Theres'a Letter To The State Ii

From:

Theresa M. Martin 10918 Norwood Avenue Port Richey, Fl. 34668 Hm. Ph. (727) 857-4193 [email protected]

To:

Joshua Houston, State Attorney Citrus County Prosecutors Office 110 N. Apopka Avenue, Inverness, Florida 34450 Office no.: (352) 341-6675 Fax No.: (325) 341-6675

Re:

Martin v. State Appeal No.: 2009- AP-2088

May 11, 2009

Dear Mr. Houston:

This correspondence is in response of my last motion for stay pending appeal which you know is presently before Judge Yerman in the trial court. Also by now I assume you’ve had a few days and a chance to listen to the CD I have as exhibit “A” in my affidavit in support of the motion. My exhibit “A” as I’m sure you remember I swore to its accuracy and authenticity as much as possible as anyone can until they introduce it into evidence in a court hearing. What's more, I’m sure that you recognize Mr. Baghdadi’s voice as his. I’m also sure that you probably have more than likely talked to him about the phone message on the CD and how this case on appeal is moving along. In addition, one can reasonably assume that you have probably asked him to listen to it and then asked him if the recording is his voice and if it accurately portrays the voicemail message he left on my cell phone on March 11, 2009. I also assume since, you are around each other on a routine basis in numerous county court appearances and that both of you have discussed my case, and I’m sure by now he knows that I’m appealing my plea agreement and arguing at least one ap-

peal point of “ineffective Counsel” arguing that my legal counsel failed to argue a motion to dismiss the States case based on the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense”. I might add you probably have told him, or asked him or even showed him that Judge Yerman in his last order denying my motion to withdraw my plea after sentence did in fact agree that a judge is/or can be the government and Judge Yerman cited in his order a California case Ortiz v. Almager, 2008 WL 789746, *6(C.D. Cal. 2008) verifying that Government misconduct can rise to the level of a constitutional violation only where it so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Furthermore, you might have even told him, or he has seen for himself in the court file that I cited the famous trail lawyer Richard F. “Dickie” Scruggs (who has been in prison for a while now serving a five (5) prison sentence) who was involved in the famous tobacco cases a few years ago. Mr. Scruggs was charged in a criminal case by the U. S. Government in Federal District Court in Mississippi for the Northern District. Where the argument by the defense was over the Chief Judge in Lafayette County, Mississippi was he a legal agent as defined by federal law for the United States Government. The government used the Mississippi Chief Judge in order to get evidence on Mr. Scruggs and his law firm on corruption charges of bribing Mississippi Judges in order for him and his firm to get large attorney fees in his civil cases. One of Mr. Scruggs’s arguments was that Lafayette County Chief Judge Henry Lackey was not an agent subject to the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 666. Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. denied the Scruggs motion and agreed with U. S. Governments analysis of the law as applied to this legal question on whether to dismiss the indictment based on the defenses arguments contained in their motion. The federal district court denied the defenses motion not because the (OGCD) was not a valid defense, but they failed to prove it was indeed government misconduct by the United States Governments agent’s actions of the Chief Judge in Lafayette County, Mississippi.

2

I think Mr. Houston you can understand and see that there is a lot more to this case that what Mr. Baghdadi has presented to you on the surface. I again affirm that I sincerely believe that Mr. Baghdadi’s superiors above him gave him the wrong advice on my case, and now I have to suffer by the court’s displeasure with me as Judge Yerman wrote his unjust and unnecessary judicial comments with no evidence to support his allegations at the very end of ¶ four of his April 23, 2009 Order denying my motion to withdraw my plea. Furthermore, I might add that these unjustified statements are unbecoming of a county judge and most assuredly and clearly shows bias and prejudice by a judge in getting a fair trial. If this case is reversed on appeal then I would definitely file a motion to disqualify. At this present time, my motion for stay if it is denied, it can be appealed to circuit court. Therefore, I see no need to do it at this time but might reconsider in the very near future. I would like to ask that the State join me in conceding that in the interest of justice based on my last three pleadings and the recording of Mr. Baghdadi verifying that he indeed is wrong, by the fact he failed to grant me an adequate defense, and he did fall short based on the “performance” prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). I additionally state and can and will argue in my brief that my trial counsel was constitutionally “[in]effective” because he failed to file any motions, issue any subpoena’s, or pursue any discovery in order to put forth the “Outrageous Government Conduct Defense” as outlined by due process violations as written in article 1 section 9 of the Florida Constitution and which should have resulted in a motion to dismiss the States criminal charges. Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1993). The High Court in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Justice Douglass delivered the opinion of the Court and in opining on the issue of how a defendant receives justice by a visitor looking at the process from the outside, he determined the following: First "`Wherever the visitor looks at the system, he finds great numbers of defendants being processed by harassed and overworked officials. Police have more cases 3

