Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Rampant and Unchecked Crisis in the United States

                         

---

Introduction

Prosecutorial misconduct is not just a flaw in the American judicial system—it is a pervasive and systemic problem that undermines the very principles of justice. This misconduct often goes unchecked, allowing prosecutors to abuse their power without facing accountability. The implications of this unchecked power are not merely domestic but also touch on international law, where such abuses constitute serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. When these violations occur, it is the duty of international authorities to intervene, ensuring that those responsible are held accountable for their actions.

---

The Prevalence of Prosecutorial Misconduct

In the United States, prosecutorial misconduct has reached alarming levels. Instances of prosecutors suppressing evidence, presenting false testimony, and coercing witnesses are far too common. These actions directly contribute to wrongful convictions, which have destroyed countless lives. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, over 3,300 people have been exonerated in the United States since 1989, with many of these cases involving prosecutorial misconduct. Despite the frequency of these occurrences, few prosecutors are ever held accountable, creating an environment where misconduct is normalized.

---

State of Arizona

The Case of Lori Eidemanis: A Personal Account

In my own case, Lori Eidemanis, a prosecutor in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), willfully violated my rights. Despite clear evidence of my innocence, Eidemanis chose to pursue a conviction, engaging in practices that blatantly disregarded my constitutional rights. Her actions were not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of misconduct within the MCAO, an office that has a long history of abusing its power.

Eidemanis’s actions in my case, including the deliberate presentation of false evidence and suppression of exculpatory information, are clear violations of my rights under both U.S. and international law. The lack of accountability she has faced is a stark example of the systemic issues within the American judicial system. This pattern of behavior suggests that Eidemanis has likely violated the rights of others as well, raising serious concerns about the integrity of prosecutions within Maricopa County.

Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis

---

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office: A History of Abuse

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is notorious for its misconduct. The office has been implicated in numerous cases where prosecutors have overstepped their bounds, often with devastating consequences for the accused. This office’s actions are not just isolated incidents but part of a deeply ingrained culture of corruption and abuse. For decades, the MCAO has been accused of manipulating the legal system to secure convictions, often at the expense of justice and fairness.

This consistent pattern of abuse raises the question: Can the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office be considered a terrorist organization? When a government entity systematically violates the rights of its citizens, engages in practices that terrorize the innocent, and operates with impunity, it fits the definition of a terrorist organization. The MCAO’s actions over the decades have inflicted terror and suffering on countless individuals, making a strong case for this designation. The MCAO can be designated as a”Domestic” terrorist organization based upon the very language of the Department of Justice and the laws as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

“The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defense, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §  1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.”

– Department of Justice

---

International Law and the Need for Accountability

Under international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a party, the actions of these prosecutors constitute serious violations of human rights. Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR guarantee the right to a fair trial and protection from arbitrary detention—rights that are routinely violated by rogue prosecutors in the U.S.

The principle of non-derogation in international law means that certain rights, such as the right to be free from torture and the right to a fair trial, cannot be suspended under any circumstances. When state actors engage in practices that violate these non-derogable rights, they are committing crimes that warrant international intervention. The unchecked power of prosecutors like Lori Eidemanis, and offices like the MCAO, is a clear nexus of violations of international law, calling for global accountability measures.

volume-999-i-14668-englishDownload

---

A Call for International Action

The time has come for international authorities to take decisive action against these abuses. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and other global institutions have a responsibility to investigate and issue arrest warrants for state actors who engage in such egregious violations of human rights. The evidence is clear: prosecutors across the United States are not only violating domestic laws but are also breaching international norms.

The silence and inaction of the international community in the face of these abuses only embolden these rogue actors. By holding these individuals accountable on an international stage, we can begin to restore faith in the rule of law and ensure that justice is served for all.

---

Conclusion

Prosecutorial misconduct in the United States is a crisis that demands immediate attention. The actions of individuals like Lori Eidemanis and institutions like the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office are not just local or national issues—they are violations of international law that have far-reaching implications. It is imperative that the international community steps in to hold these state actors accountable, ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals are protected. Only through such measures can we hope to curb the rampant abuse of power and restore true justice.

Until Next Time…

I Am,

Ewing Redmond Samuels III

Unlawful Prosecution: State of Arizona vs. Ewing Redmond Samuels

                                                 

---

Introduction

In the matter of State of Arizona vs. Ewing Redmond Samuels, Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office committed egregious violations of my legal, constitutional, and human rights as established by the Supreme Court of the United States and recognized by international laws. The actions of Ms. Eidemanis not only undermined the integrity of the legal system but also stripped me of my right to a fair trial, a fundamental tenet of justice.

