griffith has essentially been unlawfully and/or illegally deprived of social security disability benefits since 1981, or thereabouts, when he first applied for benefits for an on-the-job (trash collector) injury that he suffered in 1979. Although he did receive some payments that started and stopped—and the government attempted to recoup those payments (the payments stopped sometimes around 1991 after starting around 1987 or thereabouts, after a full-blown administrative hearing before an administrative law judge who found Mr. Griffith disabled and ordered benefits be paid), Mr. Griffith(after a divorce) was forced to raise two sons on welfare until that welfare was discontinued based on the boys reaching majority age. He now survives on SSI (which was obtained within the last year or thereabouts). But, the unlawful and fraudulent actions occurring during both our cases causing the deprivation of fundamental rights, are no less serious than in the Madoff case. I still have a law school student loan debt that has blossomed to nearly $100,000.00 and monthly storage fees, begun in 2003, based on the unlawful eviction. And, in the Madoff case, most of those individuals, from my understanding, had already achieved the American dream when they invested the money with Madoff. I have yet to achieve the American dream, which includes a home and a family. I am now approaching retirement age, and Mr. Griffith is not far behind. Ms. Andrews was a working woman before she became disabled on-the-job at the U.S. Navy (she now survives on disability and is approaching retirement herself). So, restitution is an important part, indeed, the most important part, of these proceedings for the complainants.
#8. IF YOU DO NOT INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THESE CASES, AS AN INDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED AT ALL, AND JUSTICE WILL NOT BE SERVED.
Because a portion of this case, unmistakably, requires a special prosecutor, i.e., prosecution of the U.S. Attorney and his AUSAs, and a special prosecutor is not easily assigned or appointed, if you do not assume jurisdiction over this matter and at least make a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence for the matter to be submitted to a grand jury, the complaints may not be prosecuted at all and perhaps guilty individuals will go unpunished and justice will not be served.
What happened in this case is that the prosecutor has allowed certain individuals to retire or resign with dignity (as opposed to disgrace), rather than face prosecution (the same as what happened with judge Pregerson, as chief judge, and judge Tevrizian, supra), or, in some cases, to simply continue in their positions without facing prosecution, where other persons, including lawyers and CEOs , in the same or similar position would face prosecution, especially as it pertains to false statements or lying, or fraud. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge from Texas, Samuel Kent, was convicted of lying pursuant to a misconduct investigation by a federal Circuit Court. The misconduct proceedings, and subsequently, the federal criminal proceedings, grew out of allegations of sexual misconduct by court personnel. In this case, one federal judge has been charged in a complaint with obstruction of justice arising from a federal misconduct complaint and Circuit Court proceedings, as well as making a false statement during a mandamus proceeding. Another has been charged with racial discrimination or conspiracy to deny constitutional rights based on race. Further, a state court judge also was charged with racial discrimination. Yet, none of these individuals were prosecuted by the Justice Department. Does that mean that the Justice Department favors sexual abuse cases over racial abuse cases? And, in the judge Kent case, while the judge’s conduct was offensive to the women, the conduct did not deprive any of the women of a home , a job, or a career. But, in my case, with the deprivation of a home, office, and law practice, which has essentially ruined my life since 2003, the Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute any of the individuals involved. It appears to be, at least, selective prosecution at its best. “When we are wrong, we will admit our errors. When we see an affront to justice, we will rectify the problem.” Washington Lawyer, October, 2009, “The Ted Stevens Prosecution”, at 24 (quoting A.G. Eric Holder).
We are asking you to inject some notion of integrity into this case and make a determination as to whether these complaints must be submitted to a grand jury for investigation and/or indictment or dismissed for a lack of evidence.
We would appreciate a prompt and well-reasoned decision or response to our request. Thank you.
_________________________
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.,
cc: Attorney General Eric Holder
President and First Lady Obama
Congressman John Conyers, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Joseph E. diGenova
Anna Stolley Persky
Attached letter cited to in this memorandum is a published blog under the title "Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct. . . ."
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
TO: JOHN H. DURHAM
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
FROM: LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ., AND ON BEHALF OF
JEANETTE M. ANDREWS AND HAROLD JAMES GRIFFITH
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2009
SUBJECT: SPECIAL REQUEST FOR A LIMITED EXPANSION OF YOUR
INVESTIGATION INTO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S USE OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, TO INCLUDE AN EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CASE INVOLVING A HIGH OR MANAGEMENT LEVEL BUSH ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEE
Mr. Durham, this memorandum-letter is a special request for a limited expansion of your investigation or “preliminary review” into the Bush Administration’s use of interrogation techniques. The overriding purpose of the expansion is to review and/or prosecute some cases where citizen criminal complaints have been filed but no formal prosecutorial action has been taken (but some type of action, at least in some cases, has been taken by the FBI ), which means that the cases are still pending. This special request is made for the following reasons: (1) prior to your appointment, we had already called for the appointment of an independent and special prosecutor; (2) the previous prosecutor, U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, who refused to prosecute certain heretofore identified cases and/or individuals, has now been removed or otherwise left office; (3) this is an “exceptional” or “extraordinary” case(s); (4) there is prima facie probable cause evidence for several cases; (5) this case involves high level or supervisory officials; (6) we received no formal response from the previous prosecutor to our complaints, other than a telephone call informing us that we would be getting a response and a subsequent letter containing a false and fraudulent statement indicating that the prosecutor could not proceed with the prosecution; (7) we continue to seek restitution for the losses suffered as a result of the actions of the identified individuals named in the complaints; and (8) if you do not investigate and/or prosecute these cases, who will ?
