The following complaint ‘has been’ filed with the Department of Justice through email and US Postal Service on this date June 4, 2021.
This complaint details the Department of Justice’s long held position of misprision when the ‘right’ person doesn’t want to be charged.
June 4, 2021
Attorney General Merrick Garland
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attorney General Garland;
The following is a formal complaint against the Department of Justice. This complaint is addressed against the following individuals and agencies and shall suffice as notice. This must be resolved immediately.
From April 20, 2021, some 44 days later we are now without a response, far exceeding the time requirements for presenting a FOIA request.
“This acknowledges your Freedom of Information Act request to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR routed your request to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) where it was received on April 16, 2021. Specifically, you are seeking “all charging decision documents” regarding your complaint made to the OIG. “
This is not just been a FOIA request for each of the crimes committed inside the included federal and state court cases. This is also a notification of serious federal felonies committed by DOJ employees, deprecation and utter destruction of Constitutionally guaranteed rights and a systemic lifestyle of corruption and easy protection of friends at the expense of not just civil case victims but the United States Judiciary as well.
INTRODUCTION:
It is not a coincidence the cases under question in this complaint have been handled pro se. There is no possibility that protecting friends or hiding law violations would ever have been attempted with a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. But with a pro se, self represented person or persons: prosecutors consider themselves safe and protected from any infringement on their extra-curricular activities.
NOT THIS TIME!
Ever since first entering the federal court system in 2004 we have managed to do what lawyers simply never do. We actually caught defense lawyers breaking federal laws against the United States Courts. The victims of those felonies include not only us, but the United States Judiciary Branch as well. Now we have caught prosecutors covering up those violations and it is up to you to put a public stop to charging corruption.
BACKGROUND:
From the Justice Manual » Title 9: Criminal 9-27.000 – Principles Of Federal Prosecution. Records of declined prosecutions are not optional. Failure or refusal to provide such records in a valid FOIA request sent to the DOJ OIG from the DOJ Department of Professional Responsibility raises two important issues.
9-27.270 – Records of Prosecutions Declined
Whenever an attorney for the government declines to commence or recommend federal prosecution, he/she should ensure that his/her decision and the reasons therefore are communicated to the investigating agency involved and to any other interested agency, and are also reflected in the office files to ensure an adequate record of disposition of matters that are brought to the attention of the government attorney for possible criminal prosecution, but that do not result in federal prosecution. When prosecution is declined in serious cases on the understanding that action will be taken by other authorities, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the matter receives their attention.
and…
Misprision is an illegal act 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony : when applied to what it actually means:
a : neglect or wrong performance of official duty
b : concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony
c : seditious conduct against the government or the courts [a]
In this instance not just us, but the courts and the government are the victims of outside illegal manipulation and influence.
More definitively defined as applied to this specific issue:
“Criminal neglect in respect to the crime of another: used especially in connection with felonies and treason, to indicate a passive complicity, as by concealment, which falls short of the guilt of a principal or accessory. More loosely, any grave offense or misdemeanor having no recognized fixed name, as maladministration in an office of public trust: also termed positive misprision, as distinguished from negative misprision, or mere neglect or concealment.” [b]
Here we are faced with a departmental systemic issue of both neglect and concealment through malfeasance and maladministration in offices of public trust. Every incident of illegal activity has been supported by direct evidence contained on open court dockets. Knowledge of the commission of federal felonies is guaranteed by the victim being the United States Courts. NO clerk or Judge would permit the desecration of the court as has been done here without demanding prosecution.
PROBABLE CAUSE:
“Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.
Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.” [3]
If probable cause exists, the question of prosecuting or not prosecuting MUST be made for each human participant individually. Presented with a case that has probable cause detailed by both sets of victims and reported by the court CANNOT BE IGNORED WITHOUT VIOLATING OATH AND LAW.
Every civil case in this complaint has been ignored, refused prosecution and hidden away for reasons that smack directly in the face of the prosecutor’s oath of office. Such acts have obstructed and interfered in the administration of justice and violated the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments among others.
Andrew Lu, writing in Findlaw.com on September 17, 2012 lists the “5 Reasons Prosecutors Drop Criminal Charges” [1]. In reality, there is a 6th reason.
1: Lack of Evidence. It’s not easy winning a criminal case. Prosecutors have the high burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. Even if it is likely that you committed a crime and there is some evidence linking you to the crime, it may not be enough to convict you. Instead, prosecutors need enough evidence to be almost certain that you are guilty, and without available evidence, prosecutors may drop the criminal charges.
2: Lack of Resources. The unfortunate reality is that prosecutors deal with a lot more crimes than they can prosecute. As a result, they usually allocate their resources to more high priority cases. So if you’ve been convicted of a relatively minor crime or if prosecutors are not certain if they can convict you, they may drop the charges.
3: First Time Offender. Related to lack of resources above, prosecutors may give you a pass if you’re accused of a minor crime and you have no criminal history.
