ALASKA - STATE of CORRUPTION

ALASKA - STATE of CORRUPTION

Listen to the case of a man so railroaded by a corrupt judicial system and good ole boys network that it will literally turn your stomach. While you do peruse the update below. If we as a people do not stand for each-other, no one will be left to stand for us when this occurs.
 #ItMattersHowYouStand

A FULL UPDATE of this INSANE Corruption -

On March 21, 2018, Kenai grand juror Ray Southwell tried to disclose, to the other grand jurors, his reason to believe crimes were committed that were triable by the court. Grand juror Southwell also tried to disclose, to the other jurors, his reasons to believe that the public welfare and safety was in danger.

Kenai District Attorney Scot Leaders refused to allow grand juror Southwell to disclose his reasons to the rest of the grand jurors. DA Leaders then asked Kenai Superior Court Judge Jennifer Wells to order grand juror Southwell not to ever disclose his reasons to the other jurors.

Judge Wells, in a closed and locked courtroom, personally told grand juror Southwell that he was permanently prohibited from disclosing his reasons to the other jurors – even after it was revealed some information he wished to share with the other grand jurors was evidence that DA Leaders had committed felony crimes to convict defendants and to later cover this up.

Additional information grand juror Southwell wished to disclose to the other jurors included evidence that the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct (and its sole 28-year judge investigator Marla Greenstein) is falsifying official investigations so corrupt judges, against whom valid complaints have been made, can continue to sit in judgement on we the people. This information also included evidence ACJC/Greenstein falsified certified documents to keep everything covered up and evidence that judges across the state – Homer, Kenai, Anchorage, McGrath, etc. – have committed felony crimes the ACJC/Greenstein covered up.

We believe DA Leaders and Judge Wells committed felony crimes of jury tampering and obstruction of justice when they prevented grand juror Southwell from disclosing, to the other jurors, his reasons to believe DA Leaders, ACJC/Greenstein, and other officials have committed felony crimes against the public and are now working together to keep this covered up.

Our belief is based on Alaska Statute 12.40.040, which simply states:

Alaska Statute 12.40.040: “If an individual grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime has been committed that is triable by the court, the juror shall disclose it to the other jurors, who shall investigate it.”

Additional proof that grand juror Southwell had a right, and by law a duty, to present his reasons to the other grand jurors, is described below in Alaska’s Constitution and in the Alaska Judicial Council report “The Investigative Grand Jury in Alaska”

On Saturday, April 21, starting at 10 am in the Soldotna Reginal Sports Complex (Sports Center), Mr. Southwell will present the evidence he was prevented from presenting to his fellow grand jurors. We humbly beg everyone possible attend to look at, listen to, and question the evidence as if they themselves were grand jurors. If people are persuaded there is merit and/or reason, we will ask they sign a petition demanding the governor, legislature, and/or courts convene a special grand jury with statewide jurisdiction tasked solely with investigating Alaska’s judicial system - starting with the evidence grand juror Southwell was prevented from presenting to his fellow jurors - with former federal prosecutor Henry F. Schuelke (who conducted the corruption investigation into Senator Ted Stevens’ prosecution) as the special grand jury’s legal counsel. A like special grand jury was convened to investigate Watergate. It indicted 69 people.

Without doubt, the grand jury’s right to investigate government wrongdoing independently of the district attorney/government is the tool we have looked so long for to address the corruption growing within Alaska’s judicial system.

On Friday, April 6 at 4 pm Mr. Southwell and I will be a guest on KSRM’s 920 AM radio program “Bird’s Eye View” (streamed at “radiokenai.com”) to talk about what has occurred and to invite everyone to the Soldotna Sports Center on April 21 to see the evidence. Please listen in.

We could use help paying for the Sports Complex rental, refreshments (water, soda), etc. But where we really need help is in getting the word out. Forward this email on to everyone you possibly can. Make and forward posts to every Facebook, Twitter, etc. group you can. If you can distribute flyers (we are working on them or you can make your own) let us know. Write and submit notices to the papers. Call radio programs. Anything you can think of.

I was tased 10 times in Anchorage Superior Court solely to prevent me from submitting the physical evidence proving the above corruption in Alaska’s judicial system – evidence written law clearly allowed me to present. The law was again violated to prevent grand juror Southwell from presenting this same evidence to his fellow grand jurors. What are they afraid of?

