Consider a matter that has the potential of seriously undermining the liberty and justice that those of us who classify ourselves as being ordinary citizens take for granted daily, leaving us, or someone we love, virtually powerless to do anything about it if he or she happens to be poor and unable to secure the clout and assistance of some renowned legal defense team.

The case outlined in this exposé, though not exceptional, is a circumstance that is rife with corruption and malfeasance, government cover-up and a grave miscarriage of justice that every member of this society should be wholly concerned with if our collective claim of liberty and what measure of confidence we have in the law means anything to us.

The matter delineated in this writing is not supported by conjectures or bald inferences, but by specific and factual documentation amassed from a four year span of legal maneuvering between a young man supported only by his mother, against four very powerful and influential members of the legal community. What you are about to observe through these words and will undoubtedly have you questioning "the justice for all" ideal our Constitution was founded upon.

The case being addressed here revolves around a lawsuit that was filed by a young man named Brian Davis in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case # 3:99-CV-1280 & Appeal case #’s 00-10525; 00-10768; 00-10923) against Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark D. McBride, State District Judge Edwin V. King, and civil attorneys Roy Lee Stacy and Lawrence B. Mitchell. The lawsuit, which stems from a criminal proceeding, alleged the 'forgery' of a document, which is responsible for Brian's current sentence (not his conviction), and the subsequent 'destruction' of that forged document. Roy Stacy and Edwin King were Brian's appointed counsels during the criminal stage of this matter. Mark McBride was the prosecutor. Lawrence Mitchell was the attorney retained by Brian's mother to represent Brian in a subsequent habeas proceeding, which ultimately produced the forgery, the destruction of the forgery and the elaborate ongoing aim to conceal the fact that the forgery ever took place.

Brian's argument in the habeas proceeding hinged on his willingness to accept a mandatory minimum plea of 10 years that was offered to him by the prosecutor, but was ultimately rejected on the advice of Edwin King. King later responded in an affidavit that the decision to proceed to trial was solely made by Brian and against his (King) judgment. To support this claim, King attached a handwritten note with an affidavit that he and the prosecutor, Mark McBride, claimed was written and signed by Brian. Brian immediately communicated to Lawrence Mitchell, who was paid $20,000 by Brian's mother (money that she has since been trying to repay), that he never saw the note King and McBride were alleging that he wrote, that he did not write or sign the note, and that the note was a work of forgery. Brian then requested Mitchell to respond to King and McBride's claim by attacking the authenticity of the note by asking the court to conduct a handwriting examination and document analysis. Mitchell stalled for over a month without complying with Brian's request, asserting that he "had to go out of town." When Brian finally got hold of Mitchell again, he told Brian that he was not going to respond to the government and King's claim because he had seen the original copy of the note which was shown to him by King, and he believed both King and McBride's assertion that Brian had authored the note.

Hence, Brian was compelled to continue his case as a pro se litigant (which means that Brian represented himself in court), petitioning the court to no longer acknowledge Lawrence Mitchell as his attorney, and requesting in his pro se petition to have a handwriting examination and document analysis performed on the note, asserting that the note on record is a work of forgery, all the while hoping that his pro se petition was received by the court in time before it (the court) rendered its ruling on the merits of his case solely based on the dubious record that was before it.

After Brian's pro se petition was filed, prosecutor Mark McBride immediately sealed Brian's case. The case then sat in limbo for nearly two years.

It was not until Brian wrote over a thousand letters, one sent to every member of the U.S. Congress, and others to a number of organizations regarding his situation, that the ball began to roll again, so to speak.

A Congressman who Brian had written to regarding his situation contacted the U.S. Justice Department on Brian's behalf. The Justice Department in turn contacted the U.S. Attorney General's office in Dallas. Two weeks later a preplanned evidentiary hearing was arranged. Around that time Brian had filed his lawsuit against McBride, King, Stacy and Mitchell in Federal Court, which is now the pillar of this government cover-up.

