Introduction
In this third part of my ongoing series about the Anders Brief and systemic injustice in Arizona’s courts, I want to shed light on my personal struggles while incarcerated, fighting my legal case as a pro se litigant. The challenge wasn’t limited to battling the state attorney and enduring the Arizona Department of Corrections’ (ADC) deliberate obstruction. I also faced a corrupt appellate system where judges and court-appointed attorneys worked hand-in-hand to deny me justice. Their arbitrary rulings and behavior demonstrated a complete derogation of their duties, violating not only the U.S. Constitution but also international law, resulting in wide-scale human rights abuses under the guise of state power. And it is on that note, I am seeking their immediate arrest as they represent a clear and present danger to the entire communities that they claim to serve.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
A Pro Se Battle Against All Odds
From the moment I took on my legal defense, I was met with overwhelming obstacles, both within the prison system and the courts. Despite the lack of legal representation, I filed numerous objections, motions, and briefs to fight for my life, knowing that failure to act meant leaving my fate in the hands of a legal system determined to shut me down. Each document I filed represented not only my defense but also a lifeline—a desperate attempt to overcome a system rigged against me.
While I diligently prepared my legal case, my court-appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders Brief. This move was not only a failure of representation but a direct attack on my right to appeal. By submitting this brief, the state court appointed attorney claimed there were no arguable errors in my case—despite the clear and evident violations of my constitutional rights at every step of the process. This Anders Brief effectively signaled to the court that my case wasn’t worth reviewing, leaving me in a position where I had to do everything myself to overturn the injustice.
Filing Objections and Motions to Save My Life
Throughout my battle, I filed motion after motion, objecting to the state’s procedural violations, challenging the prosecutorial misconduct and clear violations of constitutional magnitude. My motions and objections were more than just legal filings; they were cries for justice in a system that had long turned its back on me.
The first Pro Se motion I filed was the Motion To Strike Anders Brief And Dismiss Unlawfully Appointed Counsel With Irreconcilable Conflict Of Interest (ICI)And Appoint Direct Appeal Counsel. Even though I was considered a laymen, I did my best to give my objections and notify the court that I did not want that counsel and the issues counsel clearly ‘overlooked’.
The courts, however, responded to my motions with indifference or outright dismissal. It became increasingly evident that the judges were not interested in examining the merits of my case or addressing the blatant constitutional violations I raised. Instead, they rubber-stamped decisions that sustained my wrongful conviction, ignoring both the facts and the law.
Memorandum Decision by the Court:
This Memorandum clearly doesn’t even mention my 5 year old toddler who was present with me, at our legally leased private home and residence. Think about that for a minute! They used hearsay about my so called ‘girlfriend’ at the time, A.H., who never corroborated any of the State’s case or legal authority in my home. The word of a residential burglar was taken over mine, who paid the bank, and had a legal lease. This very document is the proof and evidence,and also indicates and implicates the state’s authorities for knowingly engaged in criminal conspiracy and deprivation of rights under color of law including the kidnapping of my 5 year old child under false pretenses.
The Appellate Court’s Arbitrary and Derogatory Behavior
The appellate court’s behavior was nothing short of arbitrary and hostile toward my rights. Judges David D. Weinzweig, Michael J. Brown, and Maria Elena Cruz reviewed my appeal, and despite clear legal errors that any first-year law student could recognize, they ruled that no “fundamental error” occurred. This decision was not only legally unsound but also emblematic of a broader pattern of judicial misconduct that permeates Arizona’s courts.
“The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that a proper fundamental error review applies to allegations of a single, unobjected-to instance of prosecutorial misconduct.”
– Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Proper Fundamental Error Review
Their failure to address the Brady/Giglio Disclosure violations, coupled with their disregard for Due Process, demonstrated that these judges had no intention of delivering justice. Instead, their actions reflected a total and deliberate derogation of their judicial duties. This behavior is not just a violation of the U.S. Constitution but a violation of international human rights laws, particularly as they relate to the right to a fair trial and the obligation of states to provide remedies for legal wrongs.
Trial Record, January 25, 2017 Minute Entry:
“THE COURT ADVISES Counsel that the Court has been made aware that law enforcement agents are present to arrest State’s witness, the Victim, Jamil Curd. The Court understands that Defense Counsel, Mr. Cates, advised law enforcement regarding the witness’s warrant(s) and whereabouts this afternoon. The Court has spoken with the law enforcement agents and the Victim, Jamil Curd, will be allowed to continue his testimony today. The Court will speak with Counsel further about the matter later.” – Judge George H. Foster, Jr.
Instead of calling mistrial, the trial “COURT” Judge George H. Foster, Jr. was intent on admonishing Defense Counsel for something that Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis did by hiding the fact that the State’s star witness, Jamil Trevon Curd had 5 active arrest warrants and Detective Marchele Miller and her pretending not to know about it, all defined as clear violations of disclosure requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. And because of Judge George H. Foster,Jr.‘s questionable decision making, even more disclosure violations came to life after my conviction. All of his cases are being reviewed by my team, uncovering a history and pattern in practice of abuse of power. His legacy is criminal.
A Systemic Pattern of Human Rights Abuses
The actions of these judges were not isolated incidents; they reflect a systemic pattern of abuse that allows Arizona’s courts to commit wide-scale human rights violations under state authority. By engaging in this pattern of arbitrary rulings, these judges have positioned themselves above the law, able to disregard the rights of the individuals who come before them without consequence.
This systemic failure extends far beyond my case. It is indicative of a judicial culture that prioritizes convictions over justice and expediency over fairness. When judges can dismiss clear legal errors and constitutional violations with impunity, the very foundations of justice crumble. Their actions not only harm individuals like myself but erode the public’s trust in the legal system as a whole.
Implicating the Courts in Widespread Human Rights Violations
What I experienced is more than just judicial incompetence; it is a direct violation of international human rights law. The arbitrary actions of these judges constitute a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States is a party to. Under Article 14 of the ICCPR, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the state has an obligation to ensure that justice is carried out without delay and without prejudice. The behavior of these judges—deliberately dismissing clear violations—runs counter to the obligations the U.S. has under international law.
Further, by allowing the Anders Brief system to continue unchecked, Arizona courts are complicit in depriving countless defendants of their right to a meaningful appeal. This practice, along with the arbitrary behavior of judges, implicates the entire legal system in human rights abuses on a grand scale. It demonstrates that the system is designed not to protect the rights of the accused but to maintain the status quo of wrongful convictions.
Conclusion: The Judges Who Failed Justice
The judges who reviewed my appeal—David D. Weinzweig, Michael J. Brown, and Maria Elena Cruz—are complicit in the systemic violation of human rights within Arizona’s legal system. Their failure to recognize clear constitutional and procedural errors, their arbitrary rulings, and their dismissal of my motions and objections demonstrate their total disregard for the rule of law. Their behavior is not just a betrayal of their judicial duties; it is a crime under international law.
As I continue to fight for my freedom, I know that my case is just one of many that highlight the failures of Arizona’s legal system. The systemic use of Anders Briefs, coupled with the arbitrary behavior of judges, must be exposed and addressed. The international community must take action to hold these individuals accountable for their actions and to ensure that no one else suffers the same fate that I have.
Stay tuned as I continue to expose the systemic injustices within Arizona’s courts and how they lead to wide-scale human rights abuses.
Until Next Time…
I Am,
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
