Chronology of Violations with Case Law References

1. Settlement Agreement Omitted (November 17, 2023):

   • Violation: The Attorney General’s Office filed felony charges for Insurance Fraud & Check Forgery, omitting the November 2022 settlement agreements that dismissed all claims with prejudice. This failure to disclose the settlement violated the settlement’s binding terms.
   • Relevant Case Law: Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) – The case established the standard for challenging a search warrant affidavit for false statements or omissions that are material to the issuance of the warrant. This case would support the argument that the omission of the settlement material could invalidate the charges.

2. Unconstitutional Search Warrant Issued (February 27, 2023):

   • Violation: A search warrant was issued for a Google account without an accompanying affidavit, raising serious constitutional issues regarding Fourth Amendment rights.
   • Relevant Case Law: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) – This case established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard under the Fourth Amendment, arguing that searches must be supported by probable cause and a sworn affidavit.

3. Arrest Warrant Omits Material Facts (April 30, 2024):

   • Violation: The arrest warrant portrayed the individual as “at large,” and omitted the critical fact of the prior settlement, which would have negated the need for an arrest.
   • Relevant Case Law: Franks v. Delaware (1978) – Failure to disclose material facts that impact the probable cause for an arrest would invalidate the warrant, as per the principles established in Franks.

4. Contradiction of Prosecutorial Statement (May 2, 2024):

   • Violation: The Assistant Attorney General acknowledged that charges should have been consolidated, but later filed 37 new felony counts, directly contradicting his prior statement.
   • Relevant Case Law: Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) – Prosecutorial misconduct, including contradictions or misleading statements, is prohibited under the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.

5. Motion to Dismiss Denied Without Explanation (May 25, 2024):

   • Violation: The court denied the Motion to Dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct without providing any reasoning or explanation.
   • Relevant Case Law: United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (1952) – The Court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss without explanation violates the due process rights of the accused.

6. Improper Handling of Evidence (June 2, 2024):

   • Violation: The Attorney General filed additional charges based on affidavits from a civil settlement, failing to properly verify the witness’s reliability or address inconsistencies in their testimony.
   • Relevant Case Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) – Prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence and to avoid presenting false or unreliable evidence to the court.

7. 7. Improper Use of Confidential Civil Settlement Material (June 2, 2024)

   • The Prosecutor, having omitted the civil settlement in the affidavit for the search warrant and arrest, later used the same confidential settlement material to build the criminal case. This misuse of confidential material, without disclosure of its origin, was intended to intimidate defense counsel and create an overwhelming volume of discovery.
   • Case Law: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Gigilio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

8. Denial of Pro Se Motions (December 30, 2024):

   • Violation: The court dismissed the defendant’s pro se motions, citing that the defendant had a court-appointed attorney, despite the attorney failing to file any motions on the defendant’s behalf.
   • Relevant Case Law: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) – A defendant has the constitutional right to represent themselves in state criminal trials, and should not be denied the ability to file motions merely because they have counsel.

9. Judicial Bias and Denial of Fair Trial (January 17, 2025):

   • Violation: The defendant filed a Notice of Removal to federal court, citing judicial bias and lack of impartiality in the state court proceedings.
   • Relevant Case Law: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) – Judicial bias violates the due process right to a fair and impartial trial under the Fourteenth Amendment.

10. Jurisdictional Error and Conflict (January 30-31, 2025):

    • Violation: The case was remanded to the wrong jurisdiction, creating a conflict over subject matter jurisdiction.
    • Relevant Case Law: Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) – A court must properly consider jurisdictional issues, as failure to do so can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

11. Due Process Violations and Motion to Recuse (January 31, 2025):

    • Violation: The defendant filed motions to dismiss and to recuse the presiding judge, citing procedural violations and bias.
    • Relevant Case Law: Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) – A judge’s failure to recuse themselves when there is clear bias violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

12. Failure to Respond to Self-Representation Request (February 3, 2025):

    • Violation: The court failed to respond to the defendant’s formal request for a Farretta hearing, thereby preventing the defendant from exercising their right to self-representation.
    • Relevant Case Law: Faretta v. California (1975) – A defendant has the constitutional right to represent themselves in court, and this right must be respected by the court.

13. Motion to Dismiss on Jurisdictional Grounds (February 11, 2025):

    • Violation: The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that neither jurisdiction has the legal authority to prosecute the case.
    • Relevant Case Law: United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (2011) – Proper jurisdiction is necessary to adjudicate a case, and prosecuting without jurisdiction violates the defendant’s due process rights.