المحتوى المقدم من YesToHellWith. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة YesToHellWith أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - تطبيق بودكاست انتقل إلى وضع عدم الاتصال باستخدام تطبيق Player FM !
When a young Eva Kollisch arrives as a refugee in New York in 1940, she finds a community among socialists who share her values and idealism. She soon discovers ‘the cause’ isn’t as idyllic as it seems. Little does she know this is the beginning of a lifelong commitment to activism and her determination to create radical change in ways that include belonging, love and one's full self. In addition to Eva Kollisch’s memoirs Girl in Movement (2000) and The Ground Under My Feet (2014), LBI’s collections include an oral history interview with Eva conducted in 2014 and the papers of Eva’s mother, poet Margarete Kolllisch, which document Eva’s childhood experience on the Kindertransport. Learn more at www.lbi.org/kollisch . Exile is a production of the Leo Baeck Institute , New York | Berlin and Antica Productions . It’s narrated by Mandy Patinkin. Executive Producers include Katrina Onstad, Stuart Coxe, and Bernie Blum. Senior Producer is Debbie Pacheco. Associate Producers are Hailey Choi and Emily Morantz. Research and translation by Isabella Kempf. Sound design and audio mix by Philip Wilson, with help from Cameron McIver. Theme music by Oliver Wickham. Voice acting by Natalia Bushnik. Special thanks to the Kollisch family for the use of Eva’s two memoirs, “Girl in Movement” and “The Ground Under My Feet”, the Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College and their “Voices of Feminism Oral History Project”, and Soundtrack New York.…
المحتوى المقدم من YesToHellWith. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة YesToHellWith أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
YesToHellWith highlights the loss of truth, freedom, and justice. Whether caused by the government, commerce, or private parties, there is a time and a place for accountability. The time is now and YesToHellWith is the place.
المحتوى المقدم من YesToHellWith. يتم تحميل جميع محتويات البودكاست بما في ذلك الحلقات والرسومات وأوصاف البودكاست وتقديمها مباشرة بواسطة YesToHellWith أو شريك منصة البودكاست الخاص بهم. إذا كنت تعتقد أن شخصًا ما يستخدم عملك المحمي بحقوق الطبع والنشر دون إذنك، فيمكنك اتباع العملية الموضحة هنا https://ar.player.fm/legal.
YesToHellWith highlights the loss of truth, freedom, and justice. Whether caused by the government, commerce, or private parties, there is a time and a place for accountability. The time is now and YesToHellWith is the place.
Thanks to technology, we have greater and quicker access to news and people than at any point in history. In fact, having access to people creates news. Consequently, we can learn truth and defeat lies almost instantly. Knowing and possessing truth has not always been easy, especially when officials either do not know truth, refuse to acknowledge it, or condemn truth as false. The COVID fiasco is an example. The alleged necessity and effectiveness of the COVID jabs, which are not vaccines at all, is another. Ultimately, officials preserve systems which do not function for our benefit and are inconsistent with a larger truth. For example, President Biden used his influence to condemn those who ignored both the Government’s COVID propaganda and jab. He had an agenda to advance the interests of other parties. His efforts did not involve the truth. Since America’s brightest and most capable do not run for elected office, many current officials, though with good intentions, are woefully ignorant. Moreover, they eventually learn about and operate systems outside of larger and more compelling truth. Let’s look at it this way. We treat those who are elected or appointed to office as if they are knowledgeable and we accept what they say as true. However, others may reject their statements as false, but they remain without recourse nonetheless. Did Anthony Fauci truthfully disclose the funding and origin of COVID? Did he truthfully address the efficacy of the COVID jabs? Was the Russian Collusion allegation against Donald Trump valid? Is there a law which requires the average American to file a federal income tax return? Was the Federal Government complicit with the assassination of John F. Kennedy? What is true? We deserve the truth. I am James Johnson. I am the Author of The End of Justice, which is a critical review as to how and why America is the most incarcerated country in the world. My studies of and direct experience within the federal justice system led me to sobering conclusions about America. One such cause of our problems is the absolute arrogance with which public officials embrace their titles and authority. They act as if they are entitled and superior to the voters. This hubris leads to the distortion of truth, people suffer, and freedom perishes. To The President of The United States is a platform that seeks truth. When officials abuse their powers and positions, they hide behind their titles and truth is subsequently defeated. However, if officials are knowledgeable, honest, and humble, and if they serve the will of the people, they will conduct themselves in a manner befitting their titles. The motto of the United States is “e pluribus unim,” out of many – one”. May we all seek truth and remain one in freedom.…
Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. I am recording this episode on the coast of Mexico, so please excuse the background noise. In the last episode, I explained how Benjamin Glassman, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and Kenneth Parker, current US Attorney, lied to the public in 2018 about shredding documents that do not exist and never existed. Moreover, because of their lie, they failed to dignify an admission from PNC Bank that there was no $4 million loan and a finding from the Department of the Treasury as to the same fact. The repercussions were devastating. Glassman and Parker were expected to seek the truth in Ohio, but they avoided the truth like the plague and kept an innocent man in prison. In this episode, we will discuss my attempts to hold Glassman and Parker accountable for their lies and how the system failed to investigate them. I will also discuss in greater detail the role of Kenneth Parker. I want to be clear about an important point. After some three plus years as US Attorney, Parker, after receiving my direct request that he provide proof of the shredding of these alleged loan documents, has not responded. In the last episode, I spoke about the inefficiency of the system that is the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the system is problematic when holding public officials accountable for their criminal conduct or gross incompetence. This means the system fails to provide a solution for anyone suffering from abuse or wrongdoing by public officials. Whether Glassman and Parker acted criminally or incompetently, Orlando Carter is still seeking an answer for his unjust conviction and the lie stated by Glassman and Parker about shredding evidence that does not exist and never existed. Let me explain with a timeline and supporting documents which you will find attached. · You will recall that in January and March of 2017, I received investigative findings from the OCC confirming that a $4 million loan did not exist between PNC Bank and Carter or his company. These documents were posted in a prior episode. · I then spoke with Glassman and Parker in 2018 in their Cincinnati office. They began the meeting by proclaiming that the evidence of a $4 million loan had been shredded by the DOJ. · On December 28, 2018, Glassman responded to our concerns with a letter explaining why Carter was justly convicted. You may recall that he summarily dismissed the significance of what we deemed to be new evidence by the OCC. I uploaded Glassman’s letter in a prior episode. · Since Glassman and Parker did not help Carter in the least, and without any other recourse, in March of 2020, I filed a complaint against Glassman with the BAR Association at the Supreme Court of Ohio. The BAR Association responded that the proper agency to receive a complaint against a US Attorney was the Office of Professional Responsibility with the Department of Justice. Bar Response To Glassman Complaint 72.1KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · So, I filed a complaint against Glassman with the Office of Professional Responsibility. When the OPR responded that they were not the proper agency, I filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Glassman Opr (1) 44.9KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · None of these agencies assisted and disavowed being the proper party to investigate Glassman’s crime. · In the summer of 2021, I learned about Parker’s nomination to become US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio under President Biden. Parker Usa To Biden 105KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · In October 2021, I penned an open letter to Biden. I then penned a Press Release concerning a controversy between Butler County and Kenneth Parker as it relates to the alleged $4 million loan. Ferguson Press Release (1) 108KB ∙ PDF file Download Download That same month, I penned a Press Release concerning the nomination of Kenneth Parker with an emphasis on Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz is a member of the Judiciary Committee which was responsible for approving and advancing all nominations for US Attorneys to the full Senate. Press Release Cruz 105KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · At the end of October 2021, I flew to San Antonio, Texas, to speak with Senator Cruz’ Chief of Staff. My efforts were to no avail. Parker’s nomination advanced from the committee to a full Senate vote and he was confirmed as US Attorney. · When Parker was confirmed as US Attorney, I sent him a letter on December 6, 2021 and asked that he prove that the DOJ destroyed the alleged evidence of a $4 million loan. Dec 6 Letter To Parker 96.8KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · To ensure that I received an answer, I submitted a FOIA request on December 7, 2021. · Parker responded to my FOIA on December 20, 2021, by stating that my request would be sent to the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys. Parker Foia Response To My Foia 144KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · Since then, I have emailed the Executive Office of US Attorneys several times and have not received a response. The Federal Government remains silent on this issue, which means that Glassman and Parker will not be held accountable until the lie about the shredding of evidence of an alleged $4 million loan is denied. · Now, since none of the agencies mentioned above were willing to accept responsibility for investigating a US Attorney who lied while in office, I do not expect a different response concerning Parker. However, I wrote to each agency and received no responses whatsoever. The Office of Professional Responsibility, the BAR Association, and the United States District Court never responded to my concerns. Even after I sent subsequent requests for answers, I received nothing. Usdc Parker Complaint 234KB ∙ PDF file Download Download Usdc Parker Complaint 234KB ∙ PDF file Download Download · Finally, on June 7, 2023, I filed a formal complaint with Mr. Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, through his online portal. I have not heard from Horowitz at all. Horowitz 246KB ∙ PDF file Download Download Several questions must be asked: 1) What agency is responsible for investigating a US Attorney who lies, especially since the lie prevents the exoneration of an innocent man in prison and contradicts a conclusion of fact from a separate federal agency? 2) Why would Kenneth Parker not willingly review Glassman’s own words and agree to reconsider the OCC finding of fact and admit that the DOJ made a grievous error when prosecuting Carter in 2009? 3) Why did Senator Cruz refuse to discuss with the Senate Judiciary Committee allegations that Parker lied about shredding documents that do not exist? Why would Cruz allow Parker’s nomination to proceed from the committee to the full Senate unchallenged? 4) Why has it taken nearly three years for the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys to answer my simple FOIA Request? 5) Why does the same office refuse to respond to my emails with an update? 6) Why hasn’t the Inspector General of the Department of Justice responded to my complaint against Parker? 7) Is the Federal Government grossly inefficient and, therefore, unable to answer these questions, or is the Government complicit with the lie made by two US Attorneys? It appears as if no one is responsible for the overall tragedy that is the unjust conviction of Orlando Carter, just as there appears to be no one responsible for any of the numerous agencies or components involved. For example, if it were possible to speak with President Biden directly, and if he were willing to listen to the FACTS of the case, would he obfuscate and deflect the issue, or would he task someone who would resolve the issues once and for all? You see, without one specific person deciding for the Federal Government, the matter will not be addressed. Now, if an official within an agency of the Federal Government were to listen and resolve at least one aspect of the overall tragedy, that one conclusion could affect other elements. For example, if the Executive Office of US Attorneys were to process the FOIA Request and determine that there were no records proving the shredding of a $4 million loan, then we could use this new fact and leverage a response from other agencies and work toward a conclusion. Yet, when there is complete inertia by the Federal Government, Glassman’s and Parker’s lies will remain uncontested and both truth and justice will be denied. One must wonder, akin to the corrupt culture of the FBI under James Comey, if the Federal Government refuses to concede to the injustice of the Carter case simply to avoid all repercussions. Given the lengths the FBI concealed the lies concerning collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, why wouldn’t the DOJ simply hide the truth concerning the Carter tragedy? Let’s look at one of my attempts to hold the “system” accountable and consider the impact. When I first learned that President Biden nominated Kenneth Parker as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, I acted quickly. I genuinely believed that Senator Cruz would give my concerns a fair shake and consider the gravity of Parker’s complicity with the lie about shredding of evidence which does not exist. After all, Cruz is constantly fuming and barking and huffing and puffing about this and that. Why would he not do the same about a lie that is easily proved about a nominee for US Attorney concerning a federal conviction and prison sentence that were predicated upon the existence of that very $4 million loan? Since Senator Cruz aggressively seeks public acclaim as a firebrand, that is, the tough guy seeking truth, I figured he would want to dignify the facts and openly and aggressively condemn the Parker nomination. Here are the facts relating to Senator Cruz: 1) I provided Cruz with the history of Parker’s lie. 2) I made an appointment and flew to San Antonio and provided the documents and information directly to his Chief of Staff. 