Appeal Court Intervention in the Case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
From: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/20/appeal-court-intervention/
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tsarnaev+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim1veK4LLcAhXqD8AKHUXnAqcQ7AkIQg&biw=1280&bih=891#imgrc=XDc4mMflC5ap3M:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tsarnaev+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim1veK4LLcAhXqD8AKHUXnAqcQ7AkIQg&biw=1280&bih=891#imgrc=XDc4mMflC5ap3M:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
—————————————————
MOTION OF THREE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS FRIENDS OF THE COURT UNDER RULE 29(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
MOTION OF THREE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS FRIENDS OF THE COURT UNDER RULE 29(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
United States of America, Appellee
vs.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Appellant
No. 16-6001
—————————————————-
vs.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Appellant
No. 16-6001
—————————————————-
The undersigned introduces himself by offering a short résumé of his career as appendix A, subject to further specification as may ultimately be required by this Court. The undersigned is a specialist in forensic science and medicine, and in British, American, and Canadian constitutional law and history, in both of which fields he has many publishing credits. He has been permanently and generally admitted to the bar of five courts of record in the United States. Beyond his native Minnesota, he has practiced pro hac vice before twenty-eight state or federal courts of record in fifteen jurisdictions of the United States over the course of nearly fifty years. He is a member in good standing of the bar of the Minnesota Supreme Court (#3664X), and was there admitted on October 20, 1967. A formal certificate can be made available on request. No ethics proceedings are pending against the undersigned. On September 26, 2017, upon due inquiry, the undersigned was advised by personnel in the clerk’s office of this Court that he need not be a member of the bar of this Court to make this motion under Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in behalf of three citizens of the United States desiring to appear as friends of the court in the above-entitled matter. On October 4, 2017, the circuit executive’s office instructed the undersigned to rely on the clerk’s office. On October 5 and 10, 2017, the clerk’s office confirmed that the admission of the undersigned to the bar of this Court is not necessary for this motion under Rule 29(a), and directed filing and service in paper without fee.
TO COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE APPELLANT, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE UNDERSIGNED MAKES THE FOLLOWING MOTION BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT IN BEHALF OF THREE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WIT:
COMES NOW the undersigned, and he makes the following motion, to wit: That James Fetzer, Ph. D., natural born citizen of the United States and emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth; Mary Maxwell, Ph. D., LL. B., natural born citizen of the United States, previously working in Australia, now present in the United States; and Cesar Baruja, M. D., naturalized citizen of the United States, born in Paraguay, and practicing medicine over the past thirty-seven years, be granted leave to appear as friends of the court in the above-entitled matter through the undersigned as their counsel, and that, if necessary for this purpose, the undersigned be admitted to the bar of this Court generally or pro hac vice, either sua sponte or on motion yet to be made. Attached as appendix B is an uncolored and unbound copy of a proposed submission on the merits, including an addendum of relevant papers from the record, to be submitted in proper format and number as ordered in due course.
This effort is funded by Elisabeth Ritter-Blaser, a philanthropist and German-speaking citizen of the Swiss Confederation, living in the City of Oberburg in the canton of Bern. Her interest is preventing wrongful convictions and executions in the United States and other countries.
The undersigned has contributed nothing to the funding of this effort, but has prepared this motion. He will argue orally, but only if requested by this Court.
Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja have all studied and commented on the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. They all protest this prosecution as unfounded upon probable cause, and they verily believe, from their respective and detailed investigations of the facts in this case, and from the work of other eminent experts, including an internet-accessible report of Lorraine Day, M. D., who for many years served as chief of orthopedic surgery at the general hospital in San Francisco, that the prosecution of Mr. Tsarnaev is dishonorable to the United States. Aside from other anomalies not on this record, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja maintain that, during the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, certain powerful exculpatory evidence on this record, grasped by many astute observers, and sufficient to warrant outright dismissal or acquittal, or an order granting a new trial, went unused and unnoticed by counsel on both sides, including the principal trial lawyer for Mr. Tsarnaev who loudly proclaimed his guilt in her opening statement and did not even ask for a verdict of not guilty during her final summation. It is no less true that major news and entertainment media of the United States have abused the First Amendment by acting together to create false appearances of guilt on the part of Mr. Tsarnaev of grave capital crimes, and to inspire public hatred against him; that Mr. Tsarnaev was misled into making or otherwise has been said to have made false confessions unconfirmed by the corpus delicti; that the said exculpatory evidence was actually generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and positively disproves essential facts of accusation in the indictment; and that the said exculpatory evidence is referenced and made part of this record by electronic order #1469 issued by the United States District Court for Massachusetts (No. 13-CR-10200-GAO), the same entered on June 17, 2015. The said exculpatory evidence was never heard or considered by the jury, nor was it considered in sentencing.
Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja note here that key papers referenced by the said electronic order #1469 have been conveniently reviewed in an internet-accessible report, dated August 17, 2015, by Paul Craig Roberts, Ph. D., former assistant secretary of the treasury of the United States. The said report by Dr. Roberts has been read since original publication probably by tens of millions in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia.
The lawyers on both sides must have known about these exculpatory facts, but played to the gallery as if the street video confirmed that Dzhokhar was guilty. In view of these facts, this Court should view and consider the evidence covered by electronic order #1469, then grant appropriate remedy, — i. e., reversal with order for acquittal as a matter of law or reversal with order granting a new trial. Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja believe that allowance of a death sentence under these circumstances amounts to judicial murder in the sense illustrated in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 at 72-73 (1932). Such is their interest here.
They submit as authority for their right to intervene and be heard as friends of the court the internet-accessible opinion of Judge T. S. Ellis III, published on February 27, 2006, in United States v. Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, No. 1:05CR225-TSE, Document 228, on the docket of the United States District Court for Eastern Virginia.
Pursuant to 28 United States Code, Section 1746, the undersigned swears, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, that he has conducted himself and will conduct himself before this Court in an upright and proper manner, that he will support and has always supported the United States Constitution, and that all representations hereinabove are true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. This oath is made abroad, subject to the laws of the United States.
Dated:___________________ _________________________________________
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
TEL-FAX 418-888-5049
E-mail jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
TEL-FAX 418-888-5049
E-mail jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
Counsel for Dr. Fetzer, Maxwell, and Baruja
CERTIFCATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that foregoing motion has been prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and, exclusive of this certificate but including caption and signature material amounts to 1419 words, and thus complies with the rules of this Court.
The undersigned certifies that foregoing motion has been prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and, exclusive of this certificate but including caption and signature material amounts to 1419 words, and thus complies with the rules of this Court.
Dated:___________________ _________________________________________
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
APPEALS COURT INTERVENTION
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
For reasons already stated in their motion for leave to appear as friends of the court, Dr. James Fetzer, Dr. Mary Maxwell, and Dr. Cesar Baruja urge this Court to review the papers covered by and including electronic order #1469 in the federal district court in Boston (filed on May 29, and disposed of on June 17, 2015), and displayed in the addendum to this submission. And by virtue thereof they ask this Court to reverse the conviction below and enter a judgment of acquittal, or order granting a new trial with directions for appointment of new counsel for the appellant Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, motivated to defend him on the merits of his plea of not guilty. The most essential facts are properly referenced to this record in the pro se argument of the Russian aunt of Mr. Tsarnaev (pages A18-A25 and A28-A29 of the addendum to this submission). Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja wish to add certain comments concerning events since Dzhokhar was sentenced to death and not mentioned in their motion for leave to appear as friends of the court:
Sentencing occurred on June 24, 2015, during which the transcript indicates that, before he was sentenced to death, Mr. Tsarnaev made certain bizarre statements, including suspicious statements of Islamic piety, and about his lawyers who, he says, were “lovely companions.” These comments are wholly uncharacteristic for an Americanized youth, and thus seem to have been scripted for him. Be that as it may, Mr. Tsarnaev went on at sentencing to make statements purporting to confess to the charges in the indictment. We dismiss these and other acts or comments in the nature of a confession, and urge this Court to do likewise, because, if they were true, Dzhokhar would have carried a heavy-laden black backpack on Boylston Street, as charged in paragraphs 6, 7, and 24 of the indictment, although he actually carried a light-weight white backpack (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto). In other words, there would have been natural proof of the corpus delicti, which was wholly lacking here. Compare the comments of the Russian aunt of Mr. Tsarnaev on the corpus delicti rule (on pages A25-A26 in the addendum hereto)
We wish to acknowledge objections which we have heard from certain newspaper-influenced lawyers in New England who tried to explain away the decisive evidence that Mr. Tsarnaev cannot be guilty in this case:
One eminent criminal lawyer in Massachusetts told us that the contention about black backpacks was only an evaporating investigation hypothesis, as sometimes happens in criminal cases, and that evidence concerning events after the explosions on Boylston Street (e. g., the testimony of Den Meng) was enough to convict Mr. Tsarnaev. But this lawyer did not know that the allegation of black backpacks came from the FBI crime lab on the basis of undeniable facts (exhibit 3 on page A29 of the addendum hereto), was incorporated into the indictment (paragraph 7), was part of the government’s case-in-chief at trial, and was decisively disproved by the white backpack carried Mr. Tsarnaev over his right shoulder (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto).