At the evidentiary hearing the original copy of the note 'mysteriously' came up missing—no one knew where it was; at least that is what Brian was told. An ex parte hearing that included King, Stacy, Mitchell and McBride was conducted prior to Brian's evidentiary hearing in the private chambers of the presiding magistrate where these four men requested that the note and all reference to the fact that it ever existed be stricken from the record and the entire proceeding, which meant that no handwriting examination or document analysis would be conducted. Moreover, as recorded in the transcripts from the evidentiary hearing, Brian, who went as far as arguing with the magistrate in open court as to the fairness of his ruling, was emphatically and explicitly forbidden from asking King, Stacy, McBride or Mitchell anything pertaining to the note, which basically crippled his entire case, which was the intended result. It later became clear that the decision, which flagrantly went against the fairness and impartiality inherent in those proceedings, was final regardless of what Brian, utilizing his inexperienced legal knowledge, said or did. Notwithstanding the fact that the note was struck from the record, the government was allowed to use the content of the note—i.e., that Brian rejected the plea, in presenting its case at the evidentiary hearing. The magistrate later based his ruling in deciding Brian's petition on the credibility of the parties—i.e., Brian's word against four lawyers, which, in retrospect, was the pre-arranged method of disposing of Brian's habeas petition.

The lawsuit, which was also pending at the time, later went through a series of difficult stages and interesting developments. Several times a federal magistrate judge recommended that it be dismissed with prejudice on technical grounds that included Summary Judgment and Absolute Immunity, which are all legal hurdles that have to be supported by specific facts and not conclusory, baseless allegation in order for Brian's complaint to proceed forward.

On every occasion the Federal District Court Judge assigned to the case rejected the magistrate's recommendation, ordering the defendants to respond. That same judge later did an about-face and granted all the defendants' motions to dismiss in spite of the fact that Brian had bolstered his claim with additional facts and documentation different from those which were already on record.

An inmate who has been assisting Brian from the beginning in filing court papers had submitted an affidavit with Brian's pleadings to the District Court asserting that he is the individual created Brian's pleadings, and also outlining in his affidavit the events of several conversations he had with Lawrence Mitchell over a monitored telephone regarding Mitchell's position as Brian's retained attorney for the purpose of Brian's habeas proceedings, as well as Mitchell's statements of believing King and McBride's assertion that Brian had authored the note, and Mitchell's decision refusing to continue representing Brian in responding to the forged document when Brian requested him to. The content of several conversations this inmate had with Mitchell resulted in an added corroboration and bolstering of Brian's complaint, and so the defendants did everything to downplay the affidavit except to deny that the conversations ever took place as how described. It later became clear, however, that the facts supporting Brian's complaint, however explicit and indisputable they are, were no longer relevant; the decision had already been made to reach a particular objective in this case, to silence what it is that Brian is attempting to accomplish.

The inmate who has been assisting Brian with filing his pleadings instantly became a target for removal after it became known what his purpose in this matter was, as he and Brian had anticipated. During the time Brian's appeal was scheduled to be filed, the inmate, who had never been in any trouble during the past six years he'd been at the institution, was sent to segregation (an isolated unit within the institution) for several months for possessing a government 'ink pen' which was issued to him by his work supervisor—a ploy Brian understood was intended to separate him and the inmate assisting him.

The appeal process, which has been nothing short of an enigma and an uphill battle for Brian and his family, culminated into a daunting realization that mirrors the lack of trust, justice, and confidence that society has long since begun to witness within the borders of its judicial and political system. Brian's appeal, which is filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, although it thoroughly and conclusively delineated specific material facts supporting Brian's complaint, which none of the four defendants named in Brian's civil action were able to, and could not have been able to, refute with facts of their own, as well as specific points of law that accurately support the violation of Constitutional rights that Brian alleged in his complaint, the three Judges 'assigned' to review Brian's appeal, following a cursory and brisk review that lasted approximately four weeks of a case with an extensive and voluminous record that dates back four years (the average time for appellate review in extensive civil cases lasts between four and six months) ruled that Brian's appeal was 'frivolous.'

The ruling, which depicts Brian's name in the caption and someone else's prisoner identification information, is completely devoid of any opinion or reasoning whatsoever that addresses any of the issues and points of law that the District Court had previously concluded to be meritorious, which includes the District Court's denial of absolute immunity (twice) to McBride and summary judgment (three times) to Stacy, King and Mitchell.

Again, for Brian's complaint to have consecutively made it past the summary judgment and absolute immunity hurdles, it was absolutely necessary for Brian to present legitimate claims supported by material facts and law—nothing less. Especially not when the defendants named in Brian's complaint include a U.S. Attorney General and a State District Judge! Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence presented in Brian's case, the 'protectors of the law' deemed Brian's case to be frivolous.

By rendering Brian's complaint as being frivolous, the appeals court created the option not to address the facts presented in Brian's complaint, thereby closing the case without offering any reasoning of facts and law—virtually the same legal maneuvering that was used in disposing Brian's habeas petition which produced the forgery.