than they can investigate. Prosecutors walk into courtrooms to try simple cases as they take their initial looks at the files. Defense lawyers appear having had no more than time for hasty conversations with their clients. Judges face long calendars with the certain knowledge that their calendars tomorrow and the next day will be, if anything, longer, and so there is no choice but to dispose of the cases. Second "`Suddenly it becomes clear that for most defendants in the criminal process, there is scant regard for them as individuals. They are numbers on dockets, faceless ones to be processed and sent on their way. The gap between the theory and the reality is enormous. Third "`Very little such observation of the administration of criminal justice in operation is required to reach the conclusion that it suffers from basic ills.'" Fourth that picture is seen in almost every report. "The misdemeanor trial is characterized by insufficient and frequently irresponsible preparation on the part of the defense, the prosecution, and the court. Everything is rush, rush." Hellerstein, The Importance of the Misdemeanor 407 U. S.25, 36 Case on Trial and Appeal, 28 The Legal Aid Brief Case 151, 152 (1970). (emphasis added). Based on Justice Douglass’s factual observation by an outsider, the State should understand my similar position. I firmly believe one of the key problems with the public defender’s office is there caseload is way too large, to adequately give any amount of time to each individuals case and my case requires an enormous amount of research into areas that public defender’s usually aren’t required to know or have to learn. In my case, a public defender as well as the State will have to learn many facets of family law, Rules of Professional Conduct, federal law, and the list can go on even further, in order to prepare for a motion to dismiss. In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is deprived of the right to effective assistance of counsel where "counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 4

I further ask the State, if they feel the above request is not the proper avenue then at least join me in the appeal by conceding that the trial court erred for failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the issue of “ineffective counsel”. You have to admit that there is enough evidence, especially now, based on the recording that verifies all my previous post trial motions did have legal merit, and I did, in fact, receive wrong legal advice in my case from Mr. Baghdadi. Ask yourself an honest question based on what you know from my pleadings and the CD recording of Mr. Baghdadi’s voicemail he left me on March 11, 2009 would you want him as your defense counsel when your criminal (free) record is at stake? I don’t think so. The State surely doesn’t entertain the idea or thought I would try and fake and/or alter a recording in order to pull a fast one on the State and the court by committing fraud? Therefore, on this point I would kindly ask the State to concede in this appeal at least by its answer brief by agreeing that the trial court erred by failing to at least grant my motion for a new trial and/or my motion to withdraw my plea after sentence. Furthermore, if the State will do this concession in their appeal it will be both professional and the correct response in the interest of justice. I hope you will feel that this is an appropriate measure to avoid further harm in seeking legal justice for this defendant. I know that the State has a legal duty to seek justice to anyone when, someone is illegally convicted. I will be more than glad to work with you on this urgent matter and will provide you with whatever documents, evidence, or witnesses you would need to bring this to a conclusion that both of us can live with. I do state, for the record, that I would prefer to have a hearing before a judge in Citrus County in order to prove Outrageous Government Conduct by former Judge Renke pertaining to my final judgment in my second civil divorce action in 2005. Furthermore, his final order was based on grossly illegal and unconstitutional rulings and was the result of more than likely judicial corruption with a strong circumstantial likelihood of a financial payoff to former Judge Renke. I now can prove it after all of 5

