P. 7 of 18
[page 7] told him that I committed any of these crimes. So it should be perfectly clear that the State was using! Meuler's Affidavit for jurisdictional requirement to hold me for a Preliminary Hearing and eventually a trial.
Now E. Michael McCann knows what he and captain Meuler have done with this illegal Affidavit is unlawful!... But he also knows that I am scared and that I cannot read or write, and that my counsel is not really trying to protect my constitutional rights. [see] Berger vs. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) the court said:
"An United States attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
Now the District Attorney Office used this illegal Affidavit of Meuler's for 56 days to get me a preliminary hearing. Now for this preliminary court to have personal jurisdiction to preside over these proceedings the court must first! examine the State's Probable Cause Evidence, and in this case it is the alleged "legal confession" mentioned in Meuler's Affidavit. So that the court can confirm the validity of the confession against the Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 448, 86 S. CT. 1614 and the Goodchild doctrine. Because without this court testing the validity of this confession! it would not have ... Continue to read...
Go to p. 8 or Go back to p. 6 or Back to index