Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Letter to President Obama
Letter to President Obama
Att: President Obama.
Dear President Obama:
I would like to bring to your attention to the matter of Timothy Adams case No. (6:94-cr-302-3).
Mr. Adams was charged and convicted of Conspiracy to distribute crack Cocaine oover 16 years ago. He has been a model inmate. he has never had any serious infractions of the penal system. however how does one begin to measure the loss of 15 year 16/half years. it is measureable. At best one could list the events that were missed and allow one to imagine the emotion involved. Mr. Adams father died. his sister died. His son died. His first and second grandchild was born. his children moved from toddlers, to pre-teens,to teens, and then adults. mr adams did not rear his chidren. he did not graduate college. He did not have an opportunity to own property.
Again the cost to the family of Mr. Adams is immeasurable. the staistics on children reaed without their fathers is prolific and consistent. what hurdles may we expect for his sons based on the information? What hurdles may we expect for his daughters? not to mention that his mother is an elderly woman who still, despite the prostrstions of her son, drives hours to visit him, sends money she does not have so that he may call her on occasion. She suffers still with desire to see her son released from prison, as does his chidren his siblings and of course his spouse.
It has always been our contention that The U.S. Attorneys Office and Former Trial Attorney Charles J. Alexander II was not candid with the tribunal and thus the conviction of Mr. Adams and his Habeas Corpus 2255 was tained by Fraud committed upon the court.
Please review the attached infomation:
Exhibit A Affidavit by Attorney Charles J. Alexander II stating the case for witness was handled by an "unnamed" associate in his firm who no longer works there.
Exhibit B Signed statement dated 9/4/98 by witness that indicates Charles J. Alexander II was in fact her Attorney of record, advised witness to speak with DEA agents and was in fact questioned regarding inmate Adams.
Exhibit C Motio to suppress submitted and signed by Charles J. Alexander II and noting him as the attorney of record dated2/9/95
Exhibit D Waiver of arraignment submitted on behalf of witness dated 2/9/95. Signed by witness and Charles J. Alexander II noting him as the attorney of record
Exhibit E Dismissal of charges against witness for cooperating with federal authorities.
Exhibit F 11/7/94 search warrant for the residence of witness.
Evidence here bears out that the connection between Witness and Attorney Alexander is clear. Mr. Adams should have been made aware of the fact that Charles Alexander II clearly represented Witness. Mr. Adams should have been afforded an opportunityh to determine if in fact he wanted to continue with Alexander as his attorney in light of his association with Witness. Mr. Adams should have been afforded an opportunity to determine if any information gathered from witness regarding a supposed connection with Mr. Adams. It is also more than possible that witness may have been able to refute any conspiracy to distribute drugs between Mr. Harvey and Mr. Adams. So while it is apparent that Mr. Alexander was aware of the existence of witness he never informed Mr. Adams of this person, substantially damaging the ability of Mr. Adams to make good decisions regarding his representationand to fully represent himself at trial.
Some would say that our legal system is flawed. No matter how flawed, it is our system to love, honor and change as the process allows and society sees fit. These flaws will at times beg up the question will an unjust act ever be uncovered. The wonderful thing about our system is there are checks and balances. Even when these checks and balances don't work wrongs can be righted when those charged to protect, enforce and interpret our laws are sufficiently interested.
Confidence in our legal system is paramount to its function as a cornerstone in providing an atmosphere ripe to achieve the American dream. In order to maintain this confidence justice must be fair and applied to all our citizenry equally. No other issue has the power to erode our confidence in the legal system than a fraud committed on the court by one of its officers. A lawyer bound by oath and rules of professional conduct must be candid in his assertions to the court. When a lawyer speaks in a court he is presumed to be telling the truth in its entirety. This presumption is a privilege and responsibility for the lawyer. This privilege must be honored in the most reverent manner and in the minutest of detail.
I ask that you review the attached information with valuable additional years of experience, court precedent, and through the eyes of the Adams mother, children, siblings and spouse. Here stands the opportunity to right what we believe to be a wrong and allow our justice system to work according to the laws that society has deemed appropiate because otherwise we are left with the question, does the ends justify the means.