#1. PRIOR TO YOUR APPOINTMENT, WE HAD ALREADY CALLED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE CERTAIN COMPLAINTS.
On October 28, 2008, through a written announcement, we called for the appointment of an independent and special prosecutor for the investigation and prosecution of the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, California, Thomas P. O’Brien (and several of his Assistant United States Attorneys—AUSAs), and other high level officials or officers, i.e., federal appellate judges and a clerk. See attached letter containing the announcement. If you review the Complaint filed against Mr. O’Brien and find that O’Brien (and his AUSAs), especially, and the others named in a separate, but concurrently filed complaint, should be prosecuted by an independent special prosecutor, then, in terms of prosecutorial economy and resources, it would be both practical and efficient for you to investigate the original Complaint as well as the subsequent ones, to determine whether the complaints should be prosecuted. It certainly would be in keeping with what some perceive as your overall mission and purpose, that is, “to review the Bush administration Justice Department’s decisions not to prosecute CIA personnel who broke the agency’s own rules in their zeal to wring information from suspected terrorists.” L.A. Times, “Eric Holder’s Military Allies”, Doyle McManus, October 4, 2009 (emphasis added). We believe, at minimum, that there is sufficient evidence for certain cases to be submitted to a grand jury.
Clearly, the Department of Justice and another U.S. Attorney from that Department cannot prosecute O’Brien and the other AUSAs, basically and primarily because of conflict of interest, but also because of a denial of basic due process to the victims, e.g., a lack of impartiality. This is so clear, on its face, that any more than a superficial discussion of the matter should not be required.
The false statement and fraud committed by the Citizen’s Complaint Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is obvious and the documentary evidence speaks for itself. The statement, indicating that the U.S. Attorney Office could not continue with prosecution of the case because it does not conduct criminal investigations, is no different from the false statement cases that are prosecuted regularly by the Justice Department. The letter containing the actionable statement is part of the Complaint filed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.
#2. O’BRIEN, THE PREVIOUS U.S. ATTORNEY IN LOS ANGELES, WHO REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE OR PROSECUTE THE IDENTIFIED CASES OR INDIVIDUALS, HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED (APPARENTLY BY RESIGNATION).
Thomas P. O’Brien, the former Los Angeles U.S. Attorney, who refused to investigate and/or prosecute the individuals in our first complaint, has now been removed, apparently by resignation. Therefore, that complaint, which is pending, can and should be investigated and prosecuted by your office, especially regarding those individuals whom the FBI took some action against, i.e., caused to retire. We wrote the Inspector General, Glenn Fine, and copied the Attorney General, suggesting that O’Brien be removed as U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles for several reasons, including the false and fraudulent statement and failing to respond to the victims of the Complaint or the Complainants.
It would be fairer to the complainants that we receive investigation and prosecution of the Complaint by an independent, special prosecutor as we requested in our aforementioned letter . It would just be too difficult for another U.S. Attorney out of the Justice Department to be fair and impartial, with the knowledge that a fellow U.S. Attorney has been complained about and likely removed (through resignation) by or through the efforts of the complainants.
#3. THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CASE FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
This is an extraordinary case because several high level officials were caused to retire or resign (“retirees”) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after a single federal criminal complaint was filed by complainants. The “retirees” were both state and federal judges, and a Ninth Circuit Clerk. Further, the case is extraordinary because the FBI actually took action (persuasive action) against the judges and official itself, rather than just turn over its investigative evidence to the prosecutor.
Yet, the case is also exceptional because the prosecutor, a Bush administration appointee, refused to prosecute any of the individuals, which suggests that, for whatever reason, the prosecutor has held the individuals above the law. If the FBI found enough evidence to cause the individuals to retire, and in one case, the retirement occurred almost immediately after the complaint was filed, there was sufficient evidence to convene a grand jury. And, the Complaint is still pending, as it has not been dismissed based on a lack of evidence.
The case is also extraordinary because the very prosecutor charged with prosecuting certain crimes, ended up committing the same crime(s) himself, we charge, through his office. Further, his AUSAs also, we charge, committed the same crimes, i.e., fraud and false statement. “The question now is whether any of their rule-breaking deserved criminal prosecution----and whether the Bush administration made the right calls when it decided not to prosecute.” L.A. Times, supra.
Finally, this case is exceptional because the very individuals charged with upholding the law, i.e., state and federal judges, are charged (in the Complaint) with violating the law, and, indeed, by extension, the Constitution. Moreover, these individuals are “officers of the court”, and the rights of the victims involved are fundamental or basic rights. “A force that doesn’t enforce its own rules will quickly turn into undisciplined rabble.” Id.
Those individuals named in the first, July 25, 2007 federal criminal complaint who retired or resigned after the Complaint was filed (and after FBI investigation) were as follows:
1. Judge Steven Hintz – Superior Court of California, Ventura County
Charge in Complaint: Racial discrimination and conspiracy to deprive the undersigned (Bray) of his constitutional rights based on race. Judge Hintz caused the closure of the undersigned’s home-law office and law practice through an unlawful and discriminatory eviction that he caused through his actions.
