When judges go bad (the truths and evidence exposing corrupt judges)

Harrison, David Scott



Only the Guilty Go Quietly to the Gallows 
 When Judges Go Bad (the truths and evidence exposing corrupt judges) By Dave Harrison 
 The story you are about to read is true; the names of the guilty have not been changed as they have no innocence to protect. The events described herein can be substantiated by verifiable and incontrovertible documentary evidence. The facts speak for themselves. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, at San Diego, is not a wicker basket holding one bad apple, not some small dark crevice wherein slither a few snakes, not even a den of thieves. To be sure, bad apples, vipers and thieves do abound there, but the reality is much more distasteful, venomous and threatening. In fact, that courthouse harbors an assemblage of the most corrupt magistrates and judges (hereinafter referred to collectively as "judges") to sit anywhere in the United States, and perhaps the world. Verifiable documentary evidence proves that those judges routinely fail their Oaths Of Office, flagrantly ignore binding precedents of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals and United States Supreme Court, and contemptuously violate the Constitution. Every judge therein - not a single one of them is innocent - is guilty of egregious transgressions. While each of them bears his/her personal degree of guilt, one of them, rises, like miasma from a swamp, above his cohorts in the volume and magnitude of his criminal acts. This writing addresses the inherent criminality of magistrate Larry A. Burns and the acts (by commission and/or omission) of his brethren in their desperate ill-agenda to protect him from responsibility for his malfeasance and the liability that they, perhaps too quickly, assume would follow. Read on and you will be outraged; investigate and you will clamor for the impeachment of every judge of the San Diego district court. In 1988, Burns, as an assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuted me in district court on two counts under 18 U.S.C ½ 844(i), while simultaneously prostituting himself to the State of California so as to prosecute me for a murder that (a) I am 100% innocent of, (b) the state declined to prosecute, and (c) he boasted to defense counsel that he was "morally certain" I did not commit the murder but "bet" he could "win" a conviction. To "win" federal and state convictions Burns engaged in a sweeping pattern of criminal conduct designed to convict an innocent man including, but not limited to: 
 1. concealing from the defense and the court evidence both (a) material to the impeachment of government witnesses, and (b) exculpatory to me, for example Burns personally kept my government administered polygraph test results, proving my innocence of the murder, out of all court files; despite years of exhaustive efforts Burns continues to unscrupulously conceal those results (one would reasonably question for what reason, unless the test results prove my innocence, has Burns steadfastly maintained concealment of those results for thirteen-years); 2. once the biological evidence from the crime scene was established not to be from me the government suppressed it. Despite my continued efforts for over a decade to have the DNA evidence tested, the government has delayed and stalled testing that evidence, because the government knows it to be determinative of my innocence; 3. suborned perjury; 4. fabricated evidence; 5. covertly destroyed evidence favorable to the defense; 6. a foot print, not that of the known residents and proven not to be mine, was ignored and never identified; 7. a suicide letter left by reluctant government witness, David Johnson, shortly after being informed of my conviction, was provided to Burns and trial judge, David. B. Moon, who decided to seal it from defense/appellate counsel; the contents of that letter remain known only to Burns and Moon (what information is contained in Johnson's letter that so undermines Harrison's conviction that Burns and Moon felt compelled to seal it?); and 8. to assure scripted testimony, Burns shielded from all prosecution an admitted incestuous pedophile, an assortment of criminals, and personally guaranteed to protect and was proactive in protecting the person who is likely the actual killer (Gary Jenkins' failed polygraph test was also concealed and kept out of all government files by Burns, and has never been disclosed; further, Jenkins lied to homicide investigators in attempting to fabricate an alibi - discovered by the defense to have no alibi, and shown to be in the area of the crime scene at the time of the murder, drove the truck identified at the crime scene, was involved in flagrant extra-marital affairs, had recently battered the victim and argued with the victim the morning of the murder, knowingly delayed returning to the crime scene when informed of an emergency, and collected hundreds-of-thousands of dollars as a direct result of the murder). The entire case against me was 100% circumstantial. There was no evidence of any kind linking me to the crime. Nonetheless, Burns