Lori Eidemanis (MCAO)

Specific Violations and Concealment of Evidence

The cornerstone of any criminal case is the obligation of the prosecution to disclose all material evidence that may be exculpatory or impeaching to the defense. This principle is enshrined in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which mandates that the suppression of evidence favorable to the accused violates due process when the evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Despite this clear legal standard, Lori Eidemanis knowingly, willfully, and deliberately concealed critical impeachment and exculpatory evidence related to two key figures in the case: Jamil Trevon Curd and Detective Marchele Miller.

Jamil Trevon Curd

1. Jamil Trevon Curd – The State’s Star Witness:
   • Jamil Trevon Curd, who formed the heart of the State’s case, had a documented criminal history and multiple outstanding arrest warrants that were concealed from the defense. This material evidence, if disclosed, would have severely undermined his credibility as a witness. According to the landmark case Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), nondisclosure of material evidence affecting the credibility of a key witness violates the defendant’s right to due process.
   • At the time of the trial, it was discovered that Jamil had an active investigation into his involvement in the death of Royce Emmett Walker on May 21, 2015, in Phoenix, Arizona, where he was the main suspect. This was crucial information that the jury was not made aware of, as it would have cast significant doubt on the reliability of his testimony.
2. Detective Marchele Miller – The Lead Case Manager:
   • Detective Marchele Miller of the Phoenix Police Department, who managed the case, also had a criminal history and arrest records that were withheld from the defense. The nondisclosure of her background calls into question the integrity of the investigation and the legitimacy of the charges brought against me.
   • Eidemanis and Miller appeared to act in concert to conceal these facts, thereby engaging in clandestine activities that violated both state and federal laws.

Detective Marchele Miller (L)
and
Deputy County Attorney
Lori Eidemanis (R)

Omission of Material Facts and Circumvention of Due Process

Lori Eidemanis not only concealed critical evidence but also engaged in actions that blatantly disregarded my legal rights and the facts of the case. During the incident in question, I was within my legally leased residence, while Jamil Trevon Curd was unlawfully on my property, engaging in what amounted to residential burglary—a crime for which he had a prior record. Eidemanis falsely claimed that Jamil’s presence was sanctioned by his mother, who never testified or corroborated this claim, violating my right to confront witnesses as protected under the Sixth Amendment.

Furthermore, Eidemanis engaged in subornation and perjury throughout the trial, knowingly allowing false testimony to be presented and failing to correct it, even when in possession of evidence to the contrary. Her actions constitute a violation of the legal duty to ensure that justice is done, not merely to secure a conviction at any cost.

Notarized Since 2013.
The State had no legal grounds in this Case.

---

Unlawful Jury Composition and Misconduct

The trial was conducted before an all-white jury, a factor that raises significant concerns about racial bias and fairness in the proceedings. The jury was kept unaware of the material facts that would have exonerated me, including the imminent arrest of Jamil Trevon Curd during the trial. When Sheriff Deputies attempted to arrest Jamil for his outstanding warrants, Judge George H. Foster, Jr. intervened and allowed his testimony to continue without informing the jury, further compounding the violations of my rights.

“More than 40% of Americans are people of color, but 95% of elected prosecutors are white.” – Equal Justice Initiative

Unlawful Conduct Involving My Minor Child

Perhaps most disturbingly, Eidemanis engaged in unauthorized and illegal conduct involving my five-year-old child. Knowing full well that the state was involved in unauthorized actions that amounted to kidnapping my child from our legally leased home—a home in both my name and my child’s name—Eidemanis and Detective Miller worked to cover up these activities, demonstrating a complete disregard for both state laws and international human rights standards. The Federal and International authorities are now investigating these matters. The documents below are an indication of proof and evidence of the Phoenix Police Department and Arizona Department of Child Safety implicit in the kidnapping of my 5 year old toddler. They are fraudulent by nature and is contradictory to the laws of the United States requiring “strict scrutiny” and “the right to family integrity”.

NOTICE OF DUTY TO INFORM

TEMPORARY CUSTODY NOTICE

---

The State’s Legal Accountabilities and Liabilities

The State of Arizona bears direct accountability and legal liability for the actions of its representatives, including Lori Eidemanis. Under both state and federal law, prosecutors are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards, ensuring that justice is served rather than merely securing convictions. In my case, the State, through Eidemanis, failed in this fundamental duty, violating my rights in ways that have profound legal consequences.