Believing there is no problem or that it doesn’t affect them, most people will not want to get involved or even attend the Sports Complex meeting. But if we don’t do something this problem will grow and eventually affect all of us. To those who don’t believe this is a very real problem, this is long-time Soldotna attorney Dale Dolifka’s sworn testimony in open court about my prosecution – after he looked at the evidence Mr. Southwell and I have been trying to present:

“Other than just an outright payoff of a judge or jury it is hard to imagine anyone being sold down the river more. Your case has shades of Selma in the 60’s, where judges, sheriffs, & even assigned lawyers were all in cahoots together. The reason why you have still not resolved your legal problems is corruption. You have a [Appeals] Court sitting there looking at a pile of dung & if they do right by you & reveal you know you have the attorneys going down, you have the judges going down, you have the troopers going down. Everyone in your case has had a political price to pay if they did right by you. You had a series of situations which everyone was doing things to protect everyone rather than you because there was a price to pay. I walked over here & lawyer A says my God they’re violating every appeal rule ever. How can it be like this? I think almost everyone goes back to that original seminal issue that how the hell did this case go on when it appears to lay people & to me a lot of it was built on a lie in a sworn affidavit? I don’t know how you possibly had due process with regard to the seizure of your airplane. I have read it and read it and read it. I could write a doctor’s brief on it. And I -- I can’t -- and I’m just wore out trying to figure it out because I can’t. You’re just one of many. It’s absolute unadulterated self-bred corruption. It will get worse until the sleeping giant [public] wakes up. Everyone is scared & afraid.” [Court Record 00523-3105]

David, Jackie, Kayla, and Cassie Haeg
PO Box 123
Soldotna, AK 99669
(907) 262-9249 home (907) 398-6403 cell
haeg@alaska.net
Facebook: Alaska, State of Corruption (page) and Stop Alaska’s Judicial Corruption (group)
www.alaskastateofcorruption.com

Article 1, Section 8 of the Alaska Constitution: “The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.”

 Alaska Statute 12.40.030: “The grand jury shall inquire into all crimes committed or triable by the court and present them to the court. The grand jury shall have the power to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety.”

Alaska Statute 12.40.040: “If an individual grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime has been committed that is triable by the court, the juror shall disclose it to the other jurors, who shall investigate it.”

Alaska Statute 12.40.060: “The grand jury is entitled to access, at all reasonable times, to the public jails and prisons, to offices pertaining to the courts of justice in the state, and to all other public offices, and to the examination of all public records in the state.”

The Investigative Grand Jury in Alaska

(Alaska Judicial Council 1987, Marla Greenstein research attorney)

 The [Alaska grand jury] oath clearly includes the duty to investigate “matters” coming to the knowledge of the grand jury independently of the charges presented by a prosecutor. One Alaska statute provides that “If an individual grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable by the court, the juror shall disclose it to the other jurors, who shall investigate it.” This provision suggests that an investigation might be initiated at the request of an individual grand juror.

 Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Alaska Constitution states: “The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.”

“Public welfare or safety” has been interpreted very broadly and includes concerns with public order, health, or morals. Black’s Law Dictionary defines general welfare as “the governments concern for the health, peace, morals, and safety of its citizens.” “Suspend” is defied in case law and by Black’s as “to cause to cease for a time; to postpone; to stay, delay or hinder.” In other words, the Alaska Constitution gives grand juries the power to investigate into and make recommendations addressing virtually anything of public concern. This broad general power can never be hindered or delayed.

Just as grand juries in Alaska are constitutionally empowered to investigate any matter of public concern, so are they free to report on their findings. Indeed, there is no law in Alaska preventing grand jury reports from naming names, recommending referral to government or private agencies or alleging indictable conduct.

Counsel may be provided by the attorney general or the grand jury may choose to be represented by other counsel.

The grand juries of the colonies, in addition to screening prosecutions, exercised their powers to investigate criminal activity and “as spokesmen for the people, sounding boards for their leaders, and vehicles for complaints against officialdom.”

State Grand Jury Investigatory Powers    

State grand juries have often exercised investigative powers to battle political corruption. At times, they have acted on their own initiative in the face of opposition from a district attorney:

In New York City, in 1872, an extensive grand jury probe toppled the notorious Boss Tweed and his cronies. Since the district attorney was closely associated with Tweed, the panel acted independently of him, conducting its own investigation and interviewing witnesses without the prosecutor’s help.