3) Cruz’ Chief of Staff provided this relevant information to Cruz. 4) I had already emailed the same information to most of the members of the Judiciary committee as well. 5) When Parker’s nomination cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee without so much as a raised eyebrow, I called Cruz’ office in San Antonio and asked for an explanation. 6) Cruz’ Chief of Staff explained that he could not confirm whether Cruz voted to confirm or deny Parker’s nomination because both the votes within the Judiciary committee and the full Senate were voice votes. 7) I told Cruz’ Chief of Staff that it was rather convenient for a Senator to rely upon voice votes as a means not to document his decisions. I further stated that it was obvious that Ted Cruz advanced the nomination, for there was NOTHING about him addressing the controversy within the committee, Senate, or the press. What does my experience about Cruz tell us about the system that is the Federal Government? Truth and facts are important when they serve the self-interests of public officials. Since the lie about shredding an alleged $4 million loan was related to a criminal case, perhaps Cruz chose not to investigate the matter. Why? Congressmen and Senators are prohibited by law from getting involved with criminal cases. This means that these representatives passed a law to prevent themselves from getting involved in criminal cases. They, therefore, can avoid controversies associated with unjust convictions. Is this not a convenient tactic? Thus, a sitting Senator deliberately refused to investigate an ISOLATED issue, the nomination of Parker as US Attorney after he lied to the public about a fact that can be proved. Apparently, a lie made by a nominee for US Attorney that can be verified was deemed too subjective for Cruz and he likely considered any blowback as not worthy of his political interests. Now, if every official within separate agencies that are involved in this case were to think the same, then they would also not be held accountable for their conduct and Carter will never be exonerated. At a minimum, one would think that a Senator or Congressman would determine that a man’s life is worth the time and effort to investigate a single and significant lie made by any public official. However, let’s presume for a moment that a lie is one of the most difficult things to prove. When both Glassman and Parker were presented with a finding from the Department of the Treasury that validated that a $4 million dollar loan never existed, didn’t they have an incumbent responsibility to investigate - not a previously adjudicated criminal case, by the way - but possible criminal conduct by private and public officials who advanced the existence of that loan years ago? Anyone can see that if Glassman and Parker had done the right thing, people would have called them noble, just, and fair. But they acted cowardly and did the opposite. People would have considered Cruz as a just person as well. And isn’t this what is needed most? Don’t we want and need people who always seek the truth? At some point, be it a US Attorney or US Senator, officials should pause and establish a credible reason to challenge what is an obvious dilemma, which is that one federal agency says one thing, while a separate federal agency says the opposite. Failure to reconcile two opposing positions between two federal agencies is the failure of the most basic function of government itself. There is a Supreme Court case I often use to underscore the people’s responsibility to hold public officials accountable for their conduct. Consider the language in Federal Crop Ins Corp v Merrill, 332 US 380, 384 (1947): … anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so… even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority. Now if we give the words in Merrill sufficient latitude, there can be no doubt that we the people have the burden to make sure that officials do not violate their authority. As such, are we not obligated to hold Glassman accountable for his deceit and incompetence? Was he not exceeding and violating his authority beyond his capacity as US Attorney? Did he not have a burden to adequately consider the OCC letter and PNC Bank’s admission that there was no $4 million loan? Are we not justified under Merrill to ensure Glassman is punished for and that he corrects his indiscretions? Did the Executive Office of US Attorneys have a responsibility to respond to a FOIA Request in less than three years, especially since this agency simply is confirming what does not exist? Did Senator Cruz, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have a responsibility to learn of a nominee for US Attorney who lied about a case while he was Assistant US Attorney? Did Cruz have the burden to prevent Parker’s nomination from being advanced to the full Senate? We must answer in the affirmative for each of these questions. Let’s pause for a moment and consider my complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility against former US Attorney Glassman. I encourage you to read this one letter to appreciate the gravity of Glassman’s and Parker’s conduct and lies. Given the forthrightness of my letter to the OPR, at some point we must pause and look at the panoramic view of what is the Federal Government’s injustice against Orlando Carter. We must remark, with stupefied amazement, that the federal agents did not verify the existence of the $4 million loan or guaranty in 2005 and why Glassman and Parker did not verify the existence of the loan in 2018. The story that is the unjust prosecution of Orlando Carter by glory-hungry public officials is simply irreconcilable. The impact of the damage caused by the Federal Government, beginning with US Attorney Lockhart in 2005 and now with the current US Attorney Kenneth Parker, has had and will continue to have a devastating impact upon Carter. Let me give you an example. Presently, Carter is dealing with a federal tax issue. The IRS sent him a significant tax bill based upon the false claim that he had a $4 million loan or guaranty. Ironically, the accounting firm, Clarke, Shafer, and Hackett offered conflicting testimony in and out of court. Carter’s accountant at the time of his trial, Tony Schweier, is on the record that Carter has both a loss and a gain. How is this possible? This is the same dishonest accountant who testified in Carter’s trial that he had a $4 million liability with PNC Bank. Tax 1 2.44MB ∙ PDF file Download Download Tax 2 2.44MB ∙ PDF file Download Download We need only look at the recent correspondence from Carter’s current tax representative to Kenneth Parker to understand the scope of this problem. Now, if Kenneth Parker is not the public official who bears the burden of providing the financials and documents Carter needs to file a proper and correct tax return, then he should give Carter the name of the official who can help. The attached letters from Carter’s tax representative are quite revealing. This story cannot get any more unreal. No one deserves to go to prison for a loan that does not exist, and no one deserves to deal with the likes of the IRS over a tax liability that does not exist. Unfortunately, since no current public official is willing to make an easy and courageous decision to challenge prior public officials who represented and supported the false claim that a $4 million loan existed, Carter will not find redemption. When I publish this specific episode, I will be sending more letters to The Office of Professional Responsibility and to the Inspector General of the DOJ asking for an investigation into both Glassman and Parker. I will also be sending a letter to both Kenneth Parker and the Executive Office of US Attorneys and ask for an update on the FOIA Request. In the next episode I hope to have a full interview with Orlando Carter. It is time that we heard from him concerning the entire scope of this tragedy. Until then, may truth reign supreme.…
Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. I’m recording off the southern coast of Mexico, so please excuse whatever sounds you hear in the background. In the last episode, I mentioned that America has grave fundamental problems. Consider this one fact. America has had more people in prison per capita than any country in the world and is still one of the most incarcerated. Undeniably, if state and federal legislators pass laws which, by virtue of their mere existence, produce criminals, a virtuous people will be criminalized. Thus, if government officials fail to seek truth while, at the same time, holding citizens in contempt for behavior that is not criminal, we have a recipe for disaster. Let me illustrate this point. There are 93 US Attorneys who are political appointments typically filled every presidential election and they are among 3 million federal employees who work for the US Government. Given the vastness of the federal work force, with many employees serving in the Department of Justice, one would expect US Attorneys to accomplish their responsibilities with alacrity and fairness and ensure the laws are faithfully executed. What does it mean to “faithfully execute” the laws? Whatever the definition, which would include seeking truth and acting justly, we should and would expect US Attorneys to do so without fail. However, when US Attorneys are the cause of injustice, our reservations and fears are justified. Candidly, it does not matter why US Attorneys fail to act faithfully, it matters only that they are unfaithful. To lack the faithfulness to execute the laws connotes that the top-level officials of the DOJ are ill-equipped to ensure justice and the system will falter. There are two primary factors that permit injustice to prevail. The first has to do with the motivation of government officials. The second deals with the inefficiency of the Government. Let’s briefly discuss motivations by citing an example. Before and after the 2016 federal election, Donald Trump was accused of conspiring with the Russians to influence the election. We now know this was a false allegation. We also know that Obama, the outgoing President, and James Comey, then Director of the FBI, were instrumental in creating, fostering, and advancing this false narrative. The point is self-evident. If top officials undermine the rule of law, there will be injustice. If Donald Trump is not able to effectively and efficiently refute false allegations, how is the average American to prevail against the FBI and DOJ? How is someone like Orlando Carter to overcome false claims that he had a $4 million obligation with PNC Bank? Ten years later, with proof from another federal agency that there was no such loan, how was he to prevail over Benjamin Glassman’s lie that the alleged evidence, which never existed, was shredded? Obviously, the ability to hold the Government or officials accountable for dishonesty becomes problematic. With Obama creating and fostering a lie, and supporting Jim Comey’s perpetuation of that lie, is it possible for the DOJ to arrive at the truth? Not anytime soon. Moreover, if the Federal Government is so consumed with advancing the Russia Collusion lie, will the DOJ and FBI have the time and resources to vet thousands of sundry unjust claims? In the last episode, we learned that former US Attorney Benjamin Glassman lied about the Department of Justice shredding evidence of a $4 million loan which does not exist and never existed. Furthermore, we have proof from two separate federal agencies which contradict the DOJ’s false conclusion that there was a $4 million loan. If there was no $4 million loan in 2007, the evidence could not have been shredded in 2018. Glassman is a liar. Is there any doubt that Glassman did not faithfully execute the laws of the United States while serving as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio? A liar does not execute anything faithfully. To be faithful to the laws means the truth is sought and honored. When a US Attorney lies, he rejects truth outright and denies justice completely. Now that I have set the tone for this podcast, I will explain what both Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker, the current US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, did and how they justified their lies to preserve a guilty conviction of an innocent man. We need only look at Glassman’s response to our request that he review the Government’s case against Orlando Carter to understand the extent of his obfuscation. Glassman began by stating, The principal factual ground on which your correspondence questioned Mr. Carter’s guilt was a letter dated January 30, 2017 from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Let’s first note that Glassman referred to our “principal factual ground.” To be sure, we did not submit anything that was not factual. We only submitted the truth, which was a letter from a sister federal agency, the Department of the Treasury, concluding there was no $4 million loan. Though he did not intend to support our claim in any way, we appreciate that Glassman acknowledged our factual basis.. Glassman then stated, That letter reports that Mr. Carter had requested that PNC Bank “validate a $4,000,000 debt with CBST Acquisition, LLC. Glassman then refers to what Carter wanted, which was for the OCC to require that PNC Bank validate a $4 million loan. At no point does Glassman dignify the substantial role of the Department of Treasury and the OCC. Glassman does not ever acknowledge the importance of the OCC’s responsibilities and burdens. Glassman continued with, The bank provided a copy of note [sic] signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount of $250,000. The bank stated this is the only debt on file. Glassman had, therefore, exactly what Carter sought to obtain, PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding that there was no $4 million loan. Carter obtained the truth. Stated rather directly, Carter asked the proper federal agency with oversight over a national bank for the confirmation he needed. The OCC subsequently asked for the bank’s assistance, which admitted to the fact that no there was no other debt than the one legitimate liability created years earlier. The OCC then satisfied its burden by confirming the loan did not exist. One must ask if Glassman had sufficient information to question the Government’s case against Carter and a path forward to challenge the guilty conviction. Let’s see how Glassman handled