| Back to... |
 |
|
American Judicial System On Life Support |
| By Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt |
|
Unified Court Cumberland ,ss Docket No. 16-7494 (*= names redacted) May 24, 2018 The Hon. Judge ______ Cumberland County Courthouse 205 Newbury St, Room A260, Portland, Maine 04101 (207) 822-4174 Dear Judge* This letter is being written one week prior to the two-year Memorial Day (May 30, 2016) anniversary of the almost fatal shooting of my son, Samuel (Sam) by * of Portland, Maine. How ironic that Sam, a U.S. Marine who has sworn to support the U.S. Constitution, survived intense combat in Gulf War I, saved the lives of 20 of his buddies in just one dangerous operation, should return to the USA uninjured, only to end up being shot by * at Sam’s house at 146 Chadwick Street, Portland, Maine, and ultimately to see the Constitution he swore to uphold turned on its head by judicial malpractice in the State of Maine. * was not arrested or charged/prosecuted for anything: not for terrorizing the community (threatening to murder me from the street), not trespassing on Sam’s property, not attempted murder, all attested to by sworn eye witnesses. In fact, * has been left to wander, free as a bird, the streets of Portland and anywhere, USA, ever since the night of his attack on me. The issue resulted from an “unannounced/unprovoked” visit by PPD patrolmen to Sam’s house in October 2015, during which their persistent loud knocking on his door caused damage to his front door. Sam, who suffers from post traumatic distress disorder (PTSD) due to his service in Gulf War I, felt the Chief might be interested in warning police not to bang on doors to avoid possibility of connecting with a veteran with PTSD who could easily react to such banging by shooting at the police officers. The Chief, for some reason, even after several phone calls, refused to call Sam back, and Sam was never referred to anyone else at PPD regarding his concerns. Finally, after 5 or more unsuccessful tries, Sam, by mistake, got through to the Chief’s wife, Lt. Det., * on her cell phone. She was very nasty and not helpful at all. Sam continued to call Lt. * leaving messages for her to please call him back, which caused PPD to hand deliver to Sam a Notice to Cease Harassment. It was after the patrolmen’s first delivery of said Notice that Patrolman *, upon leaving Sam’s house, not realizing his audio was still active, said to Patrolman * : “if he’d [Sam] moved, I’d have popped him in the head” and * responded (in the recording) "It's not federal now." Said audio was mistakenly given to Sam in Discovery. Ultimately, after Sam called to apologize to Lt. Det.* for his repeated calls, not knowing an apology would be considered “harassment”, Det. * sent officers to Sam’s house to arrest him and throw him in jail overnight. With $560 bail. All of the above very nasty narrative relates to the action Sam, as a home owner/taxpaying citizen of Portland, took related to his concerns for Portland police officer safety. I have put off writing this letter to you for over one year, in the hope of obtaining justice through normal channels for my son, who is innocent of any crime whatsoever, and who was critically injured May 30, 2016 (shot through the femoral artery, on verge of death, as attested to by Maine Medical Center’s Dr. * (the surgeon who operated on him.) PPD Patrolman * who, prior to EMS/ambulance very tardy arrival, provided a tourniquet to stem the flow of blood, also contributed mightily to Sam’s survival.The primary reason for this letter relates to my understanding that you may have served as the Judge who was involved in the dispositional conference March 15, 2017 which resulted in the controversial dismissal/Fifth attached, dated April 20, 2017, crafted by AAG * and Sam’s defense attorney *, which resulted in the individual, * , not being charged and set free. If you are in fact the judge who presided at the dispositional conference 3/15/17, I wonder if you have connected the 4/20/17 dismissal which was a result of the 3/15/17 dispositional conference, with your being awakened around 2 a.m, May 31, 2016, by PPD Det. * in order to get your signature on an Affidavit authorizing a search warrant to enter *’s house at Hill Street in Portland, Maine (Attachment #6). ( * had been named as suspect of elevated aggravated assault by PPD Lt. Det. * shortly after *’s attack on my son, Sam, at 8:32 p.m. May 30, 2016 (Attachment #1). However, District Attorney * decided around 10:00 p.m. May 30, 2016, one and one half hour after *’s elevated aggravated assault upon Sam, and about four hours before you were awakened at 2 a.m. May 31, 2016 not to arrest or charge *. DA * order not to charge/arrest * was apparently relayed to PPD Lt. Detective * who was in charge of interrogating *, as evidenced by the following statements by Det. *, made at the beginning and end of interrogation of *: “It