| Letter to attorney Elliot Segel |
|
April 18, 1999 Gary Lauffenberger9 ½ Schantz Street Warren, PA 16365
Elliot J. Segel, Esq.
Re: Michael Reuben Brown Dear Mr. Segel, You may recall speaking with me following Michael’s sentencing on October 9, 1998. I have an avid interest in the cases of Mr. Buckley and Mr. Brown and have been investigating them for some time. This letter is to advise that I have obtained transcripts of Mr. Brown’s evidentiary hearing of September 4, 1991, which have never appeared of record. In fact, the official record does not even indicate the existence of this hearing. These transcripts are significant both in their content, and in the circumstances of their absence. These circumstances include the highly improper manner in which they have been handled, as well as Ms. Kosinski’s obstruction of my efforts to locate these transcripts, as a result of which it has taken eight months for me to obtain them. Ms. Kosinski has advised me (verbally) that the Attorney General has had these transcripts and that they were never in her possession. You may also note that these transcripts were never approved and directed to be filed by Judge Wolfe. This of course raises several very serious questions, initially, at least, with regard to the actions of Mr. Charles Rapp (Court Reporter), Judge Wolfe, and the Office of the Attorney General, concerning their action which resulted in the Attorney General’s Office being in possession of these documents by such highly irregular means. The content of these transcripts, and the circumstances of their absence are furthermore but one aspect of what I consider a continuing effort by the Commonwealth to suppress the fact, the true nature, and the full extent of it’s own involvement in the subornation and coercion of Michael Brown’s perjures, obstruction of justice, etc., as well as the collusive involvement of Michael’s attorneys in these crimes. A similar matter concerns the fact that all of Michael Brown’s police statements are missing from the record, as well as a great number of other documents and exhibits. This appears to be the result of the improper removal from the record by the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and/or the unlawful transfer to what I believe to be a phony “new task force” established by the Pennsylvania State Police in Meadville, Pa.
In addition to these highly irregular and unresolved circumstances, the content of these transcripts presents clear evidence of both the Commonwealth’s unlawful actions, and of Mr. Brown’s attorney’s collusion therewith, and most specifically, their efforts to cover up their (initial) collusion during these proceedings as indicated by these transcripts. I don’t expect it is necessary that I point out every aspect or instance of this matter supporting such an assertion. It is essentially my position that this entire proceeding is a grotesque parody that literally reeks of fraud and collusion on it’s very face. One aspect revealed by these transcripts that is of particular significance however, is the fact that Mr. Brown’s attorney (Bonavita), stated in his subsequent brief that Trooper Herzog had admitted during this hearing to having advised Michael Brown that “the blouse seemed to have been taken off nicely and the skirt was ripped off the victim.“ The disturbing fact is that these transcripts, at least the ones I have obtained, contain no mention of such an admission. In fact, attorney Bonavita’s inquiry of Trooper Herzog during this hearing never even approaches such an issue. It is also notable that attorney Bonavita’s assertion was never challenged by the district attorney, nor questioned by Judge Wolfe. There are also numerous other representations by attorney Bonavita in his brief concerning the testimony at this hearing that are at variance with these transcripts. 1 The fundamental question raised by this particular discrepancy is whether attorney Bonavita has intentionally misrepresented material facts to the court, and of course his purpose in doing so, or whether these transcripts have been altered. This specific matter is also particularly significant in that it was the fact that Michael’s statement of having removed Mrs. Wilson’s blouse and bra was corroborated by the physical evidence (condition of blouse, bra, and skirt) that constituted the basis of Trooper Herzog’s probable cause for Mr. Brown’s arrest. Trooper Herzog furthermore testified that it was such facts “that led him to believe Brown told the truth about unbuttoning Wilson's blouse and removing her bra.” 2 Obviously, an officer cannot rely upon the fact that a defendant’s statements are corroborated by physical evidence as providing probable cause - when that officer has himself provided information concerning the nature of that evidence to the defendant. Trooper Herzog’s testimony would also appear to constitute perjury in that he testified both at this hearing, and the trial of Jay Buckley that he had never provided crime scene information to Michael Brown. _________________________
1 One such discrepancy concerns an assertion by Mr. Bonavita in his supporting brief that Janet Brown stated during this hearing that the (apparently) secret meetings at the courthouse with Trooper Herzog, et. al., occurred on eight different occasions, a fact also stated by yourself at Michael’s sentencing hearing of October 9, 1998.
These transcripts do not, in fact, indicate such a statement by Mrs. Brown.
2 See Herzog’s testimony at Buckley’s trial of May 23, 1991.
Another very troubling matter brought to light by these transcripts concerns this matter of probable cause as it relates to the circumstances surrounding the limousine ride provided by the authorities to Mr. Brown on the date of his arrest. These transcripts indicate clear contradictions between District Attorney Hernan’s and Trooper Hergog’s testimony regarding Trooper Herzog’s knowledge of the limousine which indicates the commission of perjury by either Hernan or Herzog. These transcripts, in fact, indicate the falsity of the entire premise of the Commonwealth’s position and assertions regarding these events. These transcripts also show that in his testimony at this hearing, District Attorney Richard Hernan readily admits that the limousine ride was arranged by himself as a “ruse” for the express purpose of avoiding a potential future defense issue regarding an illegal extradition. 3 But in his next breath he denies that he intended to effect an arrest on that day. Trooper Herzog also testified that he had no intention of arresting Michael Brown on this particular day, and that he had no probable cause to do so. In fact, the probable cause statement set forth by Trooper Herzog in the warrant for Michael Brown’s arrest indicates Michael’s statements concerning his removing the blouse and bra (as corroborated by the physical evidence) as the basis of probable cause for his arrest. This information was in fact provided by Michael Brown in a statement to Herzog on October 6, 1989! It is patently clear that both Trooper Herzog and District Attorney Hernan most certainly did intend to arrest Michael Brown on this particular day, and that they committed perjury in their effort to deny that fact. A primary question raised by these apparent inconsistent, illogical, and perjurious statements is of course - why the district attorney and chief state police investigator would lie about such matters.
Although the fact that all of Mr. Brown’s written and taped statements have been removed from the record makes it difficult to put these matters together (as obviously intended), newspaper accounts of Trooper Herzog’s testimony indicate that the statement provided by Michael Brown
on the day of his arrest (October 10, 1989) indicated that the victim had
“bolted to the right”
upon the trio’s arrival at the crime scene and was then and there involved in a physical incident with Buckley in a location that was corroborated by a single earring found in that area.
This information, provided in a statement by Michael Brown on October 10, 1989, and according to Herzog’s testimony, the basis of probable cause to arrest Michael Brown (on that date), was in fact
_________________________
I believe these transcripts also shed new, and convincing light on the false and corrupt nature of these entire (plea withdrawal) proceedings, beginning with Judge Wolfe’s quite incredible appointment of attorney Bonavita to represent Mr. Brown at the post-conviction level (given the prevailing circumstances, and the nature of Michael’s assertions), Bonavita’s efforts to avoid this evidentiary hearing altogether, his mis-representations of the content of the tapes, the complete and mutual mis-focus of these entire proceedings, and attorney Bonavita’s ludicrously inept examination of witnesses and the relevent issues at this hearing. It seems clear that the Commonwealth’s suppression of these transcripts has operated to deprive Michael of evidence critical to his defense 4 on these charges, perjury, etc., and that they constitute new evidence of a sufficiently material nature as to require the granting of a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Obviously, the facts and realities as indicated by these transcripts have not been properly recognized heretofore. In his correspondence Michael has indicated (quite forcefully) his continued desire to seek the withdrawal of his guilty pleas, and his inability to contact you concerning these matters. I have myself contacted your office by telephone several weeks ago and notified your secretary of the existence and somewhat of the nature of these transcripts. These matters concern me as they relate to my own case, which involves circumstances very similar to those of Michael Brown, particularly as to the collusion of the office of the public defender with the district attorney’s office in the withholding of exculpatory evidence, and other such matters designed to coerce my guilty pleas. As well as their mutual efforts in assuring that I serve a blatantly illegal sentence. I also believe each of these cases indicate in varying degrees the collusion of Judge Wolfe and the office of the Clerk of Courts in these matters. In short, together they indicate the corruption of the entire 37th Judicial District. Another, and even more disturbing similarity lies in the very apparent collusion of other Commonwealth agencies in assisting, and in covering up the unlawful, unconstitutional, and in fact subversive intentions and actions of this corrupt alliance. In Mr. Brown’s case, it is clear that three successive administrations of the State Attorney General’s office have joined in the effort to suppress the fact of these unlawful actions and collusions - in their superficial investigation and determined efforts to avoid Mr. Brown’s prosecution altogether, as well as the Attorney General’s unlawful removal of extremely key evidence from the record. I believe you are aware of the vast scope of the complicity of numerous other police agencies, at least as to their silence in these matters. _________________________
4 That defense being of course that he was forced to commit these crimes through the unlawful actions and collusion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and his own attorneys, Aranyos, MxKeirnan, and Bonavita, in suborning, coaching, and in fact coercing these false statements and testimony through his own false prosecution.
In my own case, the inherent complicity of other Commonwealth agencies is apparent in the actions of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation & Parole in denying my right to apply for parole at one-half of my maximum sentence, as required by law, and to ensure that I serve this entire blatantly illegal sentence. An even more serious occurrence concerns the Superior Court’s handling of the appellate proceedings of my case, including their permitting my repeated and absolute abandonment by counsel (Ross W. McKeirnan), and that court’s utter fabrication of an additional two years beyond the sentence the court had actually imposed, as well as their equally absurd fabrication that the illegal portion of my sentence had been eliminated. My primary purpose in pursuing these matters is to obtain a high level federal investigation of these entire matters. Specifically, it is my position that the seriousness of these matters warrant an investigation by the Congress of the United States. Without hyperbole, I believe these matters raise the question of whether the Constitution, and the rule of law still exists in Pennsylvania, or whether Pennsylvania is in fact a rogue state. Given your knowledge of this case, and your well respected position as an attorney at law, your joining in our call for such an investigation would of course be most helpful, and very much appreciated. If you visit my site, you will note that I have written numerous letters to our elected officials previously concerning these issues. It appears that either I have failed to impress upon them the seriousness of this situation, or perhaps they do not view my assertions as credible, or do not wish to view them as such. Obviously, your speaking out on these matters would remedy any of these conditions. Also, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning any of the matters presented herein. Due to my schedule it may be best to leave your number and a time for me to call you the following day.
E-mail: gdl@penn.com Web: http://www.instantweb.com/v/vlr/ (The Village Law Review)
|