30 April 2002
Re: Brown v. Fischer, et al., 3AN-02-05798 CI
Mr. Terrell:
Thank you for your Entry of Appearance. You will shortly be receiving a reply to your opposition for an order to identify the surety bond provider, as well as interrogatories for Fischer and Carothers.
The case is captioned Brown v. Fischer/ et al. It says so on the receipt for payment of the filing fee, it says so on the Complaint I filed, and I prefer it to be so. It is also captioned as it is because this case is not, primarily, about my denial of discretionary parole. It flows from the actions and behaviors of Fischer - who told stupid, easily-proven lies to the parole board; to Carothers – who, too, told easily-proven lies to cover for Fischer during the DOC investigation; then, finally, to the parole board - who, when informed of Fischer's actions, said it did not matter, regardless that their own statutorily-mandated written reason for denial of parole was based on information contained within Fischer's lies and misrepresentations. To put this to rest in short order, may I suggest that you, yourself, call District Attorney Harry Davis?
May I ask, as an Assistant Attorney General, what is the responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General when presented with complaints and evidence of criminal official misconduct? If the Attorney General defends them, who prosecutes them? Does official misconduct, as defined in Alaska statute, exist only if money changes hands, rather than pats on the back and the continued favor of co-workers and supervisors? Or, does it exist only if the victim of that misconduct is a real person, rather than a prisoner?
I have never envied you your job, Tim, but never less so than this time around. Know that when all the dispositive crap is out of the way, I am open to settling this matter - you lay it out.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
|
|