Posts Tagged :

premise gse

Dwane Cates: P.O.S. Attorney 2

 150 150 vprxncte
By:
0

Introduction

In my relentless pursuit of justice, it is imperative to highlight the misconduct and legal violations committed by my former attorney, Dwane Cates. This blog post will detail the specific laws and professional rules he broke during his representation of my case and trial. Understanding these violations is crucial, not just for my case, but for anyone seeking justice and fair representation.

State Bar of Arizona Professional Rules of Conduct Violations

  1. Rule 1.1 – Competence
    • Dwane Cates failed to provide competent representation by not adequately preparing for my defense. His lack of preparation and understanding of the complexities of my case led to inadequate representation, violating Rule 1.1, which requires lawyers to provide competent representation to their clients.
  2. Rule 1.3 – Diligence
    • Rule 1.3 mandates that a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Cates neglected important aspects of my case, including failing to investigate key evidence and witnesses that could have exonerated me, thus failing to meet this standard of diligence. He filed no motions in my case on my behalf whatsoever.
  3. Rule 1.4 – Communication
    • Effective communication is critical in legal representation. Cates violated Rule 1.4 by failing to keep me informed about the status of my case and not explaining legal matters in a manner that allowed me to make informed decisions.
  4. Rule 1.7 – Conflict of Interest
    • Rule 1.7 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s interests or other clients’ interests will materially limit their ability to represent the client. Cates had undisclosed conflicts of interest that compromised his ability to represent me impartially and effectively.

American Bar Association (ABA) Rules Violations

  1. Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions
    • The ABA Rule 3.1 requires that a lawyer should not bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous. Cates pursued defenses and arguments without a solid factual basis, wasting valuable resources and undermining my defense.
  2. Rule 8.4 – Misconduct
    • This rule prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Cates’s actions, including misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose crucial information, clearly violate this rule.

Federal Laws and Constitutional Violations

  1. Sixth Amendment – Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel. Cates’s inadequate preparation, lack of communication, and conflicts of interest resulted in ineffective assistance, directly violating my constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.

State Rules of Court Violations

  1. Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 – Disclosure and Discovery
    • Rule 15 requires timely disclosure of evidence by both the prosecution and defense. Cates failed to utilize discovery rules effectively, neglecting to obtain exculpatory evidence that could have been crucial to my defense.

Attorney Dwane Cates evinces ineptitude, inadequacy, and incompetence, by a complete and total failure, and looked as if he did not even bother to investigate the State’s case and star witness, Jamil Trevon Curd (JTC), who was arrested 10 times before this case, with at least 25 Phoenix Police Department Incident reports of residential burglary, aggravated assaults, dui, domestic violence, criminal damage, disorderly conduct, 5 arrest warrants, and a pending investigation into the death of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015. 

“5 arrest warrants, and a pending investigation into the death of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015 was concealed by Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis of the Maricopa County Attorney Office (MCAO). Dwane Cates failed in his duties completely.”

Ewing redmond Samuels III

The State of Arizona’s case against me was largely constructed on Detective Marchele Miller‘s report, which was rife with omissions and deliberate falsehoods. Despite possessing facts that could have demonstrated my innocence, Miller chose to suppress this crucial information, thereby distorting the narrative and fabricating evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion of guilt. Her actions not only tainted the integrity of the investigation but also played a significant role in the wrongful conviction that followed, highlighting a grave miscarriage of justice. Marchele Miller was arrested on February 23, 2012 by the Chandler Police Department.

Attorney Dwane Cates did not obtain this information to challenge the veracity and truthfulness of her statements at trial and the report she authored, filled with deliberate falsehoods that was easy to refute with facts and evidence. He allowed the word of a corrupt Detective to violate an individual with high government security clearance as a Cyber Security Expert and Analyst.

“Detective Marchele Miller was arrested on February 23, 2012 by the Chandler Police Department.”

Ewing Redmond Samuels III

Federal Statutes and Case Law

  1. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
    • This landmark case sets the standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Strickland, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Cates’s actions meet both prongs of this test, as his incompetence and neglect clearly impacted the outcome of my case.
  2. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
    • Under Brady, the prosecution is required to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. While this is a prosecutorial duty, Cates failed to demand such disclosures aggressively, a failure that compromised my defense.

Conclusion

Attorney Dwane Cates’s conduct during my case and trial was a clear breach of numerous professional and legal standards. His violations of the State Bar of Arizona Professional Rules of Conduct, American Bar Association Rules, Federal Laws, State Rules of Court, and critical case laws such as Strickland and Brady, resulted in the gross miscarriage of justice I experienced. It is my hope that by exposing these violations, I can not only seek redress for myself but also warn others of the potential pitfalls in their pursuit of justice.

Call to Action

I urge those who have faced similar injustices to come forward and share their stories. Together, we can push for accountability and reform within the legal system. For more detailed information and updates on my case, please visit my website regularly.

Until Next Time…

I Am,

Ewing Redmond Samuels III

Unchecked Misconduct: the danger of dirty cops

 150 150 vprxncte
By:
0

Introduction:

Today, I want to delve into a topic that has plagued our society for far too long: the existence of dirty cops and the dire consequences of their unchecked misconduct. The recent case of Derek Chauvin, whose actions led to the tragic death of George Floyd and sparked international outrage and protests, serves as a chilling reminder of the dangers posed by law enforcement officers who abuse their power.

The Case of Detective Marchele Miller:

Under the Surface: Unveiling the Criminal History

Detective Marchele Miller, unlike Derek Chauvin, does not have a record of misconduct. Instead, she has a troubling history of criminal behavior and an arrest record with the City of Chandler Police Department. Yet, despite this alarming background, the State of Arizona has gone above and beyond to conceal evidence of her criminal past, leaving me to fight for justice against insurmountable odds.

CRIMINAL HISTORY AND ARREST RECORD OF DETECTIVE MARCHELE MILLER:

DetectiveMarcheleMillerCHAR-1Download

The Role of Acting Commander Matthew Siekmann:

A Betrayal of Trust and Accountability

Acting Commander Matthew Siekmann, Badge #6347, of the Professional Standards Bureau, knowingly and intentionately ignored my reporting that Detective Marchele Miller had a criminal history and an arrest record, despite the Police Department’s policy mandating an investigation and termination of such officers. Shockingly, it was later revealed that Siekmann had a personal connection to Miller, as they were friends, and he had given her high marks on her Personnel Profile in previous years, thus compromising the integrity of the investigation process.

Comparing Cases: The Derek Chauvin Trial vs. Detective Marchele Miller

The parallels between my case and the Derek Chauvin trial are striking. Both involve officers with troubling backgrounds, whose actions have had devastating consequences. However, in my case, the stakes are even higher, as the State of Arizona actively works to protect and shield officers with criminal histories from accountability.

The Path Forward: Seeking Accountability and Justice

This is a dangerous precedent that cannot be ignored. When law enforcement agencies fail to hold their own accountable, it undermines the very foundation of justice and erodes public trust in the system. It is a betrayal of the oath to serve and protect, and it puts innocent lives at risk.

Conclusion: Towards a Future of Transparency and Integrity

But despite the challenges I face, I refuse to back down. I will continue to fight for my rights and expose the corruption and misconduct that have plagued my case. I will not rest until justice is served, and those responsible are held accountable for their actions.

In the end, the fight against dirty cops is not just about seeking justice for individual victims—it is about holding the system accountable and ensuring that no one is above the law. Together, we can work towards a future where transparency, accountability, and integrity prevail.

Thank you for joining me on this journey towards justice.

Warm regards,

Ewing Samuels

Rethinking the American Jury System: Pillars of injustice

 150 150 vprxncte
By:
0

Introduction: Challenging the Pillars of Justice

Today, we embark on a journey into the heart of one of its most cherished institutions: the jury system. But as we peel back the layers of history and tradition, we must confront a fundamental question: does this system still serve the ideals of justice in our modern world? Join me as we delve into the complexities and controversies surrounding the American jury system, and dare to envision a more equitable path forward.

The Problem of Bias: A Flawed Foundation

The jury system, often hailed as the hallmark of democracy, traces its roots back to medieval England under King Henry II. Fast forward to today, and the United States stands virtually alone in championing this centuries-old tradition. But is it time to reconsider our allegiance to the jury trial?

Confirmation Bias and Discriminatory Practices

Let’s address the elephant in the courtroom: bias. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an “impartial jury,” but let’s face it, folks, impartiality is a lofty ideal that often falls short in reality. Voir dire, the process of jury selection, has become a battlefield where attorneys strategically weed out jurors whose views don’t align with their case. It’s less about fairness and more about gaining a strategic advantage.

Prosecutorial Influence and Government Prestige

But wait, there’s more. Prosecutors, armed with the prestige of the government, often wield their influence to sway jurors towards wrongful and unlawful convictions. This misuse of power further undermines the impartiality of the jury system and erodes public trust in the justice system.

Media Influence: A Modern Challenge

Confirmation bias, that pesky tendency to cherry-pick information that confirms our preconceived beliefs, runs rampant in the jury box. Studies have shown that jurors are influenced by everything from political ideology to racial biases. And let’s not forget about peremptory challenges, the legal loophole that’s been used to systematically exclude minorities from juries. It’s a system ripe for exploitation and in desperate need of reform.

Competency: The Jury’s Achilles’ Heel

Let’s talk about the competency conundrum. Imagine this: everyday citizens, often with no legal background, tasked with deciphering the complexities of the law. It’s like expecting a ship captain to navigate a storm without a compass. The result? Verdicts that may be swayed more by bewilderment than clarity. But it’s not just about comprehension; it’s also about exclusion. Prospective jurors with relevant expertise are often sidelined during voir dire because they “know too much.” This leaves juries comprised of well-meaning individuals who may lack the fundamental understanding needed to make informed decisions.

Examples of Questionable Convictions from Juries

  1. The Central Park Five (1989): In one of the most notorious cases of prosecutorial misconduct, five Black and Latino teenagers were wrongfully convicted of raping a jogger in Central Park, New York City. The prosecution, led by Linda Fairstein, presented a narrative of guilt despite lack of physical evidence, coerced confessions, and DNA evidence that later exonerated the defendants. Their convictions were vacated in 2002 after the real perpetrator confessed.
  2. The West Memphis Three (1993): Three teenagers—Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley Jr.—were convicted of murdering three young boys in Arkansas. The prosecution relied heavily on coerced confessions and circumstantial evidence, while ignoring potentially exculpatory evidence. The case garnered widespread attention, and in 2011, after new DNA evidence emerged, the defendants entered Alford pleas and were released from prison.
  3. The Duke Lacrosse Case (2006): Three members of the Duke University lacrosse team were accused of raping a stripper at a team party. The district attorney, Mike Nifong, pursued charges despite inconsistencies in the accuser’s story and lack of DNA evidence linking the defendants to the alleged assault. The case eventually fell apart, and the defendants were declared innocent. Nifong was disbarred for his misconduct.
  4. The Case of Cameron Todd Willingham (1991): Willingham was convicted of arson and murder in Texas after a house fire killed his three young daughters. Prosecutors relied on faulty forensic evidence to secure the conviction, despite expert opinions suggesting the fire was accidental. Willingham was executed in 2004, but subsequent investigations raised serious doubts about his guilt, leading to widespread criticism of the prosecution’s tactics.

These cases serve as stark reminders of the fallibility of the justice system and the potential for prosecutors to sway juries with misleading narratives and incomplete evidence. They underscore the importance of vigilance in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is truly served.

Conclusion: Towards a More Just System

In conclusion, folks, the American jury system, while noble in theory, is in dire need of a reality check. Bias, prosecutorial influence, media influence, and incompetence are just a few of the hurdles we face. It’s time to roll up our sleeves, folks, and start reimagining a justice system that truly serves the people.

Until next time,

Ewing Samuels