Conversely, had the appellate court conducted a thorough review of Brian's appeal as it is bound by law to do, especially given the circumstance and facts of the case, its compelling decision would have contradicted the objective to suppress the evidence and facts in this case, thereby compelling the four defendants (King, McBride, Stacy and Mitchell) to finally address the issue of forgery that Brian has been diligently trying to get them to confront for four years now.

The appeal court's function at this stage of the proceeding, according to the rules set forth by the law, is not to decide or try Brian's case, but instead decide in light of what Brian has alleged in his complaint whether there is a "genuine issue of material fact" in Brian's case to be presented before a jury who, after weighing the evidence presented before it, could 'possibly' return a verdict in Brian's favor—kind of like the 'reasonable doubt' criterion used in criminal cases. But given the catastrophic nature of this particular case as it relates to the players who are involved, the courts, through some influence in misfeasance, have decided that this matter cannot make it before a jury; those four men are never to answer the allegations that Brian has logged against them, especially considering what Brian represents and where he's coming from.

As I ponder Brian's situation, I wonder to myself what would happen if it were Brian who forged a U.S. Attorney or some lawyer's signature and handwriting, and then submitted his handiwork to the court as evidence supporting his pleadings. And then turn around and ask the court to strike his forgery and all reference to the fact that it ever existed from the record because the lawyer or the U.S. Attorney is claiming that he never wrote or signed what Brian said he did, and he is demanding to have a handwriting examination and document analysis to prove that Brian's evidence is a work of forgery. No need to complete the thought since we already know what the outcome would be.

Doe vs. Phillips (Cite as 81 F.3d 1204) involves a case in which a woman sued a prosecutor for compelling her to swear her innocence on a Bible in a church as a condition of dropping charges against her in violation of her First Amendment rights. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order denying the prosecutor's motion for summary judgment based on absolute and qualified immunity and ordered the case to proceed to trial. In other words, the prosecutor in that case had to answer for his abuse of powers.

In Brian's case, he alleged forgery, destruction of that forgery and conspiracy among the four defendants to deny him his Constitutional rights, which he supported with factual evidence that none of the defendants have been able to refute. Yet his case was deemed "frivolous"…

In addition to the appeal brief that Brian filed, he also submitted a reply brief to the appeals court after the defendants filed their briefs. The appeals court, however, refused to consider Brian's reply brief because the court concluded that the brief was filed out of time even though Brian filed a motion that explicitly explained his delay, using documentation obtained from the clerk's office which showed that the delay in filing was a result of the clerk's office ineptness in processing the appeal, and also through documentation that illustrates the defendants' unwillingness to comply with the appellate procedure by supplying Brian with copies of their briefs which resulted in preventing Brian from compiling a reply brief within the scheduled time for it to be filed. The court nonetheless refused to consider these facts in its pursuit of applying fairness and justice, and declined altogether to consider Brian's reply brief in its ruling on Brian's appeal.

Brian has been in federal custody since he was twenty-one years old (he will be thirty in a few months). The offense for which he is now incarcerated was committed when he was a seventeen-year-old runaway who fled to Dallas, Texas. He stayed approximately nine months in Dallas where most of that time was spent in and out of jail for misdemeanor offenses, and the remaining time he spent working in a drug house for a group of men, some of which later testified against him at trial that he worked for them. At eighteen years old, he went back home to live with his mother where he had been gainfully employed, working various jobs as baggage handler, a maintenance man, and more recently, a construction worker — the kind of jobs that were available to a young, uneducated man coming from failure, trying to get his life in order. Brian called the authorities and self-surrendered at his job site when he learned that he was being sought in connection with the crime that he is now serving time for.

During his eight and a half years in confinement, Brian has never been in any trouble within the institution, and holds an exemplary prison conduct record. He consistently receives high evaluation scores from his unit team and work supervisors. Although Brian has a low classification point level, which puts him to be in minimum security custody category, because of his life sentence he is precluded from ever going under a medium-high custody level facility, which prohibit him from ever going anywhere close to his home where he would be able to visit more than once a year with his mother and two sons.

Brian realizes that his involvement in a drug conspiracy, however young he was at the time, was a grave offense to society, and for that he was willing to accept a plea of 10 years as punishment. Edwin King, the lawyer representing Brian at the time, however, decided to 'role the dice' with Brian's life and chance trial because, as it was later discovered, King was being paid a substantial amount of money by a law firm -- substantially less if Brian had pled out. Brian blew trial and was sentenced to life in federal prison under the mandatory minimum sentencing law that is currently in the law books. King is now a Judge. To counter Brian's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lodged against King in Brian's habeas petition, King, colluding with U.S. Attorney Mark McBride and attorney Roy Stacy, forged a note, which was intended to completely discredit Brian's claim against King. They then enlisted the assistance and support of Lawrence Mitchell (Brian's retained habeas attorney) who was to ensure that a response from Brian was never filed in court against King, McBride and Stacy's dubious claim. Miraculously, their intended ploy backfired and the hoopla that has been outlined in this exposé has been the eventful and extraordinary outcome.