was fanatical and selected me as the most expedient scapegoat to further a career already steeped in iniquity. Inconveniences surrounding my factual and moral innocence were trifles to be blinked away. Burns' gross illegalities reeked throughout the federal and state prosecutions, and remain under intense scrutiny in various courts of appeal, collateral proceedings and private investigations. Indeed, in one of the rarest events in all jurisprudence, Burns, a sitting judge, was ordered by a fellow judge (in this case an out-of-state judge) to submit to being deposed by defense counsel concerning matters of the murder case. True to his oily character, Burns was arrogant and uncooperative at his deposition (in many instances flatly refusing to answer the questions put to him). Your investigations will reveal the truth and accuracy of the matters asserted herein. Be assured, state and federal case files teem with documentary evidence of every assertion. To be clear, this writing does not seek your valuable time and energies as an advocate of my vindication, although vindication will come as a natural occurrence from your investigations of Burns' criminality and those corrupt judges whose ill-agenda it is to protect him; your greater cause is that of protecting the citizenry from the bad apples, vipers and thieves of the San Diego district court - lest they select one of you as their next sacrificial lamb. Let me give you some examples of what you will discover. Not only am I innocent of the state murder, as the polygraph and Burns' boasting attest, and DNA test results would prove, but the Supreme Court has ruled that I stand convicted of null and void federal offenses (convictions for nonexistent offenses). To protect Burns, his fellow judges refuse to vacate those convictions. In May, 2000, the Supreme Court decided a case that defined 18 U.S.C. ½ 844(i). Section 844(i) is the federal criminal statute prohibiting the destruction of property affecting interstate commerce. The octopus that is ½ 844(i), the Supreme Court ruled, may only reach up from the depths in specific instances where the property affected was itself "used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce." See, Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 859 (2000). Mere peripheral association with interstate commerce does not suffice to feed the leviathan. For example, the arson of a personal residence or blowing up your partners new automobile, while possibly violating state laws, are not federal offenses under ½ 844(i). However, the arson of a rental property or blowing up a taxi cab do affect interstate commerce because of their commercial use nature, therefore, in such instances you will find yourself entangled within the tentacles of federal prosecution. The Jones holding invalidated my two ½ 844(i) convictions because the properties affected of those charged offenses were not "used in" interstate commerce. The Supreme Court's holding established that the federal government never had the authority over, or the subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute in the first place, what were, if anything, violations of state law. Moreover, there are few areas of jurisprudence as well-settled as the axiom that subject-matter jurisdiction can never be waived: can not be conferred unto the court by agreement of the parties, is not lost upon conviction or plea, never abandoned for failure to raise the challenge at any earlier stage of the proceedings, nor can it be forfeited by the passage of time. A conviction by a court without authority and jurisdiction is "coram non judice; in which case no valid judgment could be rendered." See, Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 204 (1830). That conviction "is a legal nullity... 'not a decision at all'", see, Billingsley v. C.I.R., 868 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir.1989), and "is as grave an error as a court can commit." See, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How 393, 428 (1856). Such a conviction is the stillbirth resulting of a rape of the Constitution. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals recently reiterated that "[a] conviction based on a 'theory of culpability that did not exist' violates due process", and further expressed that "[n]owhere in this country can any man be condemned for a nonexistent crime." See, Kleve v. Hill, 243 F.3d 1149, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2001). It would reasonably follow from the circumstances that the judges of the San Diego district court would be spirited in their efforts to vindicate my rights and correct her grave error. To the contrary, in their desperation to protect Burns' career, those judges have shown vigor only in maintaining my convictions for nonexistent crime; their conduct clearly in violation of their Oaths Of Office. Prior to donning ebony robes every judge swears an Oath Of Office: "I [] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." See, 28 U.S.C. ½ 453. Gilmore v. People Of The State Of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir.2000) ("...Congress, like this Court, is