In Minneapolis, in 1902, a grand jury hired its own private detectives and amassed evidence sufficient to indict the mayor and cause the chief of police to resign. After removing these officials, the grand jury acted as a committee of public safety and effectively governed the city. Five years later, in San Francisco, a grand jury indicted the mayor and named a new reform mayor to run the city.

State Grand Jury Reporting Powers   

The number of grand juries that have issued reports is very small when compared to the number of grand juries that have met to consider criminal cases and have issued indictments or no-true-bills.

THE INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND THE REPORTING POWERS

             Alaska’s grand jury serves two distinct functions. First, it acts as the charging body for crimes committed within its jurisdiction. The grand jury considers evidence presented to it by the state’s district attorney who has investigated the crime or crimes in each case.

Although infrequent, the grand jury can also sit as an investigative body. In response to instructions from the court or the district attorney, or in response to petitions or requests from the public, or on the initiative of a majority of the members of the grand jury, the grand jury may investigate concerns affecting the public welfare or safety. These public welfare or safety concerns may arise from criminal or potentially criminal activity, or they may involve noncriminal public welfare or safety matters. After completing its investigation, if the grand jury has found sufficient evidence to charge an individual or individuals with a crime, the grand jury may ask the district attorney to prepare an indictment or indictments.

The law is unclear as to whether or under what circumstances the grand jury may also file a report. When the grand jury, acting in its investigative role, does not find evidence to warrant indictment, the practice of grand juries has been to issue reports to the court summarizing the findings and conclusions of the investigation. Grand jurors are authorized by law to make recommendations although the nature and scope of these recommendations are not defined.

The importance of the investigative function, however, has not been questioned. While half the states have abolished or severely restricted the grand jury’s charging function, all states have retained the investigative function of the grand jury.

Source of Investigative Power in Alaska

The Alaska Constitution addresses grand juries in Article I, Section 8:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended. (Emphasis added.)

The legislative history of the clause speaking to the investigative function suggests that this function was very important in the minds of the delegates to the constitutional convention, and that the scope of this power was intended to be broad.

Constitutional Convention

The Committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights of the Alaska Constitutional Convention submitted a proposal entitled “Grand Juries, Indictments and Information”. The clause that addressed the investigative function read:

…the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.

The commentary of the section stated: “The grand jury is preserved, for all purposes, particularly for investigation of public officials.”

An amendment was proposed to make prosecution by grand jury indictment mandatory unless waived, as had been practice under territorial law. Proponents of the change in the committee proposal argued that the grand jury was not the best charging mechanism. All delegates, however, appear to have supported the continuation of the investigative role of the grand jury:

Now we had preserved the investigative power of the grand jury…(Buckalew, 1323)

The grand jury once a year investigates the jails (under territorial law) and sometimes is useful where any particular fraud or general scandal has occurred…(Rivers, 1323)

…I am against the use of a grand jury in criminal prosecution…I would say retain the grand jury all right for investigative purposes of officials in public institutions…it serves no useful purpose except for just investigative purposes. (Taylor, 1324)

The grand jury should certainly and definitely be preserved as an investigatory agency. There is no question about it at all…(Hellenthal, 1325)

The debate suggests that some votes for mandatory grand jury indictment may have been cast to assure free exercise of the grand jury’s investigative function:

…[I]t is true the investigative grand jury had been preserved in the bill as set forth here. However, an investigative grand jury will only be called under certain specific circumstances, and somebody is going to have to find conditions pretty bad before an investigative grand jury will be called. Whereas a grand jury which is empaneled regularly, once or twice a year in our division, has full investigative power as well as the power to consider indictments. The grand jury is there and may take any step that it feels may be necessary towards investigations.(Davis, 1326)

…The grand jury in its investigative power as well as for the fact that it is sitting there as a panel sometimes is the only recourse far a citizen to get justice…(Kilcher, 1328)

The new amendment does not make any mention of the investigating powers of the grand jury, and I have been told they would still have those powers under the Federal Constitution, but I believe it should be mentioned in our constitution because I think that is one of the most important duties of the grand jury. (Barr, 1344)

The delegate speaking suggested returning to the language in the initial Committee proposal that referred to the grand jury’s investigative powers:

The power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.

When the subject of investigative powers rose again, the language proposed was somewhat different. The new suggested language read:

The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning conditions detrimental to the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended. (1344)

               A delegate who spoke in support of the expansion of investigatory powers made an additional suggestion:

Mr. President, my suggestion was that the word “detrimental” be stricken and the word “involving” be inserted because I agree with Mr. Barr that the investigatory power of a grand jury is extremely broad, not narrow as Mr. Rivers contends. I think a grand jury can investigate anything, and it is true that there is little protection against what they call in the vernacular, a runaway grand jury, but in the history of the United States there have been few runaway grand juries, extremely few, and I think that the broad statement of power that Mr. Barr asked for is proper and healthy. (Hellenthal, 1406)

This suggestion was adopted. The final amendment read:

The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations involving the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.

As the language was incorporated into the constitution, the word “involving” became “concerning” but there is no discussion of this choice in the convention minutes.

Alaska Statutes

The Alaska Code of Criminal Procedure in Section 12.40.030 essentially repeats the Alaska Constitution’s language concerning grand jury powers:

Sec. 12.40.030. Duty of inquiry into crimes and general powers. The grand jury shall inquire into all crimes committed or triable within the jurisdiction of the court and present them to the court. The grand jury shall have the power to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety.

Two other sections of the code seem to speak to the intended subject matter and scope of the grand jury’s independent investigative powers:

Sec. 12.40.040. Juror to disclose knowledge of crime. If an individual grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable by the court, the juror shall disclose it to the other grand jurors, who shall investigate it.

Sec. 12.40.060. Access to public jails, prisons, and public records. The grand jury is entitled to access, at all reasonable times, to the public jails and prisons, to offices pertaining to the courts of justice in the state, and to all other public offices, and to the examination of all public records in the state.

The language of the first section above suggests that in addition to reviewing the cases presented by a prosecutor, the grand jury is empowered to investigate all criminal or potentially criminal activity that comes to the attention of one or more of its members. The use of the word “present” refers to the informal writing of charges by a grand jury.

The language of AS 12.40.060 suggests that the grand jury may have a special responsibility to monitor the public jails, offices pertaining to the courts of justice, and other public offices.

Alaska’s Criminal Rules hint at the potential investigative, recommending and reporting powers of the grand jury. Rule 6(e) mandates the oath for grand jurors. The current oath reads:

“You and each of you as members of the grand jury for the State of Alaska, do solemnly swear that you will diligently inquire and true presentment make of all such matters as shall be given to you for consideration, or shall otherwise come to your knowledge in connection with your preset service…”

The oath clearly includes the duty to investigate “matters” coming to the knowledge of the grand jury independently of the charges presented by a prosecutor.

Scope of Investigative Power as Exercised in Alaska

The clear intent of the drafters of the state constitution was to provide the grand jury with broad investigative powers. The language of state statutes is equally broad and no case law in Alaska defines the appropriate subject matter or scope of grand jury investigations.

(1) Complex criminal cases.

Interviewees noted that the grand jury's investigative powers were extremely useful in certain complex criminal cases. Examples of such cases included the 1974 Fairbanks grand jury investigation of a mob incident at the Tanana Valley Fairgrounds that resulted in injury to several persons; the 1970 Anchorage grand jury investigation of the Cordova fire; the investigation by an Anchorage grand jury in 1970 of the slaying by a police officer of two persons who were engaged in the commission of a felony; and complicated murder cases such as the Investor murders recently considered by a grand jury in Ketchikan.

(2) Patterns of crime.

A Fairbanks grand jury investigated the problem of drugs in Fairbanks high schools, after several instances of drug-related juvenile crime. In 1973, a grand jury, after recognizing the number of crimes being committed on campus, investigated security at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. A 1976 Fairbanks grand jury investigated the Checker cab Company after observing the extremely high incidence of felony incidents it had processed against Checker cab personnel. In January, 1986, a Bethel grand jury issued a report following an investigation into sexual abuse in that community, having noted the large number of sexual abuse cases being brought before them. Grand juries seem uniquely positioned to recognize patterns in criminal activity and to investigate the implications of these patterns.

(3) Alleged misconduct in state government.

Five investigations have been conducted into alleged misconduct in state government. A 1974 Fairbanks grand jury investigated alleged conflicts of interest by public officials in appropriating funds for the Fairbanks flood control project. In 1981 and 1982, grand juries in Juneau investigated unrelated charges of alleged misconduct by two state senators. In 1984, an Anchorage grand jury investigated potentially criminal practices related to property and inventory maintained by the Alaska Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection's Aircraft Section. Finally, a 1985 Juneau grand jury conducted an investigation into the executive branch's handling of state office leasing practices.

(4) Alleged misconduct in local government.

Two grand juries have investigated alleged misconduct in local government. In 1953, a Ketchikan grand jury conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Ketchikan police department [Ketchikan District Attorney and Ketchikan Police Chief indicted in connection with prostitution]. A Kenai grand jury in 1973-74 consideredallegations of improper conduct by municipal officials and allegedly inappropriate conduct of a judge.

   (5) Potentially criminal activity affecting public welfare or safety concerns.

An Anchorage grand jury in 1964 investigated waste of game animals; in 1965, alleged irregularities in a local election; in 1966, the use of listening devices; in 1967, drug abuse by minors; and in 1969, the public exhibition of adult motion pictures. All of these subjects involved potential criminal activity, and clearly affected public welfare or safety concerns.

(6) Noncriminal (civil) investigation of criminal justice system.

Grand juries have investigated the effectiveness of police operations in Bethel in 1977 and 1983; and the operation of the jail in Barrow in 1983, following an escape. In Fairbanks and in Anchorage grand juries routinely have investigated the condition of the jails and related institutions virtually every year until the early 1970s.

(7) Noncriminal (civil) investigation of conditions affecting public welfare or safety.

A few investigations have arisen in totally civil contexts (in addition to the noncriminal evaluations of the criminal justice system's policies, practices, and facilities). In 1962 and 1964, Anchorage grand juries investigated traffic safety and road signs; in 1964, city zoning; and in 1965, water and sewer service.

                  Initiation: Law and Practice in Alaska

Statutory procedures in Alaska distinguish initiation of an investigation from the exercise of the grand jury's usual charging duties. In general, investigations are initiated by the district attorney. In the case of major investigations, the district attorney may request that a grand jury be empaneled to investigate that case alone. On occasion investigations have been called sua sponte by the judge sitting in the jurisdiction.

One Alaska statute provides that "If an individual grand juror knows or has reason to believe that a crime has been committed which is triable by the court, the juror shall disclose it to the other jurors, who shall investigate it.” This provision suggests that an investigation might be initiated at the request of an individual grand juror.

                  Routine safeguards have been exercised in Alaska. Judges and prosecutors have said that the majority of grand jurors, not counting the juror requesting the investigation, have had to vote to undertake any investigation. If the investigation has been taken up, the grand juror requesting it was excused from grand jury duty and called as a witness in the ensuing investigation.

Prosecutors interviewed in the course of this study noted that private citizens occasionally request the grand jury to investigate a matter. Prosecutors report that they ordinarily review these requests before presenting them to the grand jury and made a recommendation regarding the grand jury's action. The grand jury then decides by majority vote whether to initiate an investigation.

Source of Reporting Powers in Alaska

The Alaska Constitution states: "The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended.” (Emphasis added.) The language is repeated in Sec. 12.40.030 of the Alaska Statutes.

Reporting Powers of the Federal Government and Other States

A signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and later an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, James Wilson, made this observation in 1791:

The grand jury are a great channel of communication, between those who make and administer the laws, and for whom the laws are made and administered. All the operations of government, and of its ministers and officers, are within the compass of their view and research. They may suggest publick improvement, and the modes of removing publick inconveniences: they may expose to publick inspection, or to publick punishment, publick bad men, and publick bad measures.

A 1965 Fifth Circuit case stated: "To me the thing [is] this simple: the Grand Jury is charged to report. It determines what it is to report.”

                  A sponsor of the 1970 Organized Crime Act commented during Congressional hearings about grand juries to be charged under it that:

... the precise boundaries of the reporting power have not been judicially delineated ... the authority to issue reports relevant to organized crime investigations has been specifically conferred upon the special grand juries created by this title. The committee does not thereby intend to restrict or in any way interfere with the right of regular grand juries to issue reports as recognized by judicial custom and tradition.

APPENDIX B

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

The Grand Jury

                       The grand jury exercises its charging function by deciding whether or not to indict. In the exercise of its investigative function, the grand jury is empowered to initiate investigations, to call witnesses, and to request that indictments be prepared.