doesn’t look like you are going to be arrested”, and: “If I were you, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over this.” Sam was at that exact time in the process of dying, undergoing a massive blood transfusion and emergency surgery at Maine Medical for gunshot wound through the femoral artery. * was, shortly after the above revealing comments by Det. * released from PPD custody, driven home by the Portland Police Department, and has since that time been free to walk the streets of Portland. Fast forward four months: Three business hours after receipt by District Attorney * of my son’s Notice of Tort Claim against the City of Portland (filed in late September 2016) which described in detail two murder attempts on my son, Sam, D.A. reciprocated by taking the most unusual step of providing “suspect” Fred Dodge with a Public Defender, although Dodge had not been arrested or charged, the usual justification for provision of a Public Defender. DA * also reacted to the Notice of Tort Claim by calling for a Grand Jury hearing to be handled by ADA * which resulted in the GJ changing the original wording on PPD reports of “elevated aggravated assault by Fred Dodge” against my son, Sam, “victim of elevated aggravated assault”, to the following identical charges for both Dodge and Sam. “Count 1: 17-A M.R.S.A Sec. 209(1), 1252(4) Seq. No: 7975 CRIMINAL THREATENING WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, and Count 2: 17-A M.RSA Sec. 211(1), 1252(4) Seq. NO. 636W, RECKLESS CONDUCT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON My son, Samuel, had until this curious jury decision, been considered “victim of elevated aggravated assault” in all Portland Police Dept. reports. Sam was now considered “defendant”, along with the original “suspect”*, although he had committed no crime. He could have defended himself by shooting *, but didn’t. The Dispositional Conference March 15, 2017, at which you, Judge * I believe, presided, and which ultimately resulted in the controversial April 20 Dismissal w/Fifth (Attachment #7) was attended by Assistant Attorney General*, Sam’s prosecutor*, and Sam’s defense attorney*. My son, Sam, was present in the corridors, as required, during the Dispositional Hearing, and fully expected to be called to explain to you what really had happened May 30, 2016 and to tell YOU he did NOT want anything but a clean dismissal, and that he wanted to take the case to a jury trial at which he could, for the first and only time, be able to call eye witnesses and numerous other witnesses, including some very professional PPD officers/detectives (some of whom had provided written/signed statements to PPD), to testify on Sam’s behalf, which Sam felt would result in a unanimous jury in his favor. (* had no witness statements.) However, such was not to happen, since Sam was not called into the dispositional conference. AAG*, Sam’s prosecutor, and Attorney*, Sam’s defense attorney, in order to have * exonerated of the crime against Sam, recommended to you Dismissal/with the Fifth attached for both Sam and *. Their “plan”, which my attorney * knew Sam did not want and had not officially approved or signed, was never discussed in detail (pros and cons) in advance with Sam. In fact, Sam assumed ,his defense attorney *, would present to you the Motion for a clean dismissal his defense attorney had drafted which was approved by Sam two weeks earlier. (Attachment #3). In fact, to further confuse matters, Sam's Attorney*, after the controversial dismissal, left the state for two weeks, leaving Sam wondering what had happened during that Dispositional Conference. Finally, upon his return, Attorney * in a telephone conversation with Sam one day prior to the curious and unwanted dismissal on April 20, 2017, exerted heavy psychological pressure on Sam to accept the controversial Dismissal, with the Fifth. Attorney *sent the private detective hired by Sam, to Sam’s house, unannounced, to bully Sam into calling Attorney * to accept the unacceptable Dismissal, further stating, verbatim, that “if Sam took the case to trial, Public Defender *, would tear him (Sam) apart during cross examination.” The text of the audio tape of Sam’s telephone conversation with * follows: “Hello*: As I told you when we were on the phone, * is here with the brainwashing unit. He has put my brain in the washing machine. And so we talked about it all and so he is good at brainwashing and so we are, I guess, going to go ahead and play their game. But I’ll be around (to further discuss dismissal) when your throat feels better. So I’m saying yes to it, don’t want to; you know that, but * got experience, you’ve got experience, and they are corrupt.. So what do you do? OK. Give me a call if you have any questions. Bye Bye.” * never called Sam back. Attorney * used the above voice mail Sam left on his machine 4/19/17, the day before the dismissal, as proof Sam accepted