bound by and swears an oath to uphold the Constitution."). Despite such lofty ideals as expressed in the Constitution's prohibition against the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; despite the Supreme Court's passionate holdings for 200-years "that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy... whenever that right is invaded." See, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803); despite the Ninth Circuit's firm reiteration that "[n]o man be condemned for a nonexistent crime," see, Kleve, supra; despite the Jones ruling establishing that the government never had authority or jurisdiction of my non-interstate commerce charged offenses - an irrefutable and undisputed establishment; despite the judges' sworn Oaths Of Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, the judges of the San Diego district court have repeatedly and without exception refused to entertain the merits of my just and proper petitions asking nothing more than the vacation of my null and void convictions. They do not dispute - no one, not even Burns disputes - that my convictions for nonexistent crimes violate the Due Process clause of the Constitution and that my rights have been invaded, nor do they voice opposition of my entitlement to relief by vacation of those convictions. But, to protect Burns, those judges simply refuse me any means by which I may have the merits of my petitions addressed. Traditional collateral review by way of 28 U.S.C. ½ 2255 has been blocked by a labyrinth of procedural rules. The Great Writ of habeas corpus, spoken of in the Constitution and which may not be suspended, was denied when the district court illegally re-characterized the ½ 2241(c)(3) petition to ½ 2255 and then, again, refused review on procedural grounds. The writ of last resort, Coram Nobis (28 U.S.C. ½ 1651) could not be so easily denied, so the district court simply refused to acknowledge its presentation (an oft-repeated pattern, as will be shown momentarily). No judge of the San Diego district court has ever addressed the merits underlying my null and void convictions. In summing up, the Supreme Court invalidated my convictions in May 2000, establishing those convictions to be in violation of the Constitution; judges swear an Oath Of Office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, thus their ministerial duty to act proactively to vacate those convictions. But those judges have slammed shut and bolted the doors of the courthouse to keep out review of my convictions. Rather than allow Burns to be tarnished, those judges have chosen instead to deliberately fail their Oaths Of Office, violate the Constitution and ignore the laws of the United States. They prefer to keep me falsely convicted and imprisoned for the sake of Burns' career. The Tobias Court held that any judge who fails to act by setting aside the judgment of null and void convictions "is guilty of false imprisonment." See, Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 203 (1830). At this point the story gets worse! Your investigations will prove a long and tortured list of horrors by those judges, for example: 
 A. Burns secreted to judge Rhoades false tape recordings which he deliberately mismarked to incriminate me in a fabricated murder plot (tapes Rhoades either never listened to, or made no effort beyond Burns' word to authenticate the voices thereon) - once the secret tapes were discovered they were proven not to be me but two roll-playing government minions; B. In other proceedings before Rhoades, he once found that my assertions of a government witness having committed perjury were not of import, because the perjury was corroborated by another government witness - essentially finding that two lies make a truth; C. In civil litigation where a jail-house snitch turned government agent averred in his own pleadings that he was "at all times a government agent" working for Burns (a fact Burns concealed from the defense and the court), judge Brewster ignored the agent's averment and made a finding that there was no evidence that the snitch was a working government agent; D. Brewster then dismissed that case to protect Burns. When asked to reconsider the dismissal as contrary to Supreme Court law, Brewster refused. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and ordered it to conform to Supreme Court law; E. When Burns' perjuries in two personal declarations were exposed, judge Singleton (an out-of-state judge hand picked by Burns protectors) squashed Grand Jury review for criminal prosecution by recasting the perjuries as merely "misinformation", although conceding that Burns had, in fact, provided such 'misinformation' in both the federal and state prosecutions; F. A Federal Rules Of Civil Procedures, Rule 60(b)(6) motion seeking review of Burns' "fraud upon the [federal sentencing] court" was swept under the rug as procedurally barred so as not to have to address Burns' transgressions; G. When the government - confident in her favored position - filed a critical pleading 42 days late without permission or explanation and later did not oppose my motion, supported by the two controlling