Critical Information Publications
We must value what we secure
Please reply to
http://www.geocities.com/jgbujama/CIP.html
Sept 24th 2007
Personnel, Newman
U.S. Marshals
RM 218
Judge Robert Rigsby
Moultrie Courthouse
500 Indiana Avenue
N. W. Washington D.C. 20001
Director Devon Brown
Department of Corrections
1923 Vermont Avenue NW, RM 203
Washington DC 20001
To whom it may concern:
Wole Soyinka, author of prison notes, The Man Died once observed; man is grieved by a consciousness of the loss of the eternal essence of his being and must indulge in symbolic transactions to recover the totality of being. Unfortunately, by way of contractual fraud, we cannot act upon the presumption that all men are knaves and liars, Spargnapani v. Wright, 110 A.2d 82, 84 (D.C. 1954),
This is a letter of grievance and complaint for legal remedy that is similar to formal complaints already submitted when the courts and the Department of Corrections detained the respondent. It is against the ignoble policy of property destruction practiced by the DOC. Whatever result, let it be stated that it was not made clear to the respondent that the DOC destroys all properties after two weeks of holding. This is simple language that would have been understood by the respondent. It was within reason, that the respondent expected that property warehoused by the courts or the DOC is secured within the evidentiary and investigative practice of the law. This is pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code regulation 7-202 Form Warehouse Receipt, Essential terms, Optional terms, which states that all receipts must include: d)
- A statement whether the goods received will be delivered to the bearer; to a specified person or his order (Uniform Commercial Code).
The Courts, Marshals, and the DOC did not provide these stipulations as suggested by the UCC or demanded by the District of Columbia Code. Furthermore, the term unclaimed property is a misnomer, since the respondent’s missing properties, many of which are identifiers and record items are already claimed by the respondent by virtue of ownership and already acknowledged by the claims receipt, or the general receiving process. It is the DOC that is indifferent towards the properties it holds and therefore should procedurally follow the legal definition cautions of abandonment classification, which is defined as: property that the owner has discarded with no intention of ever again reclaiming any rights or interests. This is not applicable in the respondent’s case, since the respondent as implied, was held through court continuances at the very correctional facility that warehoused his property.
The respondent upon release received his black bag full of clothes that was seized at the courts, and passport documentations separately enveloped by DOC officers. However in August, upon the respondent’s arrival at the facility, the respondent kept all documentations in a plastic bag. The DOC when collectively receiving these items, separated passport documentation from photos and other relevant records. The respondent’s on the body clothes and shoes with which he arrived at the courts, were also received. On August 7, 2007, all items were secured in a white box and labeled. However, upon release 44 days later on September 20th 2007, the officers argued that only the passport documentations were kept. The missing items in the box include:
Documents
Birth Certificate (Yellow Card)
Immigration and Naturalization Certificate
Copy of 40-year-old burial records for respondent’s father
Private paternity corroboration
Assorted Legal Documents and forms pertaining to writs filed
Property Contract
Original 1990 letter dated June 14th from respondent’s mother kept as historic record of the Sierra Leone Rebel War
Photo
Small family photo album
Large portrait of male in graduating gown, respondent’s father (Boston, Circa 1963, Original)
Family photo, respondent included (Original Circa, New York, 1977)
Father and mothers wedding photo (New York, 1964)
Grand parents and family at a Christening in front of church (Freetown, Circa 1965)
Clothes worn to court, held by U.S. Marshals, boxed at DOC
Grey pants
Grey jacket
Black pair of Italian shoes
(Defendants only shoes!)
There were other miscellaneous items thrown into the white box as witnessed by the respondent who was partially clothed and under penal compulsion to procedurally sign for items received. Since the respondent was bound over to the DOC repeatedly by continuance, it is a matter of consistency that the DOC should have exempted liability to his stay in their facility beyond the two-week period since it was a functional part of the judicial process. Or, the DOC should have released the respondent and returned the property at the end of the two-week detention period. This matter is very relevant due to the sensitive history of some of the documents to be identifiers in value and therefore there is great need in avoiding identity theft and ensuring the defendant’s family safety. The respondent believes he has good reason to consider that the items have not yet been destroyed since while on wait for his property he believes he witnessed a correction officer pass by with the documents in hand when the respondent was still waiting to receive all items together. After giving what property that was selected, such as the black bag at the insistence of the respondent, the DOC rudely asked the respondent to leave or wait outside to discuss matters of property, which should have been taken care of at the property claims desk – not the outside parking lot.
All items are of uncompromising import to the respondent. It is important to note that the U.S. Marshals seized all items at the Superior Court Room. Due to the ongoing judicial process and while on his own recognizance, the respondent will be seeking remedy to these problems directly in person. You may send any information fastest about this complaint to the above e-mail address or to the respondent’s attorney at the address listed below.
All efforts in the reacquiring of these properties will be greatly appreciated.
Leave messages for properties at: 202-361-2305 CIP, Gbujama, J.M.
202-543-2250 Court Attorney - Thomas Farquhar
Sincerely,
Gbujama J.M.
