Re: The Application for Post-Conviction Relief of Anthony Lee Brown, 4FA-02-559 CI
05 February 2003
Dear Mr. Bodick:
Although I have not received a copy of an order from the court, I expect that the court granted the State's motion for the asked for 45 days extension in which to answer the application for post-conviction relief and to complete the discovery requests for Dan Carothers, Jeanne Fischer, Harry Davis, and Roger McCoy. Given that the extension was granted, the answer and discovery responses were due on January 30, 2003. It is now February 5, 2003.
Also, on December 31, 2002, interrogatories were submitted to, and for, members of the parole board and their staff, including Donna White, Larry Jones, Charles Moses, Jess Holloway, and Mike Miller. Having 40 days to respond to those interrogatories, those will be due on February 10, 2003.
I write this letter to provide reasonable notice, pursuant to Ak. R. Civ. P. 37, that the answer to the application for post-conviction relief and discovery requests responses for Carothers, Fischer, Davis and McCoy are overdue. And, that discovery responses from the interrogatories to the parole board members and staff are due February 10, 2003.
Mr. Bodick, I know you are new to this particular case and do not know how familiar you are with the facts and history involved, so if you would spare me a moment... This case was originally submitted as a civil action (Brown v. Fischer, et al., 3AN-02-05798 CI). It was subsequently ordered dismissed without prejudice, upon a motion filed by Tim Terrell, in order that the matter should be filed as an application for post-conviction relief. The facts are pretty straight-forward, are supported by the record, and, so far, uncontroverted. In short, Lemon Creek Correctional Center Probation Officer Jeanne Fischer presented inappropriate and erroneous written information to the parole board. Then, during the parole hearing itself, she told bold-faced, ever-so-easily-proven lies in her testimony to the parole board. Next, Lemon Creek Correctional Center Superintendent Dan Carothers, when assigned by Dept. of Corrections Director of Institutions Samuel Edwards to investigate allegations of misconduct by Jeanne Fischer, claimed to have verified Jeanne Fischer's false statements as true statements, thereby covering up for her. And, finally, the parole board, when informed that they had made their decision based upon inappropriate, erroneous, and false information, said, basically, that it did not matter.
The Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct are established to assure that everyone involved in governmental processes act in a manner that is honest, truthful, and trustworthy. What are the consequences if you lie to the judge? Can that jurist's decisions be expected to be fair or just? If a law enforcement officer lies to you, are your strategies then not subject to blindside attack or misguided? What are the consequences if the court reporter decides not to turn on the recorder or just transcribes gibberish in place of actual witness testimony? There is good reason why violating the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Conduct are grounds for immediate termination and, in some instances, grounds for criminal charges of Official Misconduct.
I asked Tim Terrell at the outset of the original suit concerning the facts in this case, "If you represent Jeanne Fischer and Dan Carothers, who is supposed to investigate and prosecute them for their actions?" I asked that question of Judge Sanders, in motions practice in his court. I believe I've asked that question in the present court, again in motion practice. No one has answered. Will you?
How many prisoners have been paroled because Jeanne Fischer slanted her findings in their favor, although they should not have been? How many others did not receive a parole they may have deserved because she chose advocacy over objectivity and slanted her findings (even lied) against them? And, how may instances of staff misconduct or abuse have been "covered up" by Dan Carothers because he is willing to lie to support his staff?
I know that this has been lengthy and I apologize. I do appreciate that you've taken the time to read it. As I wrote to Tim Terrell at the opening of Brown v. Fischer, et al., I am open to alternative resolutions. We do not have to go through all of this, and we do not have to go back to civil court when this is over, either. I am looking for a fair shake, Mr. Bodick, not a pay day. I am only hoping for the opportunity that I have worked for during the last 27 years.
I believe that you have the capacity for fairness and that you value honesty and truthfulness. Please, take time to consider what I have said. Take another month. I will not file motions to compel, etc., until after the first week of March. Ask for my institutional file; call Harry Davis, as my mother has, and ask him if he told Jeanne Fischer or Dan Carothers that I had been threatening his life; call Roger McCoy and ask him the same thing.
Again, I apologize for the length of this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration. I will be looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
|
|