Another practitioner, in Boston, told us that between the time of the still-frame photo (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto) and the time of the explosions, Dzhokhar might have switched backpacks. But there is no evidence for, or even consistent with this far-fetched scenario, nor was the suggestion ever made by anybody at trial. The very street video used by the FBI to identify Dzhokhar Tsarnaev excludes him as a suspect.
Others in Maine have said that the white backpack cannot be used except in post-conviction habeas corpus or writ of error coram nobis. This procedural point is answered by Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the opinion of Judge T. S. Ellis (cited on page A4 of the addendum hereto), which allow us to proceed, if the Court please. Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja do not represent Dzhokhar. They represent the public interest. And we do not have to wait until wrongful conviction. We can proactively prevent wrongful conviction by amicus intervention under positive law here and now.
It has even been suggested by persons with axes to grind that the white backpack (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto) is not compelling evidence. What can be more compelling than the difference between black and white? Why should we not believe our own eyes? We understand that injury to our country and profession will follow a miscarriage of justice in this case, for England lost her territories in France after the judicial murder of Joan of Arc and her free Constitution after the judicial murder of Charles the First. Hence, we dare not conceal the facts from ourselves. We must obey conscience!
The sad story of Anders Brevig in Norway reveals that the death penalty is not the worst of punishments. If Dzhokhar was guilty and had a fair trial, let justice be done. But since Mr. Tsarnaev cannot be guilty here (as appears in the contrast between exhibits 3 and 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto), the American people need to know what really happened in this case, and this Court must tell them. Our major news and entertainment media will not.
Wherefore, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja ask in behalf themselves and their countrymen that this Court examine the documents in the addendum hereto, and corresponding parts of this record, then do justice.
Sentencing occurred on June 24, 2015, during which the transcript indicates that, before he was sentenced to death, Mr. Tsarnaev made certain bizarre statements, including suspicious statements of Islamic piety, and about his lawyers who, he says, were “lovely companions.” These comments are wholly uncharacteristic for an Americanized youth, and thus seem to have been scripted for him. Be that as it may, Mr. Tsarnaev went on at sentencing to make statements purporting to confess to the charges in the indictment. We dismiss these and other acts or comments in the nature of a confession, and urge this Court to do likewise, because, if they were true, Dzhokhar would have carried a heavy-laden black backpack on Boylston Street, as charged in paragraphs 6, 7, and 24 of the indictment, although he actually carried a light-weight white backpack (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto). In other words, there would have been natural proof of the corpus delicti, which was wholly lacking here. Compare the comments of the Russian aunt of Mr. Tsarnaev on the corpus delicti rule (on pages A25-A26 in the addendum hereto)
We wish to acknowledge objections which we have heard from certain newspaper-influenced lawyers in New England who tried to explain away the decisive evidence that Mr. Tsarnaev cannot be guilty in this case:
One eminent criminal lawyer in Massachusetts told us that the contention about black backpacks was only an evaporating investigation hypothesis, as sometimes happens in criminal cases, and that evidence concerning events after the explosions on Boylston Street (e. g., the testimony of Den Meng) was enough to convict Mr. Tsarnaev. But this lawyer did not know that the allegation of black backpacks came from the FBI crime lab on the basis of undeniable facts (exhibit 3 on page A29 of the addendum hereto), was incorporated into the indictment (paragraph 7), was part of the government’s case-in-chief at trial, and was decisively disproved by the white backpack carried Mr. Tsarnaev over his right shoulder (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto).
Another practitioner, in Boston, told us that between the time of the still-frame photo (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto) and the time of the explosions, Dzhokhar might have switched backpacks. But there is no evidence for, or even consistent with this far-fetched scenario, nor was the suggestion ever made by anybody at trial. The very street video used by the FBI to identify Dzhokhar Tsarnaev excludes him as a suspect.
Others in Maine have said that the white backpack cannot be used except in post-conviction habeas corpus or writ of error coram nobis. This procedural point is answered by Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the opinion of Judge T. S. Ellis (cited on page A4 of the addendum hereto), which allow us to proceed, if the Court please. Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja do not represent Dzhokhar. They represent the public interest. And we do not have to wait until wrongful conviction. We can proactively prevent wrongful conviction by amicus intervention under positive law here and now.
It has even been suggested by persons with axes to grind that the white backpack (exhibit 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto) is not compelling evidence. What can be more compelling than the difference between black and white? Why should we not believe our own eyes? We understand that injury to our country and profession will follow a miscarriage of justice in this case, for England lost her territories in France after the judicial murder of Joan of Arc and her free Constitution after the judicial murder of Charles the First. Hence, we dare not conceal the facts from ourselves. We must obey conscience!
The sad story of Anders Brevig in Norway reveals that the death penalty is not the worst of punishments. If Dzhokhar was guilty and had a fair trial, let justice be done. But since Mr. Tsarnaev cannot be guilty here (as appears in the contrast between exhibits 3 and 4 on page A29 of the addendum hereto), the American people need to know what really happened in this case, and this Court must tell them. Our major news and entertainment media will not.
Wherefore, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Baruja ask in behalf themselves and their countrymen that this Court examine the documents in the addendum hereto, and corresponding parts of this record, then do justice.
Dated:__________________ _________________________________________
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
TEL-FAX 418-888-5049
E-mail jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
TEL-FAX 418-888-5049
E-mail jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
Counsel for Drs. Fetzer, Maxwell, and Baruja
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing argument, including greeting and signature material, was prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, consists of 961 words, and thus complies with the rules of this Court.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing argument, including greeting and signature material, was prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, consists of 961 words, and thus complies with the rules of this Court.
Dated:__________________ ________________________________________
JOHN REMINGTON GRAHAM
of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
The following reprinted from: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/20/affidavit-of-maret-tsarnaeva-concerning-the-prosecution-of-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/
AFFIDAVIT OF MARET TSARNAEVA CONCERNING THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
AFFIDAVIT OF MARET TSARNAEVA
CONCERNING THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV
Mindful that this affidavit may be filed or displayed as an offer of proof with her authorization in public proceedings contemplated by the laws of the United States of America, and in reliance upon Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1746, Maret Tsarnaeva deposes and says:
I am the paternal aunt of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who has been prosecuted before the United States District Court for Massachusetts upon indictment of a federal grand jury returned on June 27, 2013, for causing one of two explosions on Boylston Street in Boston on April 15, 2013. In the count for conspiracy, certain other overt acts of wrongdoing are mentioned. As I understand the indictment, if Dzhokhar did not carry and detonate an improvised explosive device or pressure-cooker bomb as alleged, all thirty counts fail, although perhaps some lingering questions, about which I offer no comment here, might remain for resolution, subject to guarantees of due process of law, within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I am currently living in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya which is a republic within the Russian Federation. My academic training included full-time studies in a five-year program of the Law Faculty at the Kyrgyz State University, and I also hold the degree of master of laws (LL. M.), with focus on securities laws, granted by the University of Manitoba while I lived in Canada. I am qualified to practice law in Kyrgyzstan. I am fluent in Russian, Chechen, and English, and am familiar with other languages. I am prepared to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States, if my expenses are paid, and if my personal safety and right of return to my home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance.
