Department of Justice, Victim Rights Law, and Due Process: A Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer

LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693

November 23, 2009

Senator Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
Hart SOB, Suite 112
Washington, DC 20510-0505
Dear Senator Boxer:

Thank you for responding to my letter regarding my memorandum-letter directed to John H. Durham, Special Prosecutor (the response was from your office). However, the letter was so generalized that I had to surmise or conclude that it was a response to my recent letter.

In any event, even though there may be some things that you are unable to do, it is clear from Mr. Vizcaino’s (or your office’s) letter that there is, nevertheless, important and crucial assistance that you can and are authorized to provide us (my clients, Harold James Griffith and Jeanette Andrews, and I), and we hereby seek that assistance. That is, your office’s letter states, in part, “our assistance is limited to providing assurance that these various departments and agencies respond (emphasis added) and give due process to constituent concerns.” This is precisely the type of assistance that we are seeking from your office in the first instance. The relief we sought in our previous letter assumed a response from the Department of Justice had been or would be forthcoming. But, in actuality, it has not been. Thus, we seek your assistance to that end. I will return to this point later.

First, I must respond to your office’s characterization or designation of my letter-memo to John Durham as “regarding an on-going Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation”. If that’s the case or is true, your office is the first to inform me of such. In fact, regarding our criminal complaints filed in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles , I was told just the opposite. Indeed, the L.A. United States Attorney’s Office stated (falsely ) that it was “unable to proceed” with an on-going investigation because “the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not conduct criminal investigations”. Therefore, the Department of Justice (through the U.S. Attorney’s Office) specifically denied an “on-going Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation.” Moreover, unless the “on-going Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation” is being conducted by the Special Prosecutor, it is clearly being conducted in violation of federal law. That is, federal law, at least 42 U.S.C. sec. 10607, requires the Department of Justice to contact and inform victims (and we are members of that class) of the status of the investigation of their complaint (or the crime(s)) and their rights upon filing of the criminal complaint (June, 2007) , or sooner. And, we have not been contacted and provided that information . And, if both the U.S. Attorney and the F.B.I. (and both are responsible for providing the information) agreed not to provide us with the information, that could move the matter to a violation of federal criminal law.
Even if the Special Prosecutor is conducting the on-going DOJ investigation, at minimum, due process requires that we be notified of the fact and status of the investigation. And, if the memorandum is treated as a criminal complaint (since it was not submitted in a formal complaint form), the requirements of 42 U.S.C. sec. 10607, including informing us of our rights, might attach. So, we need to know who is conducting the on-going DOJ investigation to determine whether our rights are being violated and/or to determine what rights are actually due us.
Now, back to your assistance. As alluded to earlier, notwithstanding the letter we received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office containing the false statements and/or information, we have not received a response from the Justice Department in regard to any of our complaints filed, and one complaint was filed over two years ago. Not only is the non-action a violation of federal law, but it is also a denial of due process regarding our concerns, especially restitution. Therefore, the assistance that we seek from you or your office is precisely the type of assistance that your office states that you provide, that is, “assurance that these various departments and agencies respond and give due process to constituent concerns.” And, it has nothing to do with influencing the decisions of the DOJ, it has to do with the DOJ responding properly and lawfully to our complaints.
We also request “assurance” that the Special Prosecutor will respond to our memo-letter and give due process to our concerns.
In sum, we seek that assistance that your office’s letter stated you are limited to, that is, “providing assurance that these various departments and agencies respond and give due process to constituent concerns.” To that end, we request that you:
1. Inquire and determine, in view of the Department of Justice’s 2008 letter to the contrary, whether there is truly an on-going DOJ investigation regarding our memo-letter to John Durham; and, if so, who is conducting the investigation, the DOJ or the Special Prosecutor (Durham)?
2. Provide assurance that the Department of Justice will respond to our complaints in a timely fashion, and that it will give due process to our concerns, such as our statutory rights pursuant to Section 10607, particularly our right to restitution (which, in my case, will involve having my home-law office returned) . Because, even if the special prosecutor decides not to grant our request for an expanded investigation, our complaints will remain pending for the next U.S. Attorney appointed in Los Angeles or an independently appointed special prosecutor specifically to prosecute our complaints.
3. Provide assurance that if special prosecutor Durham is actually conducting the on-going DOJ investigation regarding our memo, that he responds in a timely fashion and that his response comports with due process.
Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Laurack D. Bray, Esq.