Download July 24, 2007

The Independent OBSERVER
Published by the Access To The Courts organization
July 24, 2007
COURT:
US District Court - Toledo, Ohio
CASE:
3:06-cr-00175-DAK [CR-05-0548, U.S. v. Jeffrey L. Clemens, Los Angeles]
DATE:
July 17, 2007 (continued from July 3, 2007)
JUDGE:
Judge David A. Katz
OBSERVED: Prejudice
Document 87 in the reference case documents a continued hearing (Supervised Release –
Final Revocation Hearing) as follows:
“Matter before court for continued violation hearing. Defendant appeared without
counsel. Court will not proceed on said violation at this time and will hold in abeyance.
Defendant advised that his conduct is unacceptable and the Court will not tolerate
further abhorrent behavior.”
The Court will not tolerate further abhorrent behavior…that is, Judge David A. Katz
will not tolerate further behavior that is so objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve
condemnation, that is, behavior that is, according to Roget and others, abominable,
antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul,
infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, mean, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant,
rotten, shabby, vile, or wretched.
What did the Defendant do to elicit this kind of description in the public record of the
federal court system? One could sneak a peek at the Probation Officer’s Violation
Report, but that document is sealed and not available to the public. One could order and
review the transcripts of the violation hearing, BUT, the violation hearing has not
occurred yet, while the Defendant has not had an opportunity to oppose, counter, or
defend against the allegations in the Violation Report.
Access To The Courts has information, from a reliable source, that the Defendant is
accused by P.O. Ruth Granberry of two counts of violating terms and conditions of
supervised release, specifically, 1) not reporting to a counseling session, and 2) refusing
to provide a DNA sample.
If a Defendant is judged in public before a hearing (the very definition of PREJUDICE)
to have behaved in an abhorrent (disgusting, repugnant) manner, then the Court can at
least make available the allegations (let alone the actual hearing about the allegations). In
counter distinction to the two accusations above, the Defendant actually 1) overslept
(from being up late doing legal work) and was late to his 8 am counseling session, and 2)
requested to speak to Probation Officers first and insisted on an attorney before providing
a DNA sample.
The Independent OBSERVER
Published by the Access To The Courts organization
So, to a senior judge on the federal bench, being late with cause to an ongoing series of
counseling sessions and asking for an attorney is abhorrent, objectionable, condemnable,
repugnant, repulsive, and despisable behavior.
Is that senior judge delusional? Is that senior judge sending implicit threats that the
continued violation hearing will result in a finding of violation? Is that senior judge
attempting to compel the Defendant to obtain Defense Counsel representation (which is a
right, not an obligation)?
Has Judge David A. Katz ever been late? Has Judge Katz ever been late to one of this
Defendant’s court-ordered hearings? [The record will show that Judge Katz has indeed
been late to a hearing involving this “abhorrent” Defendant.]
Does Judge David A. Katz, at this moment and at the moment of prejudging the
Defendant in public on July 17 as abhorrent, know whether or not the accusing Probation
Officer Ruth Granberry sent away the DNA-taking nurse BEFORE seeing the Defendant
(as requested), thus precluding DNA from occurring?
Court, be advised that your conduct is unacceptable and the citizens of the United States
will not tolerate further prejudicial behavior.
Access To The Courts
www.accesstothecourts.org