this information and situation. Glassman then stated, The letter is signed “Customer Assistance Group. and PNC Bank is a successor bank to another successor bank to National City. Now, what does Glassman’s point about PNC being a successor bank to National City Bank have to do with Carter’s query? Glassman stated this nonsense to muddy the waters, with the hopes to dismiss Carter’s concern as somehow less than worthy. In fact, when National City committed banking violations when issuing loans to minorities in some 80,000 transactions in the mid-2000s, the Department of Justice had no problem having the SUCCESSOR BANK, that was PNC, pay a $33 million fine for what was a problem created by National City Bank. The point is obvious, and Glassman should be ashamed. PNC, as a successor bank, has the assets and liabilities and records of the prior bank. Moreover, why would the US Attorney acknowledge the wrong committed by National City Bank in the early 2000s, yet make it appear as though a successor bank would not be responsible for documents to prove the existence of the $4 million loan in 2018? What is glaringly obvious is that the Department of the Treasury and OCC, in response to Carter’s query, had no problem determining that PNC Bank was the current owner of the records in question. The OCC did not hide behind the ridiculous notion that a successor bank was somehow less accountable to a prior bank’s indiscretion. The question to ask Glassman is, “So what?” It matters not that PNC is a successor bank. As the successor bank, it still owns the records and has the burden of proof of any loan under federal banking laws, which was the OCC’s primary objective. Glassman then further obscured by saying, In my view, this letter does not raise any legitimate question regarding Mr. Carter’s guilt or innocence on any count. So, THIS is how Glassman is going to handle the OCC information and situation. If Glassman does not reach the realm of extreme arrogance with this statement, I do not know what does. In what capacity is he offering his view? Personally? As an accomplished lawyer? As a faithful and accountable US Attorney? Is Glassman hoping we will accept his view as gospel, the Gospel according to Benny, and that we will agree to the far-flung supposition there is no legitimate question regarding Carter’s guilt or innocence? Yet, if the Department of the Treasury asks a national bank to verify the existence of a $4 million loan, and the bank confirms that no such loan exists, and this alleged loan was the basis for an unjust guilty conviction of an innocent man, is there a legitimate question about Carter’s case? Does the view of US Attorney Benjamin Glassman become suspect if refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the OCC finding and PNC’s admission? Finally, if PNC’s admission and the OCC’s finding do not compel Glassman to concede the possibility that a grave mistake was made, what will? Glassman then stated, First, regardless of what files the successor to a successor bank to National City had on file in 2017, Once again, Glassman stoops to the idea that PNC, as a successor bank, somehow diminishes the relevance of the OCC’s determination and PNC’s culpability. What does successor to successor have to do with this? Is he intimating that because PNC is a successor bank then the documents might not exist, and if they do exist, is he suggesting that the documents are old and somehow less credible? When PNC acquired National City, it assumed all assets and all potential liabilities. The title of “successor bank” connotes ownership of assets and liabilities. Glassman then wrote, the documentary and testimonial evidence at trial was undisputed and overwhelming that CBST did receive millions of dollars from National City that it booked as revenue, Glassman does what prosecutors do. He refers to the record. Yet there never was any dispute that Carter and his company received funds from PNC Bank. As a vendor in a transaction between PNC and Butler County, Ohio, Carter received funds from PNC. PNC sent the funds! Once again, as a word-shaping and definition-splicing lawyer, and not a rational professional seeking to faithfully execute the laws, Glassman avoids the issue. He refuses to acknowledge that the record must now be deemed flawed because of the OCC letter. Glassman refuses to consider the credible possibility that there was no $4 million loan or guaranty. He refuses to acknowledge a potential lease between PNC and Butler County, a lease the bank retracted as unenforceable in a Court of Common Pleas within Butler County, in Ohio in 2007. It cannot be disputed that, based upon the receipt of money from National City (or PNC), Carter had an obligation to book the funds as revenue, which is what he did. Glassman then stated, without disclosing to Fifth Third, its auditors, or anyone else that the money was actually supposed to be financing in support of a not-existing contract with a municipality Glassman, what do you mean by the words, “was actually supposed to be”? Such language is not reflective of a sharp legal mind. Additionally, let’s note what Glassman says the money was, and that is financing in support of a “not-existing contract with a municipality.” How is financing ever used for a not-existing contract? Glassman, is this even possible? Glassman should concede that a “not-existing contract” is no different than a “not-existing $4 million loan” used by the DOJ to convict Carter. If the FBI or DOJ, which included Glassman as US Attorney, had investigated the veritable facts concerning the supposed contract or “non-existing” contract between PNC and Butler County, the essence of the government’s failure concerning its investigation of PNC Bank and Carter would be evident, especially as it relates to the “not-existing $4 million loan.” Are we to conclude that Glassman, in his complete ignorance or abject indifference, relied upon the flawed court record alone in his review of Carter’s case, when he should have used the OCC letter and the PNC admission that there was no $4 million loan? If he had acknowledged the OCC letter, he would have realized there was and is a grave error in the Government’s theory of prosecution. Glassman, why do you refuse to acknowledge that a standalone transaction between PNC and Carter did not create an obligation for Carter to notify his personal bank absent his covenant obligation to notify Fifth-Third of a legitimate business loan? Thus, since there was no business loan, Carter did not have to contact Fifth-Third Bank. Glassman, you are fooling no one. You cannot use words with the intent to deceive or cloud what is transparent. National City or PNC had a pending lease with Butler County, not with CBST or Carter. Carter received the money to complete the project that was the subject of the lease. As such, there was no loan. A lease is not a loan, and a loan is not a lease. Glassman continued with, or that National City had demanded the money’s return in the absence of an opinion of counsel letter. Glassman, didn’t Carter return the funds to PNC Bank in the form of equipment that was purchased with the money? Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the plain facts? Let me spell it out for you. PNC sent the money to Carter without an Opinion of Counsel letter. This was PNC’s choice. Though Carter’s company attempted to get the Opinion of Counsel letter signed by Butler County officials, it was ultimately PNC’s responsibility and that of Butler County to secure this document. Since PNC decided to wire the funds to Carter before the receipt of this letter, Carter and his company did what was normal. They booked the funds and moved forward with the project. When the demand letter, which had no legal significance to Carter or his company, was not enforced, Carter continued to work on the project. Would you expect Carter to sit on the money for months without using it? Additionally, wouldn’t you expect Carter to return whatever was purchased with the money? Did you not see a Bill of Lading for some 30 pallets of equipment returned to the bank? Did this not make the bank whole? Finally, Glassman, when will you acknowledge PNC’s admission that there were banking improprieties and mistakes with the Butler County transaction? Or are you unwilling to grant this point because the bank’s admissions and emails about its errors are not part of the Court record, since the court denied this evidence? Thus, your coveted court record is without a key admission by PNC Bank that it was culpable for errors in a “existing” transaction that went terribly wrong. Absent evidence of the bank’s mistakes, you will only view what is available, right? Plainly stated, with the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan, you will continue to refuse to entertain that an unjust conviction was secured against an innocent man. Unbelievably, Glassman wrote, Indeed, if you are not aware, please note that Orlando Carter himself testified at trial: Q. And isn’t it true that the six and a half million dollars of money came from National City into your bank account? A. That’s correct, Sir. Glassman, should Carter have lied in his testimony and denied receiving the funds, or was he correct to admit that the funds were received during the normal course of business without PNC Bank having an enforceable and legitimate loan or a guaranty? It appears that you do not understand the fundamentals of either banking, business or economics. Glassman droned on with, Second, the January 30, 2017 letter comes from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Customer Assistance Group; it is not the product of any investigation and does not purport to find facts. Glassman, your attempts to deceive will not work. The OCC letter is the product of an investigation. Do you not appreciate that the OCC is the equivalent of God for national banks. When the OCC contacts a bank, the bank listens and responds. Banks respect the OCC with a healthy dose of fear. Banks will not easily falter with the OCC. Glassman continued, The letter provides that it “is specifically related to an individual consumer complaint and should not be construed as either a legal opinion of the OCC or a supervisory action.” Glassman, why did you insert the small text at the bottom of the OCC letter, the boilerplate information given to all recipients? Why do this? This language has nothing to do with the merits of the language within the four corners of the document. Why would you attempt to deceive in this way? Was your primary objective to preserve a guilty conviction? Here is Glassman again. It further provides that “an agency such as the OCC would be going beyond its authority in acting as a trier of fact.” Glassman, why did you not insert the language that appears at the beginning of this sentence, which is, “However, where a clearly defined civil dispute develops.” Carter did not write to the OCC because of a civil dispute. He was not asking the OCC to be a trier of facts. Carter sought a point of clarification of a substantial fact to overcome a false allegation that he committed a federal crime. Is this not the primary reason for him to contact the OCC? It seems reasonable to me that if an American were unjustly convicted and imprisoned for a crime predicated upon a $4 million-dollar loan, he would seek confirmation from the one federal agency that has oversight over national banks. As such, why did you refuse to recognize the OCC letter for what it was and without using boilerplate language that all recipients receive from the OCC? Glassman then said, The letter states that the OCC cannot even adjudicate civil disputes, much less criminal ones, nor does the letter purport to do so. Glassman, did you ever once consider this is not a matter of stating what the OCC can or cannot do, but what the US Attorney could do based upon the facts within the OCC letter? Did Carter ask the OCC to adjudicate a civil or criminal dispute? No. As such, Carter did not accept the OCC’s letter in this light. Carter, as you know, wanted an answer to a question, and both the bank and the OCC answered the question, which you chose to ignore. This is the point entirely. As Carter’s Power-of-Attorney, I contacted you and asked that you review the letter as the factual basis for considering Carter’s exoneration. Not only did you refuse our request, but you also stated that evidence of the $4 million was shredded, which, based upon the OCC letter and PNC’s admission, was a lie. Glassman stated, By its terms, therefore, the letter is clear that no component of the Department of the Treasury has undertaken any investigation or made any finding relevant to Mr. Carter’s criminal case. By its terms? What terms? Glassman, the length to which you excuse and ignore your responsibilities as US Attorney and the obligation of the DOJ is simply astonishing and shocking. We did not ask for your unscholarly and sanctimonious opinion of the OCC letter outside of what the letter represents. Who are you to interpret the OCC letter for anything other than what it is? It is evident that you purposely ignored the merits of the OCC letter and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan. Moreover, contrary to your sophomoric arguments, the Department of the Treasury, through the OCC, did investigate and made a finding of fact that is extremely relevant to Carter’s case. Let me ask you this, Glassman. Did the OCC offer conjecture? Did the OCC offer an opinion? Did PNC Bank offer an opinion and nothing else? No, they did not. A more serious question is this. Why would you not weigh the merits of the OCC’s letter as worthy of challenging the guilty conviction against Carter? Do you not have the obligation to faithfully execute the law? Do you not have the burden to faithfully question the central premise of the government’s case with new evidence or proof which proves there was no $4 million loan? Glassman, did you summarily ignore the OCC letter simply because you falsely stated that the DOJ shredded evidence of a loan that never existed? Rather than admit to your errors, you painted yourself into the proverbial corner and made the situation worse for everyone. What is curious is that Glassman did not bother to air his opinion about the March 2018 OCC letter, which further explains the merits of its investigation and findings that are relevant to the Government’s criminal case against Carter. Let’s examine what the OCC stated. Keep in mind that Carter was not satisfied with the language in the first OCC letter. He wanted both PNC Bank and the OCC to be more specific. So, he asked the OCC to compel PNC Bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Note what the OCC stated in the second paragraph: The OCC examines national banks and federal savings associations (thrifts) to assure their safe and sound financial condition and to ensure their compliance with banking laws, rules, and regulations. The focus of the OCC’s review of