4: Victim/Witness Do Not Come Forward. Oftentimes, the victim of the crime later changes his or her mind regarding whether to go after a suspect. While prosecutors ultimately make this decision, if they do not have any available witnesses, they may not be able to build a case.
5: Willingness to Cooperate. If you are willing to work with prosecutors to help them on other crimes or otherwise be of assistance, prosecutors may be willing to work out a deal where they drop the criminal charges in return.
The sixth reason is the focus of this complaint.
6: Somebody does not want the case known, let alone prosecuted. Such a condition should never exist in any justice system. Here is seems to rule the attitude of prosecutors.
Inside every prosecutor’s job in this country lies a simple premise: that a law violated is addressed only to the individual who violated it. A very simple and quite logical presumption. After all: if an individual has not violated a law there is no law violation. Without a violation there is no standing of a prosecutor to make any decision about charging anyone. Or not charging anyone. Failing to enforce a law is refusal to abide to the rule of law. Determining refusal to enforce whole laws is an affront to the separation of powers
In this country now we are viewing prosecutors everywhere make charging decisions based on the existence of a law, not the violation of a law. Whole categories of existing laws are being ignored and/or being refused to be prosecuted. Why? Well, there can only be a few possibilities.
1. The prosecutor does not like the law and does not care that refusing to enforce it violates the oath of office and usurps the power of the legislative branch.
2. The prosecutor is unable to perform the duties of the office.
3. Someone outside of the prosecutor’s office does not want the law to be enforced and the prosecutor has agreed to not do so.
#1 violates the oath of office and the separation of powers; #2 violates the oath of office; while #3 is a criminal act besides violating the oath of office. ALL of them, to some degree obstruct justice. #3 is pure obstruction of justice.
This trend derives from a well known and necessary authority and power of a prosecutor. The discretion that is required to be exercised in making a decision based on facts. All it takes is ignoring the facts. There is no accountability in the one very dangerous place in justice most ripe for corruption and outside influence.
A law has been proposed to solve this problem. See An Open Letter to Congressman Paul Gosar [2].
Taking that same discretion and pushing it well past its legal limits has resulted in just not enforcing existing law, as if the law was repealed. Which , of course, is only the legislature’s prerogative.
In the mean time, there are fully documented occurrences of improper and illegal refusal to prosecute whole crimes. The consequences thereof are vast. Individuals are not able to be considered to charge or not to charge as the crime itself is rejected. It is illegal for a person to know of the commission of a crime and not inform law enforcement. 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.” When the victim is a court the judge must tell a law enforcement agent of the crime. Judges do not break laws.
Likewise it SHOULD be illegal for a law enforcement agent once informed of a crime to not enforce that law and investigate that crime. It should likewise be illegal for a prosecutor to ignore the existence of the law violated and therefore ignore the violation of it. Without a recording of the decision process on both the charging (as it is required by policy to document charging decisions) and not charging the opportunity for corrupt influence is massive.
Since apparently no paper trail exists on any non charging decision, [Justice Manual » Title 9: Criminal 9-27.000 – Principles Of Federal Prosecution: “Whenever an attorney for the government declines to commence or recommend federal prosecution, he/she should ensure that his/her decision and the reasons therefore are communicated to the investigating agency involved and to any other interested agency, and are also reflected in the office files to ensure an adequate record of disposition of matters that are brought to the attention of the government attorney for possible criminal prosecution, but that do not result in federal prosecution. When prosecution is declined in serious cases on the understanding that action will be taken by other authorities, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the matter receives their attention:” on purpose (it cannot be to protect the accused as names can be referenced to data only accessible through a court order,) the only way to identify if such activity has been improperly or illegally performed or not performed is with circumstantial evidence. Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but instead on an attendant circumstance. All of these cases have been withheld by the Department of Justice, informing the courts to not publish while at the same time doing nothing making the information provided to the courts to be perjury.
Between 2002 and 2005 J. Strohm Thurmond, U.S. Attorney for South Carlina, then South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, the FBI, DOJ Civil Rights Division and the EEOC and FCC were involved in the knowledge of crimes committed against the United States of America Judicial Branch and others. Those crimes were reported to law enforcement by the South Carolina District Court itself. The court stopped publication of the outcome of the case, obviously due to notice of a pending criminal parallel proceeding (involving the suit’s counter-claim not the original case). Not one charge was filed. Not one complaint was fulfilled and the court was never notified of any action that would have released the publication of the case. Since then, statutes of limitations have long expired for all of the criminal activity against the court in that case, without charges. There was ample evidence, the FBI had the resources, first time offenders do not apply to attacking a court in a criminal manner, a victim came forward with evidence, both the court and the plaintiff victim were more than willing to cooperate (as has been indicated by the years and years of waiting.)
In 2011, in Arizona State Superior Court in Pinal County, a medical malpractice case was defaulted due to bribery of court clerks. Statutes of limitations have expired on those crimes yet that case is still withheld from publication. That withholding, performed illegally is the subject of the Phoenix District Court case.