Supreme Court cases, that their pleading be stricken from the case, the judge simply ignored my motion and the law, providing the government the favoritism they know is theirs in matters between Burns and myself; H. The heart and soul of Rule 60(b)(4) is to correct null and void convictions, but judge Whelan refused to even acknowledge my submission to him of a proper 60(b)(4) argument; I. When federal and state motions were filed for the return of evidence/property both governments opposed the motions based on arguments that those items might be necessary in any future retrial(s) - all the while Burns was covertly, and without court authorization, engaged in destroying that very evidence/property; J. In a bizarre proceeding, Burns sought to change the specific terms of my federal sentences (a fancy costing taxpayers tens-of-thousands of dollars). Rhoades indulged the child, and after years of contentious litigation, violated well established law in not only changing the terms of my sentences, but doing so without my presence - all to little value except the waste of taxpayers' dollars and to sate Burns' ego; K. Because of the obscene favoritism shown to Burns by his fellow judges, every judge of the San Diego district court had been recused from four cases involving Burns and myself that preceded the filing of the ½ 2241(c)(3) petition. Within that petition I again sought the recusal of those judges. Justice be damned, judge Miller completely ignored the recusal request, re-characterized the petition, dismissed it, then ignored my motion for reconsideration which pointed out that his failure to address the recusal request violated Supreme Court law. Judge Miller's "appearance of impropriety" was presented to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit in Case No. #02-89037. The Judicial Council covered their eyes to Miller's obvious misconduct; L. In an Associated Press article of 16 July, 2002, it was noted that of 766 Judicial Complaints filed in 2001, only one resulted in a penalty. Judges "have an obligation to police themselves, and of course that is the problem," said American University Law Professor, Paul Rice. Furthermore, Rice pointed out that "[j]udges sit on the boards that review allegations of ethical misconduct and are loath to punish a colleague." M. On 19 July, 2002, I filed my Request To Dismiss Indictments, premised on established law that a judgment of conviction rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the charged offense is a nullity (judgment for nonexistent offense) and can never become final. Because the judgment can never become final the proceedings remain, by definition, pending, and a defendant may move the court at any time to dismiss the fatally flawed underlying indictment. See, Federal 'Rules Of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2). Judge Rhoades issued a four sentence denial - no facts or law cited - opining simply that I pled guilty, thus am stuck with the conviction (albeit to an offense that does not exist). Contrary to Rhoades' opinion, the Constitution and Supreme Court hold that no man can be convicted, by judge, jury or plea of an offense that does not exist. Like judge Miller, Rhoades ignored my request that he recuse himself from the case; Judicial Complaint Case No. #02-50478 was blinked away; N. On appeal of judge Rhoades' denial, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit summarily dismissed, opining that the constitutional question of a conviction for a nonexistent offense is so "insubstantial" as not to warrant consideration! That incredible opinion is now under reconsideration by that three-judge panel and/or the entire body of judges of the Ninth Circuit via Rehearing En Banc(Case Nos. 02-50477 & 02-50478); O. Rehearing En Banc in the above cases was denied on 13 May 2003. Certiorari to the Supreme Court has been presented. P. A ½ 2241(c)(3) petition in Los Angeles was abruptly, and without warning, transferred down to San Diego, and from there to Alaska, where it was immediately considered a motion under ½ 2255 and dismissed. I paid the fee of $105.00 and filed my Notice Of Appeal; Application For Certificate Of Appealability. Incredibly, the district court ignored the Notice Of Appeal and sent the Application For Certificate Of Appealability to the Court Of appeals for consideration as an application to file a second or successive motion under ½ 2255. I immediately notified the Court Of appeals that I had not made any filing to them, and notified the district court of her error. The Court Of Appeals subsequently denied my non-existent filing; the district court has done nothing except pocket the fee of $105.00 (there is no filing fee for second/successive certification application). I have since asked the Court Of Appeals to vacate its Order of denial issued in regards to my non-existent filing, and have motioned the district court to rule on the properly filed application For Certificate Of Appealability. This is just another example of the shell game being played by the courts to avoid the merits of the issues in regards to my, null and void, federal judgments of conviction. 