Aside from other anomalies and other aspects of the case on which I make no comment here, I am aware of several photo exhibits, upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) relied, or of evidence which their crime laboratory has produced, and certain other reports or material. Together, these plainly show that Dzhokhar was not carrying a large, nylon, black backpack, including a white-rectangle marking at the top, and containing a heavy pressure-cooker bomb, shortly before explosions in Boston on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and as alleged in the indictment for both explosions. On the contrary, these photo exhibits show unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying over his right shoulder a primarily white backpack which was light in weight, and was not bulging or sagging as would have been evident if it contained a heavy pressure-cooker bomb. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dzhokhar was not responsible for either of the explosions in question.
On or about June 20-21, 2013, during their first trip to Russia, which lasted about ten days more or less, Judy Clarke and William Fick, lawyers from the federal public defender’s office in Boston, visited my brother Anzor Tsarnaev, and his wife Zubeidat, respectively the father and mother of Dzhokhar. The meeting was at the home of Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala which is in the republic of Dagestan adjacent to the republic of Chechnya, and about three hours’ drive from Grozny. My mother, my sister Malkan, and I were present at this meeting. Zubeidat speaks acceptable English. Mr. Fick is fluent in Russian.
Laying aside other details of the conversation on June 20-21, 2013, I wish to note the following:
— The lawyers from Boston strongly advised that Anzor and Zubeidat refrain from saying in public that Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan were not guilty. They warned that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult;
— Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick also requested of Anzor and Zubeidat that they assist in influencing Dzhokhar to accept the legal representation of the federal public defender’s office in Boston. Mr. Fick revealed that Dzhokhar was refusing the services of the federal public defender’s office in Boston, and sending lawyers and staff away when they visited him in custody. In reaction to the suggestion of Mr. Fick, lively discussion followed;
— As Dzhokhar’s family, we expressed our concern that the federal public defender’s office in Boston was untrustworthy, and might not defend Dzhokhar properly, since they were paid by the government of the United States which was prosecuting him, as many believe for political reasons. Dzhokhar’s parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel, since Dzhokhar did not trust his government-appointed lawyers. Mr. Fick reacted by saying that the government agents and lawyers would obstruct independent counsel;
— I proposed that Dzhokhar’s family hire independent counsel to work with the federal public defender’s office in order to assure proper and effective representation of Dzhokhar. Mr. Fick replied that, if independent counsel were hired by the family, the federal public defender’s office in Boston would withdraw;
— Mr. Fick then assured Anzor and Zubeidat that the United States Department of Justice had allotted $5 million to Dzhokhar’s defense, and that the federal public defender’s office in Boston intended to defend Dzhokhar properly. Zubeidat then and there said little concerning assurances of Mr. Fick. But for my part, I never believed that the federal public defender’s office in Boston ever intended to defend Dzhokhar as promised. And my impressions from what happened during the trial lead me to believe that the federal public defender’s office in Boston did not defend Dzhokhar competently and ethically.
In any event, I am aware that, following the meeting on June 20-21, 2013, Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick continued to spend time with Anzor and Zubeidat, and eventually persuaded Zubeidat to sign a typed letter in Russian to Dzhokhar, urging him to cooperate wholeheartedly with the federal public defender’s office in Boston. I am informed by my sister Malkan that Zubeidat gave the letter to the public defenders, shortly before their departure from Russia on or about June 29, 2013, for delivery to Dzhokhar.
During subsequent trips of Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick to see Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala, the strategy for defending Dzhokhar was explained, as I learned from my sister Malkan. The public defender’s office in Boston intended to contend at trial, as actually has happened since, that Tamerlan, now deceased, was the mastermind of the crime, and that Dzhokhar was merely following his big brother. I was firmly opposed to this strategy as morally and legally wrong, because Dzhokhar is not guilty, as FBI-generated evidence shows. Some ill-feeling has since developed between myself and Dzhokhar’s parents over their acquiescence.
On or about June 19, 2014, during their visit to Grozny over nearly two weeks, three staff members from the public defender’s office in Boston visited my mother and sisters in Grozny. I am told that they also visited Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala.
The personnel visiting my mother and sisters in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, included one Charlene, who introduced herself as an independent investigator, working in and with the federal public defender’s office in Boston; another by the name of Jane, a social worker who claimed to have spoken with Dzhokhar; and a third, by the name of Olga, who was a Russian-English interpreter from New Jersey. They did not leave business cards, but stayed at the main hotel in Grozny, hence I presume that their surnames can be ascertained.
I was not present at the meeting in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, but my sister Malkan, who was present, called me by telephone immediately after the meeting concluded. She revealed to me then the details of the conversation at the meeting. Malkan and I have since spoken about the visit on several occasions.
Malkan speaks Russian and Chechen and is willing to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States through an interpreter in Russian, if her expenses are paid, and if her personal safety and right of return to her home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance. She relates, and has authorized me to state for her that, during the conversation on June 19, 2014, in Grozny, Charlene the independent investigator stated flatly that the federal public defender’s office in Boston knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as charged, and that their office was under enormous pressure from law enforcement agencies and high levels of the government of the United States not to resist conviction.
This affidavit is executed outside of the United States, but the foregoing account is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and subject to the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.
I am the paternal aunt of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who has been prosecuted before the United States District Court for Massachusetts upon indictment of a federal grand jury returned on June 27, 2013, for causing one of two explosions on Boylston Street in Boston on April 15, 2013. In the count for conspiracy, certain other overt acts of wrongdoing are mentioned. As I understand the indictment, if Dzhokhar did not carry and detonate an improvised explosive device or pressure-cooker bomb as alleged, all thirty counts fail, although perhaps some lingering questions, about which I offer no comment here, might remain for resolution, subject to guarantees of due process of law, within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I am currently living in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya which is a republic within the Russian Federation. My academic training included full-time studies in a five-year program of the Law Faculty at the Kyrgyz State University, and I also hold the degree of master of laws (LL. M.), with focus on securities laws, granted by the University of Manitoba while I lived in Canada. I am qualified to practice law in Kyrgyzstan. I am fluent in Russian, Chechen, and English, and am familiar with other languages. I am prepared to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States, if my expenses are paid, and if my personal safety and right of return to my home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance.
Aside from other anomalies and other aspects of the case on which I make no comment here, I am aware of several photo exhibits, upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) relied, or of evidence which their crime laboratory has produced, and certain other reports or material. Together, these plainly show that Dzhokhar was not carrying a large, nylon, black backpack, including a white-rectangle marking at the top, and containing a heavy pressure-cooker bomb, shortly before explosions in Boston on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and as alleged in the indictment for both explosions. On the contrary, these photo exhibits show unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying over his right shoulder a primarily white backpack which was light in weight, and was not bulging or sagging as would have been evident if it contained a heavy pressure-cooker bomb. The only reasonable conclusion is that Dzhokhar was not responsible for either of the explosions in question.
On or about June 20-21, 2013, during their first trip to Russia, which lasted about ten days more or less, Judy Clarke and William Fick, lawyers from the federal public defender’s office in Boston, visited my brother Anzor Tsarnaev, and his wife Zubeidat, respectively the father and mother of Dzhokhar. The meeting was at the home of Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala which is in the republic of Dagestan adjacent to the republic of Chechnya, and about three hours’ drive from Grozny. My mother, my sister Malkan, and I were present at this meeting. Zubeidat speaks acceptable English. Mr. Fick is fluent in Russian.