these years, but it would cost me a small fortune, and it is necessary for a federal hearing down the road a few months. Finally, I admit, I never should have been intimidated by Mr. Baghdadi and the other attorney on the eve of my trial, the morning of March 16, 2009 by the Citrus County Public Defender’s Office coercing me to take the plea offer. One must remember what is a non- lawyer to do, but trust her court appointed lawyer, and he was clearly wrong by his advice. I’m sure by now that you have to realize that there is definitely a problem in this case with my representation by the public defender’s office. However, since, it has happened, I now have to live with the consequences of my decision, for the time being. It is ironic that the State did not win this criminal conviction by proving that they had a good case, based on evidence supported by the law but just the opposite. First this conviction came on the heels of my public defender, who decided that a judge is not the government in (OGCD). Therefore, I had no valid defense, no motion to dismiss ever filed and argued to the court, no form discovery ever done, and now WE ALL KNOW HE WAS WRONG whether we want to believe it or not. Secondly, the judge I believe erred by failing to grant a new trial and/or at the very least based on case law, the court should have granted an evidentiary hearing in order to give this defendant a surviving chance to prove my claims of ineffective counsel were with or without merit as stated by my motion. In researching this case for appeal it won’t take you long, if you don’t already know by common sense the court committed reversible error and if the circuit court in its appellate capacity should vacate my sentence, and we then start all over again. I will soon learn you and/or offices position on my case and will learn if you really believe that lady justice is really blind and stands for justice for all (not just for those in the system) and everyone is to be placed on equal footing or if you and your office will continue to protect the system and let me fall by the wayside in order to protect the legal brethren involved, in the inside of the SYSTEM while as a pro se litigant, 6

I’m on the outside. It seems that since, my former public defender miserable failed, to even come to close in trying (to half way) represent my interest, of proving my innocence, and now I try to prove my innocence and what does the court do, but try and scourge me for claiming that my trail counsel was ineffective. The trial court tries to threaten me with possible sanctions as stated in its last order on April 23, 2009. I would remind you of the late Justice William O. Douglas in a dissenting opinion in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967); stated that not “all judges, under all circumstances, no matter how outrageous their conduct is immune from suit under 17 Stats. 13, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,”24 Justice Douglas asked, rhetorically: “What about the judge who conspires with local law enforcement officers to ‘railroad’ a dissenter? What about the judge who knowingly turns a trial into a kangaroo court? Or one who intentionally flouts the Constitution in order to obtain a conviction?” This applies a lot in my Pasco County case by former Judge John Renke III, but it also applies to Judge Yerman as to a “kangaroo court” by the fact of illegally denying my valid motion to withdraw my plea after sentence. Isn’t this really flouting the constitution in order to obtain a conviction? Isn’t this what due process is all about a hearing and the right to be heard in this great country of ours? You and your office can correct this miscarriage of justice if you will only realize what is meant by your sworn oath to the Florida and United States Constitutions. I would remind you Mr. Houston not to forget this statement; it needs to be remembered by the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. while writing a letter from his Birmingham Jail in April 16, 1963, wrote that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. Lastly, I would remind you and your office whatever other legal matters that might arise, I will have to address along the way, and there could be some hard legal lessons for some people involved in this case to learn. The ball is now in the States court, do what you think is the right direction for the State, me, and as well as the Citrus County Tax Payers (who ultimately are the ones who have to financially pay for all of this) in 7

order for this case to come to its final just conclusion based on the facts and as applied to the law. This letter will be sent to you by regular U. S. Mail and will also be sent by fax in order to verify that you did actually receive this letter. Therefore, upon receiving the fax I will give you and/or your office fifteen (15) days to send me a response. The fifteen (15) days will start the day after I send you the faxed copy. After the fifteen (15) day period has elapsed, if I have not received any correspondence from you or your office by U. S. Mail or by email, I will assume you no longer desire to settle this matter amicably, but wish to proceed with the appeal on opposite points of view. If you should feel we need to have a personal meeting on this, I would be glad to come to your office and meet with you on this delicate matter.

Sincerely yours,

8