2. Judge Barry Klopfer –Superior Court of California, Ventura County
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny Bray his constitutional rights based on race (or racial discrimination); he also filed a false statement in a written opinion.
3. Judge Terry Hatter, Jr. – United States District Court for the Central District of California
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to deny Mr. Griffith his constitutional rights to due process through or by ignoring the law.
Judge Hatter retired to senior judgeship.
4. Clerk Cathy Catterson --United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Charge in Complaint: Filing a false and fraudulent document for the purpose of covering up other misconduct.
OTHER RETIREES
5. Judge Dickran Tevrizian –United States District Court for the Central District of California
Charge in Complaint: Obstruction of justice, racial discrimination or conspiracy to deny Bray and Andrews their constitutional rights based on Bray’s race (Black).
Judge Tevrizian was “allowed” to retire (rather than face the allegations of a misconduct complaint) after we filed a federal misconduct complaint against him. We then filed the federal criminal complaint, seeking restitution for his criminal conduct.
6. Judge William Schwarzer -- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Charge in Complaint: Conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and racial discrimination based on a federal statute criminalizing deprivation of public benefits based on race(in this instance, I relied on my race in asserting a claim for Mr. Griffith, who is white) and conspiring to deprive Mr. Griffith of his constitutional rights .
Judge Schwarzer was already a retired judge (senior status) when the criminal complaint was filed .
In October, 2008, we filed two additional federal criminal complaints. From those complaints, there has been at least one resignation (and I believe one other “retirement” is anticipated)(and I also believe several AUSAs have left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles—but this I cannot support with evidence in my possession, so this is speculation). That resignation is:
7. Thomas P. O’Brien –U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles (or the Central District of California)
Charge in Complaint: Submitting a false and fraudulent statement in a letter to complainants and obstructing justice. While we did not charge it in our complaint, it appears that O’Brien, through his office’s Citizen Complaint Unit, also committed mail fraud, and so, we hereby charge O’Brien and the AUSAs with mail fraud as well.
#4. THERE IS PRIMA FACIE PROBABLE CAUSE EVIDENCE FOR SEVERAL CASES.
For several cases, there is clearly probable cause evidence, sufficient to submit to a grand jury. Some of the cases are as follows (we will simply summarize some of the evidence):
1. Cathy Catterson : There is both testimonial (at least myself) and document evidence available showing the essence of the fraud. Two separate documents show the fraudulent changes made to a filed document. Ms. Catterson’s case, from an evidentiary standpoint, is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, of all the individuals. Her case presents prima facie probable cause evidence. There is also testimonial (again, myself) and documentary evidence available against her regarding Mr. Griffith’s civil case ( however, the main fraud occurred during a mandamus proceeding) in terms of violation of a federal statute directed to discrimination.
2. Dickran Tevrizian: There are multiple pieces of document evidence in the record showing multiple acts of judge Tevrizian denying both Bray and Andrews constitutional and statutory rights.The document evidence shows him denying a TRO (and, consequently, a preliminary injunction as well) without a hearing, and violating a local rule which requires a preliminary injunction hearing date be set upon denial of a TRO, denying counsel without a hearing and without considering tendered evidence, granting the Navy summary judgment without jurisdiction , and making an illegal transfer of a case for the purpose of denying a party due process or a fair trial . In all, we would be able to show that judge Tevrizian violated the law, ignored the law, and acted without authority.
3. Steven Hintz: There is both transcript and document evidence regarding judge Hintz’s answering a jury question that was required to be answered by the jury itself (and I contend that it was done intentionally) and his stating in open court that he would not grant me a stay of eviction, even though I had not given even a hint that I would be asking for one. Moreover, after he was informally ordered, via a telephone call to Superior Court (by a Ventura County appellate court--which should have ruled on the motion itself) to hold a hearing, there is transcript evidence showing that he intentionally set the money bond too high for me to obtain a stay.
4. Barry Klopfer: There is document evidence (his written appellate decision, along with other panel members) showing that he (and the panel) falsely stated in his (their) opinion that an apartment manager testified to certain information, when he (Klopfer)(and the panel) knew that the apartment manager did not; and thereafter, he (Klopfer) attributed other information to the false apartment manager which made all of the information false . It was the purported manager’s son that actually testified, and the son was not the purported apartment manager. And, the apartment manager had to testify for foundational and hearsay purposes.
5. Thomas P. O’Brien: There is clear evidence that O’Brien, through his Office, falsely stated or lied in a letter to complainants-victims that the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not conduct criminal investigations, when, in truth and fact, it does. And, we offered some evidence to show that it does. Further, the letter also stated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was unable to proceed with the investigation and/or prosecution of complainants’ complaint because it did not conduct criminal investigations. The document evidence is the letter sent to complainants. The letter is also document evidence of mail fraud, which would be supported by my testimony.
#5. THIS CASE INVOLVES HIGH LEVEL OR MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
This case is not about low-level clerical personnel, or other agents, such as law clerks or paralegals; it is about state and federal judges and high level officials, i.e., Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals and the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles. Therefore, that fact should provide added incentive for your office to investigate and prosecute, for these officials are held to a higher standard. And, if they are not investigated and/or prosecuted for the same crimes that ordinary citizens are prosecuted for, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are being held above the law; especially for the false statement charges, which U.S. Attorney offices prosecute often. “Higher-ups should be held accountable too.” Id.(L.A. Times).