Laying aside other details of the conversation on June 20-21, 2013, I wish to note the following:
— The lawyers from Boston strongly advised that Anzor and Zubeidat refrain from saying in public that Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan were not guilty. They warned that, if their advice were not followed, Dzhokhar’s life in custody near Boston would be more difficult;
— Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick also requested of Anzor and Zubeidat that they assist in influencing Dzhokhar to accept the legal representation of the federal public defender’s office in Boston. Mr. Fick revealed that Dzhokhar was refusing the services of the federal public defender’s office in Boston, and sending lawyers and staff away when they visited him in custody. In reaction to the suggestion of Mr. Fick, lively discussion followed;
— As Dzhokhar’s family, we expressed our concern that the federal public defender’s office in Boston was untrustworthy, and might not defend Dzhokhar properly, since they were paid by the government of the United States which was prosecuting him, as many believe for political reasons. Dzhokhar’s parents expressed willingness to engage independent counsel, since Dzhokhar did not trust his government-appointed lawyers. Mr. Fick reacted by saying that the government agents and lawyers would obstruct independent counsel;
— I proposed that Dzhokhar’s family hire independent counsel to work with the federal public defender’s office in order to assure proper and effective representation of Dzhokhar. Mr. Fick replied that, if independent counsel were hired by the family, the federal public defender’s office in Boston would withdraw;
— Mr. Fick then assured Anzor and Zubeidat that the United States Department of Justice had allotted $5 million to Dzhokhar’s defense, and that the federal public defender’s office in Boston intended to defend Dzhokhar properly. Zubeidat then and there said little concerning assurances of Mr. Fick. But for my part, I never believed that the federal public defender’s office in Boston ever intended to defend Dzhokhar as promised. And my impressions from what happened during the trial lead me to believe that the federal public defender’s office in Boston did not defend Dzhokhar competently and ethically.
In any event, I am aware that, following the meeting on June 20-21, 2013, Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick continued to spend time with Anzor and Zubeidat, and eventually persuaded Zubeidat to sign a typed letter in Russian to Dzhokhar, urging him to cooperate wholeheartedly with the federal public defender’s office in Boston. I am informed by my sister Malkan that Zubeidat gave the letter to the public defenders, shortly before their departure from Russia on or about June 29, 2013, for delivery to Dzhokhar.
During subsequent trips of Mme Clarke and Mr. Fick to see Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala, the strategy for defending Dzhokhar was explained, as I learned from my sister Malkan. The public defender’s office in Boston intended to contend at trial, as actually has happened since, that Tamerlan, now deceased, was the mastermind of the crime, and that Dzhokhar was merely following his big brother. I was firmly opposed to this strategy as morally and legally wrong, because Dzhokhar is not guilty, as FBI-generated evidence shows. Some ill-feeling has since developed between myself and Dzhokhar’s parents over their acquiescence.
On or about June 19, 2014, during their visit to Grozny over nearly two weeks, three staff members from the public defender’s office in Boston visited my mother and sisters in Grozny. I am told that they also visited Dzhokhar’s parents in Makhachkala.
The personnel visiting my mother and sisters in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, included one Charlene, who introduced herself as an independent investigator, working in and with the federal public defender’s office in Boston; another by the name of Jane, a social worker who claimed to have spoken with Dzhokhar; and a third, by the name of Olga, who was a Russian-English interpreter from New Jersey. They did not leave business cards, but stayed at the main hotel in Grozny, hence I presume that their surnames can be ascertained.
I was not present at the meeting in Grozny on or about June 19, 2014, but my sister Malkan, who was present, called me by telephone immediately after the meeting concluded. She revealed to me then the details of the conversation at the meeting. Malkan and I have since spoken about the visit on several occasions.
Malkan speaks Russian and Chechen and is willing to testify under oath in public proceedings in the United States through an interpreter in Russian, if her expenses are paid, and if her personal safety and right of return to her home in Chechnya are adequately assured in advance. She relates, and has authorized me to state for her that, during the conversation on June 19, 2014, in Grozny, Charlene the independent investigator stated flatly that the federal public defender’s office in Boston knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as charged, and that their office was under enormous pressure from law enforcement agencies and high levels of the government of the United States not to resist conviction.
This affidavit is executed outside of the United States, but the foregoing account is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and subject to the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.
Given on this ____17________ day of ____April___________, 2015.
/s/ Maret Tsarnaeva [Russian script]
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Maret Tsarnaeva’s Presentation to the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
—————————————————————
ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE
United States of America, Plaintiff
vs.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
Defendant
ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE
United States of America, Plaintiff
vs.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
Defendant
No. 13-CR-10200-GAO
—————————————————————
—————————————————————
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. Federal jurisdiction: The constitutional authority of the United States cannot be extended to the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in light of the opinion of the court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and views of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, Ns. 17, 22, and 34 [Clinton Rossiter (ed.), Mentor edition by New American Library, New York, 1961, pp. 118, 143-144, and 209]. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, including trade and the incidents of trade, but domestic crimes and use of weapons are generally reserved to the States. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Dzhokhar for murder and mayhem, he should and can be prosecuted exclusively by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Accordingly, amicus urges that the indictment now pending should be dismissed, and the conviction of her nephew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of charges under several acts of Congress should be vacated.
2. The actual innocence of the accused: Laying aside misgivings of amicus and many others about of the “official” scenario concerning this case, as broadcast to the world by the government and mainstream news media of the United States, evidence generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), confirmed on the judicial record of this cause, and clarified by the indictment, or suitable for judicial notice under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, conclusively proves that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot be guilty of the crimes charged in this prosecution. .
The formal indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long, and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev (hereinafter called Dzhokhar) of heinous crimes, including many counts punishable by death. The central event for which Dzhokhar is alleged to have been responsible, according to the indictment, took place, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013. The most important paragraphs of the indictment are numbered 6, 7, and 24 (including several other paragraphs repeating expressly or by implication the substance thereof). Paragraphs 6-7, read in themselves and in context, state that, acting in concert with his (now deceased) brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk and detonated one of two “black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these “constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel, adhesive, and other materials.” Paragraph 24 clarifies that the black backpack carried, and containing the pressure-cooker bomb allegedly detonated by Dzhokhar, was placed in front of the Forum Restaurant and was associated with the second explosion. The indictment says in paragraph 6 that both bombs exploded at about 2:49 in the afternoon (Eastern time), and that the bombs Dzhokhar and his brother placed and detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.
On the morning after the explosions, i. e., on April 16, 2013, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI in Boston, made a public statement at a press conference, which is published in printed form on the FBI website and in the news media concerning the facts later set forth in the indictment. Mr. DesLauriers said, as paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment substantially confirm,
“. . . this morning, it was determined that both of the explosives were placed in a dark-colored nylon bag or backpack. The bag would have been heavy, because of the components believed to be in it.
2. The actual innocence of the accused: Laying aside misgivings of amicus and many others about of the “official” scenario concerning this case, as broadcast to the world by the government and mainstream news media of the United States, evidence generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), confirmed on the judicial record of this cause, and clarified by the indictment, or suitable for judicial notice under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, conclusively proves that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev cannot be guilty of the crimes charged in this prosecution. .
The formal indictment against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was returned on June 27, 2013. The document is 74 pages long, and accuses Mr. Tsarnaev (hereinafter called Dzhokhar) of heinous crimes, including many counts punishable by death. The central event for which Dzhokhar is alleged to have been responsible, according to the indictment, took place, on Boylston Street, in front of the Forum Restaurant, near the finish line of the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013. The most important paragraphs of the indictment are numbered 6, 7, and 24 (including several other paragraphs repeating expressly or by implication the substance thereof). Paragraphs 6-7, read in themselves and in context, state that, acting in concert with his (now deceased) brother, Dzhokhar set down on the sidewalk and detonated one of two “black backpacks” which contained “improvised explosive devices,” these “constructed from pressure cookers, low explosive power, shrapnel, adhesive, and other materials.” Paragraph 24 clarifies that the black backpack carried, and containing the pressure-cooker bomb allegedly detonated by Dzhokhar, was placed in front of the Forum Restaurant and was associated with the second explosion. The indictment says in paragraph 6 that both bombs exploded at about 2:49 in the afternoon (Eastern time), and that the bombs Dzhokhar and his brother placed and detonated each killed at least one person, and wounded scores of others.
On the morning after the explosions, i. e., on April 16, 2013, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI in Boston, made a public statement at a press conference, which is published in printed form on the FBI website and in the news media concerning the facts later set forth in the indictment. Mr. DesLauriers said, as paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment substantially confirm,
“. . . this morning, it was determined that both of the explosives were placed in a dark-colored nylon bag or backpack. The bag would have been heavy, because of the components believed to be in it.
“. . . we are asking that the public remain alert, and to alert us to the following activity . . . someone who appeared to be carrying an unusually heavy bag yesterday around the time of the blasts and in the vicinity of the blasts.”