 Filed complaints to the Chief Judge of the district court, Ms. Huff, concerning the gross misconduct of all judges in matters surrounding Burns were summarily brushed aside with excuses of not getting involved in cases presided over by other judges. Curiously, a number of judges virulently opposed the hiring of Burns as a magistrate due to his well known lack of ethics, moral failings and illegal conduct in securing convictions. Nonetheless, he was voted in, not so much of a promotion as being kicked out of the United States Attorney's Office for such egregious character flaws. Now the story gets even worse - much worse! In November, 2001, I caused to be served upon every magistrate and judge of the San Diego district court my Notice To All Judges And Magistrates Of Their Oath Of Office; Duty To Uphold The Constitution (In Re: Dave Harrison; Case No. #02-CV-0114-W). However, due to the recalcitrance of the Court Clerks the notice was not filed until 17 January, 2002. The Notice expounded as to the judges' duty to do equal justice and uphold the Constitution, thus their duty - ministerial in nature and so plain as to be free from doubt - to vacate my erroneous convictions. Despite the notice's separate filing, individualized Case number (#02-CV-0114-W), particularized issue, pertinent case law and distinct nature wholly removed from the ½ 2241(c)(3) case, judge Whelan opined the Notice to be part of the ½ 2241(c)(3) case, then spouted the party line of having no jurisdiction over the Notice case and dismissed it. Every judge, either by acts of commission or omission, turned away from the Notice, their duty and the Constitution. But Whelan wasn't done, he then ordered that no further filings be accepted by the Court Clerks. No appeal of his abuses would be allowed. "Today as in ages past, we are not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny." See, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940). As history has shown, tyranny never travels without its alter ego persecution. In the earliest stages of my appeals of the murder conviction Burns conveyed to me, through attorney Alan May, an ominous threat (monitored and tape recorded prison phone). Burns threatened that I either drop my appeals and make no further efforts to delve into the conviction or he would use "all the power and resources of the government against [my] family." As the appeals continued and scrutiny of Burns' misconduct intensified he made good on his threats; numerous aggressive and heavy-handed "investigations" were instituted against my family by the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau Of Investigations. Repeated threats of prosecution and imprisonment were issued, along with the tacit but clear message to back off of Burns or suffer the consequences. Despite the years of persecution by various branches of the government, no wrong-doing by any member of my family was ever charged. The toll in other ways has been devastating. From bogus prosecutions of nonexistent crimes to null and void convictions, to rogue judges whose ill-agenda leaves me convicted and falsely imprisoned, to tyranny and persecution, this is truly a case that began in horror and descended straight away into the nether world. Partisan relationships, career damaging exposure of all judges concerned arid ill-agendas each play their part to explain why those magistrates and judges choose deliberately not to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and violate their Oaths Of Office. As long as the protection of Burns is of higher priority than the Constitution, laws, and their Oaths, then justice and vindication will forever be oppressed by tyranny and persecution. Those judges as a whole, having taken the rogue in, fear to vacate my erroneous convictions lest they sacrifice Burns and jeopardize their own careers. Our form of government was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect in my case has been to embody and perpetuate it. Such judges are no longer in "good behavior" as required for them to hold office. Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution states that judges "...shall hold their offices during good behavior..." Where judges join together to thwart justice for the purpose of protecting a rogue - a criminal - within their ranks, indeed, would leave me falsely imprisoned in furtherance of their ill-agenda, those judges can no longer be considered in "good behavior" and must be impeached. Left unaccountable, judges of that ilk would surely do the same to any citizen not graced by their favoritism. The citizenry deserves a judiciary that will administer justice equally to all people, judges who will uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. Moreover, the people of this nation have the right to expect their politicians and the media not to blink away facts, such as exist in this case, clearly exposing a group of judges who no longer feel nor act bound by their sworn Oaths Of Office, but administer justice based on partisan relationships, concerns about career damaging exposure and ill-agendas. Such judges are no longer in "good behavior", thus unfit to hold office. They must be impeached. Let me apologize for the length of this writing. While it was not my wish to take up your precious time, there was a lot of information to convey. Truly, what you have read here is but the tip of the iceberg. There is much more information and supporting evidence concerning additional horrors surrounding Burns, his fellow judges and the Court Clerks. State and federal case files teem with documentary evidence of the asserted matters herein. And there is so much more! Again, my apologies. My family, friends, supporters, and I, ask for your concern and outrage and that you take proactive steps to investigate the injustices herein described.

Author: Harrison, David Scott

Author Location: California

Date: October 21, 2016

Genre: Essay

Extent: 5 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays