Questions to Alaska Government

May 11, 2005

To: Alaska Legislators, Executives and Alaska Congressional Delegates

Subject: Openly stated Denial of inculpatory and exculpatory evidence crucial to a fair trial and a Trial by Jury in Alaska Rules of Court Criminal Rule 16(a) and how your responses will be posted on the Internet, posters and other public means of documenting your responses as required.

Attachments: Alaska Rules of Court Criminal Rule 16(a), Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-282 (1999) and two (2) Video files in WMV format.

Greetings to All:

Due process of Law as secured in the Fifth Amendment is as follows, to wit:

“. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal cases to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public used, without just compensation.” [Emphasis added]

And further secured in the Sixth Amendment, to wit:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. [Emphasis added]

Consider this your first notice and opportunity to respond to the below stated question and you will be given ten (10) days to respond. Other questions on very important Issues will be forthcoming very soon and your response as well as your non-response will be posted on the Internet and elsewhere as required to effect the change required. The category (or categories) that will be assigned to you is totally dependent by your actions or inaction.

If your responses are individually designated that they are not to be disclosed, (which will be honored) they will not be posted, but it will be noted that you are responding to the issue, and as long as meaningful attempts are in progress by a particular individual, no identification of any party will be made public in the negative who is meaningfully responding.

The objective is to make changes on critical issues immediately by any peaceful means available that is legal and lawful, and your specific politics are not relevant. Each Issue will be dealt with separately.

The categories of responders/non-responders are;

1. Statesmen - which will be located next to your name; or

2. Tyrant – which is a despot; a person who uses his or her power unjustly and

arbitrarily to the oppression of people and the citizens of Alaska; and/or,

3. Domestic Terrorist – which as defined in 18 U.S.C § 2331 means activities

that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the

criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be

intended….(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; and/or,

4. Treason- As used in the adjudged decision of the Supreme Court of the United

States in Ex Parte Bollman and Exparte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75, 125, 126,

127 (1807), to wit:

The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed.

* * *

. . .if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.

Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason.”

* * *

He stated the opinion of the court to be, 'that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime: whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial.' 'The court are of opinion,' continued Judge Chase, on that occasion, 'that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war; but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.' [Emphasis added]

Contained in the Alaska Rules of Court of Court in Criminal Rule 16(a) we find the following, to wit:

(a) Scope of Discovery. In order to provide adequate information for informed pleas, expedite trial, minimize surprise, afford opportunity for effective cross-examination, and meet the requirements of due process, discovery prior to trial should be as full and free as possible consistent with protection of persons, effective law enforcement, and the adversary system. [Emphasis added]

First of all the courts try to equate “Discovery” with that of inculpatory (evidence against you) and exculpatory (evidence for you), which is misleading and deceptive because this allows them to use their discovery rule to protect persons (includes the State of Alaska – see annotations of ©AS 01.10.060), protect effective law enforcement (all police and troopers) and protect the adversary system (all judges, prosecutors, and public defenders). Why should these persons or entities need protecting in a Constitutional Republic if they are following the law honestly and doing their duty in a constitutional manner? Literally unbelievable and printed!

As unambiguously stated in this rule, inculpatory and exculpatory evidence [Discovery] will be withheld for the protection of persons, effective law enforcement, and the adversary system, thus contributing or directly responsible to the unlawful incarceration of people by withholding evidence, so as to protect the entities listed and denying the accused of a constitutionally guaranteed fair trial and a true Trial by Jury.

This withholding of evidence is in direct contravention of the holding in the adjudged decision of Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-282 (1999) [Entire case is attached to this e-mail] clearly states that all inculpatory and exculpatory evidence shall be disclosed, with the following from Id at 280, 281, to wit:

[1][2][3] In Brady, this Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S., at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375; see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence "known only to police *281 investigators and not to the prosecutor." Id., at 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555. In order to comply with Brady, therefore, "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in this case, including the police." Kyles, 514 U.S., at 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555.

The ramifications of this particular Criminal Rule 16(a) which is consistently used for withholding crucial inculpatory and exculpatory evidence for those knowledgeable in criminal trials will greatly exceed the sentencing issues of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) that was required by the legislators of Alaska to be addressed this session.

Please note, that one of the issues that is associated with a Trial by Jury of the highest nature is there are no Counsellors-at-law to provide Assistance of Counsel present in Alaska. A Case that was just recently ruled in our favor was Gladden v. State of Alaska, A-8710 (3DI-03-57 CR) on one of many issues of Counsellors-at-law. Part of that Opinion is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska at this time concerning availability of Counsellors-at-law.

Criminal Rule 16(a) requires an immediate change by the Legislature to correct the unconstitutional withholding of inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in the Alaska Criminal Rules of Court 16(a) and also to legislate this into the Statutes of Alaska under the legislative Power to disclose all such evidence timely to the Accused (say 30 days prior to the Trial by Jury) with criminal penalties (misdemeanor minimum) for those that withhold inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Only mandatory criminal penalties will be sufficient to coerce a prompt change of the entrenched and accepted practice of the denying of crucial evidence to the accused in Alaska.

Do the people of Alaska not have the right to demand that those that purport to hold public offices perform all of the their constitutional duties as mandated when the life, liberty, or pursuant of happiness of the people of Alaska are at stake?

Question on this Issue:

What immediate action(s) will you initiate and support that will correct the unconstitutional Criminal Rule 16(a) in the Alaska Rules of Court and to also be legislated in the Alaska Statutes with associated penalties.

Your prompt response to this important issue is appreciated, but make no mistake that this issue will not be dropped until it is changed. Mail responses under your signature, or use pdf responses under your signature to my e-mail address. Please note on each meaningful response if it is not to be posted or distributed.

Thank you,

Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2^nd ralph@jusbelli.com

c/o P.O. Box 877109

Knik, Alaska

[99687]

907-357-8003 Home

907-244-9100 Cellular

907-357-8007 Fax