If you require any additional information you may reach me at: F.C.I Fairton P.O.Box 420 fairton NJ, 08320
Sincerely,
Timothy Adams
Reg. No . 42380-019
Att: President Obama.
Dear President Obama:
I would like to bring to your attention to the matter of Timothy Adams case No. (6:94-cr-302-3).
Mr. Adams was charged and convicted of Conspiracy to distribute crack Cocaine oover 16 years ago. He has been a model inmate. he has never had any serious infractions of the penal system. however how does one begin to measure the loss of 15 year 16/half years. it is measureable. At best one could list the events that were missed and allow one to imagine the emotion involved. Mr. Adams father died. his sister died. His son died. His first and second grandchild was born. his children moved from toddlers, to pre-teens,to teens, and then adults. mr adams did not rear his chidren. he did not graduate college. He did not have an opportunity to own property.
Again the cost to the family of Mr. Adams is immeasurable. the staistics on children reaed without their fathers is prolific and consistent. what hurdles may we expect for his sons based on the information? What hurdles may we expect for his daughters? not to mention that his mother is an elderly woman who still, despite the prostrstions of her son, drives hours to visit him, sends money she does not have so that he may call her on occasion. She suffers still with desire to see her son released from prison, as does his chidren his siblings and of course his spouse.
It has always been our contention that The U.S. Attorneys Office and Former Trial Attorney Charles J. Alexander II was not candid with the tribunal and thus the conviction of Mr. Adams and his Habeas Corpus 2255 was tained by Fraud committed upon the court.
Please review the attached infomation:
Exhibit A Affidavit by Attorney Charles J. Alexander II stating the case for witness was handled by an "unnamed" associate in his firm who no longer works there.
Exhibit B Signed statement dated 9/4/98 by witness that indicates Charles J. Alexander II was in fact her Attorney of record, advised witness to speak with DEA agents and was in fact questioned regarding inmate Adams.
Exhibit C Motio to suppress submitted and signed by Charles J. Alexander II and noting him as the attorney of record dated2/9/95
Exhibit D Waiver of arraignment submitted on behalf of witness dated 2/9/95. Signed by witness and Charles J. Alexander II noting him as the attorney of record
Exhibit E Dismissal of charges against witness for cooperating with federal authorities.
Exhibit F 11/7/94 search warrant for the residence of witness.
Evidence here bears out that the connection between Witness and Attorney Alexander is clear. Mr. Adams should have been made aware of the fact that Charles Alexander II clearly represented Witness. Mr. Adams should have been afforded an opportunityh to determine if in fact he wanted to continue with Alexander as his attorney in light of his association with Witness. Mr. Adams should have been afforded an opportunity to determine if any information gathered from witness regarding a supposed connection with Mr. Adams. It is also more than possible that witness may have been able to refute any conspiracy to distribute drugs between Mr. Harvey and Mr. Adams. So while it is apparent that Mr. Alexander was aware of the existence of witness he never informed Mr. Adams of this person, substantially damaging the ability of Mr. Adams to make good decisions regarding his representationand to fully represent himself at trial.
Some would say that our legal system is flawed. No matter how flawed, it is our system to love, honor and change as the process allows and society sees fit. These flaws will at times beg up the question will an unjust act ever be uncovered. The wonderful thing about our system is there are checks and balances. Even when these checks and balances don't work wrongs can be righted when those charged to protect, enforce and interpret our laws are sufficiently interested.
Confidence in our legal system is paramount to its function as a cornerstone in providing an atmosphere ripe to achieve the American dream. In order to maintain this confidence justice must be fair and applied to all our citizenry equally. No other issue has the power to erode our confidence in the legal system than a fraud committed on the court by one of its officers. A lawyer bound by oath and rules of professional conduct must be candid in his assertions to the court. When a lawyer speaks in a court he is presumed to be telling the truth in its entirety. This presumption is a privilege and responsibility for the lawyer. This privilege must be honored in the most reverent manner and in the minutest of detail.
