% Faxctrl: Faxno=001 206 205 2585
% Faxctrl: To=Judge Linda Lau, King County Superior Court
% Faxctrl: From=Tony Hollick
% Faxctrl: Subject=Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau -- Ref: 97-1-015 23-1 . KNT
% Faxctrl: End
To:
Judge Linda Lau,
King County Superior Court,
No. 2D, 401 4th Avenue North,
Kent,
Washington,
USA 08032
Tel: 206-296-9242
Fax: 206-205-2585
Dear Judge Lau, 12 August 1997
Thank you so very much for your procedural help in enabling me to submit
this brief to your Court, for the Hearing of 29 August (the birthday of
Constitutional philosopher John Locke, by the way).
There follows my amicus curiae brief in the case of Mary Kay Schmitz
LeTourneau. I am asking for further advice in the matter. I am acting
entirely independently, and on my own judgement. I have no financial
interest in the case.
Relevant press reports are on file at:
http;//www.seatimes.com (Seattle Times).
All my hopes and dreams for America's future, and for the future of Mary
Kay and her family, will be with you all on 29th August.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Hugh Hollick
Firstly, a copy of the fax sent by me 10 August 1997.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Dear Special Agent Charon, 10 August 1997
Thank you so much for speaking with me concerning Dan Satterberg's (and
others') vicious and most probably unlawful behaviour towards Mary Kay
Schmitz LeTourneau and her family. I hope quite desperately that you can
help her.
This a matter of the utmost and immediate concern. Mary Kay Schmitz
LeTourneau is presently incarcerated at King County Jail, 620 West James,
Kent, Washington 98023. She has been assigned prisoner number 97-34198.
It's a miracle she's still sane after months of quite inhuman persecution
at the hands of Johnson, Satterburg et al.
I am grievously reminded of the words of Deputy Attorney General Vincent
Cuccia after the death of the American comedian Lenny Bruce at the hands
of his team of prosecutors:
"We drove him into poverty and bankruptcy; we watched him fall apart; we
knew what we were doing: we used the law to kill him." (Ernest van den
Haag, later of the Heritage Foundation, was a prosecution witness in the
matter).
Full citations for the matters discussed concerning the Philippines
and other references are cited at:
http://www.pir.org "(Over 90 000 spooks and far rightists)" .
Search on 'Norm Maleng'; and 'Schmitz'; and 'Heritage Foundation.'
You will be presented with a full list of publically documented citations,
copies of which are available on request. They're very reliable.
There follows a copy of the faxes sent to Satterburg and the Defense
Attorneys prior to the (in my view, inexplicable) 'guilty' plea.'
My full amicus curiae brief to the court for the August 29th Hearing will
contain additional legal arguments and issues.
I am fully willing to assist the courts and yourselves in this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Hugh Hollick
| Anduril@cix.compulink.co.uk * http://www.agora.demon.co.uk |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9501894 |
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Second: My fax sent 5 August 1997, and confirmed as received by King
County Prosecutors _prior to the August 7 hearing_.
============================================================================
From: Tony Hollick, | To: King County Prosecutors:
4, Grayling House, | Dan Satterberg, Norm Maleng
Canford Road, | and Lisa Johnson
Bristol BS9 3NU, | Seattle,
England | Washington, USA
Telephone (0117)-9501894 | Telephone 001 206 296 9000
============================================================================
Internet: anduril@cix.compulink.co.uk | Fax: 001 206 296 0955
============================================================================
Dear Mr. Satterburg, Mr. Maleng and Ms. Johnson, 5 August, 1997
Please accept this as formal confirmation that (inter alia) I shall be
filing an Amicus Curiae brief for consideration by the relevant courts in
the case of:
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Mary Katherine Schmitz LeTourneau: Ref: 97-1-015 23-1 . KNT
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
As I have discussed with you all on several occasions now, this case has
grave human-rights and international relevance and implications, as well
as raising profound legal, hmuman rights and social issues under the laws
of the State of Washington and the United States itself
I owe you a preliminary explanation for my direct personal involvement in
this case. This also constitutes a statement for the relevant official
records.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[A] As explained to me by Mr. Dale Foreman of the Washington State
Republican Committee, the prosecution is being brought to make an example
of Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau. This is unacceptable. Political 'Show
Trials' and witch-hunts do not form any proper part of the American legal
tradition.
As Mr. Satterberg will well recall, I contrasted his and his colleagues'
prosecutorial zeal in in hounding a harmless female school-teacher most
unfavourably vis-a-vis his and his colleagues' seeming indifference and/or
reluctance to go after Microsoft Corporation and its officers (based at
Redmond in Seattle, well within King County jurisdiction) for prima facie
grotesque breaches of United States laws, including (inter alia) the
Charter of the National Security Agency itself.
