dereliction

The 9th Circuit, in 1993 said it most accurately by Circuit Judge Alex KOZINSKI in United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1324: (citations omitted) (“Much of what the United States Attorney’s office does isn’t open to public scrutiny or judicial review. It is therefore particularly important that the government discharge its responsibilities fairly, consistent with due process. The overwhelming majority of prosecutors are decent, ethical, honorable lawyers who understand the awesome power they wield, and the responsibility that goes with it.”).

The overwhelming majority of complaints regarding a prosecutor centers on an act by the prosecutor. That act is a part of prosecutorial discretion. It involves a charging decision. The optimum word here is ‘decision’. A ‘decision’ is the act or process of deciding . It is a determination arrived at after consideration. Consideration must exist before a ‘decision’ can be rendered. The act of discretion requires such consideration. Failure to consider at all is not protected by discretion. It is in fact, mis or malfeasance or nonfeasance.

Before any consideration can take place the prosecutor must receive information about an alleged crime. If it is known by the prosecutor that a crime had been alleged (whether by legal inference or direct knowledge, weighed by the source of the allegation) then the powers and authority of the prosecutor take over. A great deal of jurisprudence has been generated over the years regarding that possession and the decision arising from it. In “What is Prosecutorial Discretion?” written by the staff at FindLaw November 12, 2019: “Prosecutorial discretion is when a prosecutor has the power to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime, and which criminal charges to file.”

The term “prosecutorial discretion” refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and nonrenewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges. This authority provides the essential underpinning to the prevailing practice of plea bargaining, and guarantees that American prosecutors are among the most powerful of public officials. It also provides a significant opportunity for leniency and mercy in a system that is frequently marked by broad and harsh criminal laws, and, increasingly in the last decades of the twentieth century, by legislative limitations on judges’ sentencing discretion.

We fully support and do not argue against the use of prosecutorial discretion.

If the prosecutor neglects to render a decision, ignores the information or in any other way fails to address those allegations the topic has been changed from what a prosecutor can and should do, and cannot do, to why the prosecutor did nothing. Nothing is not an option of prosecutorial discretion. It is Prosecutorial Neglect.

A failure to act (Prosecutorial Indiscretion) is when a person or party has a duty to perform a certain act, but does not end up doing so. Prosecutors have a duty to exercise discretion and when they fail to do so the very failure can only be considered a refusal to prosecute. It is a binary option. There are no various degrees of prosecute or not. The Prosecutorial Antagonist.

There is a massive difference between the decision through legal discretion not to prosecute, and the failure to even consider a decision: resulting in not prosecuting. The decision creates a trail of action. The lack of a decision buries the allegation. Prosecutorial Concealment.

When the allegation has bearing on constitutional rights not a part of the allegation, that require a trail of action : a failure to consider will have dire consequences to that condition. Prosecutorial Benightedism.

When a civil case identifies violations of law and those violations are against the court in which the civil case is being tried, there is no way on this planet any competent court would not have reported those violations to law enforcement. To the prosecutor. When the prosecutor, having been so advised fails to act upon those allegations it is negligence of the highest order. Prosecutorial Discourtesy.

To establish a prima facie case for negligence, there are four elements that must exist:

1. The existence of a legal obligation owed by one party to another
2. Proof of breach of the aforementioned duty
3. Proof that the wronged party (also known as the plaintiff) suffered an injury
4. Evidence that it was the acts of the defendant that caused the plaintiff’s injury

1. A prosecutor has a legal obligation to consider allegations presented to him or her for potential prosecution. “In light of the prosecutor’s public responsibilities, broad authority and discretion, the prosecutor has a heightened duty of candor to the courts and in fulfilling other professional obligations.” Standard 3-1.4 The Prosecutor’s Heightened Duty of Candor Fourth Edition (2017) of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS for the PROSECUTION FUNCTION American Bar Association. The trail of action is all that exists to know if a prosecutor has performed his or her job, regardless of the decision. The prosecutor has a duty to enforce the law while exercising sound discretion.

While a prosecutor does not have an obligation to file charges he or she in the least, has an obligation to consider. Prosecutorial Indifference. Without such obligation the job of prosecutor would not be needed, nor would the position carry such import to be nearly royal in power. “(a) In order to fully implement the prosecutor’s functions and duties, including the obligation to enforce the law while exercising sound discretion, the prosecutor is not obliged to file or maintain all criminal charges which the evidence might support.” Standard 3-4.4 Discretion in Filing, Declining, Maintaining, and Dismissing Criminal Charges Fourth Edition (2017) of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS for the PROSECUTION FUNCTION American Bar Association.

2. While it is impossible to prove a negative; it is very possible to prove the lack of a positive. Cases held in limbo in the South Carolina United States District Court; the Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals; the Arizona Superior Court; the Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two; the Arizona Supreme Court; the Arizona United States District Court (2 cases) and the Ninth United States Circuit Court of Appeals are in such limbo directly because of crimes committed during those trials or prior to them. Such crimes are known to have _not_ violated 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” directly because the victims of those crimes are COURTS. Plaintiffs are likewise victims of those crimes. There being no way on this planet that a court of law would let stand a violation of law against it can only show proof of the break of the aforementioned duty. Prosecutorial Insolence.

3. The injury suffered by plaintiffs is calculable. Having prevailed, as a matter of law in each of the aforementioned cases held in limbo, Plaintiffs have suffered direct financial injuries for not having had the opportunity to collect the award amounts required by law. Those responsible for crimes committed against the United States and Arizona State Courts have enjoyed continued immunity while the courts and the Plaintiffs have suffered through the inability of courts to publish and therefore enforce their opinions. Prosecutorial Repugnance.

4. Regardless of the method employed by individual courts to conceal existing opinions, existing mandates and existing awards from public view (and that of the parties to all of the cases) it cannot be assumed, nor can it be even inferred that any of the courts involved, let alone all of the courts involved: consciously, with premeditated intent have withheld 14th Amendment Due Process rights of the Plaintiffs and likewise disregarded their own integrity as a victim of crimes. Such corruption just does not exist in American Courts. With all of the documented corruption contained and overtaking the other two branches of the United States Government, the Judicial Branch is exactly as Chief Justice John Roberts stated: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

We are. But we are also at the mercy of prosecutors who have failed to perform their duty. A total lack of Prosecutorial Fiduciary Irresponsibility. We are not concerned with whether a prosecutor has, after careful consideration decided not to charge a single soul in any federal crime caught during and before and after the aforementioned legal cases. That is the job a prosecutor is charged with performing. We are concerned and deeply damaged by a collection of prosecutors who have together, or separately, failed to perform the single most important duty of their office and in so failing to do so have left all of our cases stuck in judicial limbo. Prosecutorial Indirect Contempt. Whether the failure was by accident, or by excusable neglect (misfeasance) or by a conscious act of refusal to let go of cases for some nefarious reason (malfeasance or nonfeasance) the end result is the same.

As of this date, the Arizona Superior Court Judgment is 3,160 days hidden with crimes against that court and Plaintiffs from bribery of its clerks. An illegal hold in that court is 2,469 days old. The main Arizona District Court case has been held in limbo for 972 days with crimes against the court and Plaintiffs through the United States Postal Service and the Google search engine. The 9th Circuit Court opinions have been held for 975 days with crimes against the court and Plaintiffs the same as the Arizona District Court cases. 921 days ago the last of some five known United States Postal Service stolen court filings was reported to the Appeals Court. Totals as of 12/27/2020. See the front page of https://leehempfling.com for daily updated day counts and lost recovery amount.

The South Carolina District Court has had its real order in limbo for 5,598 days plus, with crimes against the Court and Plaintiffs involving deep national security direct action from outside control of government functions.

In the South Carolina District Court (The 4th Circuit Appeals opinion is hidden from the docket) the method of reverse logic was employed. The order posted to the docket has reversed the allegations and the findings from Defendants to Plaintiff. The counter-claim filed by defendants in that action has never been ruled on, and is the document containing the information of deep national security crimes. The South Carolina district court case was a simple and typical employment discrimination case. In the Arizona Superior Court the order was a conformed copy regarding the defaulted civil case due to bribery of court clerks. It was a ‘placeholder’ and would be replaced with the real order according to the then sitting Clerk of Court. The Arizona Superior Court case was a dental (medical) malpractice case. The Ninth Circuit opinion is missing from the docket yet it mandated without party knowledge. The same applies to the Arizona District court in both of its cases.

All of those cases are held in limbo. From where are they held? Prosecutorial Impertinence. Courts are far more inclined to dispose of cases not hide them. None have been disposed. Only a prosecutor or series of prosecutors informing the court to not publish opinions for parallel criminal proceedings could have stopped all of the cases. Prosecutorial Exploitation?

Not giving consideration, due or flippant to discretion, but rather ignoring the cases into oblivion is a direct affront to the very task of a prosecutor and a horrible concerted and collective cess pool of violations of Due Process. Prosecutorial Imprudence.

At this point in time, statues of limitations have run out on the crimes in both the 4th Circuit and Arizona state courts and have probably run out in the 9th Circuit cases as well, making the hold still in effect on all of those cases: suspect, if not outright illegal.

There can be only one remedy: the courts must force the United States Justice Department to stop withholding permission of the courts to publish. If an outside source of legal import was not responsible for stopping publications in all of the mentioned courts, Chief Justice Roberts would have been wrong. There is no way he could have been wrong.

Prosecutorial mismanagement. Prosecutorial Dereliction.