I ask that you review the attached information with valuable additional years of experience, court precedent, and through the eyes of the Adams mother, children, siblings and spouse. Here stands the opportunity to right what we believe to be a wrong and allow our justice system to work according to the laws that society has deemed appropiate because otherwise we are left with the question, does the ends justify the means.
If you require any additional information you may reach me at: F.C.I Fairton P.O.Box 420 fairton NJ, 08320
Sincerely,
Timothy Adams
Reg. No . 42380-019
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Letter to Eric Holder
Timothy Adams
Reg. No 42380-019
P.O. Box 420
F.C.I Fairton
Fairton, NJ 08320
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530 July 23, 2011
Dear Mr. Holder
I am writing your office regarding my case. It is case No. 6:94 CR 302-3. I am filing a complaint against the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The United States Attorney in this case allowed my former counsel, Charles Alexander, to submit two fraudulent affidavits to the court. I posses clear and convincing evidence to dispute the validity of the affidavits submitted fraudulently to the court.
The United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina relied on these fraudulent documents and submitted them to the court in support of an erroneous position. Furthermore, the office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina could easily acessed the information that clearly demonstrated the affidavits submitted by Alexander not once but twice was a Fraud upon the court.
The failure of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina to perform the proper professional diligence in ensuring the information delivered to the court was accurate has caused over 12 years delay in allowing me an opportunity to be properly heard in the Middle District of North Carolina. I have submitted numerous motions to the District Court. My most important assertion ''Fraud upon the Court'' has not been addressed by the court.
Besides the damage done to my own life as a result of this Misconduct, allowing a fraud upon the court is a very serious ethical issue as it serves to undermine our legal system as a whole.
Mr. Holder, you yourself created a new internal watchdog office Tuesday, January 19, 2011. You wanted to make sure that prosecutors face swiffer and more consistent punishment if investigators find that they committed misconduct. Well, respectfully, I took your advise and filed numerous complaints to the Justice Department Agency's and have sent them numerous complaints in the past 12 years. I am no closer then yesterday of being heard as though my complaints are getting ship from one agency to another without being addressed. See attached letters from the Justice Department.
It should be noted that the District Court Judge in this case failed to address the question of Fraud in this case in a 13 year span although I have submitted over (5) Independent Actions for Fraud upon the court to the District Court. Not once in during life of these proceedings the central question of whether the government submitted a fraudulent affidavite to the District Court was addressed.
Thank you for listening and I hope that your office take the liberty to resolve this serious un-ethical behavior so that I can prove that my sixth Amendment was violated due to and undisclosed Actual Conflict of Interest.
Reg. No 42380-019
P.O. Box 420
F.C.I Fairton
Fairton, NJ 08320
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530 July 23, 2011
Dear Mr. Holder
I am writing your office regarding my case. It is case No. 6:94 CR 302-3. I am filing a complaint against the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The United States Attorney in this case allowed my former counsel, Charles Alexander, to submit two fraudulent affidavits to the court. I posses clear and convincing evidence to dispute the validity of the affidavits submitted fraudulently to the court.
The United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina relied on these fraudulent documents and submitted them to the court in support of an erroneous position. Furthermore, the office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina could easily acessed the information that clearly demonstrated the affidavits submitted by Alexander not once but twice was a Fraud upon the court.
The failure of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina to perform the proper professional diligence in ensuring the information delivered to the court was accurate has caused over 12 years delay in allowing me an opportunity to be properly heard in the Middle District of North Carolina. I have submitted numerous motions to the District Court. My most important assertion ''Fraud upon the Court'' has not been addressed by the court.
Besides the damage done to my own life as a result of this Misconduct, allowing a fraud upon the court is a very serious ethical issue as it serves to undermine our legal system as a whole.
