U.S Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility
Ms. Mary Patrice Brown
Dear Ms. Brown:
All I ask is to have statute law complied with as written or state what is not plain or is considered absurd in the law—nothing more.
The USSC on June 26, 2006 in ARLINGTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, PETITIONER v. PEARL MURPHY et vir wrote:
“We have “stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253–254 (1992). When the statutory “language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms
It is with this decisional law in mind that I request your department investigate, for prosecution, conduct by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, Miami, FL and U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida Judge William Hoeveler for violation of 18 USC 242 by failing to enforce 18 USC 3332 . 18 USC 242 and 3332 state:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law , Judges, who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
,
Sec. 3332. Powers and duties
-STATUTE-
(a) It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation.
The authority for my request is found in 18 USC 3332 with additional support found in the U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual 158,9. The office of Mr. Acosta declined to comply with my request. On May 9, 2008 I filed a PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case was assigned number CV 08-21366 and to Judge William Hoeveler. The entire case can be reviewed through PACER These failures by Hoeveler and Acosta justify prosecution for violating codified, statutory United States law. I find no exception for the enforcement of 18 USC 242 when Judges or U.S. Attorney’s are the subject of violation. In fact Judges and law enforcement members are specifically mentioned for violation enforcement.
It was reported last week that Judge Alan Gold of Miami, in a withering 50 page opinion, publicly reprimanded United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, his top aides and three other prosecutors for withholding evidence and violating procedures in a criminal case.,
Joseph S. Norman II
(