consumer complaints against national banks… is to determine whether the financial institutions’ actions are consistent with banking statutes, regulations or any policies that are applicable to nationally chartered banking institutions… Now, let’s consider a few points. First, this language is in the text of the letter and not in small print in a footnote at the bottom of the page. The OCC explained exactly what it wanted to accomplish. Since the OCC has significant power, any bank that receives a request from the OCC will respond as if providing an answer to God. Candidly, when a bank receives a letter from the OCC, the pucker factor is heightened, and the bank would dare not mislead. To falsify the facts would be to risk a bank’s charter. PNC Bank had to respond without fail and to do so honestly and completely. Glassman cannot diminish the importance of the OCC and PNC’s obligations. Now let’s review the OCC’s next point. In your most recent correspondence, you stated the prior letter from our office… was vague in that it did not specifically address whether or not the bank provided the OCC with certified and authenticated records showing the existence of a $4,000,000 debt between CBST Acquisition, LLC and the bank. You also requested a copy of the bank letter sent to this office in response to your complaint. The bank specifically stated in the letter sent to this office that it did not have any other debt on file for CBST Acquisition, LLC, other than the note signed by you on December 31, 2003 in the amount for $250,000.00. To support their response, the bank provided a copy of the signed note. To further address your concerns, the OCC does not require the bank to submit a “certified and authenticated record”. The OCC’s language is significant. The OCC underscored that there was only one debt, and it was for $250,000.00 and not $4 million. The OCC even stated that PNC Bank did not have any other debt on file and the bank provided a copy of the note as proof of this one earlier obligation. Notably, the OCC then stated there was no requirement for the bank to provide certified and authenticated records. Why? Well, perhaps my prior statement about the OCC within the Department of the Treasury being like God to the banks is correct. Why does the OCC need to ask for certified records when the bank should be offering the truth in the first place. To lie to the OCC would risk the bank’s charter. PNC Bank is not going to do this. As we can see from Glassman’s warped explanations in his response to the Baptist Minister’s Conference, he chose to diminish the significance of the OCC and its findings. Why would he do this? Unlike PNC’s reply to the OCC, Glassman was writing to citizens of Ohio. He knew he would not be held to account for his dishonesty and gross incompetence. We must keep one important point under consideration at all times. Glassman is a lawyer, and he was the United States Attorney. To most people, these titles are worthy of praise and respect. But to those who are informed about lawyers and government officials, Glassman deserved neither. Let me explain. A lawyer doesn’t really know much. Why? A law student learns process and procedure and in three years graduates with a degree knowing nothing. Afterwards, a lawyer has opinions and interpretations. Ask one hundred lawyers one question and you will get seventy-five different answers. A new lawyer then interns with seasoned lawyers who have perfected procedure and practices the art of word play, word deception, word distortion. The lawyer understands that second to procedure and process is the game of shaping words and splitting meanings to fit a desired end, which often has nothing to do with the truth. As many people already appreciate, lawyers are snakes, vile and corruptible vermin without the integrity to be faithful to a larger goal, to seek and preserve truth for the benefit of humanity. I will prove as much with Glassman’s words and actions. Had Glassman been faithful to his oath of office as US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, had he dignified the all-important responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury and the OCC concerning banking queries and subsequent investigations, Glassman would have determined that the Federal Government had a serious problem with its central premise in the Carter case. Glassman would have acknowledged PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan as the equivalent of new financial DNA that could have been used to exonerate Carter. Had Glassman done so, he would have honored his role as a prosecutor seeking truth and not one who sought to preserve convictions. Is it not transparent that Glassman could have viewed the OCC letter for what it was and acted heroically? Yes. He could have taken the high road. However, and this is an astonishing twist, even with the OCC letter in his hands prior to the October 2018, Glassman lied about shredding something that both the OCC and PNC said did not exist. I can’t help but wonder if Glassman thought we were a bunch of ignorant black folk and white trash who did not know what we were doing. Did he think that pandering to us would make the issue go away? If so, then why not listen to our complaint without lying about shredding evidence that did not exist? Why does he not do this even now and admit his mistake. I invite Glassman to call Kenneth Parker and ask him to open an investigation into the Government’s case against Carter by admitting that he made a mistake about the OCC letter or that he misspoke. To make matters worse, there is now a second federal agency that has officially stated that there was no $4 million loan. Lest anyone forget an extremely important point, the Federal Government offered Orlando Carter a plea agreement which, had he accepted, would have had reduced charges and he would have served no prison time. Carter, to his credit, rejected the plea agreement. Why? He was innocent. Furthermore, Carter has fought these unjust charges since the day the investigation began. Why wouldn’t someone like the current US Attorney acknowledge the history of Orlando Carter’s plight and reconcile the disparity between the FBI and DOJ conclusions with that of the OCC and PNC? In the next episode, I will explain the lengths to which I tried to hold Glassman and Parker accountable for their lies. You will be shocked at what did not happen. Until then, may truth reign supreme!…
Welcome back to the “Where are the Heroes?” podcast series. I am Beau Johnson, the author of The End of Justice. Based upon what we have learned about the Government’s case against Orlando Carter, we can only reach but one conclusion. No innocent American should ever endure his experience. No one should suffer the abject indifference and heightened arrogance of public officials who knowingly or unknowingly abuse the criminal justice system. There are grave foundational problems in America. Many of them originate within the minds and hearts of public officials who often act without regard to basic facts and truth. Sadly, facts and truth are secondary to their ulterior motives. For example, nothing can excuse FBI Agent Kevin Gormley from failing to adequately investigate PNC Bank’s false claims. Stated simply, a great injustice occurs when little men with over-sized egos seek glory instead of grinding through the rigors of significant details to achieve verifiable and veritable conclusions to criminal cases. We now know what is indisputable regarding the Federal Government’s case against Orlando Carter. PNC Bank lied about a $4 million loan obligation. Orlando never had this financial liability with this financial institution. There is no need to reiterate the amount of evidence in our possession that supports this fact. Suffice it to say that PNC Bank made false claims which the FBI did not thoroughly investigate. This brings us to the next phase of the criminal case against Orlando Carter, the submission of the Gormley’s “facts” to Gregory Lockhart, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. Lockhart’s assistant, Richard Chema, handled the case against Orlando Carter. Just to clarify for this audience, the US Attorney should not gratuitously accept the FBI’s investigative conclusions as true. Rather the Department of Justice, through the US Attorney, is expected to conduct its own competent and comprehensive investigation. Even when the US Attorney does not conduct such an investigation, it is deemed to have been done, nonetheless. Did Lockhart and Chema conduct an independent investigation? No. Did Lockhart and Chema investigate PNC’s allegations? No. Did Lockhart and Chema seek the assistance of the Department of Treasury? No. Did Lockhart and Chema conduct a forensic financial audit? No. Since Orlando was convicted of a crime related to an alleged $4 million obligation, we must conclude that Chema failed to determine the facts and truth. For Chema relied upon a piece of paper signed by James Smith which was not legally or financially binding upon either Orlando Carter or his company. Chema asked and the court permitted the jury to see a document that was pitched as a guaranty of a loan. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. Chema’s submission and the court’s acceptance of this “guaranty” as evidence of a $4 million loan obligation cannot be reconciled. Orlando’s situation was made even more difficult since his defense attorneys did not verify the existence of the alleged $4 million loan obligation. They merely questioned the Government if the loan existed. When they received an affirmative response, they did not pursue the matter. This must be viewed as gross negligence as well. Defense attorneys are often culpable for grave mistakes and incompetence. This is exactly what happened with Orlando’s lawyers. Let’s pause to appreciate Orlando’s desperation before the trail began. The FBI, DOJ, and Court accepted that Carter had a financial obligation to PNC Bank without his defense attorneys investigating and refuting this false claim. Consequently, a black man sat alone as the legal system allowed a jury to believe that the fictious loan was real. Chema’s failure to dignify Orlando’s potential innocence is monumental. For, Chema effectively defeated truth as he cemented into the court a lie which became central to the “the record.” This record is what the government and courts rely upon as finality for the preservation of a conviction. Thus, when a defendant makes a righteous, post-conviction challenge, the prosecutor and court summarily dismiss such attempts by asserting that the record is established. The record is final. The record proves guilt. The record is truth. Over the years, Orlando has challenged his conviction repeatedly only to have the government and court argue that the established record confirms his guilt. But what if the record is based upon a lie? This brings us to a very significant point. We have heard of innocent people being exonerated when DNA proves they did not commit the crime. DNA evidence is irrefutable. Blood, saliva, hair, semen, and much more are insurmountable proof of innocence and guilt. Now let’s ask an important question. Is the absence of banking instruments and corporate resolutions authorizing a loan the equivalent of a lack of financial DNA? In other words, if Orlando’s physical DNA was not at the scene of a murder, rather, if he was at home with his family, does he not have an alibi? Now, if James Smith said that he saw Orlando commit the murder, does this make Orlando guilty? Or does it make the witness a liar? If a bank claims that someone has a loan, the financial DNA must be the signature of the authorized principal upon a credible banking instrument. If the FBI does not ask for the certified and authenticated loan documents from PNC Bank with the signature of the authorized creditor, then the FBI accepts PNC’s false accusations as real. In such a scenario, isn’t the Federal Government ignoring the absence of financial DNA? If the Department of Justice does not ask the Department of Treasury to confirm or deny the existence of the loan, isn’t the Federal Government rejecting the financial DNA and accepting PNC’s lies? Ultimately, the existence or absence of financial DNA is the proof which refutes the flawed conclusions of the “court record.” The DNA, or lack thereof, is a means to establish truth. It is tragic that the government’s investigation advanced from the FBI to the DOJ without confirming the $4 million loan obligation. This passing of this baton, as it were, was a result of either the height of haughtiness, depraved indifference, or gross incompetence. Regardless of the motivation, the Federal Government’s conduct is negligent. Orlando was a victim of a thoughtless indictment and jury trial. Not one government official dared to question a billion-dollar bank’s representations and reputation. Nobody challenged the FBI’s ironclad conclusions. The US Attorney’s assertions prevailed uncontested. Everyone, except Orlando Carter, drank the Kool-Aid. It was too easy not to partake. I used the word thoughtless deliberately. The Government’s case against Carter was prosecuted with thought. No thought was needed by Richard Chema to accept the document signed by James Smith as proof of a $4 million obligation. The defense attorneys’ one chance to destroy the prosecution’s theory that there was a $4 million obligation was wasted when they accepted the government’s representations that the loan was real. The “court record” established during the criminal trial was a mockery of truth. Judge Sandra Beckwith ensured that what the prosecution needed for a conviction was accepted for the jury’s consumption. In fact, the alleged $4 million loan guaranty signed by James Smith, which was not at all binding upon Orlando and his companies, became, according to Beckwith, the “centerpiece” of the trial. Yes. Let’s weigh this idea for a moment. The guaranty of a non-existent loan became the centerpiece of the court record. If the loan did not exist, the guaranty did not exist either. The once solid legal construct that was once American Justice is often nothing but an illusion, a delusion, a smorgasbord of hollow and false theories advanced by glory-hungry officials. Public officers knowingly or unknowingly weave an impenetrable tale of fiction. As the tale is passed from one officer to the next, both fact and truth are either never unearthed or they are completely ignored. To be sure, fact and truth were defeated. I never intended to offer a blow-by-blow explanation of the Government’s unjust criminal trial against Orlando Carter. We know what happened based upon the conclusions reached by FBI Agent Kevin Gormley and Assistant US Attorney Richard Chema. Should we fault the jury? Most Americans sit in judgment as jurors without knowing the full extent of their authority. Why would we expect jurors to challenge the facts and law? Like most jurors, they are spoon-fed lies while the