Mr. Holder, you yourself created a new internal watchdog office Tuesday, January 19, 2011. You wanted to make sure that prosecutors face swiffer and more consistent punishment if investigators find that they committed misconduct. Well, respectfully, I took your advise and filed numerous complaints to the Justice Department Agency's and have sent them numerous complaints in the past 12 years. I am no closer then yesterday of being heard as though my complaints are getting ship from one agency to another without being addressed. See attached letters from the Justice Department.
It should be noted that the District Court Judge in this case failed to address the question of Fraud in this case in a 13 year span although I have submitted over (5) Independent Actions for Fraud upon the court to the District Court. Not once in during life of these proceedings the central question of whether the government submitted a fraudulent affidavite to the District Court was addressed.
Thank you for listening and I hope that your office take the liberty to resolve this serious un-ethical behavior so that I can prove that my sixth Amendment was violated due to and undisclosed Actual Conflict of Interest.
True Short Story: Letter to President Obama
True Short Story: Letter to President Obama: "Att: President Obama. Dear President Obama: I would like to bring to your attention to the matter of Timothy Adams case No. (6:94-cr-302..."
True Short Story: Letter to President Obama
True Short Story: Letter to President Obama: "Att: President Obama. Dear President Obama: I would like to bring to your attention to the matter of Timothy Adams case No. (6:94-cr-302..."
Sunday, July 24, 2011
True Short Story: introduction
True Short Story: introduction: "HELLO EVERYONE!!! My name is Timothy Adams and I am reaching out to you all from Fairton, NJ, where I am currently being confined for a conv..."
True Short Story: introduction
True Short Story: introduction: "HELLO EVERYONE!!! My name is Timothy Adams and I am reaching out to you all from Fairton, NJ, where I am currently being confined for a conv..."
introduction
HELLO EVERYONE!!! My name is Timothy Adams and I am reaching out to you all from Fairton, NJ, where I am currently being confined for a conviction of drug conspiracy. I am the author of a newly entitled book ''TRUE STORY'' which I have written over the last 3 years and have finally published and began to distribute on eBook.
In my book I will take you on the journey of my life, which started from Brooklyn, New York, to the southern comfort of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Well atleast that's what I thought. In 1995 I was wrongfully convicted of a drug conspiracy. This is where the real story begins. The story of a young boy from Brooklyn who was put to a test and though he faced many of bumps and obstacles in the road, grew to become a man of patience, perseverance, and intelligence. My story is a story of hope and faith. A story where you will see that trusting in GOD, being optimisitic, and never quitting or giving up will always win out through any situation.
Currently I am still fighting my case, so the content was limited. However, it will open your eyes to America's judicial system and how it works. Right and wrong. I ask that you all pray for me, in hopes that with the passing of new laws that I regain my freedom soon. Thank you all for taking time to read. GOD BLESS!!! Timothy Adams
True Short Story: JUNE 30th RETROACTIVITY VOTE
True Short Story: JUNE 30th RETROACTIVITY VOTE: "A message from Timothy: The Commission's retroactivity vote a few days ago was another step in the long long overdue, overhaul of the Federa..."
True Short Story: Congratulating those who read e-Book, ''True Story...
True Short Story: Congratulating those who read e-Book, ''True Story...: "Congratulating those who read e-Book, ''True Story'' by Timothy Adams and co-written by Jeanniene Brown. My purpose for writing ''True Story..."
JUNE 30th RETROACTIVITY VOTE
A message from Timothy:
The Commission's retroactivity vote a few days ago was another step in the long long overdue, overhaul of the Federal System. Hopefully, the Fair Sentencing Clarification Act of 2011, bill submitted a week ago actually clarify's that the amendments made by the Fair Sentencing Act are to be applied to pending cases and retroactively to cases that are no longer pending. Meaning, cases that are no longer on any appeas. The Fair Sentencing Clarification Act would allow all offenders, regardless of when they were arrested or convicted, to recieve the benefit of the changes that congress made in the FSA. Does these changes effect Tim Adams? Yes.