Then, as if to promulgate the notion that nothing is done legally in the DOJ: in 2016 the exact same criminal activity as the 4th circuit took place in the Phoenix District Court where mail was stolen by someone interested enough to affect the case outcome. The court informed law enforcement and: The court stopped publication of the outcome of the case, obviously due to notice of a pending criminal parallel proceeding. Not one charge was filed. Not one complaint was fulfilled and the court was never notified of any action that would have released the publication of the case. Since then, statutes of limitations have long expired for all of the criminal activity against the court in that case, without charges. There was ample evidence, the FBI had the resources, first time offenders do not apply to attacking a court in a criminal manner, a victim came forward with evidence, the court collected evidence and worked with the postal inspectors to generate a sting operation, both the court and the plaintiff victim were more than willing to cooperate (as has been indicated by the years and years of waiting.)
It continued with more mail theft in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (a total of FIVE thefts of US Mail belonging to the US Courts; where a ‘sting’ operation through the court to the postal inspectors caught the 5th mail theft on record) and it escalated with the state of Arizona, through its Attorney General using Google as a State Actor to censor the Phoenix District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals from all world wide search results, while he was up for re-election and his wife was up for appointment to a federal judge’s position (since appointed by President Trump.) Michael G. Bailey’s wife was under consideration for a state appeals court bench appointment. She received that appointment while he was under consideration for a U.S. Attorney’s position. Only this one case was censored and they used a children’s book copyright claim as the tool to hide the pages listing only this case. Lumen Database provided the mechanism to hide anything by cloaking it inside a copyright claim for a book publication.
Since then the two Arizona assistant Attorneys General who conducted the ninth circuit cases for the state have been severed from employment. The one person with authority to oversee those crimes and was supervisor of the attorneys, Michael G. Baily, was appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Trump (the position in place to hide the rest of the infractions and cover up the entire event.) The Pinal County Court Clerk was forced to resign in disgrace. County Attorney Kent Volkmer and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich are still in office , even after re-election.
The DOJ, the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility have all been involved in these issues and have completely failed to do anything about any of it. FOIA was filed with your department and handed to the OIG’s office for response. None has been forthcoming well after the law’s time limit.
The 4th circuit crimes are long gone, but the 9th circuit crimes are still active, still prosecutable , still able to be held to justice but it is not being done and the cases withheld from these illegal notices of parallel proceedings have grown by millions of dollars of interest since defaulting. All cases are defaults. Fourth, Circuit, Arizona Superior, Ninth Circuit. All defaulted.
THE COMPLAINT:
The Department of Justice has repeatedly, on purpose, with intent to defraud both US Court districts and appeals courts, as well as defraud and destroy Constitutional rights of all Plaintiffs involved in all of these civil cases, illegally hid the existence of criminal activity, protected the identification of accused criminals and criminally withheld publication of Hempfling v LM Communications et.al., 4th circuit; Hempfling v CVDC Holdings LLC et.al. Pinal County Superior Court and Hempfling v Volkmer et.al. in the Ninth circuit. The DOJ has repeatedly demonstrated a concerted intent to deprive due process, equal protection from the Plaintiffs in these civil cases and is now faced with a critical moment:
Existing law violations pending charges from Phoenix District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can still be filed or rejected. Either way will do. The problem has not been what the decision is about individual criminal charges, it has been that no such effort has ever taken place or if it has, no court has ever been told officially to stop withholding final orders and opinions of these cases. It is up to you to investigate whether your staff has violated law for years with this customary refusal to prosecute friends.
Either issue written instructions to all courts and copied to me, that publication of opinions and orders is no longer withheld or issue written instructions to all courts and copied to me ,that the 4th circuit case is released for failure to prosecute and the ninth circuit and Arizona cases are being evaluated and will be released when the charging decision is made within 30 days of receipt of this complaint.
Bill Barr, Mike Pence and Donald J Trump were advised in writing of these crimes. Did they, as soon as possible, make the crimes known to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States?
While the United States Judicial Branch is the primary victim of serious crimes against both the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit courts, we are likewise victims of those crimes; while suffering the misprision of our cases’ treatment by the Department of Justice.
To our knowledge and belief throughout the entire legal process since 2004 the courts have been above board and honest. The crimes committed against those courts have been illegally ignored by your department in a direct failure to protect the Constitution of the United States. THAT is a crisis.
Release our civil cases Mr Garland. We are quite willing to drop these concerns and allow you to police your own department as long as our cases are released.
You have 30 days to do that.
Lee Kent Hempfling
___/S/__________________________
xxxxxxxxx Apache Junction, AZ 85120
xxx-xxx-xxxx
This complaint is publicly published at:
https://leehempfling.com/legal/corruption/official-complaint-against-the-department-of-justice-for-systemic-constitutional-violations/
[a] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misprision
[b] https://www.wordnik.com/words/misprision
[1] https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/09/5-reasons-prosecutors-drop-criminal-charges.html
[2] https://leehempfling.com/featured/open-letter-to-congressman-paul-gosar/
[3] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause