Federal Bureau of Investigation
136 Federal Building
Erie, PA 16501

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter concerns a matter that I believe, under full consideration of the facts and circumstances, constitutes an ongoing obstruction of justice by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office.

Enclosed please find my letter of July 7, 1998, to the U.S. Department of Justice which is in regards to information I had previously provided to Senator Rick Santorum, and which he advised me had been forwarded to the Department of Justice. That department's response indicates that this information was not received by them.

Whatever the basis of this miscommunication, it appears the DOJ is of the opinion that your office is the appropriate agency to investigate these matters. While I believe either the DOJ of the FBI may properly exercise jurisdiction in this case, it would in fact seem more expedient that your agency at least conduct an initial review of this matter.

Speedy action has now become even more imperative as the case of Buckley v Brown appears to be moving forward at an unprecedented speed, with Mr. Brown waiving his preliminary hearing barely a month ago (May 29, 1998), and being formally arraigned July 9, 1998.

As stated in my letter to the DOJ, I believe the Attorney General's Office intends to offer a plea bargain which Mr. Brown will be unable to refuse. For reasons I believe I have made clear, I consider a plea bargain in this matter to be highly inappropriate, and in fact, totally unacceptable. I also believe it is an absolute necessity in furtherance of the Attorney General's efforts to obstruct justice in this case, and to avoid exposing his own collusion in these matters.

It is my understanding that the court has appointed attorney Elliot Segel to represent Mr. Brown in these proceedings. Mr. Segel was retained by Mr. Brown in the underlying matter of Com. v Brown, immediately prior to the dismissal of all charges in this case, and was therefore, I believe, instrumental in putting an end to that farce. He is also, or course, quite familiar with these matters.

Mr. Segel's office is, quite fortuitously, in close proximity to your own office, and I am certain he will prove invaluable in aiding in your understanding of these cases. He also appears to share my own opinion of these matters, at least as to the initial prosecution of Mr. Brown, and the conduct of Mr. Brown's prior attorneys.

I have no reason whatsoever to question the competency or integrity of Mr. Segel, and am in fact quite heartened by his appointment. It is true however that his primary duty is towards his client. As I have stated, I believe Mr. Brown is in a position to elicit an extremely favorable plea bargain (solely) as a result of the Attorney General's desire to avoid a public trial in this matter.

To summarize my position - I believe the Pennsylvania Attorney General's initial investigation of the Jay William Buckley prosecution (clearing all local law enforcement officials), to be an utter sham, and his subsequent refusal to prosecute the instant charges against Mr. Brown, including his endless, meritless appeals of the courts' orders to prosecute, constitute an obstruction of justice in his attempt to protect the corrupt law enforcement officials, and attorneys who have acted in collusion therewith, in the prosecution of both Jay Buckley and Michael Brown in the kidnap, rape, and murder of Kathy Wilson.

I further believe the actions of these officials and attorneys in that prosecution constitutes the commission of various crimes, including the obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, hindering apprehension, and conspiracy. Given the positions of these individuals as District Attorneys (Joseph Massa and Richard Hernan), and Public Defenders (John Aranyos, Thomas Bonavita, and Ross McKeirnan), I also feel their actions represent a grave threat to the administration of justice within the 37th Judicial District of Pennsylvania.

I believe a key fact for consideration here is the trial court's findings of sufficient evidence that the District Attorney and chief state police investigator both coached and coerced Mr. Brown's perjuries as to require the court's granting of Mr. Brown's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas (AFTER SENTENCING), which were entered pursuant to a negotiated plea based on the original (and very serious) charges of murder, and accomplice to kidnap and rape.

I am sure you are aware of the extremely heavy burden which the law places upon a defendant in proving the truth of his allegations, through facts of record, in order to prevail in such a motion. Mr. Brown has admitted (under oath) to 767 lies in connection with the investigation and prosecution of this case. Quite obviously the court's decision in granting his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was not based upon Mr. Brown's credibility. In fact, I find it quite significant that the court granted his motion despite Mr. Brown's total lack of credibility. Nor may it be said the trial court was partial towards Mr. Brown. In fact, the Attorney General filed a motion for Judge Wolfe to recuse based on that office's perception of the judge's prejudice against Mr. Brown.

The Attorney General's findings are, of course, in direct contradiction to the trial court's findings in granting Mr. Brown's motion. The superficial nature and questionable integrity of this report is readily apparent in that not once during his two-year investigation of these matters did the Attorney General interview either Mr. Buckley, or, more incredibly, Michael Brown. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has found the Attorney General's refusal to prosecute this case to have been perpetrated in "bad faith".

The filing of Mr. Buckley's private complaint was of course occasioned by the District Attorney's refusal to prosecute Mr. Brown in the first place for his (admitted) perjuries, etc., a totally inexplicable matter in itself, particularly in view of the rather obvious fact that Mr. Brown 's perjuries blew their case, a case which is quite arguably the most brutal, heinous, and sensational in all of Warren County history. And in which the District Attorney continued to assert it's belief that Buckley was the perpetrator, and that Brown was in fact an accomplice due to his recounting of "pertinent information of both the crime scene and of Buckley's heinous actions which only an eyewitness could recall."

It is simply outside the realm of credibility to believe the District Attorney's Office would refuse to prosecute Mr. Brown on either the original charges (murder/kidnap/rape), or for his perjuries under these circumstances for any reason other than to avoid exposing it's own culpability in these matters. It is further evident that the Attorney General, through his endless, frivolous, and indeed, "bad faith" appeals, has joined the District Attorney in his efforts to suppress evidence of these crimes.

My interest in these matters (in addition to a keen appreciation of the importance of the rights and protections of our constitution to the maintenance of a democratic society) stems from the fact that I myself am a victim of essentially this same type of conduct, and perpetrated by these same individuals. This is a matter which I intend to also bring to your attention for investigation as soon as possible

I recognize that your agency has no authority to order the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office to proceed to trial with this matter. It is my hope however that the initiation of an immediate investigation into these matters may serve to dissuade that office from furthering it's attempts to obstruct justice by negotiating a plea in the instant case of Buckley v Brown.

You are also invited to peruse these matters at our website at http://www.instantweb.com/v/vlr/ (The Village Law Review). This letter will also be presented in an HTML hyper-linked format which should prove most helpful in substantiating and clarifying the matters presented herein. Thank you for your time in consideration of these matters. Please advise me of your intentions.