''There is absolutely no reason that the individuals sentenced under the old crack cocaine laws should not recieve the benefit of the FSA,'' stated Representative Scott. ''Congress has acknowledged that the 100 to 1 disparity was fundamentally unfair and had a racially desparate impact. People sentenced under the old law should not be required to serve out sentences imposed as a result of what congress made in the FSA.
In late June, 2011, Congressman Robert C. ''Bobby'' Scott (D-Va-3), along with original co-sponsors congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx-14), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mi-14), Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md-6), Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fl-23), and Keith Ellison (D-Mn-5), introduced the Fair Sentencing Act of 2011.
Rep. Scott is the ranking member of House Judiciary subcommittee on crime, Terrorist and Homeland Security and also sits on the House Education and Work Force Committee.
This bill would allow all inmates to receive a reduction, including those with statutory sentences.
If anyone has any comments or questions, feel free to contact me via facebook.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Congratulating those who read e-Book, ''True Story'' by Timothy Adams and co-written by Jeanniene Brown. My purpose for writing ''True Story'' was to shed light on my life sentence and the ''draconion crack cocaine laws'' and how it destroy's ones life.
Here are some inserts from Attoreny General Eric Holder's position on the crack cocaine laws:
Friday July 15, 2011
Only a year late, AG Holder sees light and reverses course on FSA pipeline sentencing issue.
Regular readers know that, since the Fair Sentencing Act became law in August 2010, lower courts have been divided over whether the defendants who committed crack offenses before the FSA was enacted but had not yet been initially sentenced should get the benenfit's of the FSA'S new mandatory minimum provisions. And, as I explained in this post way back in October 2010, I have been troubled and disappointed that the Justice Department had been arguing in these ''pipeline'' cases that defendants should continue to be sentenced under the old law repealed 100-1 crack/powder ratio if their crimes were committed before August 3, 2010.
I am now pleased to report than I need not be troubled or disappointed by DOJ's position on this issue anymore, because today Attorney General Eric Holder has come to see the statutory sentencing light and reversed course. In a two-page memo to all federal prosecutors dated July 15, 2011, AG Holder details his new view on this issue:
In light of the differing court decisions--and the serious impact on the criminal justice system of continuing to impose unfair penalties--I have reviewed our posiion regarding the applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act to cases sentenced on or afther the date of enactment. While I continue to believe that the Savings Statute, 1 U.S.C 109, precludes application of the new mandatory minimums to those sentenced before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, I agree with those courts that have held that Congress intended Act not only to ''restore fairness in federal cocaine sentencing policy'' but to do so as expeditiously as possible and to all defendants sentenced on or after the enactment date. As a result, I have concluded taht the law requires the application of the Act's new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions to all sentencing that occur on or after August 3, 2010, regardless of when the offense conduct took place. The law draws the line at August 3, however. The new provisions do not apply to sentences imposed prior to that date, whether or not they are final. Prosecutors are directed to act consistently with these legal principles.
Though I am pleased that AG Holder has now seen the light on this issue of statutory interpretation, I remain deeply disappointed that the Justice Department argued a contrary (and, in my view, deeply misguided) position in courts around the nation for nearly a year. Among the costs fo this mistake has been a large number of sentencings based on the old law that now will need to be redone, not to mention many litigation resources expended as defense counsel and judges have been force to grapple with DOJ's prior position. So while I celebrate DOJ now getting this right, I cannot help but express sadness that this reversal of course took so long.
Among the benefits of this change of position should be a quick end to lots of district and circuit (and possible SCOTUS) litigation over this pipeline issue. But, of course, the principal benefit to this new DOJ policy is that more defendants will now be able to benefit from the fairer sentencing terms that Congress created through this enactment of the FSA last year.
Some post of this FSA pipeline issue:
*Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging congress to ''completely eliminate'' any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
*Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
*Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA pending cases
*A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
*New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
*WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
*A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
*Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
*Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams make strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases
*First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases
*Eleventh Circuit panel rules FSA's lower crack terms apply to defendants sentenced after enactment
*Eleventh Circuit panel re-issues (updated) opinion finding FSA lower crack mandatories apply all sentenced after FSA
We are looking for all feedback on ''True Story'' and Eric Holder
Thank You
Here are some inserts from Attoreny General Eric Holder's position on the crack cocaine laws:
Friday July 15, 2011
Only a year late, AG Holder sees light and reverses course on FSA pipeline sentencing issue.
Regular readers know that, since the Fair Sentencing Act became law in August 2010, lower courts have been divided over whether the defendants who committed crack offenses before the FSA was enacted but had not yet been initially sentenced should get the benenfit's of the FSA'S new mandatory minimum provisions. And, as I explained in this post way back in October 2010, I have been troubled and disappointed that the Justice Department had been arguing in these ''pipeline'' cases that defendants should continue to be sentenced under the old law repealed 100-1 crack/powder ratio if their crimes were committed before August 3, 2010.
I am now pleased to report than I need not be troubled or disappointed by DOJ's position on this issue anymore, because today Attorney General Eric Holder has come to see the statutory sentencing light and reversed course. In a two-page memo to all federal prosecutors dated July 15, 2011, AG Holder details his new view on this issue:
In light of the differing court decisions--and the serious impact on the criminal justice system of continuing to impose unfair penalties--I have reviewed our posiion regarding the applicability of the Fair Sentencing Act to cases sentenced on or afther the date of enactment. While I continue to believe that the Savings Statute, 1 U.S.C 109, precludes application of the new mandatory minimums to those sentenced before the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act, I agree with those courts that have held that Congress intended Act not only to ''restore fairness in federal cocaine sentencing policy'' but to do so as expeditiously as possible and to all defendants sentenced on or after the enactment date. As a result, I have concluded taht the law requires the application of the Act's new mandatory minimum sentencing provisions to all sentencing that occur on or after August 3, 2010, regardless of when the offense conduct took place. The law draws the line at August 3, however. The new provisions do not apply to sentences imposed prior to that date, whether or not they are final. Prosecutors are directed to act consistently with these legal principles.
Though I am pleased that AG Holder has now seen the light on this issue of statutory interpretation, I remain deeply disappointed that the Justice Department argued a contrary (and, in my view, deeply misguided) position in courts around the nation for nearly a year. Among the costs fo this mistake has been a large number of sentencings based on the old law that now will need to be redone, not to mention many litigation resources expended as defense counsel and judges have been force to grapple with DOJ's prior position. So while I celebrate DOJ now getting this right, I cannot help but express sadness that this reversal of course took so long.
Among the benefits of this change of position should be a quick end to lots of district and circuit (and possible SCOTUS) litigation over this pipeline issue. But, of course, the principal benefit to this new DOJ policy is that more defendants will now be able to benefit from the fairer sentencing terms that Congress created through this enactment of the FSA last year.
Some post of this FSA pipeline issue:
*Why is Obama's DOJ, after urging congress to ''completely eliminate'' any crack/powder disparity, now seeking to keep the 100-1 ratio in place as long as possible?
*Senators Leahy and Durbin write letter to Attorney General Holder urging application of FSA to pending cases
*Adding my two cents concerning application of the FSA pending cases
*A few more thoughts on applying the FSA to not-yet-sentenced defendants
*New USDC opinion applying new FSA law to not-yet-sentenced defendants
*WSJ notes dispute over application of FSA to pending cases
*A (partial) account of deep split over application of FSA's new statutory terms to pipeline cases
*Seventh Circuit rejects FSA's application to defendants sentenced after it changed crack statutes
*Dissenting from denial of en banc review, Judge Williams make strongest case for applying FSA to pipeline cases
*First Circuit affirms Douglas, holding lower FSA crack minimums apply in pipeline cases
*Eleventh Circuit panel rules FSA's lower crack terms apply to defendants sentenced after enactment
*Eleventh Circuit panel re-issues (updated) opinion finding FSA lower crack mandatories apply all sentenced after FSA
We are looking for all feedback on ''True Story'' and Eric Holder
Thank You
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)