judge states the laws that were supposedly violated. As such, the jury had an easy burden. They choose a simple yes or no to guilt. Can you imagine the grand jury or petit jury questioning Richard Chema as to whether the “guaranty” signed by James Smith was invalid? No. Not at all. Not in America. Equal to the inadequate and embarrassing investigations by the FBI and DOJ, the criminal trial was a sham. To expect Judge Beckwith and the jury to have acted as a checks and balance against such reckless disregard for an innocent man’s life is to expect decency and fairness. Such commodities are often lacking in the criminal and legal systems. The government’s case against Orlando Carter proved as much. I have often explained to others that the justice system is a system and nothing more. That is to say, the system is not a composite of independently minded professionals seeking to act righteously and honorably. Rather, these professionals often graft themselves into an already established mentality whereby the process and current results become the priority. After all, the path of a boulder rolling downhill cannot be easily altered. Whatever immoral and unethical act that is advanced within a criminal case is often done with little to no rebuttal. Though officials may feign fierce independence, invariably they advance what others have culled from flawed theories plagued by flawed evidence. In the end, there is either the choice to preserve the system of injustice or to act as a maverick for truth. Rarely will the valiant knight appear, that lone force who will defy injustice in the name of truth. Promotions within the system are not often secured by such a path. As such, the system and its unjust theories are to be preserved at all costs. The preservation of the collective efforts in the Government’s case against Orlando Carter became strikingly evident to me on October 22, 2018. By the time I had received the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency conclusion that there was no $4 million loan obligation, which included PNC’s admission that no such loan existed, I held a genuine belief that Orlando now possessed new evidence and the requisite financial DNA that no crime had been committed. I prepared to seek his exoneration. Given the social climate at the time, as there was increased strife concerning injustice against minorities, I joined forces with members of the Baptist Minister’s Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, and wrote to the current US Attorney, Benjamin Glassman. To his credit, Glassman agreed to meet with us. On the morning of the 22 nd of October 2018, James Chisley, Doc Foster, and I waited for Glassman in his conference room in downtown Cincinnati. We had new evidence from the OCC with PNC’s admission. Forearmed, we prepared a formal request that the DOJ review the case with the aim of exonerating Orlando Carter. Glassman entered the room with Kenneth Parker, who was the Chief of the Criminal Division, and without hesitation and having already received a copy of the OCC letter from us by mail, Glassman stated that any evidence of a $4 million loan obligation had been shredded by the DOJ. I was shocked by Glassman’s declaration, and I immediately responded that this was not possible. The situation was surreal. Sitting before us was a US Attorney who lied about something that the DOJ could not have done. The US Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio had just lied about the most significant fact of all. As is evident by the affidavit I signed after meeting with Glassman, which you will find below, I asked him how evidence of a loan could be shredded when it never existed. I handed him the OCC letter and other admissions by PNC Bank which proved there was no loan. I then explained that records in any criminal case could not be shredded if there was ongoing litigation and the case was less than ten years old. Orlando’s case met both conditions. First, as is stipulated by the attached regulations governing the handling of documents, the Government is prohibited from destroying files in any manner not circumscribed by law. Based upon this point alone, Glassman’s deceit was transparent. More importantly, I knew Glassman wanted to avoid the significance of the OCC findings. The best way for him to do so was to discredit the OCC. The OCC could not be credible if he declared that the actual evidence was destroyed. If any agency was wrong, it had to be the Department of the Treasury and the OCC and not the Department of Justice. We must recall that this is a system, the legal system. Glassman was not prepared to be a maverick. He was not willing to act with the character and integrity necessary to weigh the possibility that other officials had made egregious errors. Glassman, the top prosecutor for the Southern District of Ohio, the one person with the responsibility to pursue the truth, decided to preserve flawed efforts and conclusions of those who decided wrongly years earlier. In other words, Glassman acted cowardly and chose to preserve an unjust conviction that had been secured by cowards years ago. Glassman’s deceit is even more problematic since the US Attorney has the official responsibility to represent the Federal Government with respect to findings issued by other agencies. Thus, Glassman had the incumbent burden to serve as the spokesperson for the Department of Treasury and the OCC. Let me explain. The Government cannot be divided on any issue. If there is division, it must be resolved until a unified representation is attained. Since there is only one Federal Government, it must speak with one voice. Given Glassman’s responsibilities as spokesperson for the United States, he should have at least stated that he would confer with the Department of the Treasury to ascertain the substance for the OCC’s determinations. He should have made some effort to clarify why the OCC differed from the DOJ regarding the alleged $4 million loan obligation. Shamefully, Glassman did nothing of the sort. Now, you might be wondering why the US Attorney and his assistant did not reason that if the OCC, with PNC’s admission, stated that a $4 million loan never existed, how could the record within the court support that the loan was real. The answer is simple. Both Glassman and Parker did not have the wisdom, character, and integrity to act independently in the name of truth and justice. Lacking the necessary mettle to right a wrong, they advanced the wrong until they had compounded the situation with an even greater wrong. Their choice would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Attached you will find a letter that we sent to Glassman after that October 2018 meeting. I also attached Glassman’s response. In addition to lying about something the DOJ could not have done, what did Glassman do? He referred us back to the court record. Yes, the record, that coveted record. He reviewed the record and determined that the record was sound, and Orlando was guilty. A word of caution is needed. If you read Glassman’s review of the record without first reading our letter with a filter that there was no $4 million loan obligation, you will, like a salacious soap opera, be drawn into details that otherwise have no relevance to Orlando’s innocence. In other words, Glassman’s review of the record can only be deemed credible absent a $4 million loan obligation. No different than cheap gossip about a false accusation that a married man is having an extramarital affair, we can either fall prey to the sensational or ignore such unfounded trash outright. Since there was no loan, Glassman’s response concerning the record should not be considered credible. For, without a $4 million financial obligation, the Government never had jurisdiction to file criminal charges against Orlando Carter. Consequently, there is no basis for gossip and lies, much less guilty verdicts. Dominic Mango is a lawyer in Columbus, Ohio, who has helped Orlando for years. Dominic began to fully appreciate the key deficiency in the Government’s case after speaking with Theodore Johnson, a Certified Public Accountant. Both men conferred with each other after the criminal trial when Johnson conducted a forensic financial audit. Johnson concluded that neither Orlando nor his company had a $4 million financial obligation with PNC Bank. Knowing that PNC Bank admitted to the OCC that there was no loan, Dominic Mango wrote to then Acting US Attorney, David DeVillers, in June of 2020. Dominic explained Orlando’s concerns and asked for a meeting to resolve the matter. DeVillers did not make himself available. How is it possible for a lawyer like Dominic Mango to have such a simple and clear understanding of the dilemma with the Government’s case, but the US Attorney does not? Moreover, why does the US Attorney ignore the obvious? Is it because the “record” cannot and will not be altered? Why does the US Attorney refuse to consider “new evidence” in the form of financial DNA that would exonerate an innocent man? Let’s consider an age-old query. What motivates humanity? What moves man to choose as he does? Is it fear? Greed? Before our meeting with Glassman in October 2018, did Glassman have a fear of further harming Orlando? Or was he fearful of upending the entire record as established by previous officials? Would such a move be uncomfortable for him among his colleagues. Did he contend with greed as he weighed the glory that he might receive by exonerating an innocent man? Or did he covet the idea of appearing strong while rejecting the OCC conclusions and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan? I stated at the beginning of this podcast series that I have every intention of holding Benjamin Glassman and Kenneth Parker accountable for their lies. Glassman lied to the people of Ohio. He lied as a lawyer. He lied as an officer of the court. Benjamin Glassman lied as the top law enforcement officer of the Southern District of Ohio. Not only did Glassman refuse to cooperate with the Department of the Treasury by confirming or denying the OCC findings and validating PNC Bank’s admissions that there weas no $4 million loan, but he also refused to serve as the spokesperson for the Federal Government at the most extraordinary opportunity. A prosecutor’s ultimate responsibility is to seek the truth. His goal is not to seek or preserve convictions. In Glassman’s calculus, truth was neither part of the equation nor the answer. As unbelievable as it is, during a time of tension among minority communities across the United States, Glassman rejected his chance to become a hero by acknowledging the inherent wrong done to a black man who was innocent of the alleged crimes. Given Glassman’s intransigence then and now, for I have asked him to correct his mistakes, let us ask if there is a solution? If there is no solution then, as I did with Bill Demchak, CEO of PNC Bank, I will invite Benjamin Glassman to this podcast to prove that the loan documents were in fact shredded. The Government is required to document what is shredded and when the destruction occurs. Or Glassman can explain why he lied about the DOJ shredding evidence of a $4 million loan obligation. Since I know with certainty that the evidence was not shredded, Glassman can either concede that he made a mistake or state that he misspoke. He can then call upon the current US Attorney, Kenneth Parker, to revisit the OCC findings and PNC’s admission that there was no $4 million loan obligation. Will you do this, Mr. Glassman? Will you do the right thing? As the former top prosecutor for the Southern District, will you finally seek the truth? I assure you that remaining silent would be a mistake. For I will never let this issue go. I will pursue this matter until you admit to your lie or until the system holds you accountable for your cowardice and lies. To put it plainly, Glassman can prove that the DOJ shredded evidence of the $4 million loan documents or he can help Orlando Carter secure his long overdue exoneration. I will support the claim that Glassman lied with an additional development. Within the US Department of Commerce is the Minority Business Development Agency. Rafael Underwood is the representative of the Department of Commerce for this agency in Ohio. He is the Case Manager for CBST Acquisition LLC, which is Orlando Carter’s company. Mr. Underwood submitted an affidavit into a court case in 2022 that indirectly involved CBST. Underwood stated that he conferred with the OCC within the Department of the Treasury, which is something Glassman did not do during his review of the criminal case. Underwood stated, PNC Bank’s claim that it originated an authentic debt with CBST in the amount of $4 million… is false and deceptive and should be deemed a fabrication. The alleged demand made upon CBST for payment related to a $4 million loan guarantee was a fabrication. There never was an underlying $4 million loan or loan guarantee upon which PNC Bank could have made a demand. Underwood continued Because the alleged loans and loan guarantees in the amount of $4 million… were fabricated by PNC Bank, I conclude that any and all parties, including law enforcement authorities and court officials, that relied upon information, statements, and documentation provided by PNC Bank executives and attorneys which alleged the origination and existence of loans or loan guarantees in the amount of $4 million between PNC Bank and CBST have been deceived and defrauded. Based upon what PNC asserted in a separate court action that indirectly involved CBST in 2020, Underwood, given his review of correspondence from Butler County, shared that, PNC Bank did not originate two loans with Butler County, as PNC Bank claimed on April 7, 2021. Underwood concluded by stating, Because PNC Bank did not originate… loans with the Butler County, Ohio municipality, I conclude that PNC Bank’s claim to the U. S. District Court on April 7, 2021 that “CBST and somebody” guaranteed loans made to Butler County is deceptive, misleading and was made for the purposes of deceiving those who relied upon such claim. Yes, we have the Department of Treasury stating in 2017 that there was no $4 million loan and the Department of Commerce doing the same in 2022. Underwood’s affidavit should scare the hell out of the likes of Glassman and Parker. Both men made grievous errors when they stated and advanced the lie that the DOJ shredded evidence of the non-existent $4 million loan. What Glassman and Parker fail to appreciate is that there are now two separate federal agencies that have refuted the determinations of the FBI and DOJ. As is oft stated, a house divided cannot stand. When Dominic Mango wrote to David DeVillers in June of 2020, he stated, We are asking that your office take the time to review the inexplicable, above referenced cases, specifically as it relates to the lack of any “debt” or “loan” previously claimed to have been “verified” by the FBI. We are asserting herein that, it not only never existed, there is not only no evidence to support its existence, but more so, the evidence known to the government at the time of the prosecutions above (and currently) supports, if not wholly confirms the absence of any such “debt or “loan”. Mr. Mango then states, As your office was aware and the letter notes, bank executives “restructured” transactions to “elude improprieties” per bank internal emails. Compounding the “improprieties”, the FBI has failed to provide the requested certified and authenticated bank records by National City Bank kna PNC Bank related to CBST Acquisition LLC (“CBST”) which it has claimed authenticates a $4 million debt. The enormity of Glassman’s lie is beyond comprehension when we consider that he could have agreed to, at a minimum, investigate the OCC’s findings to justify possible exoneration. Man has the power of creation and destruction. Glassman could have supported the new evidence and PNC Bank’s admission to secure Orlando’s freedom. Glassman could have used his position and power to acknowledge the mistakes of previous officials. Glassman could have done the right thing. “Oh the tangled web we weave when we first we practice to deceive.” I know of attorneys who practice delivering their arguments to their children before they express them in court. Glassman could do the same now as he considers correcting his mistake. He could present his children the following: My dear children, listen to what I am about to share with you and then answer a simple question. 