the Dismissal with the Fifth. Said Dismissal (Attachment #7) states: “Dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence as the named victim has indicated he will exercise his fifth amendment right to remain silent if called to testify. This dismissal is being filed on behalf of AAG *. Dismissal is signed by *. We still don’t know what Judge signed off on this dismissal, or is it not necessary for a Judge to do so or, if so, not to reveal his name? What does “dismissed with prejudice for lack of evidence...” mean, considering fact Sam had testified (told the truth and nothing but the truth...provided all evidence needed at his Grand Jury hearing in November 2016) and planned on testifying again at the Jury trial which Sam looked forward to, but which never happened? An “evidentiary hearing”, which Sam also planned on attending, had been scheduled for June, 2017. That planned hearing was cancelled as well, without informing Sam, due to the controversial dismissal decision made on March 15, 2017 and finalized on April 20, 2017. So, Your Honor, Sam and I believe you were seriously misled (kept in the dark) by Sam’s prosecutor, Asst. AG * in collusion with Sam’s defense attorney * during the Dispositional Conference on March 15. Sam’s views were not represented to you. You were not given the facts of the case. To be perfectly honest, had I been you (not being truthfully informed regarding the prosecutorial irregularities allowed (planned?) by the AG's and DA's foot soldiers, and the thwarting of the truth due to the deliberate exclusion of Sam, I, myself, might well have approved the dismissal with the 5th. So, in respect for you as a human being, and due to my knowledge of your excellent record as a judge, I felt compelled to explain to you how you were “used” during that dispositional hearing, “used” to obtain a pre-determined, unapproved by Sam, dismissal w/the 5thattached, arranged by Maine’s Attorney General; Deputy Attorney General; District Attorney; ADA, Sam’s prosecutor; *'s attorney/public defender; and my defense attorney, in order to get * exonerated from this grievous crime against my son, Sam. (All names associated with above titles have been redacted). This letter is primarily written to you since Sam and I feel strongly that *, an obvious danger to the community, should have been immediately arrested and charged on Memorial Day, May30, 2016, simply on the basis of Lt. Det. * “Suspect Description” form, AND signed eye witness statements, one of which (Attachment #9 is included in Iserbyt letter to Lt. *. The malpractice related to this case by numerous individuals in the Attorney General’s and Cumberland County District Attorney’s offices is an unconstitutional slap in the face of good Portland Police Dept. police and detectives, especially Ptlmn * who stated in his Investigative Report that Sam responded to him, while Sam was bleeding to death, that * had shot him; AND Sgt. Det. * who was in charge of the PPD Report, subsequently trashed by, the Cumberland County D.A*. The original PPD Report included numerous eye witness and other witness statements. Of interest is that all PPD Incident reports included the words “elevated aggravated assault”; “suspect *”; and “victim Samuel Iserbyt”. Also, of extreme importance is the fact that ADA,* (who had advised Sam, shortly after the attempted murder, that the state was not going to prosecute Dodge since it could not get a unanimous jury) later told ADA *: “Perhaps we should take another look at the case; I *may have been mistaken.” How refreshing to have someone so deeply involved display conscience! This was, I believe, the reason D.A. * removed * as ADA in charge of prosecuting Sam, replacing her with ADA who would do her * bidding. The aforementioned information regarding * was related to me by ADA* who replaced her, at a meeting he held with our former attorney *, Sam, and myself prior to Sam’s Grand Jury Hearing. ADA * also made a very uncalled-for comment directed at me, Charlotte, regarding “my boyfriend,* ”. He was sarcastically referring to fact Sgt. Det.* from two days after the attempted murder, had provided me with information the DA’s office did not want Sam or me to have related to the ongoing coverup of what really happened Memorial Day, May 30, 2016. Sgt/Det. *was originally in charge of the crime scene, and responsible for assembling the excellent Police Report. Quotes above are transcribed from my shorthand notes taken throughout the investigation. Shortly after the DA’s * receipt of Sam’s Notice of Tort Claim against the City of Portland, the Sgt.Det. * and all District Attorney employees, including PPD personnel and officials (elected and unelected) of Portland’s City Government were ordered not to talk to (discuss the case) with Sam or me.
Note - All parties referred to directly or indirectly are invited to submit ‘equal time’ written replies to Ms Iserbyt’s statement |