We have had FOUR federal cases held up due to parallel criminal proceedings. One since 2006! A Superior Court case from 2014. The rest since early 2018. Held up due to criminal activity loosely connected or actually committed inside the appeals trial by State and County defendants.
United States v Stringer sets up a parallel case procedure. The 9th Circuit anchored its decision in the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Kordel, which stated the government can conduct parallel civil and criminal investigations without violating the due process clause so long as it does not act in bad faith.
“The impact of the Stringer decision on how counsel should approach the defense of a civil investigation cannot be under¬stated. Defense attorneys must be aware that their clients can potentially, and unknowingly, waive their Fifth Amendment rights after they are given minimal notice by civil investigators. Thus, even if a government investigation appears to be merely civil in nature, an astute defense attorney must anticipate the possibility that the civil attorneys are working with, or taking direction from, prosecutors seeking to build a criminal case. Counsel also must realize that, simply because the existence of criminal investigation is not readily apparent, does not mean that one is not underway, especially if their clients are cooperating with civil investigators. Indeed, Stringer allows criminal and civil investigators to conceal a significant amount of collaboration and joint strategic planning without triggering concerns that the government is acting in bad faith.”
So, what is bad faith? Legally.
A pretty simple definition actually.
“The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation.”
“Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can make an honest mistake about one’s own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith.
The existence of bad faith can minimize or nullify any claims that a person alleges in a lawsuit. Punitive Damages, attorney’s fees, or both, may be awarded to a party who must defend himself or herself in an action brought in bad faith.
Bad faith is a term commonly used in the law of contracts and other commercial dealings, such as Commercial Paper, and in Secured Transactions. It is the opposite of Good Faith, the observance of reasonable standards of fair dealings in trade that is required of every merchant.
A government official who selectively enforces a nondiscriminatory law against the members of a particular group or race, thereby violating the Civil Rights of those individuals, is acting in bad faith.
bad faith
1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a “bad faith” contract or “bad faith” offer. (See: good faith, fraud, clean hands doctrine)”
Straight forward and if the evidence is clear and present and unimpeachable, then: conviction.
So how is this whole disaster of legal cases now rapped up in bad faith?
Michael G. Bailey. U.S. Attorney for Arizona is not only the prosecutor in Arizona and in charge of the cases being withheld, but he is ALSO the supervisor of lawyers who committed crimes inside and outside of trial in the 9th Circuit directly under his supervision.
A man directs others to commit crimes AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND US! then leaves and takes the position responsible for withholding the adjudication of those crimes.
It is not possible to be more bad faith than that.
What are the consequences of bad faith? (A Brady Violation just means the prosecutor has withheld something to the benefit of the defendant. ) “A criminal conviction threatens a defendant’s freedom and liberty, so it stands to reason that federal law acts as a watchdog over proceedings to ensure fair trials. The Brady Rule, named after a 1963 case decided by the United States Supreme Court, governs discovery issues in criminal trials. Under its terms, the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense; this is evidence that is favorable to the defendant and, therefore, might exonerate him, or impeach the credibility of a state witness. The evidence must be material to the case, meaning that if it were divulged prior to or during the trial, it would affect the verdict.”
When one thinks of prosecutorial misconduct involving a Brady violation one thinks of evidence in favor of the defendant being hidden. This issue is exactly the opposite but still the same thing.
This is a prosecutor withholding not only evidence but final court case rulings that directly implicate the U.S. Attorney withholding the cases. This, is prosecutorial misconduct to favor the prosecutor/ Far worse than a Brady violation. Especially when the 9th Circuit Court itself is the criminal victim.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as: “The opposite of ‘good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fuliill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive. Hiigenberg v. Northup, 134 Ind. 92, 33 N. E. 780; Morton v. Immigration Ass’n, 79 Ala. 617; Coleman v. Billings, 89 111. 191; Lewis v. Holmes, 109 La. 1030, 34 South. 66, 61 L. R. A. 274; Harris v. Harris, 70 Pa. 174; Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Trust Co., 73 Fed. 653, 19 C. C. A. 310, 38 L. R. A. 33, 70; Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 230.”
While bad faith is usually a difficult proof; the only requirements here are geographic. Bailey was in charge of the attorneys who lied in court, filed false documents, stole U.S. Mail from the COURT and conspired with Google to block the case from being found in Google world-wide search. All of that is true. Now, since May of this year the United States Attorney for Arizona has not only been obstructing justice but also committing a continuous bad faith concealment of legal cases in direct violation of Stringer and Kordel.
If I was an attorney (WHICH I AM THANKFULLY NOT!) I would be looking very deeply at defending against Bailey’s coming onslaught of hidden cases through the eyes of the poisonous tree.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well. “
But rotten fruit, poisoned fruit can fall from a tree for more than just illegally obtained evidence. If evidence is tainted through violation of another’s civil rights the rotten fruit extends into every single thing touched by that act. Michael G. Bailey’s continued holding of the position of U.S. Attorney has destroyed the work done by that office for anything remotely connected to anything legal that man has done in office.
“The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term’s first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).[5]
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[6] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the “attenuation doctrine”[7], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated. For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently “attenuate” the connection between the government’s illegal discovery of the witness and the witness’s voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))[citation needed]
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.[8] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.[9]
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).”
So how does the doctrine match non-evidence issues?
ANY legal activity by Michael G. Bailey since taking office is a tainted source. That makes everything rotten.
The discovery of this literal double obstruction would be self evident once cases are published. Therefore they are withheld.
There is NO good faith exception to a person holding a position, controlling a series of cases and withholding those cases to stop his former boss and co-workers from being in legal jeopardy. Using the power of the office of the US Attorney to protect self and co-conspirators.
Every act, failure to act, withheld legal opinion, discretion based prosecution has been made filthy with the stench of corruption.
Prosecutors acting as defense lawyers DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS A PROSECUTOR ACTING AS A PROSECUTOR! Or is this the Soviet union?
The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General Investigations Division has confirmed receipt of the submission made to them in regard to this illegal activity by a U.S. Attorney.
It will be the right time soon to take all of this before a completely DIFFERENT COURT.