The FBI also published on April 16, 2013, a crime lab photo of a bomb fragment found after the explosions This photo is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 1 in the appendix hereof, and is believed proper for judicial notice.
From this bomb fragment, the FBI crime lab was able to reconstruct the size, shape, and type of pressure cookers, as was reported on information published by the FBI to the nation on ABC News Nightline on April 16, 2013. A still-frame, taken from (about 01:39-01:54) of this ABC television report, is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 2 in the appendix hereof, and is offered for judicial notice. A larger segment of this ABC Nightline News report (at about 01:31-02:14) elaborates facts set forth in paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment, including reference to three of the four exhibits reproduced in the appendix hereof. Each of the pressure cookers in question was a Fagor, 6-quart model, marketed in or near Boston and elsewhere in the United States by Macey’s. Its external dimensions are probably about 8½ inches in height, including cover, and about 9 inches in diameter. Stripped of hard plastic handles and filled with nails, bee bees, and other such metal, then prepared as a bomb, it would cause a bag carrying it to be, as observed by the FBI chief in Boston during his press conference on April 16, 2013, “unusually heavy.”
Again on April 16, 2013, the FBI published a crime lab photo, here reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 in the appendix hereof, and showing a blown-out backpack which is said to have contained one of the bombs, — a black nylon bag with a characteristic white rectangle marking about 3 by 1½ inches more or less as it appeared following the explosions the day before. This photo pictures the “dark colored nylon bag or backpack” which Mr. DesLauriers described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when he described what was carried by the guilty parties. It was one of the “black backpacks” referenced in paragraph 7 of the indictment. It is pictured in prosecution exhibit 26 which was introduced on the second day of the trial in this cause (day 28 on the transcript, March 5, 2015), showing that the bag or backpack in question was found on the street near the post box in front of the Forum Restaurant on Boylston Street, and, as previously noted, was associated with the second explosion on April 15, 2013, which, in paragraph 24 of the indictment, Dzhokhar is alleged to have detonated. This general impression is confirmed by defense exhibit 3090, showing a backpack with black exterior or covering, and introduced on the sixteenth day of the trial (day 42 on the transcript, March 31, 2015). Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 is also suitable for judicial notice.
On April 18, 2013, the FBI published a 29-second street video claimed to have been taken from Whiskey’s Steak House on Boylston Street at about 02:37-38 o’clock in the afternoon (Eastern time), only minutes before the explosions on April 15, 2013. It definitively settles the principal question raised by the indictment and the plea of not guilty interposed against it. Part of this video is tucked into prosecution exhibit 22 introduced on the third day of the trial in this cause (day 29 on the transcript, March 9, 2015). From this street video, three still-frame photos have been extracted. Two of these still-frame photos were published by the FBI on April 18, 2013, on posters which were used to identify suspects. All three photos were published by CNN and the Associated Press on April 19, 2013. The third still-frame photo from this video is most telling, and is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4 in the appendix hereof. As already noted, the FBI and the indictment have together affirmed that the culprits who detonated these explosions were carrying large, unusually heavy, black backpacks concealing pressure-cooker bombs; but, the third still-frame photo from the Whiskey’s Steak House video reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, and drawn from a street video already used by the FBI to identify the suspects and acknowledged by the government in this prosecution, shows unmistakably that, shortly before the explosions, Dzhokhar was carrying a small-size, white* backpack over his right shoulder the same light in weight, not heavy laden, and displaying no sagging or bulging as would normally be evident if the bag identified contained a pressure-cooker bomb of the size and weight which the FBI has described.
From this bomb fragment, the FBI crime lab was able to reconstruct the size, shape, and type of pressure cookers, as was reported on information published by the FBI to the nation on ABC News Nightline on April 16, 2013. A still-frame, taken from (about 01:39-01:54) of this ABC television report, is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 2 in the appendix hereof, and is offered for judicial notice. A larger segment of this ABC Nightline News report (at about 01:31-02:14) elaborates facts set forth in paragraphs 6-7 of the indictment, including reference to three of the four exhibits reproduced in the appendix hereof. Each of the pressure cookers in question was a Fagor, 6-quart model, marketed in or near Boston and elsewhere in the United States by Macey’s. Its external dimensions are probably about 8½ inches in height, including cover, and about 9 inches in diameter. Stripped of hard plastic handles and filled with nails, bee bees, and other such metal, then prepared as a bomb, it would cause a bag carrying it to be, as observed by the FBI chief in Boston during his press conference on April 16, 2013, “unusually heavy.”
Again on April 16, 2013, the FBI published a crime lab photo, here reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 in the appendix hereof, and showing a blown-out backpack which is said to have contained one of the bombs, — a black nylon bag with a characteristic white rectangle marking about 3 by 1½ inches more or less as it appeared following the explosions the day before. This photo pictures the “dark colored nylon bag or backpack” which Mr. DesLauriers described in his press conference on the day after the explosions when he described what was carried by the guilty parties. It was one of the “black backpacks” referenced in paragraph 7 of the indictment. It is pictured in prosecution exhibit 26 which was introduced on the second day of the trial in this cause (day 28 on the transcript, March 5, 2015), showing that the bag or backpack in question was found on the street near the post box in front of the Forum Restaurant on Boylston Street, and, as previously noted, was associated with the second explosion on April 15, 2013, which, in paragraph 24 of the indictment, Dzhokhar is alleged to have detonated. This general impression is confirmed by defense exhibit 3090, showing a backpack with black exterior or covering, and introduced on the sixteenth day of the trial (day 42 on the transcript, March 31, 2015). Tsarnaeva exhibit 3 is also suitable for judicial notice.
On April 18, 2013, the FBI published a 29-second street video claimed to have been taken from Whiskey’s Steak House on Boylston Street at about 02:37-38 o’clock in the afternoon (Eastern time), only minutes before the explosions on April 15, 2013. It definitively settles the principal question raised by the indictment and the plea of not guilty interposed against it. Part of this video is tucked into prosecution exhibit 22 introduced on the third day of the trial in this cause (day 29 on the transcript, March 9, 2015). From this street video, three still-frame photos have been extracted. Two of these still-frame photos were published by the FBI on April 18, 2013, on posters which were used to identify suspects. All three photos were published by CNN and the Associated Press on April 19, 2013. The third still-frame photo from this video is most telling, and is reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4 in the appendix hereof. As already noted, the FBI and the indictment have together affirmed that the culprits who detonated these explosions were carrying large, unusually heavy, black backpacks concealing pressure-cooker bombs; but, the third still-frame photo from the Whiskey’s Steak House video reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, and drawn from a street video already used by the FBI to identify the suspects and acknowledged by the government in this prosecution, shows unmistakably that, shortly before the explosions, Dzhokhar was carrying a small-size, white* backpack over his right shoulder the same light in weight, not heavy laden, and displaying no sagging or bulging as would normally be evident if the bag identified contained a pressure-cooker bomb of the size and weight which the FBI has described.
*For all practical purposes and to the naked eye, the color is white, although technical computer analysis suggests a very whitish shade of gray.
Dzhokhar is not guilty of carrying and detonating a pressure-cooker bomb, as charged in the indictment, as is literally as obvious as the difference between black and white. There were and remain other suspects whose identities have been credibly suggested. See, e. g., Toni Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, April 19, 2013 (illustrated commentary entitled “‘Contractors’ Stood Near Bomb, Left Before Detonation.”). But here it is enough to reflect on the comment of Lord Acton that “historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.” — J. Rufus Fears, Selected Writings of Lord Acton, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1985, Vol. 2, p. 383 (Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887). Whatever is done in judicial proceedings, history will judge this case, as surely as history has judged other significant cases.
3. The grievance of amicus: It is impossible that federal prosecutors and counsel for the accused did not know of the exculpatory evidence which has just been identified and illustrated. Yet federal prosecutors went head without probable cause, as if decisive evidence of actual innocence, impossible to ignore in a diligent study of this case, did not exist, as is wholly unacceptable in light of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 at 86-87 (1963).
Moreover, in her opening statement at trial on March 4, 2015, as reflected in the fourth paragraph of the transcript of her comments, court-appointed counsel for the accused forcefully insisted that Dzhokhar was guilty of capital felonies, as is positively disproved by evidence generated by the FBI, reinforced by the indictment itself. She said,
“The government and the defense will agree about many things that happened during the week of April 15th, 2013. On Marathon Monday, Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back, carrying a pressure cooker bomb, and put it down in front of Marathon Sports near the finish line of the Marathon. Jahar [i. e., Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back carrying a pressure cooker bomb and placed it next to a tree in front of the Forum Restaurant. The explosions extinguished three lives.”
Dzhokhar is not guilty of carrying and detonating a pressure-cooker bomb, as charged in the indictment, as is literally as obvious as the difference between black and white. There were and remain other suspects whose identities have been credibly suggested. See, e. g., Toni Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, April 19, 2013 (illustrated commentary entitled “‘Contractors’ Stood Near Bomb, Left Before Detonation.”). But here it is enough to reflect on the comment of Lord Acton that “historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.” — J. Rufus Fears, Selected Writings of Lord Acton, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 1985, Vol. 2, p. 383 (Letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887). Whatever is done in judicial proceedings, history will judge this case, as surely as history has judged other significant cases.
3. The grievance of amicus: It is impossible that federal prosecutors and counsel for the accused did not know of the exculpatory evidence which has just been identified and illustrated. Yet federal prosecutors went head without probable cause, as if decisive evidence of actual innocence, impossible to ignore in a diligent study of this case, did not exist, as is wholly unacceptable in light of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 at 86-87 (1963).
Moreover, in her opening statement at trial on March 4, 2015, as reflected in the fourth paragraph of the transcript of her comments, court-appointed counsel for the accused forcefully insisted that Dzhokhar was guilty of capital felonies, as is positively disproved by evidence generated by the FBI, reinforced by the indictment itself. She said,
“The government and the defense will agree about many things that happened during the week of April 15th, 2013. On Marathon Monday, Tamerlan Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back, carrying a pressure cooker bomb, and put it down in front of Marathon Sports near the finish line of the Marathon. Jahar [i. e., Dzhokhar] Tsarnaev walked down Boylston Street with a backpack on his back carrying a pressure cooker bomb and placed it next to a tree in front of the Forum Restaurant. The explosions extinguished three lives.”
And in her summation to the jury on April 6, 2015, as the transcript shows, court-appointed counsel for the accused said nothing of the exculpatory evidence in this case. She did not even ask for a verdict of not guilty. She could hardly have done more to promote a conviction and the severest sentence possible, even though the third still-frame photo from the video at Whiskey’s Steak House, reproduced as Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, showed Dzhokhar carrying a white backpack, as alone was enough to defeat the indictment insofar as paragraph 7 thereof averred that the accused and his brother committed the principal acts of wrongdoing by carrying and setting down black backpacks. Such misconduct is altogether unacceptable in light of Strickland v. Washington, 446 U. S. 668 at 687-688 (1984).
The misconduct of which amicus complains served to conceal decisive exculpatory evidence by legerdemain. Amicus urges not only that the death penalty may not be imposed in this case, for all three opinions in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993), allow that the death penalty may not be constitutionally imposed where the accused is demonstrably innocent, but that sua sponte this court order a new trial with directions that new counsel for the accused be appointed, motivated to provide an authentic defense for Dzhokhar.
4. The corpus delicti: Paragraph 10 of the indictment recites a statement in the nature of a confession by Dzhokhar written on the inner walls of a boat in Watertown. But with respect to any and all evidence offered or treated as suggesting an extrajudicial admission of guilt in this case, amicus cites the penetrating observation by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Edward Christian, London, 1765, Book IV, p. 357: “[E]ven in cases of felony at common law, [confessions] are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, ever liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered accurately, or reported with due precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence.” Amicus and countless others suspect that the alleged confession in the boat was staged as artifice to suit the government’s case, and not authentic. But she stands on ancient wisdom which casts doubt on all extrajudicial confessions without adequate safeguards, including the rule that an extrajudicial confession is insufficient to convict, unless the corpus delicti be sufficiently proved up. The rule is defined with various degrees of rigor from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In federal courts, in any event, the corroboration required to sustain a confession or statement in the nature of a confession need only be independent, substantial, and reveal the words in question to be reasonably trustworthy, as appears, e. g., in Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84 (1954).
If such be the law here applicable, the required corroboration in this case must include evidence showing that Dzhokhar actually carried a large, heavy, black backpack on Boylston Street before the explosions on the afternoon on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and alleged in the indictment. Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, a product of investigation by the FBI, shows plainly that Dzhokhar did no such thing, hence no required corroboration has been established
5. Closing remarks: The views here expressed are not unique, but shared by good Americans, and others the world over. The undersigned and her sister Malkan are prepared to testify as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the motion for leave to file a submission as amicus curiae. This argument is
Respectfully submitted,
The misconduct of which amicus complains served to conceal decisive exculpatory evidence by legerdemain. Amicus urges not only that the death penalty may not be imposed in this case, for all three opinions in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993), allow that the death penalty may not be constitutionally imposed where the accused is demonstrably innocent, but that sua sponte this court order a new trial with directions that new counsel for the accused be appointed, motivated to provide an authentic defense for Dzhokhar.
4. The corpus delicti: Paragraph 10 of the indictment recites a statement in the nature of a confession by Dzhokhar written on the inner walls of a boat in Watertown. But with respect to any and all evidence offered or treated as suggesting an extrajudicial admission of guilt in this case, amicus cites the penetrating observation by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Edward Christian, London, 1765, Book IV, p. 357: “[E]ven in cases of felony at common law, [confessions] are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, ever liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered accurately, or reported with due precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence.” Amicus and countless others suspect that the alleged confession in the boat was staged as artifice to suit the government’s case, and not authentic. But she stands on ancient wisdom which casts doubt on all extrajudicial confessions without adequate safeguards, including the rule that an extrajudicial confession is insufficient to convict, unless the corpus delicti be sufficiently proved up. The rule is defined with various degrees of rigor from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In federal courts, in any event, the corroboration required to sustain a confession or statement in the nature of a confession need only be independent, substantial, and reveal the words in question to be reasonably trustworthy, as appears, e. g., in Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84 (1954).
If such be the law here applicable, the required corroboration in this case must include evidence showing that Dzhokhar actually carried a large, heavy, black backpack on Boylston Street before the explosions on the afternoon on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and alleged in the indictment. Tsarnaeva exhibit 4, a product of investigation by the FBI, shows plainly that Dzhokhar did no such thing, hence no required corroboration has been established
5. Closing remarks: The views here expressed are not unique, but shared by good Americans, and others the world over. The undersigned and her sister Malkan are prepared to testify as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the motion for leave to file a submission as amicus curiae. This argument is
Respectfully submitted,
May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva [Russian script]
Dated:_____________________ ______________________________________
MARET TSARNAEVA, Pro se
Zhigulevskaya Str. 7, Apt. 4
364000 Grozny, Chechen Republic, RF
Telephone: 011-7-938-899-1671
E-mail: marettsar@gmail.com
Dated:_____________________ ______________________________________
MARET TSARNAEVA, Pro se
Zhigulevskaya Str. 7, Apt. 4
364000 Grozny, Chechen Republic, RF
Telephone: 011-7-938-899-1671
E-mail: marettsar@gmail.com
Of counsel:
John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X)
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
Telephone: 418-888-5049
E-mail: jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
180 Haut de la Paroisse
St-Agapit, Quebec G0S 1Z0 Canada
Telephone: 418-888-5049
E-mail: jrgraham@novicomfusion.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned certifies that this submission is consistent with the rules of this Court, that it is prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and that the bare text thereof consists of 2,331 words.
The undersigned certifies that this submission is consistent with the rules of this Court, that it is prepared in 14-point Times New Roman font, and that the bare text thereof consists of 2,331 words.
May 15, 2015 /s/ Maret Tsarnaeva [Russian script]
Dated:_____________________ ______________________________________
Maret Tsarnaeva
Dated:_____________________ ______________________________________
Maret Tsarnaeva
APPENDIX
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 1
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 1
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 2
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 3
TSARNAEVA EXHIBIT 4
From: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/20/the-false-prosecution-of-dzhokhkar-tsarnaev/
From: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/20/the-false-prosecution-of-dzhokhkar-tsarnaev/
The False Prosecution of Dzhokhkar Tsarnaev
The False Prosecution of Dzhokhkar Tsarnaev
Paul Craig Roberts
As I reported at the time, and as all evidence indicates, the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing was a publicly announced drill in which crisis actors were used. There were no real deaths or injuries, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not set off a bomb.
The drill was turned into a real event by propagandists who used the propaganda to advance their agenda of police state regulation and to test US reaction to the use of martial law to close down the city of Boston and the airport and to use 10,000 armed troops to invade without warrants and search citizens’ homes under the guise that a dangerous 19-year old “terrorist,” who was already shot up by soldiers or police, was on the loose. The insouciant American public, the law schools, bar associations, US Congress and media accepted this extraordinary violation of the US Constitution based on the most flimsy of all possible stories, thus opening Pandora’s Box of police state measures by the US government.
The faked terrorist event required terrorists, and the Tsarnaev brothers were selected for that patsy role. The older brother was murdered by police. The younger brother, having unexpectedly survived police attempts to shoot him to death, was put on trial. His attorneys were appointed by the government, and the attorneys, rather than the prosecutor, convicted their assigned client.
All of this was accepted by the public, but not by John Remington Graham, an attorney of wide experience. He saw that exculpatory evidence proving the innocence of the surviving younger brother, Dzhokhar, was ignored and later kept out of the trial. Mr. Graham took action that succeeded in the First Circuit accepting into the record the exculpatory evidence, thereby requiring that the evidence be considered in the appeal of Dzhokhar’s kangaroo court death sentence.
Attentive people abroad have noticed the increasing corruption and collapse of justice in America. On July 4, the Danish publication, Radians & Inches, published John Remington Graham’s account of the prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. With permission, it is reproduced below. Documents relating to the case will be posted separately.
RADIANS & INCHES, VOL. 1, NO. 2
Published in Denmark on July 4, 2018
THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV IN THE BOSTON BOMBING CASE
Published in Denmark on July 4, 2018
THE PROSECUTION OF DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV IN THE BOSTON BOMBING CASE
Over fifty years of practicing law, largely in criminal justice and forensic science and medicine, I have had reason to distrust the FBI. When I was a young lawyer, I defended hundreds of young men who refused to be drafted into the armies of the United States in Vietnam. I used an argument against the constitutionality of such conscription which had been successfully used by Hartford Convention in New England in bringing the War of 1812 to an end. For those interested in details, I refer my readers to United States v. Crocker, 420 F. 2d 307 (8 Cir. 1970), and Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 238 at 240-272 (1863). All of my clients were eventually acquitted or pardoned. Yet in those days, while I was teaching at an accredited law school, my Congressman called me from Washington, D. C., to warn me that the FBI had a dossier on me. The FBI considered me a probable criminal because I defended my generation successfully, according to strict standards of law. A little over twenty-five years ago, I was suspended from the practice of law for sixty days, because an FBI investigation memorandum put words in the mouth of a key witness who later gave a live deposition, completely clearing me of any suspicion of wrongdoing. When the deposition was published by a veteran journalist, the people of my county put my name on the ballot by citizens’ petition, and elected me as their general counsel and chief public prosecutor. I can provide details from the public record on request. It came to me as no surprise, therefore, when I learned that, in the Boston marathon case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could not have detonated a pressure cooker bomb on Boylston Street in Boston on April 15, 2013, for which he was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to death, and that the FBI’s own evidence, of which counsel on both sides and the major news media of the United States were fully aware, conclusively proves that the accused was not guilty. The trial in Boston was a giant hoax, a show trial produced by the FBI and major media in a flagrant abuse of the First Amendment, and most Americans are still not aware of the critical facts. Probably tens of millions have read the internet-accessible report by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the treasury of the United States, about the prosecution of Mr. Tsarnaev, drawing heavily from the judicial record, and published widely in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia on and after August 17, 2015. I shall attempt here to retell and update that story again here, by attaching several of the most important documents accessible to anybody with a Pacer account, so my readers may review them for themselves.
During the trial, after I had looked into the case, I wrote an opinion, stating that, in light of known FBI-gathered evidence, there was no probable cause to charge Dzhokhar. Drawing from fragments at the scene of the explosions, the FBI crime lab and the indictment against Mr. Tsarnaev, and also the major news media, stated that the culprits were carrying black backpacks, filled with heavy pressure cooker bombs, at the time of the explosions, yet Dzhokhar in particular who was charged, not to mention his deceased brother Tamerlan, was shown in a still-frame photo from a street surveillance video used by the FBI to identify the suspects, carrying a light-weight white or silvery bag over his right shoulder only minutes before the explosions. It so happens that there were widely published photos at the time, these still available, showing men in paramilitary gear, wearing black backpacks which perfectly matched the black backpacks projected by the FBI crime lab, but these individuals were not questioned by the FBI.
During the trial, after I had looked into the case, I wrote an opinion, stating that, in light of known FBI-gathered evidence, there was no probable cause to charge Dzhokhar. Drawing from fragments at the scene of the explosions, the FBI crime lab and the indictment against Mr. Tsarnaev, and also the major news media, stated that the culprits were carrying black backpacks, filled with heavy pressure cooker bombs, at the time of the explosions, yet Dzhokhar in particular who was charged, not to mention his deceased brother Tamerlan, was shown in a still-frame photo from a street surveillance video used by the FBI to identify the suspects, carrying a light-weight white or silvery bag over his right shoulder only minutes before the explosions. It so happens that there were widely published photos at the time, these still available, showing men in paramilitary gear, wearing black backpacks which perfectly matched the black backpacks projected by the FBI crime lab, but these individuals were not questioned by the FBI.
The backpacks did not match, which in itself proves that Mr. Tsarnaev was not guilty as charged in the indictment. In an ordinary criminal investigation, Dzhokhar would have been eliminated as a suspect, and the men in paramilitary gear would have been approached and questioned, but the FBI let them all go. Shortly before I released my opinion, Dr. Lorraine Day, who had for twenty-five years been chief trauma surgeon at the general hospital in San Francisco, came forward with an internet-accessible opinion, in which she unmistakably pointed out that, in news photos of the scene, no blood was visible when it would have been visible if there had been actual explosions, severing limbs as claimed, and that, when the pretense of blood did appear, the color was a bright orange-red Hollywood color, not the sober maroon color of human blood in real-life situations.
Not long afterwards, I was introduced to Maret Tsarnaeva, a Russian aunt of Dzhokhar, a lawyer who had served as a public prosecutor in the Kyrgyz Republic which had at one time been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Maret and I spoke by skype and corresponded by internet and regular mail. The court-appointed lawyers for Dzhokhar had pressured Dzhokhar’s family to accept a defense that Dzhokhar was merely following the lead of his elder brother in the commission of the crime on marathon Monday. They had overwhelming proof that Dzhokhar was not guilty, but would not defend him with the powerful exculpatory evidence they possessed, and thereby save his life. As things finally turned out, the chief counsel for the accused, appointed and paid by the United States, appeared at trial, admitted the guilt of her client in her opening statement, did not use the decisive evidence of innocence in her hands, and did not even ask for a verdict of not guilty in her final summation. Maret knew that Dzhokhar was not guilty as charged, and wanted him defended on the merits. She later submitted an affidavit to the federal district court in Boston, executed on April 17, 2015, and sent from the Russian Federation, in support of her effort to appear as a friend of the court for Dzhokhar, wherein she explained the circumstances. Students of this prosecution will be interested in the details revealed by Mme Tsarnaeva, and so I attach of copy of her affidavit which stands uncontroverted on the judicial record. Maret decided to make an appearance as a friend of the court to present available exculpatory evidence in behalf of her nephew Dzhokhar. I should note here that I had to seek the assistance of local lawyers in Massachusetts to move my admission to the bar of the federal district court in Boston on special occasion so I could represent Maret in her amicus petition. The help of countless lawyers, including the American Civil Liberties Union, was solicited and refused, because the major news media had created such a forbidding atmosphere that local counsel were afraid of loss of reputation or livelihood if they were known to have assisted anybody seeking to help Mr. Tsarnaev. I had practiced in Massachusetts before, and had never before encountered such difficulty. Boston was the last place in the world where a fair trial of Mr. Tsarnaev could be held. On advice of the bar liaison officer of the federal district court in Boston, Maret represented herself in her amicus petition, with me at her side as “of counsel” so the court would know she had legal guidance. At her request, I prepared Maret’s motion and argument, and filed the documents for her. Her submission was left unanswered, and so the particulars were admitted. For those who want the facts from the judicial record, I attach her argument which lays down the law and the facts, including four exhibits at the end (designated Tsarnaeva exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4) which prove conclusively that the projections of the FBI crime lab and paragraph 7 of the indictment (especially Tsarnaeva exhibit 3) are contradicted by a third still-frame photo from the Whiskey Steak House video (Tsarnaeva exhibit 4), and that, therefore, Dzhokhar was not guilty. This evidence, though offered and not contradicted, was ignored, and no hearing was held upon it. The trial jury was never made aware of this evidence, which was also hidden from the general public. On June 24, 2015, Dzhokhar was sentenced to death. The proceedings were legal theater, a game of smoke and mirrors. But at least we secured a legal record made by the Russian aunt seeking to appear as friend of the court, including the argument and exhibits she offered. On motion, these items were made a visible part of the court record by the presiding judge.
