advertiser.gif (1679 bytes)    advertiser.gif (1679 bytes)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 94-2483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       ]       Appeal from the United

                                                ]       States District Court for

                        Plaintiff Appelee,      ]       the Northern District of

                                                ]       Illinois, Eastern

                v.                              ]       Division.

                                                ] 

MICHAEL WILLIAMS,                               ]       No. 88 CR 204

                                                ]

                        Defendant Appellant,     ]       Harry D. Leinenweber,

                                                ]       Judge.

                                                ]





PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Now comes Defendant-Appellant, Michael Williams, and requests that this Court review the above-styled matter pursuant to Part III, Rule 10.1(c),Supreme Court Rules, raising a novel issue heretofore undecided by this Court for the following reasons:

Questions Presented

1. Are the existing rules and procedures by which a criminal proceeding is documented, prosecuted, decided, and recorded vulnerable to corruption through the concerted actions of law enforcement officers, court-appointed counsel, and magistrates in such a manner as to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right of due process under the 14th Amendment?

2. If so, was the defendant in this case the victim of such corruption, requiring that his conviction be overturned?

Discussion

The right of citizens to due process under the 14th Amendment is generally assumed to be assured through the separation of powers. Thus, warrants may not issue at the behest of the executive department enforcing a law unless a neutral magistrate is assured that probable cause exists for such a warrant. Similarly, once arrested, all defendants are assured at least minimally competent counsel when the neutral court appoints a defense attorney for those who cannot otherwise afford one. However, when it so happens that a powerful member of the executive branch takes offense at the political activities of a particular citizen, and that officer has the loyalty and allegiance of a certain judge, together with a network of federal law enforcement officers, the following scenario becomes possible.

1) The officer purports to investigate the citizen, and swears out an affidavit attesting to probable cause of the existence of a crime.

2) The magistrate issues an arrest warrant

3) The citizen's files are seized and destroyed

4) The citizen is charged with mail fraud or wire fraud.

5) Hand-picked court appointed counsel urges a plea bargain on bogus terms.

6) The citizen, mislead by his own attorney, enters a guilty plea.

7) Sentence is imposed, and the citizen's property is forfeited.

If such a sequence of events ever did occur, it would certainly become possible for the court which permitted such a perversion to seal its own records and purge any evidence of the collusion from hearing transcripts, thus eliminating the possibility of reversal on appeal.

Under the foregoing circumstances, cases following a similar scenario would appear to the overseeing courts to be fully in order, while in fact justice was never served.

The Defendant-Appellant now alleges that such cases arise with alarming and increasing frequency, and that he, in particular, was the victim of such a scheme imperfectly reflected in the records of the above-styled cases.

The Defendant-Appellant contends that as a result of his friendship with and support for former Senator Gary Hart, and investigative efforts on his part, he became privy to facts, documents, and other materials which, if publicized, would have been embarrassing to the sitting vice president and presidential candidate George Bush. The information related to little-known facts about covert activities in support of the Contra rebels of Central America, smuggling of arms and drugs under cover of the C.I.A. and an apparent attempt on the life of Senators Hart and Cohen.

In order to prevent the defendant from coming forward with this information, the defendant was charged as a co-conspirator in a scheme in which his corporation failed to pay for computer paper. None of the co-conspirators was ever arraigned or charged with anything.

Agent Lloyd of the Chicago bureau of the FBI and Judge Leinenweber of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and husband of a Reagan cabinet member, all of whom were fiercely loyal to the vice president, proceeded to orchestrate the scheme. With his accounts frozen, the defendant had no choice but to accept court-appointed counsel, William Stephens, a relative of the Supreme Court justice and friend of the administration.

Subjected to such an array of law enforcement professionals, attorneys, and judges, the defendant experienced the maximum penalties allowed by law.

Wherefore, the defendant asks that this Honorable Court scrutinize the record below, including numerous affidavits and petitions filed by the defendant, taking judicial notice of the fact that the defendant never received

1) an inventory of the items seized until January 1996 the inventory being flagrantly defective
2) a transcript of the proceedings necessary to prepare an appeal.
3) Timely notice of court proceedings at his residence in Switzerland.

Further, the defendant respectfully requests that this Court vacate the decisions of the courts below.

Submitted by Defendant-Appellant Michael Williams Postach 20 CH-3112 Allmendingen bei Bern Switzerland Switzerland pro se

Certificate of Service

I, Michael Williams, the Defendant-Appellant in the present case, hereby certify that I have served two copies of the foregoing brief upon counsel for Appelee United States of America by causing the same delivered by Express Mail to James B. Burns, United States Attorney, or Carol A. Davilo, Assistant United States Attorney, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, USA, costs prepaid, this __ day of April, 1996.


Back To The Michael Williams Story