1) A big bank said that a man had an obligation for a loan and stole the money. 2) The police, prosecutor, and court believed the big bank. 3) Even though the man said he was innocent, no one listened to him. 4) The jury believed the big bank and court sent the man to prison. 5) Ten years later, another government agency found out that the loan did not exist. 6) Even the big bank agreed with this new conclusion. Now, here is the question. Should I listen to the new agency and bank that there was no loan and help the man get out of prison? Glassman, I encourage you to ask your wife this question as well. Ask her if she would respect you more if you recanted and retracted your lie that the DOJ shredded evidence of the $4 million loan. If your wife does not yet know of your lie, perhaps it is time to share it with her and gain her insight. What Glassman should understand is that his lie is not going away. Someday he will be forced to address it. And, as I shared with PNC Bank CEO Bill Demchak in the second episode of this series, no one is committing a crime by asking for the truth or for companies and governments to do right. There is no actus reus or mens rea by seeking Demchak’s and Glassman’s cooperation. No one is at fault for telling the public about PNC’s false allegation and encouraging people to use a different bank. It is not slanderous, libelous, or defamation to expose Glassman’s lies and ensure he never serves in public office again. To the contrary, were Demchak and Glassman to assist Orlando Carter resolve this issue once and for all, everyone would benefit. As it stands, Glassman’s unwillingness to correct his mistake would be foolish, just as Demchak’s silence is unwise. If PNC Bank and Glassman lose business and opportunities because of their recalcitrance, they only have themselves to blame. They are the ones committing and foster crimes and immoral and unethical acts. Most Americans do not likely understand that government officials are protected from punishment for their mistakes by what is known as sovereign immunity. Even when the mistake rises to the level of gross negligence, whether intentional or not, these officials are usually not sued. In fact, the government cannot be sued unless the Government grants its permission. That’s right, the government must agree to be sued for negligence. We know that Glassman’s lie about shredding evidence of something that did not exist was intentional. Bluntly, Glassman intended to lie about destroying what was not real. But the added query is this: Did Glassman choose not to investigate the OCC findings and PNC’s admission that the $4 million loan did not exist? Of course. That he acknowledged the OCC determinations without acting on them is the same as the government acting on the $4 million loan obligation that does not exist. Both are absurd and both rose to the level of gross negligence. Let’s ask Glassman to consider his children once again. Glassman, suppose your child was accused of doing something wrong at school and was punished. However, let’s suppose that you found proof that the basis of the wrong did not exist and the accuser agreed with the new finding. In such a scenario, would you seek your child’s exoneration? Truth and life. That is what we are talking about here. Truth must mean something and there is nothing more precious than life in truth. To ignore truth is to destroy life and the lives of others. When this destruction is done with callous disregard, and the person causing the destruction is protected, there exists a most severe divide between reality and fiction, with the fiction often in the form of a tragedy. Glassman, you have a chance to make amends before this issue mushrooms into something you cannot ignore. Discretion is the better part of valor. In the next episode I will explain in detail the words and conduct of both Glassman and Parker. The story is simply incredible. Until then, may truth reign supreme.…
In 2008, Melissa Lucio of Texas was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to be executed. She was accused of killing her two-year-old daughter, Mariah. The prosecutor, Armando Villalobos, argued that Lucio beat her child. However, Lucio’s defense team said Mariah’s death was caused when she fell down a flight of stairs days earlier. Pathologist, Dr. Norma J. Farley, stated the child died from blunt force trauma and not a fall. Lucio's recorded statements during interrogation were deemed a confession. As stated on Wikipedia: Following Mariah's death, Lucio was arrested and questioned for seven hours by Texas Ranger Victor Escalon without a lawyer present, and without receiving food or water. [8] She admitted to having spanked Mariah, but denied ever having abused her, which she repeated more than 100 times. [9] She was then told by Escalon: "Right now, it looks like you're a cold-blooded killer. Now, are you a cold-blooded killer or were you a frustrated mother who just took it out on [Mariah]?" He continued by telling her, "We already know what happened". After several hours of interrogation, Lucio stated, "I guess I did it. I'm responsible." [10] Escalon had stated that he knew Lucio was guilty by reading her body language. Lucio’s lawyers argued that Lucio's mental and emotional predispositions prevented her from handling the interrogation process. Lucio had a troubled life. Abused sexually by her mother’s boyfriend at the age of seven until nine, she married at early age of 16. From two marriages, she had 14 children. Her first husband was an addict and physically abusive. Judge Nelson refused to allow a social worker and psychologist to testify for Lucio’s innocence at trial. He said a clinical social worker was unqualified to analyze body language. Notably, in Lucio’s case, some evidence was not tested for DNA. Since the prosecutor had Lucio’s confession, he ignored what may have proved a lack of DNA evidence. In post-conviction proceedings, Dr. Thomas Young, a forensic pathologist from Missouri stated that Farley had reached the wrong conclusions. This was not the first time Farley had been wrong, as evident from her conclusions in a case against Manuel Velez. Notable, Johnny Galvan, Hr. a juror, admitted to caving to pressure during jury deliberation and altered his choice from life in prison to the death penalty. The new District Attorney conceded that exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the defense and supported a new trial. Just two days before the date of her execution in April 2022, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a stay. The latest update according to the Innocence Project website is that: The judge who presided over Melissa Lucio’s original trial, Judge Nelson, asked that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturn Ms. Lucio’s conviction and death sentence. Four Corners of Justice diagram scoring: Electorate -1. Lawmakers -3 Investigators -5. Prosecutor -7. Judge -5. Defense attorney -3. Witnesses -5. Jury -3. Grand jury -1. If you would like a free copy of The End of Justice ebook, please contact YesToHellWith on the substack.com platform. And always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth. Links: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/former-cameron-county-district-attorney-armando-villalobos-sentenced-federal-prison https://www.texastribune.org/2022/04/12/melissa-lucio-texas-execution/ https://truthout.org/articles/texas-plans-to-execute-an-abuse-survivor-based-on-a-coerced-confession/ https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/02/24/how-melissa-lucio-went-from-abuse-survivor-to-death-row https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/melissa-lucios-daughter-death-may-have-been-accidental-texas-has-scheduled-her-execution-for-april-27…
In 1986, Rhonda Morrison, a white woman, was murdered at work in Monroeville, Alabama. The police could not solve the crime. Six months later, Walter McMillan, a black man, became a suspect. Though he had no criminal history, it was widely known that he had an affair with a married white woman. The divorce of the married woman became a public matter and McMillan received a great deal of attention. The day of Morrison’s murder, Walter was at church at a Fish Fry. Several witnesses testified at the trial to this fact. When McMillan informed Sheriff Tom Tate of his alibi, Tate told him, “I don't give a damn what you say or what you do. I don't give a damn what your people say either. I'm going to put twelve people on a jury who are going to find your goddamn black ass guilty.” Witnesses for the state testified against Mr. McMillan. One witness was coerced. Another was given leniency in a separate case and received money. The jury found Walter McMillan guilty. The judge, Robert E. Lee Key, ignored the jury’s decision to impose a life sentence in prison and ordered the death penalty. Bryan Stevenson, who later became Walter’s attorney, proved, by newly discovered recordings, that the State’s witness lied to the court and jury. He proved that the prosecutor, Theodore Pearson, had suppressed exculpatory evidence. Walter McMillan’s conviction was overturned in 1993 by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The Alabama Bureau of Investigation agreed with Stevenson’s findings. McMillan sought to hold public officials accountable. As stated on eji.com: EJI filed civil rights lawsuits against state and local officials for incarcerating Mr. Millan on death row before his trial in violation of his rights. An effort to hold the sheriff accountable went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court ruled that Sheriff Tate was protected from liability based un immunity laws. Four Corners of Justice diagram scoring: The electorate receives a -1. The investigators receive a -5. The prosecutor receives a -7. The judge receives a -9. The defense attorney receives a -3. The witness receives a -5. The jury receives a -1. The grand jury receives a -1. If you would like a free copy of The End of Justice ebook, please contact YesToHellWith on the substack.com platform. An always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth. Links: https://eji.org/cases/walter-mcmillian/ https://www.goodreads.com/questions/1018191-how-is-it-possible-that-sheriff-thomas https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20342617-just-mercy https://bittersoutherner.com/in-the-hate-of-dixie-monroe-county-lynchings https://www.deseret.com/1998/11/12/19411811/death-s-door/ https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/curriculum/high-school/courtroom-cases/walter-mcmillian-1985…
The Unjust Conviction against Kristine Bunch On June 30, 1995, Kristine Bunch, a single mother, woke to a house filled with smoke. She made her way to her son’s room, but the door was blocked by flames. Kristine went outside, broke the window, and tried to climb through it. However, neighbors pulled her away. Kristine ran to the front of the house, but the neighbors intervened again. The house was already consumed by fire. Kristine’s son, Anthony, perished. Hours later, the authorities decided that the cause of the fire was arson. The police questioned Kristine about insurance, which she could not afford. Nonetheless, she was arrested within the week for murder. Indiana Fire Investigators, Bryan Frank and James Skaggs, determined the cause of the fire to be arson by heavy distillates. The evidence was sent to the ATF for verification. William Kinard, a forensic chemist for the ATF concluded there were no heavy petroleum distillates and refuted the local conclusion. However, Kinard agreed to alter his findings and testified in court falsely that there were distillates in other rooms that supported the arson claim. No documentation was provided to the court or defense to prove or disprove Kinard’s testimony and theory. Kristine’s defense lawyer argued that the cause of the fire should have been deemed undetermined, and likely accidental. After a jury trial, Kristine was convicted on April 1, 1996, and sentenced to sixty years in prison. In 2002, attorney Hilary Ricks learned of and accepted Kristine’s case. The new defense team and forensic experts exposed the mistakes in the prosecutor’s case. They also covered arson myths like “pour patterns, concrete spalling, and alligatoring,” which were technical terms used at trial. After securing ATF files, Hilary Ricks discovered that the prosecutor had violated the Brady Rule by not giving exculpatory evidence to the defense before the criminal trial. These files proved there was no petroleum distillates in Kristine’s home. William Kinard had lied to the court and jury. Even with these startling revelations, the prosecutor and court did not cooperate with Kristine’s appeal. They delayed and denied any motion for Kristine’s benefit, arguing that the jury would not have concluded differently. Kristine appealed the court’s decision for the denial. Kristine found redemption when her conviction was overturned on March 21, 2012. Four Corners of Justice diagram scoring: Lawmakers receive a score of -1. The investigators receive a score of -5. The prosecutor receives a score of -7. The judge receives a score of -3. All other components receive scores of 0. Kinard is known to have falsified conclusions in more than just the Bunch case. The following links are provided for additional insight. If you would like a free PDF file of my book The End of Justice, please message YesToHellWith on the substack.com platform. And always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth. · https://painnocence.org/Files/Admin/Gregory-Brown-Facts-In-Support-of-Innocence.pdf · https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/01/in-yesterdays-post-i-discussed-kristine-guerras-newstolen-freedomseries-and-specifically-the-case-ofkristine-bunch-whose-fe.html · https://ecf.insd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?12014cv0438-59 · https://casetext.com/case/carnevale-v-digiovanni-1 · https://books.google.com/books?id=FmsXcr56c8YC&pg=PA4&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false · https://indianainfamy.com/2022/03/04/this-day-in-infamy-a-mother-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/ · https://www.pressreader.com/usa/pittsburgh-post-gazette/20191218/281496458180760 · https://peopleslawoffice.com/wrongful-conviction-suit-filed-kristine-bunch/ · https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/in/kristine-bunch.html…
