Today I have had the chance to review over the opening informal appeal brief Brian D. Hill (former USWGO Alt. News reporter) as was uploaded to FOIA Project, on this blog, and on the Internet Archive (HILLvEOUSA).
Brian’s Appeal brief is arguing that Constitutionally he has a Constitutional right under Brady v. Maryland; Giglio v. United States to get access to, to inspect, and make photocopies of his criminal case discovery evidence when the intent of his FOIA Requests was to prove his actual innocence, and prove that he was wrongfully convicted.
FOIA stands for the Freedom of Information Act under United States Code which is federal law. To explain what Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States in an easy manner, both are U.S. Supreme Court case law precedent that made the ruling part of law that every criminal Defendant clearly has a Constitutional right to get access to, to inspect, and be able to make copies or photocopies of the very material that the Prosecutor intends to use in the Jury Trial and has used such evidence to get a ‘Grand Jury indictment’ or a ‘Probable Cause’ hearing which automatically triggers an ‘Arrest Warrant’ for the person that was indicted in the Court system. Without the right to the discovery process in criminal courts, this opens up dangerous doors that Prosecutors in criminal trials can use false evidence, fraudulent evidence, false confessions, and liars on the stand then deprive the criminal defendant of the very right to challenge any of that evidence and false witness testimony under the adversarial system. Brian was never given his discovery rights prior to his false guilty plea. Essentially he plead guilty before he even got to review over all reports in the discovery packet and wasn’t even allowed to make photocopies of it and only got to review it for likely a few hours at John Scott Coalter’s Attorney office, the court appointed lawyer. A plea agreement should only be considered as an option after full review over all discovery material to determine if the criminal defendant has any way to convince the jury that he or she is not guilty of the crime as charged. Brian plead guilty without learning how many elements he could have proven false to cause a petit Jury to find him actually innocent through the affirmative defense of frame up.
He has also put Pro-Trump protest statements in his Appeal brief. See the three images below (blacked out his home address and phone number on the images here for his safety):
As you have noticed in the envelope scan, that the Clerk intentionally cut off part of the envelope in the scan to the CM/ECF of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, to prevent his political protest message from getting through in regards to the U.S. Department of InJustice as Brian so names their organization.
The “Department of InJustice” and Brian calls for draining the swamp there.
Brian has pushed under his FOIA Appeal that the U.S. District Court under the cowardly Judge Jackson L. Kiser in Danville, Virginia, that he has abused his discretion in threatening Brian with criminal contempt of court over simply asking for a criminal investigation into certain bad actors of the United States Attorney Office for the Middle District of North Carolina in Greensboro. He also argued that Judge Kiser abused his discretion in depriving him of the statutory protection which the Court would have to request that a pro bono lawyer represent Brian to protect him as a buffer between him, the Government, and the Court, so that Brian wouldn’t risk facing a criminal contempt of court charge for any behaviors exhibited by his Autism Spectrum Disorder. Brian also argued that Judge Kiser made clerical errors as well as errors in matters of Constitutional law.
Judge Jackson L. Kiser wrongfully ruled that the Constitution does not apply at all in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases and that he is only entitled to rights embodied in the statute. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Benjamin Franklin would all disagree with this Federal Judge’s legal arguments and reasoning if they were all alive today in these modern times. The Constitution retroactively applies to all Federal, state, and local laws. Same with the State Constitutions in force and effect. They were meant to protect the rights of every American citizen.
Brian is asking the Court of Appeals to remand the case and modify or reverse his decision to close his FOIA case under Motion for Summary Judgment and consider Brian’s Constitutional rights as a criminal defendant that is trying to prove actual innocence. He says those rights should be applied to those that have the statute of limitations hurdle requiring all Federal Habeas Corpus Petitioners to timely file a Section 2255 Motion within 1 year of the final criminal conviction in federal court. If it is filed after the 1 year time-frame then the 2255 Motions can be denied and the right to appeal that decision can also be denied as well. The Courts have ruled however that (1) actual innocence; can apply to untimely filed 2255 Motions under either equitable tolling or in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that the statute of limitations should be completely waived for actual innocence claims.
The Innocence Projects across the United States should watch this FOIA Appeal very closely. Highly likely either party will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which allows the Appellate Court’s decision to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
If this FOIA decision rules in Brian’s favor, then retroactively all criminal defendants’ (federally) nationwide can file FOIA Requests to get access to the criminal case discovery material pertaining to guilt or innocence to determine if actual innocence can be proven to override the 1 year statute of limitations for Writ of Habeas Corpus petitions, thus preventing any miscarriages of justice.
If this FOIA decision rules against Brian, then no Innocence Project will be allowed access to the discovery material of any federal criminal cases that is necessary to prove actual innocence. I won’t even be worth even filing a 2255 Motion nor a Writ of Habeas Corpus petition because Courts will block that too demanding that criminal defendants prove actual innocence while being denied access to the very evidence to even prove actual innocence, which is a catch-22.
That means that poor and middle class criminal defendants that are appointed a court appointed lawyer or a Federal Public Defender that refuses to present any evidence of innocence and refuses to go over all of the discovery materials with clients, will be forced into guilty plea agreements or crimes they did not commit or risk heavy prison sentences as penalty for refusing guilty plea agreements as no affirmative defenses can be made without full access to the criminal case discovery material.
For example the discovery material can include anything from a [false] confession audio disc, to a [false] confession audio tape, to documents, to police reports, to admissions, to interviews and interrogations, to forensic reports, to affidavits, to search warrants, to any telephone provider records, to any other logs and records kept by service providers, to any computer DATA, to any other important evidence documents and records needed to prove factual innocence or at least raise one reasonable doubt at a Jury Trial for any serious crime.
If the criminal defendant asserting actual innocence is blocked from the very evidence that can prove his or her actual innocence then the Writ of Habeas Corpus may now be suspended as if America is now in a perpetual state of “Civil War.” Yes, that is correct America is in a soft civil war when they suspend Habeas Corpus and can imprison political activists and deny Constitutional right to all criminal defendants facing serious felonies or even sex offense charges. This may be the death of Writ of Habeas Corpus as it is useless when your not allowed access to any evidence that can potentially prove actual innocence. This is very dangerous and Brian’s case needs as much media attention as the cases involving gay couples being denied the business of a wedding cake being baked for a gay couple marrying. If gay couples have their civil rights protected, then why not criminal defendants asserting actual innocence in Affidavits and saying under Oath that he/she is innocent and would like an opportunity to prove innocence to a crime as charged.
Brian has every right to peacefully protest and speak his mind to the Court of Appeals that the United States Department of InJustice is corrupt and the swamp needs to be drain as soon as possible as they are leading America down the path of unconstitutional rhetoric and may lead America into a soft civil war as they go to war against our President of the United States.
Donald John Trump, the 45th President of the United States wants to drain the swamp. Now let us watch how things go in his Appeal case and I will continue providing updates as things progress or regress depending on how bad our Federal Courts have gotten in dismantling our Constitution as if it were a “g*d d*mn piece of paper” as former U.S. President George W. Bush had stated.