What is now evident is that everyone within the federal judicial system assigned to review Brian's civil action has been protecting McBride, King, Mitchell and Stacy instead of reprimanding them all for their duplicitous actions. Meanwhile, this young man is left to suffer the cost of a seemingly familiar injustice simply because of who he is and the notion that somehow his life is expendable and meaningless.

Please understand that Brian and those who have begun supporting him are not complaining about his conviction or the hardships that are endemic to a life of confinement. Instead, Brian is asking that you, members of the public to whom our elected civil servants are obligated, step forward and "demand" that the sins of the four men named in Brian's complaint (Edwin King, Mark McBride, Lawrence Mitchell and Roy Stacy) is not overlooked and 'swept' aside because of their far-reaching clout and influence—something that Brian neither has nor has had access to while Brian is left to pay the price.

The court is no longer a viable means of acquiring justice in this particular case simply because of the ramifications that are involved. Therefore, you, the public, must act to change that and demand that the law does not mutate into an arbitrary, subversive means of applying justice which is said to be for all, but seems to benefit only those who are privileged and well-connected. Otherwise, what will the outcome be if confidence in the judicial process begins to erode?

We are asking that you pick up a phone and call the U.S. Justice Department at (202) 633-2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at (504) 589-6514, and the Civil Rights Commission at (202) 633-2151 and demand to know why these four men are being protected from answering the injustice brought on by their actions, while a young man who has long since been trying to bring his life out of confusion and decay, and onto a productive path, is left to bear the brunt of a life sentence that resulted from the disservice of one man, and the collective effort of three others in protecting this man. Demand that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cease its legal gymnastics and conduct a fair and thorough review of the yet to be addressed and uncontroverted facts presented in Brian's case, and that it protect the public confidence that it has sworn to uphold. Demand that the U.S. Justice Department conduct a full and thorough investigation into Brian's case and how it has been handled within the judicial process. You have an opportunity right now to help put an end to the draconic misuse of judicial authority that is gradually replacing the ideal that states, "equal justice for all." If you don't, what message will you be sending to the 'keepers of the law' when they do decide again to manipulate the law to satisfy some hidden agenda or ulterior motive of their own? As long as we, members of society, continue to believe that the officials we have elected to justly apply and enforce the law are above reproach, the trend of malfeasance will continue undeterred. Unfortunately, it is the people who look like Brian that feel the effects of all this the most.

When voicing your concerns regarding the application of justice in Brian's case, do not allow the judicial representative to whom you speak with mislead or dissuade you with the use of legal rhetoric. The facts presented in Brian’s case have not been addressed by anyone and will still be the same—unchanged, uncontested and egregious. You will need the following case title and numbers when calling to voice your concern about Brian's case: [Davis vs. King, et al; District Court # 3:99-CV-1280 & Appeal Court #'s 00-10525; 00-10768; 00-10923].

Brian is currently preparing to petition the appellate court for an en banc hearing on the dismissal of his appeal, which means that all the justices in that Fifth Circuit Court would be involved in reviewing Brian's case instead of three if he is granted the hearing. With the way things are going now though, it is inevitable that his petition for an en banc hearing will be denied, assuming his petition even makes it past the clerk's desk. But with the involvement of public scrutiny, the dynamics of how this case has been developing will change dramatically. Consider the analogy of a man who has been shot in the woods; if he doesn't make a sound, who is to say that an injustice ever occurred? Brian is making all the noise that he can; please help him. Your phone calls will make a difference.

Again, we kindly ask that you lend your support in saving the life of a young man who has a tremendous amount of potential and focus in doing some positive and productive things with his life that will impact our community well. Please do not turn your back on him simply because he made some youthful mistakes that he has since been trying to put to productive use, nor allow a 'system' to continue its onslaught and condemnation of another young productive life. Please do your best in helping to protect our future, for what it is worth. All of our youth can't all be bad. Let's not give up on them.

Thank you.

E-mail

For further information regarding Brian's situation, contact Debra Newton at (803) 732-7504 or Kim Beckford at (718) 206-3314. Brian, who wears the inmate identification at the Federal Correction Institution McKean at P.O. Box 8000; Bradford, PA 16701-0980.