The Case against Michael Morton In August of 1986, Christine Morton was murdered within her home in Texas. Michael Morton, Christine’s husband, was arrested and convicted of the crime. Having served twenty-five years in prison, and after DNA evidence proved his innocence, Michael Morton was released. Ken Anderson was the Williamson County District Attorney. He had pursued criminal charges against Michael Morton. However, Anderson did not share investigation evidence with the defense attorney. The evidence included witness accounts that another man was at the Morton house. One of the witnesses was their son, Eric, who was three years old at the time. Eric had referred to the man as a “monster.” The neighbors also saw this other man around the house. There was also evidence of a forged check made out to Christine that was cashed after her death. Her credit card was used as well. In 2008, Michael Morton and his lawyer learned that the original case was not built upon solid evidence and conclusions. They became aware of the missing witness descriptions, cashed check, and the use of Christine’s credit card. In 2011, a bloody bandana that had been discovered at the time of the crime and was one hundred yards from the Morton house was tested. Christine’s blood and that of Mark Alan Norwood were found upon it, not the blood of Michael Morton. Ken Anderson had withheld key evidence. After an investigation, he acknowledged his guilt. He resigned his position as a judge for the State of Texas. He was sentenced to ten days in jail and was disbarred; but he was afforded the opportunity to regain his law license in five years. The Texas Legislature had attempted reform of the discovery process within the justice system to no avail. After Michael Morton’s release from prison, he was able to advance that cause. Four Corners of Justice diagram scoring: The Texas Legislature receives a score of -1. The prosecutor receives a score of -7. The investigators receive a score of -5. All other elements receive a score of 0. If you would like a free PDF file of my book The End of Justice, please message YesToHellWith on the substack.com platform. And always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth.…
If you have ever wondered how and why the American Justice System is not just, then I have a solution. After my experience with the federal criminal process, which included an unjust conviction and a four-year prison sentence, I became intimately aware of its flaws. These very flaws, some which are obvious, with others far more subtle, are why we are one of the most incarcerated peoples in the world today. You may recall the thesis of my book, The End of Justice, is that the American people are ignorant, apathetic, and fearful and these failings encourage the arrogance of governing officials. For example, at the risk of oversimplifying life in America, other than work, Monday night football, and who’s bringing the beer for poker night, our country’s core problems are secondary. Yes, most of us are busy; but this is the point. If we are too occupied with what is less important than a son or a friend serving time in prison for the wrong reasons, then we must look inwardly. We must become informed, engaged, and fearless. When we do, we will defeat the arrogance of public officials, those who abuse their positions and powers. Candidly, we can no longer accept and should not accept that the criminal process is fair. For that matter, we should not conclude that a judge, lawyer, or a police officer is honest and competent simply because of his title. Consider that as jurors and grand jurors, the American people have the most powerful titles in the country; yet we are unaware of our relevance. Thus, we fail to stop injustice by refusing the issuance of an indictment to a rogue prosecutor. Or after a trial is completed, we do not reach a verdict of not guilty. Rather, we simply rubberstamp what is directed or implied by those with titles, those very people who are less important than we are. To change an unjust conclusion to the opposite, we must understand what is happening during the criminal process. This requires that we qualify and quantify what happens because of the wrongs. This is one of the reasons I developed The Four Corners of Justice (FCOJ) diagram. There are three ways to score the results of a trial. I will explain each briefly and give more details in a moment. First, through the center of the FCOJ diamond is a column of zeros. This is the Zero Line. If the outcome of a criminal case were fair, the scores would be straight down the center. The negative numbers on the left reflect the unjust and the numbers on the right reflect the just. I divided the criminal process into ten separate components. These are listed on the left. When we score each component, we can understand not only where the system failed, but also why justice was denied. If a component was abused, the score would be cited on the left. If a component was favorable to the defendant, the score would go on the right. The second score is the Factor. This is merely the total number of scores on the left or right. If there are three scores on the left and one on the right, a 3 and 1 would be entered as the Factors. The third score is the Integrity of the system and the defendant. They are either neutral with a score of 0, or negative at -1, and positive at 2. The Integrity score is a means of rating each party, generally. Most of us simply presume that a criminal trial is conducted justly and fairly. We take for granted that the system accomplishes what it should. However, most of the time we are unable to substantiate or articulate that all went well or poorly. Rather, the result is subjective and undefined. We develop an uninformed impression of the process. As such, we have no measurement of the system that verifies what was attained in any given case. Consequently, we don’t know if the result was just or not. We don’t examine the process to understand how each component of the judicial process is either assisting or defeating the end of justice. Not knowing if or how the judicial process is or is not just breeds lack of accountability for us. Our ignorance ensures America’s infamous title as one of the most incarcerated countries in the world. With the FCOJ diagram and the ability to score any case in three different ways, we can hold ourselves accountable to what is not just and strive for a fairer system. Now, let’s go into more detail. Looking at the components on the left, the electorate and the grand jury are at the top and bottom respectively. They are the most powerful elements in the system, or at least they are supposed to be. These two elements reflect the people—the very source of power in our republic. From the electorate, there is a progression of increased control over a legal case from the lawmakers to the investigators, and to the prosecutors until we reach the judge in the middle of the list. This progression shows a flow of power from the general, the people, to the specific, the court. Likewise, the flow is the same for the bottom half of the components from the grand jury to the jury, witnesses, and then to the defense lawyers until the judge is reached. Again, the flow of power is from the general to the specific. This flow will become extremely relevant as we further analyze how and why the FCOJ diagram functions. The corresponding numbers to the right of the components and within the diamond reflect the potential influence that each component has on a case. The components that may have a greater impact upon other components or the case generally have a wider range of numbers. The wider ranges do not suggest that one component is any more important than the other. It merely reflects that the electorate will have less of a direct impact on the outcome than the investigators who are more involved. Consider the following example. The prosecutor has a tremendous amount of power. If he abuses this power, he adversely influences the equal, if not more important, role of the grand jury. If the grand jury knew the full extent of its power, it would challenge the prosecutor’s representations and deny the possibility of a wrongful indictment. As it stands, prosecutors unduly influence the grand jury and, therefore, they adversely affect the balance of a case. Consequently, the prosecution is given a wider scoring range which aptly reflects this potential influence and abuse. Given its role of electing and re-electing lawmakers, the electorate is perhaps the most powerful but underrealized aspect of the legal process. This component has an exact, but far-removed influence in a case. Lawmakers may—knowingly or not—fail to exercise their authority for the proper enforcement of laws and regulations. Lawmakers have a greater potential to influence a case than the electorate and, thus, its range of scoring is greater. The FCOJ diagram gives greater weight to components that have a more direct impact upon verdicts. The remaining components, while fundamentally more powerful within the concept of justice, are less direct. Regrettably, these components are not fully exercised. These less influential components underscore the subsequent impact of our ignorance, apathy, and fear, while heightening the dominance of institutional arrogance among officials. Consider an illustration. Most of us would tend to minimize the relevance of a witness compared to that of a prosecutor or a judge. However, if a witness honored the truth and refused to equivocate to threats, coercion, or duress, he would be unaffected by those in authority. Regrettably, the prosecutor can manipulate and directly influence a witness. When the witness caves and agrees to a conspiracy charge in exchange for leniency, if the witness testifies against the defendant, the prosecutor heavily influences the case. Any positive benefit that would have been gained by the defendant from the testimony of the witness is effectively destroyed. This is a prime example of injustice. The result is telling. The jury sees a witness who agrees with or confirms a prosecutor’s assertion. The jury does not see that the witness was unduly prejudiced by the government or that the truth was defeated. The jury, which is far more powerful than the prosecutor, is influenced by both the witness and the prosecutor. As such, this cascading effect of arrogance maligns truth and justice throughout the judicial system. The people no longer exercise supremacy and inherent power. We no longer have a philosophy that true crimes are limited to loss of life, liberty, or property. We have the inversion. Consider this possibility. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the judicial branch affects the executive branch, which includes the prosecutor. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the executive branch affects the legislative branch, the creators of law. The arbitrary and sweeping influence of the legislative branch affects the power, sovereignty, and freedom of the people. Consequently, institutional arrogance exists only because of the ignorance, apathy, and fear of the people, the very source of power that is the electorate and grand jury. Obviously, if both the electorate and grand jury were effectively employed, this inversion of power and perversion of justice would be limited, if not negated outright. Let’s go into the just and unjust scoring. Given the dominance of institutional arrogance in America, there is a greater possibility that each of the ten components will have a negative impact on a case. For this reason, the point values on the left side of the FCOJ diagram are listed in the negative and the numbers on the right are weighted with an even greater positive value. This scoring approach is used is for a reason. If the legal system is truly biased against defendants, we would expect the scores to reflect this conclusion. We would expect there to be negative scores on the left side of the Zero Line . Remember, our supposition, in part, is that the conduct and operation of the legal process is why America suffers from a high rate of imprisonment. To preclude any unjust bias, the value of any positive benefit received by the defendant from any of the ten components is increased. Weighted scores on the JUST side of the diagram counter any negative scores, akin to grading on a curve. If the legal system operated in accord with truth, with the sole intent to seek justice, a case would be scored from top to bottom along the center of the diagram, the Zero Line . Impartiality and integrity would never deviate to the left of this distinct barrier; it would not be possible or permitted. Only because of injustice and dubious motives does a score exist to the left of the Zero Line. For example, if a lawyer does not adequately defend a client, the points must naturally decrease to reflect an injustice and prejudice. A negative score would be appropriate, but entirely unnecessary. Conversely, if the defense lawyer goes above and beyond and ferociously defends his client (which should happen as a matter of course), the reverse is true. The lawyer seeks truth and justice, and this would result in a weighted score to the right of the Zero Line. At the conclusion of a case within a just system, there would be no scores on the UNJUST or left side of the diagram. We would expect the judicial process to track along the centerline or err on the side of caution, with the defendant receiving the benefit of any superlative performance and scores on the right. Any possibility of the system being unjust would result in more scores to the left. The total on each side of the diagram would tell the tale. Any grand total in the negative side greater than the total for the positive would confirm the errors and arrogance of the judicial system. Let’s discuss the Factor score. The Factor tracks with the individual ratings of the ten components of the legal system. There are two scores for the Factor—one for the left side of the