Some other officials named in our Complaints, where the accusations or charges remain pending (and not dismissed because of a lack of evidence) are as follows:
Superior Court of California, Ventura County judges:
David Long and Ken W. Riley (Obstruction of justice and racial discrimination)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit judges:
Richard Tallman (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice)
Ronald Gould (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and racial discrimination)
William W. Schwarzer (Obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and racial discrimination)
Mary Schroeder (formerly Chief Judge—the actions charged against judge Schroeder were those that occurred when she was Chief Judge)
Harry Pregerson (Obstruction of justice and false statement—judge Pregerson is charged in the criminal complaint in his role as assigned chief judge(of the Judicial Council) of a federal misconduct complaint and in his role as a member of a mandamus panel. In his role as chief judge, he is charged with intentionally delaying processing a misconduct complaint for the purpose of allowing a complained about federal district court judge, Dickran Tevrizian, to retire rather than face discipline or sanctions for his misconduct in the district court. Further, we charged that in order to delay the processing, judge Pregerson had to violate a federal statute calling for expeditious treatment of the Complaint . Finally, judge Pregerson, in order to coverup the delay and violation of the federal statute, tampered with the file(by removal of a document )and returned the document(where I protested the delay citing to the federal statute) to me.
M. Margaret McKeown (Obstruction of justice and false statement)
N. Randy Smith (Obstruction of justice and false statement)
#6. THUSFAR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINTS
Although there is a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. sec. 10607, that requires either the U.S. Attorney or the FBI to contact the victims of crimes to report and gather information, neither the U.S. Attorney nor the FBI contacted us to report the status of our Complaints or to advise us of our rights. Therefore, your office should at least act to comply with federal law and inform us of the status of our Complaints and our rights, since the prosecutor is charged with enforcing the law.
#7. WE CONTINUE TO SEEK RESTITUTION FOR THE LOSSES SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS.
Our quest for restitution is no different than that sought by the victims in the Bernard Madoff case. And, in our case, the damage is fundamentally more serious. Whereas in the Madoff case, citizens voluntarily invested excess money, such as savings (and later lost that money through Madoff’s criminal acts), in our case, the accused’s action deprived us of the opportunity to acquire money or excess money to invest. In my case, I am seeking restitution for the unlawful and/or illegal and racially-motivated closure or shutdown of my law office (which was also my home) and law practice. I was deprived of fundamental rights, the basic rights, supposedly, of all Americans, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. My law office has been shutdown since 2003, and since that time, I’ve been fighting through the so-called “justice” system to get it back. Moreover, the Ventura community was deprived of a needed service, see 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).
Mr. Griffith has essentially been unlawfully and/or illegally deprived of social security disability benefits since 1981, or thereabouts, when he first applied for benefits for an on-the-job (trash collector) injury that he suffered in 1979. Although he did receive some payments that started and stopped—and the government attempted to recoup those payments (the payments stopped sometimes around 1991 after starting around 1987 or thereabouts, after a full-blown administrative hearing before an administrative law judge who found Mr. Griffith disabled and ordered benefits be paid), Mr. Griffith(after a divorce) was forced to raise two sons on welfare until that welfare was discontinued based on the boys reaching majority age. He now survives on SSI (which was obtained within the last year or thereabouts). But, the unlawful and fraudulent actions occurring during both our cases causing the deprivation of fundamental rights, are no less serious than in the Madoff case. I still have a law school student loan debt that has blossomed to nearly $100,000.00 and monthly storage fees, begun in 2003, based on the unlawful eviction. And, in the Madoff case, most of those individuals, from my understanding, had already achieved the American dream when they invested the money with Madoff. I have yet to achieve the American dream, which includes a home and a family. I am now approaching retirement age, and Mr. Griffith is not far behind. Ms. Andrews was a working woman before she became disabled on-the-job at the U.S. Navy (she now survives on disability and is approaching retirement herself). So, restitution is an important part, indeed, the most important part, of these proceedings for the complainants.
#8. IF YOU DO NOT INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THESE CASES, AS AN INDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED AT ALL, AND JUSTICE WILL NOT BE SERVED.
Because a portion of this case, unmistakably, requires a special prosecutor, i.e., prosecution of the U.S. Attorney and his AUSAs, and a special prosecutor is not easily assigned or appointed, if you do not assume jurisdiction over this matter and at least make a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence for the matter to be submitted to a grand jury, the complaints may not be prosecuted at all and perhaps guilty individuals will go unpunished and justice will not be served.
What happened in this case is that the prosecutor has allowed certain individuals to retire or resign with dignity (as opposed to disgrace), rather than face prosecution (the same as what happened with judge Pregerson, as chief judge, and judge Tevrizian, supra), or, in some cases, to simply continue in their positions without facing prosecution, where other persons, including lawyers and CEOs , in the same or similar position would face prosecution, especially as it pertains to false statements or lying, or fraud. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge from Texas, Samuel Kent, was convicted of lying pursuant to a misconduct investigation by a federal Circuit Court. The misconduct proceedings, and subsequently, the federal criminal proceedings, grew out of allegations of sexual misconduct by court personnel. In this case, one federal judge has been charged in a complaint with obstruction of justice arising from a federal misconduct complaint and Circuit Court proceedings, as well as making a false statement during a mandamus proceeding. Another has been charged with racial discrimination or conspiracy to deny constitutional rights based on race. Further, a state court judge also was charged with racial discrimination. Yet, none of these individuals were prosecuted by the Justice Department. Does that mean that the Justice Department favors sexual abuse cases over racial abuse cases? And, in the judge Kent case, while the judge’s conduct was offensive to the women, the conduct did not deprive any of the women of a home , a job, or a career. But, in my case, with the deprivation of a home, office, and law practice, which has essentially ruined my life since 2003, the Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute any of the individuals involved. It appears to be, at least, selective prosecution at its best. “When we are wrong, we will admit our errors. When we see an affront to justice, we will rectify the problem.” Washington Lawyer, October, 2009, “The Ted Stevens Prosecution”, at 24 (quoting A.G. Eric Holder).