1. Habitual Pattern of Rights Violations:
   • The violations in my case are not isolated incidents; rather, they reflect a habitual pattern and practice within the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. This pattern disproportionately affects defendants of color, race, and national origin, demonstrating a clear bias that is both unlawful and unconstitutional.
   • This systemic issue implicates the State in ongoing civil rights violations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all individuals equal protection under the law, regardless of race or national origin.
2. State’s Responsibility for Prosecutorial Misconduct:
   • The State of Arizona is legally accountable for the prosecutorial misconduct of its representatives. Under the precedent set by Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), prosecutors have immunity for actions within the scope of their prosecutorial duties, but this immunity does not extend to egregious misconduct that violates constitutional rights. Eidemanis’ actions, including the concealment of exculpatory evidence and subornation of perjury, exceed the protections of immunity and expose the State to significant legal liability.
   • The State’s failure to address or rectify these issues, despite clear evidence of misconduct, demonstrates a broader institutional failure that warrants investigation and legal scrutiny.

---

Judicial Complicity and the Role of Judge George H. Foster, Jr.

Judge George H. Foster, Jr. of the Superior Court of Maricopa County played a complicit role in the violations of my rights. His actions during the trial, including allowing testimony from a witness with outstanding arrest warrants and suppressing critical information from the jury, contributed to the miscarriage of justice that occurred.

1. Judicial Misconduct and Violations of Fair Trial Rights:
   • Judge Foster’s decision to allow testimony from Jamil Trevon Curd, despite knowing about his active arrest warrants and his ongoing investigation as a suspect in a separate case, violated my right to a fair trial as protected under the Sixth Amendment. His failure to disclose this information to the jury constitutes judicial misconduct and calls into question the impartiality of the court.
   • The judge’s involvement in these violations suggests a deeper, systemic issue within the judicial system in Maricopa County, where the rights of defendants, particularly those of color, are routinely disregarded in favor of securing convictions.
2. Need for Review and Accountability:
   • Given Judge Foster’s actions in my case, it is imperative that his record and other cases he has presided over are thoroughly reviewed for similar patterns of judicial misconduct. This review should extend to Lori Eidemanis’ other cases, to identify any additional instances where constitutional rights may have been violated.
   • The judicial system’s responsibility is to ensure that justice is fairly administered. When this system fails, as it did in my case, it erodes public trust and perpetuates a cycle of injustice, particularly against marginalized communities.

Judge George H. Foster, Jr.

---

Systemic Discrimination and the Need for Reform

The actions of Lori Eidemanis and Judge George H. Foster, Jr. are not merely individual failures; they are indicative of a broader, systemic problem within the legal system in Maricopa County. There is a clear and disturbing pattern of discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, where the rights of defendants are violated by any means necessary to achieve convictions.

1. Racial and National Origin Discrimination:
   • The discriminatory practices evident in my case align with a historical pattern of racial and national origin bias in the criminal justice system. This bias is in direct violation of both federal civil rights laws and international human rights standards, including the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
   • The fact that my trial was conducted before an all-white jury, which was kept unaware of critical exculpatory evidence, further underscores the racial bias that permeated the proceedings. The racial composition of the jury, combined with the suppression of evidence, raises significant concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the trial. Lori Eidemanis made a point to the jury by claiming I was from “elsewhere”, as if it had anything to do with the matter at hand.
2. Call for Comprehensive Investigation and Legal Reform:
   • There is an urgent need for a comprehensive investigation into the practices of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the judicial conduct of Judge Foster. This investigation should be conducted by an independent body to ensure transparency and accountability.
   • Legal reforms must be implemented to prevent such miscarriages of justice in the future. This includes stricter oversight of prosecutorial conduct, enhanced protections for defendants’ rights, and measures to eliminate racial bias within the legal system.

---

Conclusion: A Demand for Justice and Accountability

The violations of my rights in the case of State of Arizona vs. Ewing Redmond Samuels are not just personal injustices; they are symptomatic of a broader, systemic problem within the legal system in Maricopa County. The State of Arizona, through the actions of Lori Eidemanis and Judge George H. Foster, Jr., has demonstrated a disregard for the rule of law, particularly when it comes to defendants of color.

It is time for these injustices to be addressed, for the legal system to be held accountable, and for the rights of all individuals, regardless of race or national origin, to be protected. I will continue to fight for justice, not only for myself but for all those who have been wrongfully prosecuted and denied their fundamental rights.

---

References:

• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
• Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
• Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
• United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 7, 9, 10, and 11
• United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

This blog serves as a testament to the fight against injustice and a call to action for all those who believe in the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

Until Next Time…

I Am,

Ewing Redmond Samuels III