diagram and one for the right. The Factor is simply the number of scores of the ten components that occur on either side of the Zero Line. The Factor provides some balance and context for cases that have a high or low score on either side. For example, if only three components are scored on a given side, this would reflect differently than if seven components made up the total number of scores on the other side. Additionally, since the scores on the right are weighted, a higher score with a low Factor would be telling Now let’s discuss the Integrity score. The third and final score that comprises the FCOJ diagram is the assessment of the Integrity of both the judicial process and the defendant. This score is independent of the two sets of scores which rate the ten components individually and collectively. The Integrity scores are located at the top and bottom of the diagram and serve as an overall reflection as to whether each party is consistent with truth and justice. The significance of this score is simple and powerful. While one could easily cite it as unfair, since there are ten parts of the legal process and only one defendant, to do so would be to dismiss an expectation that the judicial process is just. If one component were to impugn the entire judicial system, it would, like a bad apple, spoil or taint the whole. Moreover, since the life and liberty of a defendant is dependent upon a virtuous process, the legal system must be scored as one. In the end, we would expect this score to validate the total of the points assessed for the ten components and the number for the Factor on either side of the Zero Line. With the explanation of the three scoring elements of the FCOJ diagram, it should be apparent that this comprehensive assessment of the judicial process and the defendant, given the particulars of the case, is not merely concerned with justice and injustice. These scores enable us to shun our tendency to accept that the outcome of some unknown case is JUST simply for the fact that it was adjudicated through the judicial system. The FCOJ scores give substance to an otherwise unappreciated process that yields an all-too-often negative outcome which is not challenged or subjected to scrutiny. Such antipathy and disengagement with the judicial system may end with the efforts of the FCOJ diagram. The FCOJ diagram invites us to look inwardly. The FCOJ snapshot should jar our mental and emotional constructs. Forced to reconcile with the existence of a negative score, we must consider who we are and who we are not. When we see a score to the left of the Zero Line, we should ask how and why not only of the legal system, but of ourselves. Not only is the FCOJ a viable means of measuring justice and injustice, the diagram is a call for accountability. To be held accountable means that we should ask: 1. Do the people hold themselves accountable for laws that should not be written? 2. Do we hold lawmakers accountable for creating such laws? 3. Are viable and credible laws enforced with discretion and fairness? 4. Are we so fearful that we do not account for laws which should not be enforced? As the electorate, we would serve the interests of society if we asked and sought accountability from each of the ten components. Those who work for and within these components are no different than us. Consider elected officials. What do they know when they decide to run for office? They know nothing more than we do, and perhaps less. They have their opinions and passions and lack knowledge and experience. More importantly, who do they become? With newfound power and a lack of accountability are they arbitrarily hawkish on crime and criminals? Do they, therefore, lump non-criminals in the same class? Imagine the value of asking questions of all ten components. We gain context and clarity with the FCOJ diagram. We can quantify and qualify a case and the operation of the judicial system. The FCOJ diagram reflects the outcome of a case. It reflects not one, but all ten elements of the process, a system that supposedly reaches just conclusions. It reflects ten individuals or parties, the application of their power, and their psychological and emotional motives. The FCOJ diagram represents the accidental and purposeful weaving that each component injects into a conclusion which, if reflected negatively as a score, depicts the regrettable state of the justice system and our culture and is, in fact, a revelation of the hearts and minds of the people. As we put the FCOJ diagram to practical use, step back and ponder the scope of our problem once more. We did not acquire our high rate of incarceration by accident. Furthermore, the rate of incarceration will not be reduced by accident. Any case that even hints of injustice implicates the core disease of ignorance, apathy, and fear of the American people. Each implicates the arrogance of officials who ensure that injustice prevails. Let’s apply the FCOJ diagram to a specific case to understand the practical use of the diagram and the repercussions of the system, a process that is woefully underappreciated, much less qualified and quantified with any reasonable means of measurement. With this review, we can then imagine such injustice occurring repeatedly everyday throughout America. The Case against Michael Morton In August of 1986, Christine Morton was murdered within her home in Texas. Michael Morton, Christine’s husband, was eventually arrested and convicted of the crime. Though police officers and the Williamson County District Attorney, Ken Anderson, believed they had arrested the culpable party, this was far from the truth. After serving twenty-five years in prison, and after DNA evidence proved his innocence, Michael Morton was released. How did this injustice ever occur? When the criminal case was reopened, significant notes were found to be missing. · Notably, several witnesses had provided investigators with a description of a man other than Michael Morton, who had gone to work earlier that morning. The other man was seen in and around the Morton residence the day that Christine was murdered. One of the witnesses was her son, Eric, who was three years old at the time. Eric had referred to a man as a “monster.” · Secondly, a check in the name of Christine Anderson was cashed with a forged signature after her murder. · Finally, Christine’s credit card was also used in San Antonio. In 2008, Michael and his lawyer learned that the original case was not built upon solid evidence and conclusions. They became aware of the missing witness descriptions, cashed check, and the use of Christine’s credit card. In 2011, a bloody bandana that had been discovered at the time of the crime and was one hundred yards from the Morton house was tested. Christine’s blood and that of Mark Alan Norwood were found on it, not the blood of Michael. Michael Morton learned that Ken Anderson had withheld key evidence. Anderson, who was at the time a district judge for the State of Texas, resigned. After an investigation, he acknowledged his guilt. He was sentenced to ten days in jail and was disbarred; but he was also afforded the opportunity to regain his law license in five years. The Texas Legislature had attempted discovery reform within the justice system to no avail. After Michael Morton’s release from prison, he was able to advance that cause. Looking at the Four Corners of Justice diagram, we can arrive at several conclusions. 1) The electorate, grand jury, and Texas legislature were far too detached from the reality of the discovery problem, which means each ignored an official’s possible lying for personal gain. 2) The policemen were culpable with this injustice as well, if only by virtue of their silence. The police had to have been involved with the details of the investigation and are presumed to have known during the trial of the missing details from the case and Anderson’s omission of important facts. 3) Additionally, the police must be challenged for not pursuing the evidence that was the bloody bandana. 4) The prosecuting attorney, Ken Anderson, was and is a disgrace to the legal profession. He committed an unspeakable act against humanity. To do as he did to Michael Morton is to do the same to all Texans. 5) Would it have been fair to subject Anderson to 25 years in prison? An eye for an eye, so to speak? Should he have been allowed the possibility to renew his law license? 6) To what extent are we as citizens culpable for our disengagement with the criminal and justice systems at the local, state, and federal levels? Are our individual and collective ignorance, apathy, and fear a reason for unjust convictions? Undeniable is the consideration that both police officers and the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, thought more of themselves than for both truth and the lives of other souls. Michael Morton and his son Eric, along with the relatives of both Christine and Michael, were sacrificed on a wholesale basis for the arrogance of public officials and their own personal notoriety and gain. Hypothetically, had Morton received the death penalty, would officials have taken a different posture? Would it be fair to conclude that Michael’s imprisonment and the attendant repercussions were worse than death? Anderson, and those who played minor roles in this tragedy, if only by their inaction, should have received far greater punishment. Perhaps the lesson from the Michael Morton case is even more sobering when we understand that Ken Anderson was nothing more than a liar with a title. Admittedly, and we will find those who are of Anderson’s ilk in the legal profession, he was void of the character, principles, and truth required for someone in this position. Perhaps Anderson was once an honorable professional in his past. Alas, with the passage of time and the intoxicating effects of success, hubris lured Anderson to his corruptible end. We would be mindful to guard against a belief that officials faithfully serve the public good, truth, and justice. If you would like a free PDF file of my book The End of Justice, please message YesToHellWith on the substack.com And always remember, The End of Justice is the absence of truth.…
During any criminal investigation, FBI Agents will, as a matter of course, document witness interviews on forms known as 302 Statements. In episode 5, we will question the effectiveness of FBI Agent Kevin Gormley based upon the testimony of two Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister, two bank employees. They made comments which clearly demonstrated PNC's failures with a lease transaction with Butler County. Given the number of errors and poor judgment by several PNC officials, one must ask how and why Kevin Gormley ever arrived at the conclusion that Orlando Carter committed a crime. In this episode, I ask very pointed questions which cast serious doubt as to Gormley's competence and sincerity as an agent. Opinion Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.…
Welcome to Episode 4 of "Where are the Heroes?" We will be exploring the FBI's handling the investigation into PNC's claim that a $4 million loan existed between itself and Orlando Carter and that Carter stole the funds. Key to our discussion are FBI statements, known as 302s, drafted by FBI Agent Kevin Gormley after his interviews with witnesses Ralph Martinez and Sean McAlister, both of whom worked for the bank. What will become rather evident upon your review of the 302s is Gormley's complete incompetence and his level of prejudice against Orlando Carter. A competent agent would have taken what were obvious mistakes and confusion with the bank's transaction and determined that there was no crime. Opinion Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.…
In the last episode, Orlando Carter denied having a $4 million loan with PNC Bank. If Mr. Carter is telling the truth, why did PNC claim that the loan existed? Why did bank officials assert that the funds were stolen? Either PNC lied or Mr. Carter is lying. What is the truth? Since the FBI and DOJ investigated PNC's accusations and confirmed the loan existed , then Orlando Carter MUST BE guilty, right? No. The fact is that the FBI and DOJ never asked PNC for proof of the loan. Moreover, the FBI did not ask other government agencies to confirm the existence of the loan. Finally, the FBI and DOJ did not conduct a forensic financial audit of either PNC or Mr. Carter. Without accomplishing any of these three options, the Federal Government must have gratuitously accepted that the loan existed and Carter stole the money. This episode is packed with information and an amazing revelation! Opinion Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.…
Discover the name of the billion-dollar company that falsely accused an innocent man of stealing $4 million. Hear from this innocent man who received a 15 year prison sentence, yet declares that he never committed a crime. PNC Bank is fined for violating banking/lending laws. https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pnc-financial-services https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-doj-take-action-against-national-city-bank-for-discriminatory-mortgage-pricing/ https://www.sec.gov/enforce/34-96558-s https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-109.htm https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-occ-2023-106.html https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2023-027.pdf https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/pnc-owes-107-mln-allegiants-egregious-breach-trust-8th-circ-2021-08-31/ https://www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2018-031.pdf https://occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/eaAA-ENF-2023-65.pdf https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/pnc-bank-pay-95-million-failing-engage-prudent-underwriting-practices-loans-guaranteed-us https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/enf20180112a5.pdf Opinion Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed on this YesToHellWith account are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of either the owner of the account or the hosting service. Any content provided by bloggers or authors are their opinions alone, and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. An author’s use of documentation to prove certain general and specific claims based upon fact and law, especially official or unofficial records of any private party, company, or government agency, shall be presumed to be correct until rebutted. Any viewer’s choice to accept any proof provided by an author on the YesToHellWith account and to act independently based upon that proof shall be deemed to be without the influence of the author’s opinions or direction.…
مرحبًا بك في مشغل أف ام!
يقوم برنامج مشغل أف أم بمسح الويب للحصول على بودكاست عالية الجودة لتستمتع بها الآن. إنه أفضل تطبيق بودكاست ويعمل على أجهزة اندرويد والأيفون والويب. قم بالتسجيل لمزامنة الاشتراكات عبر الأجهزة.