I have heard from citizens exasperated that I have not believed the confessions attributed to Mr. Tsarnaev. One fellow insisted I was not a lawyer, because I would not accept those confessions, but he learned from the Minnesota Supreme Court that I am a lawyer in good standing, and have been in practice for a half century. Why should nobody believe the confessions in the boat and at sentencing? Because, as Sir William Blackstone said, and as all good criminal lawyers know, “[E]ven in cases of felony at common law, [confessions] are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, ever liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered accurately, or reported with due precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence.” — 4 Commentaries at 357. The alleged confession in the boat in Watertown required a special writing instrument, which Dzhokhar did not have in his possession. At sentencing the words of the prisoner were plainly scripted for him: no Americanized youth, as Dzhokhar was, says his lawyers were “lovely companions,” or speaks of “Mohamed, peace be unto him,” etc. In any event, confessions must always in law be corroborated with the so-called corpus delicti: here the confessions cannot be true, because, if they were true, Dzhokhar would have carried a black backpack as projected by the FBI crime lab and charged the indictment, yet Dzhokhar carried a white bag over his right shoulder. If there had been real explosions, as Dr. Day said, there would have been blood, of which there was none when it should have appeared, and, when blood appeared, it would not have been a flashy orange-red in color. False confessions are common in criminal practice, which is why the law has for years been absorbed in using Miranda warnings and other ways to prevent false confessions. False confessions are a problem, especially for prosecutors, because if an innocent suspect is convicted, the guilty party remains at large, and public safety is imperiled.
A new team of court-appointed lawyers for Mr. Tzarnaev took an appeal in his behalf to the First Circuit. “Counsel for the appellant” will submit their arguments, but I daresay we shall hear nothing from them about the backpacks that do not match, and nothing about the phony blood, which completely change the case from guilty to not guilty, and warrant at least a new trial, if not an acquittal as a matter of law.
A new team of court-appointed lawyers for Mr. Tzarnaev took an appeal in his behalf to the First Circuit. “Counsel for the appellant” will submit their arguments, but I daresay we shall hear nothing from them about the backpacks that do not match, and nothing about the phony blood, which completely change the case from guilty to not guilty, and warrant at least a new trial, if not an acquittal as a matter of law.
Something had to be done for Dzhokhar by somebody other than his court-appointed counsel who had thus far done nothing for him. And that is why three distinguished Americans have appeared before the First Circuit as friends of the court. I attach a copy of their amicus motion without appendices and addendum. The motion refers to the record in the federal district court in Boston, including the exculpatory evidence and exhibits, and was filed on October 13, 2017. If the First Circuit had wanted to continue the cover up the exculpatory evidence proving actual innocence, including proof that the backpacks do not match, the First Circuit could easily have denied the motion, because, never before in American jurisprudence, as far as I am aware, has a private amicus motion ever been allowed in a major public prosecution. If the motion had been denied, nobody would have noticed. But, on November 9, 2017, the First Circuit granted the amicus motion of the three distinguished American friends of the court, including a retired professor of philosophy, an international scholar in political science, and a doctor of medicine with thirty-seven years of practice behind him. The appellate court will consider the decisive exculpatory evidence which had been kept from the attention of the trial jury and the attention of the general public, previously buried in the record as if not part of the judicial process.
On November 24, 2017, argument in support of the amicus motion was filed as ordered by the First Circuit. I attach a copy of the text of the argument before the First Circuit, without caption, tables, appendices, or addendum. The motion and our argument are now visibly part of the judicial record, although the major media have continued to abuse the First Amendment by hiding this material from public attention in their game of intentional deception. We have learned of this sad reality from an honest journalist associated with the Boston Herald, who interviewed me for about forty-five minutes on November 26, 2017, after she discovered our filings with the First Circuit two days beforehand. As she expressed her impression in conversation with me, this material completely changes the story of the Boston marathon case as reported by major news media of the United States, and she was glad to have discovered the facts and to report them, as a good journalist should have been. But her supervising editor blocked publication of the story. She should have won the Pulitzer prize and seen her work published. If the country does not find out what really happened in this case, Mr. Tsarnaev will die by lethal injection, and the United States will be disgraced in the eyes of history. And those responsible will be answerable to God. I have intervened, because I am an American lawyer, and I want to be proud of the law and proud of my country.
On November 24, 2017, argument in support of the amicus motion was filed as ordered by the First Circuit. I attach a copy of the text of the argument before the First Circuit, without caption, tables, appendices, or addendum. The motion and our argument are now visibly part of the judicial record, although the major media have continued to abuse the First Amendment by hiding this material from public attention in their game of intentional deception. We have learned of this sad reality from an honest journalist associated with the Boston Herald, who interviewed me for about forty-five minutes on November 26, 2017, after she discovered our filings with the First Circuit two days beforehand. As she expressed her impression in conversation with me, this material completely changes the story of the Boston marathon case as reported by major news media of the United States, and she was glad to have discovered the facts and to report them, as a good journalist should have been. But her supervising editor blocked publication of the story. She should have won the Pulitzer prize and seen her work published. If the country does not find out what really happened in this case, Mr. Tsarnaev will die by lethal injection, and the United States will be disgraced in the eyes of history. And those responsible will be answerable to God. I have intervened, because I am an American lawyer, and I want to be proud of the law and proud of my country.
The lawyers on both sides of this prosecution did not want the court to know of the decisive exculpatory evidence in the federal district court in Boston, but the First Circuit has reached out and demanded it. Let us hope that the First Circuit will tell the country the truth, even though the major news and entertainment media of the United State have thus far failed us and let us all down. I recall and remind others of the famous Pentagon Papers case, New York Times v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971), which recognized the duty of the press to prevent deception of the people by their government. In this case, however, it is clear from contemporary history that the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and associated major media have shamelessly aided the government of the United States in hiding exculpatory evidence in the prosecution of a man whom they knew or should have known was not guilty of a heinous crime, and they were guilty of this breach of moral duty in order to mislead the American people. – John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X), jrgraham@novicomfusion.com, 418-888-5049.
The article in Radians & Inches can be found here:https://www.dropbox.com/s/4xsgx3ygfbvhy52/Radians%20%26%20Inches.%20Volume%201%2C%20Issue%202.%20July%204%2C%202018.pdf?dl=0
Same guys, guys!
ReplyDeleteGrand Deception: The American Deep State's Role in 1990s Raid on Russia
Alex Krainer
Sott.net
Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:03 UTC
The following article is part 4 in a six-part series on Russia's transition from communism to capitalism during the 1990s. Links to previous posts: introduction, part 1, part 2, part 3. It is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of my book, Grand Deception: the Truth About Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, and Anti-Russia Sanctions. The book's previous incarnation was banned last summer by some of the same actors we'll be discussing today. This post should prove relevant today, in light of hysterical rebukes of President Trump's recent summit with his Russian counter part in Finland, particularly regarding the role and trustworthiness of the so-called "intelligence community."
See: https://www.sott.net/article/391672-Grand-Deception-The-American-Deep-States-Role-in-1990s-Raid-on-Russia