We are asking you to inject some notion of integrity into this case and make a determination as to whether these complaints must be submitted to a grand jury for investigation and/or indictment or dismissed for a lack of evidence.
We would appreciate a prompt and well-reasoned decision or response to our request. Thank you.
_________________________
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.,
cc: Attorney General Eric Holder
President and First Lady Obama
Congressman John Conyers, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Joseph E. diGenova
Anna Stolley Persky
Attached letter cited to in this memorandum is a published blog under the title "Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct. . . ."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
College Football: A Letter to Oregon Coach Chip Kelly re: LeGarrette Blount
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
September 22, 2009
Head Coach Chip Kelly
University of Oregon Athletic Department
2727 Leo Harris Parkway
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Coach Kelly:
My name is Laurack D. Bray. I am a Black federal and civil rights lawyer and a former high school and college football player. I indicate my race only to avoid an assumption that I am white (because my name invites the assumption) and because I probably will discuss race at some point in this letter, and the admission, hopefully, will avoid misleading you in any way.
I am writing you to try and persuade you to reconsider the full season suspension lodged against running back LeGarrette Blount. Let me first inform you that I do not know Mr. Blount, having never met him, and that I am not writing this letter at his request, for he probably do not know that it is being written on his behalf. And, even though I informed you that I am an attorney, I am writing this letter strictly as a concerned citizen, who happens to be a lawyer. Last, I admit that all of the facts that I base this writing on have been obtained from news sources, e.g., the L.A. Times, television, and the internet. So, to the extent that your decision was based on information outside the news services, and such information would support or reinforce your current decision, you may disregard this letter.
My main argument for a reconsideration of your full season suspension is that, under the circumstances, the suspension is simply “unfair”. While I have read and heard various comments regarding the incidents giving rise to the suspension, in none of those comments or discussions have I heard the concept of “fairness” discussed. And I believe, particularly in the circumstances of this, the LeGarrette Blount-Byron Hout (the Boise State player involved) case, that the concept of fairness must be integrated into a final suspension decision. And, here, I do not believe it was. Finally, I believe that if fairness is injected into the equation, you will feel compelled to reconsider your suspension decision and issue a lesser suspension than a full season.
The following are some of the reasons why “fairness” must be integrated or factored into the suspension equation in this case:
(1). Regardless of Mr. Blount’s pre-game comments, i.e., “trash-talking”, Mr. Blount did not start or initiate the confrontation resulting in the physical exchange that ultimately caused his season-long suspension, Mr. Hout did. It was Hout that initiated the confrontation by approaching Blount, muttering words, and, finally, physically hitting Blount on the shoulder pads. Blount merely retaliated, albeit in a different way and kind. But, this harkens back to secondary school days when one person starts a fight with another person, and the person starting the fight ends up getting the worst end of the fight or confrontation. If school officials found out about the fight, and there were witnesses, the person starting the fight was the only one suspended or disciplined. Or, at most, both persons were equally suspended. But, rarely, would the second person, who happened to inflict the greater harm, unless the harm was serious bodily injury or death, be issued a much greater punishment than the initiator, as was done in this case . And, the result was usually based on “fairness”. I believe that institution of the concept of fairness into this case would dictate the same result here. However, since Oregon has no control or jurisdiction over Hout, it can only deal with Blount. Again, fairness would dictate that Blount not be suspended at all, because he did not start the “fight”; but, if Oregon chooses to discipline him for his actions only, then, certainly, that discipline should be “fair”.
(2). It is likely that your initial season-long suspension was a knee-jerk reaction to press coverage of the incident, reaction from school officials, and the fact that you are a new coach and you wanted to impress upon school officials that you would issue swift and serious discipline for the well-publicized act.
The press coverage was clearly slanted to Blount’s incident, as opposed to Hout’s. In fact, I didn’t even know about Hout’s behavior until I heard a television newscaster comment on it in passing. I never did see a taping of Hout’s incident, although I did read that it was shown, but not nearly as often as Blount’s.
Clearly, because of the press coverage of Blount’s incident in particular, there was enormous public reaction from school officials and the public in general. And, that reaction was generally and naturally against Blount.
Third, you are a new coach and you are human, and naturally and likely (because I don’t know for sure), you wanted to demonstrate to Oregon officials that you would do the appropriate thing, even if it was your own player involved; so you decided to agree to a punishment of a full season suspension (even though, likely, from your own experience, it was an unprecedented punishment for throwing a punch in a game—and this punch was thrown after the game). And, that suspension was impressive. According to the L.A. Times, Larry Scott, the first-year Pac 10 Conference commissioner, stated, “It made me proud that we’ve got coaches and programs with zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.” But, and I could be wrong, I do not believe that you considered the concept of “fairness’ in the equation or your decision at the time.
(3). There are racial implications in both the controversy itself and your suspension. Initially, let me say, I do not believe, nor have any reason to believe, that your suspension of Blount was racially-motivated. But, with that aside, there are nonetheless racial implications in the controversy and the suspension. One implication evolving from the controversy itself is clear, a black player “sucker-punched” a white player on national TV, and according to press coverage, the black player did the act unprovoked and with malice aforethought. And, the black player may have been racially-motivated to do the act, therefore, the black player should be punished, not only for doing the act, but for doing the act to a white player (would Blount have been punished the same for punching a black player rather than a white one?)
One implication evolving from the suspension is: a white coach is issuing punishment to a black player for the black player’s sucker punch of a white player, and the punishment was so steep or heavy because of the black player’s race (not simply because of the act). The other implication is that had the black player been white (making it a white-on-white incident), he would not have received the same (season-long) punishment. These are a few of the racial implications that evolve from the controversy. If you announce a decision based on fairness(which necessarily would mean a reduction in the suspension), it would tend to rebut such implications.
(4). The punishment is probably precedent-setting. Admittedly, I have not researched this matter, but it appears to me, based on my knowledge of penalties for throwing a punch in a football game, either high school, college, or professional, that this may be only one of a few, if any, cases where a football player has been suspended an entire season for throwing a punch, even a sucker punch, in a football game (and this punch occurred after the game). And, if there are such cases, I doubt that such a penalty has been issued where the person punched had actually started the fight or threw the “first punch”. If such a penalty has been issued before, I would surmise that it would be a situation where the sucker punch was an unprovoked one, and the person punched was innocent and disconnected from the person throwing the punch (which was not the case here). Last, further evidence that the season-long suspension for throwing a punch in a football game is unprecedented, and that at least one college conference (and probably most) will not follow that lead is a recent suspension for throwing a punch in a game by the Big Ten Conference. In an incident, according to the L.A. Times, where “Video of the incident during Saturday’s 38-34 Wolverines victory in Ann Arbor, Mich., spread on the internet”, the Big Ten only suspended the player (Jonas Mouton) for one game, “for punching a Notre Dame player during last week’s game.” See article attached to this letter.
(5). Hout has not been punished. Based upon my understanding and information, Hout has not been punished for his part and he started the controversy. Is that fair? Even though you and Oregon University have no control or jurisdiction over a Boise State player, you do have control over your player and the sanction imposed; and the sanction imposed, particularly because of Hout’s non-punishment, should be based on “fairness”. Rightfully, you could have announced “I will only punish my player if Hout is also punished” (in fairness to Blount), or, alternatively, “I will only punish my player with the usual punishment for this type of offense unless the other player is also punished for his role or conduct in this controversy”.
(6). Blount’s punch did not occur during the game. Whatever you charge Mr. Blount with doing, you cannot charge him with unsportsmanlike conduct during the football game , because the incident occurred after the game was over. From all indications, Blount handled himself well during the game (despite his pre-game “trash-talking”), i.e., no penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct. And, he probably would not have engaged in the post-game activities were it not for Hout verbally and physically taunting him.
(7). Blount showed remorse for his conduct, although his conduct was not the catalyst for the confrontation. From all indications, Blount “manned-up” and apologized for his conduct, whether his punch had been wrong or not. According to the aforementioned L.A. Times article, September 5, 2009, “Blount had apologized profusely. . . .” This must count for something .
(8). Your suspension effectively ends Blount’s college football career, and probably any chances of a professional career as well. This is probably the most important reason for reconsidering your suspension. I do not know Blount’s family background, but, I doubt that he has come from a wealthy family, who is going to support him the rest of his life. And, I do not know his potential for professional football, but if he did have some potential and would have had a chance of making it to the pros, that chance is wiped out by your suspension. Under the circumstances here, including his interaction with teammates and the crowd, is that fair? for throwing a punch after a football game and becoming belligerent? Is the punishment commensurate with the act(s)? Young black males in our society have it difficult enough as it is to try and find a place in society, and to earn a living, legally. So, is it fair for a young man such as Blount to have his career ruined over a punch thrown after a football game, where the entire incident was started by a guy who will not receive any penalty at all? And, incidentally, this player likely (for I do not know for sure) will have a more secure future than Blount, with or without football.
In sum, I believe Oregon’s season-long suspension of Mr. Blount was a knee-jerk reaction to the videotaped display by television, cable, and the internet to the public, which caused public reaction and a response thereto, without a consideration of “fairness” to Blount. But, now, after you have had time to reflect and consider all of the circumstances in a more reasoned and rational manner, I believe that if you view the entire matter based on fairness, that you will conclude that the season-long suspension was not fair to Mr. Blount. Conversely, I believe that the only way that you can maintain the current suspension, in good conscience, is to not include fairness into your decisionmaking process. But, if you so integrate fairness, you must find that your present decision under the circumstances is unfair to Blount.
And, if you announce that you have reconsidered your suspension based on fairness (which you did not consider before), are your critics going to demand that you be “unfair”? Or, that you should not consider fairness? I think not. But, even if they do, you can feel satisfied that you did the right thing, as opposed to the politically correct thing, and that Blount and your other players will know that henceforth, whatever happens on the field, their coach “have their backs” and will be fair in their defense (like Byron Hout’s coach is doing for him, that is, Hout’s coach’s idea of fairness, apparently (based on my knowledge), is that Hout should not be punished in any way for his conduct)). In one word, your players will “respect” you (your players know what the usual punishment is for a fight or punch thrown during a game—and this was after the game; and they know that the other player has not been punished; and, while they naturally will not say anything to you or other school officials because of their concern for their scholarships and their educational and football futures, what they say among themselves when they go home is another matter).
I urge you, sir, to reconsider your season-long suspension of LeGarrette Blount and punish him with a lesser and fairer suspension. On behalf of LeGarrette, I thank you.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
Very truly yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
September 22, 2009
Head Coach Chip Kelly
University of Oregon Athletic Department
2727 Leo Harris Parkway
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Coach Kelly:
My name is Laurack D. Bray. I am a Black federal and civil rights lawyer and a former high school and college football player. I indicate my race only to avoid an assumption that I am white (because my name invites the assumption) and because I probably will discuss race at some point in this letter, and the admission, hopefully, will avoid misleading you in any way.
I am writing you to try and persuade you to reconsider the full season suspension lodged against running back LeGarrette Blount. Let me first inform you that I do not know Mr. Blount, having never met him, and that I am not writing this letter at his request, for he probably do not know that it is being written on his behalf. And, even though I informed you that I am an attorney, I am writing this letter strictly as a concerned citizen, who happens to be a lawyer. Last, I admit that all of the facts that I base this writing on have been obtained from news sources, e.g., the L.A. Times, television, and the internet. So, to the extent that your decision was based on information outside the news services, and such information would support or reinforce your current decision, you may disregard this letter.
My main argument for a reconsideration of your full season suspension is that, under the circumstances, the suspension is simply “unfair”. While I have read and heard various comments regarding the incidents giving rise to the suspension, in none of those comments or discussions have I heard the concept of “fairness” discussed. And I believe, particularly in the circumstances of this, the LeGarrette Blount-Byron Hout (the Boise State player involved) case, that the concept of fairness must be integrated into a final suspension decision. And, here, I do not believe it was. Finally, I believe that if fairness is injected into the equation, you will feel compelled to reconsider your suspension decision and issue a lesser suspension than a full season.
The following are some of the reasons why “fairness” must be integrated or factored into the suspension equation in this case:
(1). Regardless of Mr. Blount’s pre-game comments, i.e., “trash-talking”, Mr. Blount did not start or initiate the confrontation resulting in the physical exchange that ultimately caused his season-long suspension, Mr. Hout did. It was Hout that initiated the confrontation by approaching Blount, muttering words, and, finally, physically hitting Blount on the shoulder pads. Blount merely retaliated, albeit in a different way and kind. But, this harkens back to secondary school days when one person starts a fight with another person, and the person starting the fight ends up getting the worst end of the fight or confrontation. If school officials found out about the fight, and there were witnesses, the person starting the fight was the only one suspended or disciplined. Or, at most, both persons were equally suspended. But, rarely, would the second person, who happened to inflict the greater harm, unless the harm was serious bodily injury or death, be issued a much greater punishment than the initiator, as was done in this case . And, the result was usually based on “fairness”. I believe that institution of the concept of fairness into this case would dictate the same result here. However, since Oregon has no control or jurisdiction over Hout, it can only deal with Blount. Again, fairness would dictate that Blount not be suspended at all, because he did not start the “fight”; but, if Oregon chooses to discipline him for his actions only, then, certainly, that discipline should be “fair”.
(2). It is likely that your initial season-long suspension was a knee-jerk reaction to press coverage of the incident, reaction from school officials, and the fact that you are a new coach and you wanted to impress upon school officials that you would issue swift and serious discipline for the well-publicized act.
The press coverage was clearly slanted to Blount’s incident, as opposed to Hout’s. In fact, I didn’t even know about Hout’s behavior until I heard a television newscaster comment on it in passing. I never did see a taping of Hout’s incident, although I did read that it was shown, but not nearly as often as Blount’s.
Clearly, because of the press coverage of Blount’s incident in particular, there was enormous public reaction from school officials and the public in general. And, that reaction was generally and naturally against Blount.
Third, you are a new coach and you are human, and naturally and likely (because I don’t know for sure), you wanted to demonstrate to Oregon officials that you would do the appropriate thing, even if it was your own player involved; so you decided to agree to a punishment of a full season suspension (even though, likely, from your own experience, it was an unprecedented punishment for throwing a punch in a game—and this punch was thrown after the game). And, that suspension was impressive. According to the L.A. Times, Larry Scott, the first-year Pac 10 Conference commissioner, stated, “It made me proud that we’ve got coaches and programs with zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.” But, and I could be wrong, I do not believe that you considered the concept of “fairness’ in the equation or your decision at the time.
(3). There are racial implications in both the controversy itself and your suspension. Initially, let me say, I do not believe, nor have any reason to believe, that your suspension of Blount was racially-motivated. But, with that aside, there are nonetheless racial implications in the controversy and the suspension. One implication evolving from the controversy itself is clear, a black player “sucker-punched” a white player on national TV, and according to press coverage, the black player did the act unprovoked and with malice aforethought. And, the black player may have been racially-motivated to do the act, therefore, the black player should be punished, not only for doing the act, but for doing the act to a white player (would Blount have been punished the same for punching a black player rather than a white one?)
One implication evolving from the suspension is: a white coach is issuing punishment to a black player for the black player’s sucker punch of a white player, and the punishment was so steep or heavy because of the black player’s race (not simply because of the act). The other implication is that had the black player been white (making it a white-on-white incident), he would not have received the same (season-long) punishment. These are a few of the racial implications that evolve from the controversy. If you announce a decision based on fairness(which necessarily would mean a reduction in the suspension), it would tend to rebut such implications.
(4). The punishment is probably precedent-setting. Admittedly, I have not researched this matter, but it appears to me, based on my knowledge of penalties for throwing a punch in a football game, either high school, college, or professional, that this may be only one of a few, if any, cases where a football player has been suspended an entire season for throwing a punch, even a sucker punch, in a football game (and this punch occurred after the game). And, if there are such cases, I doubt that such a penalty has been issued where the person punched had actually started the fight or threw the “first punch”. If such a penalty has been issued before, I would surmise that it would be a situation where the sucker punch was an unprovoked one, and the person punched was innocent and disconnected from the person throwing the punch (which was not the case here). Last, further evidence that the season-long suspension for throwing a punch in a football game is unprecedented, and that at least one college conference (and probably most) will not follow that lead is a recent suspension for throwing a punch in a game by the Big Ten Conference. In an incident, according to the L.A. Times, where “Video of the incident during Saturday’s 38-34 Wolverines victory in Ann Arbor, Mich., spread on the internet”, the Big Ten only suspended the player (Jonas Mouton) for one game, “for punching a Notre Dame player during last week’s game.” See article attached to this letter.
(5). Hout has not been punished. Based upon my understanding and information, Hout has not been punished for his part and he started the controversy. Is that fair? Even though you and Oregon University have no control or jurisdiction over a Boise State player, you do have control over your player and the sanction imposed; and the sanction imposed, particularly because of Hout’s non-punishment, should be based on “fairness”. Rightfully, you could have announced “I will only punish my player if Hout is also punished” (in fairness to Blount), or, alternatively, “I will only punish my player with the usual punishment for this type of offense unless the other player is also punished for his role or conduct in this controversy”.
(6). Blount’s punch did not occur during the game. Whatever you charge Mr. Blount with doing, you cannot charge him with unsportsmanlike conduct during the football game , because the incident occurred after the game was over. From all indications, Blount handled himself well during the game (despite his pre-game “trash-talking”), i.e., no penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct. And, he probably would not have engaged in the post-game activities were it not for Hout verbally and physically taunting him.
(7). Blount showed remorse for his conduct, although his conduct was not the catalyst for the confrontation. From all indications, Blount “manned-up” and apologized for his conduct, whether his punch had been wrong or not. According to the aforementioned L.A. Times article, September 5, 2009, “Blount had apologized profusely. . . .” This must count for something .
(8). Your suspension effectively ends Blount’s college football career, and probably any chances of a professional career as well. This is probably the most important reason for reconsidering your suspension. I do not know Blount’s family background, but, I doubt that he has come from a wealthy family, who is going to support him the rest of his life. And, I do not know his potential for professional football, but if he did have some potential and would have had a chance of making it to the pros, that chance is wiped out by your suspension. Under the circumstances here, including his interaction with teammates and the crowd, is that fair? for throwing a punch after a football game and becoming belligerent? Is the punishment commensurate with the act(s)? Young black males in our society have it difficult enough as it is to try and find a place in society, and to earn a living, legally. So, is it fair for a young man such as Blount to have his career ruined over a punch thrown after a football game, where the entire incident was started by a guy who will not receive any penalty at all? And, incidentally, this player likely (for I do not know for sure) will have a more secure future than Blount, with or without football.
In sum, I believe Oregon’s season-long suspension of Mr. Blount was a knee-jerk reaction to the videotaped display by television, cable, and the internet to the public, which caused public reaction and a response thereto, without a consideration of “fairness” to Blount. But, now, after you have had time to reflect and consider all of the circumstances in a more reasoned and rational manner, I believe that if you view the entire matter based on fairness, that you will conclude that the season-long suspension was not fair to Mr. Blount. Conversely, I believe that the only way that you can maintain the current suspension, in good conscience, is to not include fairness into your decisionmaking process. But, if you so integrate fairness, you must find that your present decision under the circumstances is unfair to Blount.
And, if you announce that you have reconsidered your suspension based on fairness (which you did not consider before), are your critics going to demand that you be “unfair”? Or, that you should not consider fairness? I think not. But, even if they do, you can feel satisfied that you did the right thing, as opposed to the politically correct thing, and that Blount and your other players will know that henceforth, whatever happens on the field, their coach “have their backs” and will be fair in their defense (like Byron Hout’s coach is doing for him, that is, Hout’s coach’s idea of fairness, apparently (based on my knowledge), is that Hout should not be punished in any way for his conduct)). In one word, your players will “respect” you (your players know what the usual punishment is for a fight or punch thrown during a game—and this was after the game; and they know that the other player has not been punished; and, while they naturally will not say anything to you or other school officials because of their concern for their scholarships and their educational and football futures, what they say among themselves when they go home is another matter).
I urge you, sir, to reconsider your season-long suspension of LeGarrette Blount and punish him with a lesser and fairer suspension. On behalf of LeGarrette, I thank you.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
Very truly yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)