This is a matter of the utmost gravity for the constitutional rights of
all American Windows95 users in the US and elsewhere, who have thus been
rendered vulnerable to terrorist and criminal attack.
[Note: This refers to Windows95 'backdoors'.: it is now under active
investigation by Mr. William Neukom, Chief Legal Executive of Microsoft
Corporation, at my direct request. --AHH ].
I pointed out very directly to Mr. Satterburg that many CIA and NSA
staffers were well aware of (and outraged by) these matters, and he could
perhaps start his invstigations by discussing these problems with them.
Indeed, this whole Microsoft Corporation affair is a matter of direct
and most basic concern to the entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and all its members.
Inescapably obviously, Mr. Maleng and Mr. Satterburg are most unwilling to
pursue grotesque legal infractions when they involve a major Seattle
employer, powerful (and perhaps feared?) rogue elements in the intelligence
and security services, and the many extremely rich and powerful interests
who are gaining illicitly from criminal misconduct by enriching themselves
via illegally obtained 'commercial intelligence.'
'The Economist' writes:
(p. 48, July 26th, 1977, "Inside the Belly of the Beast')"
"When it comes to campaign finance, there is in fact a nasty, unspoken
bipartisan consensus: that both parties are addicted to massive
amounts of money, and they do not want to change the system that gives it
to them."
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[B] The 'alternatives' presented to Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau (and the
direct or indirect threats levelled against her) during the pre-trial
interrogations constitute unapccptable coercion, and a violation of her
rights, as well as an attempted pre-emption of the proper role of the
courts.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[C] The Statute under which Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau is being accused
constitutes a direct attack on the role of the Judiciary, as well as being
in violation of accepted legal norms. It is also -- in my view -- a
Statute which violates the Separation of Powers by reason of the
Legislature's attempting a usurpation of the the proper functions of the
Judiciary to determine matters of fact, intention, and the moral content
of actions.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[D] The Statute in question is quite certainly a gross example of that
most evil legal positivism which characterized Nazi Germany and Stalin's
USSR, whereby the 'law' was deemed to be whatever the State wanted it to
be. The Statute therefore violates the jurisprudential bases and character
of the entire United States legal system.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[E] The Prosecution _agrees_ that whatever took place between Mary Kay
Schmitz LeTourneau and the then-13-year-old boy in the case took place
without any element of coercion or other imposition of will being present.
Yet -- by direct analogy -- the Prosecution would seek to assert that
(in Shakespeare's play) Romeo subjected Juliet to 'child rape', and -- in
present-day Seattle -- would be coerced to plead 'guilty' to 'child rape'
charges in direct and blatant contravention of the facts.
Such coercion is _grossly_ improper, and is in itself tantamout to an
interference with the accused's rights to plead and appeal directly to the
relevant courts themselves.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[F] For a mother to be threatened with protracted and obligatory
psychiatric intervention and coercion intended to 'cure' her of her love
for her child's father is _completely unacceptable_ under all ethical and
human-rights principles. Such action would grossly violate the standards
of medical ethics of the relevant professional bodies, and constitutes
grounds for formal complaint thereto.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
[G] As I have previously stated, Mr. Satterberg, Mr. Maleng and Ms.
Johnson will ineluctably be held directly and personally accountable for
every aspect of their actions in this (and any other relevant) case.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
A TIME FOR CHOOSING:
Why should I (and many others) be so concerned by the vicious prosecution
of Mary Kay Schmitz LeTourneau (and others who have physically harmed or
coerced no-one)?
I can find no better words than these.
"You and I have a rendezvous with Destiny. We can preserve for our
children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we can sentence them
to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at
least let our children and our childrens' children say of us that we
justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan, addressing the Republican Convention in Phoenix,
Arizona 33 years ago, on Barry Morris Goldwater's bid for the Presidency.
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Hugh Hollick
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/Archives/LA-Agora
| Anduril@CIX.compulink.co.uk * http://www.agora.demon.co.uk |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9501894 |
"Freedom means doing whatever you damn well please." -- Barry Goldwater
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Summary of Constitutional Amendment Issues: 12 August 1997
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
Contention: Mary Kay Schmitz Letourneau was required to have an abortion,
mainly by reason of the racial origins of her baby, and her baby's father
(Samoan/American)), notwithstanding that she was and is a Roman Catholic,
and considers abortion impermissible on religious grounds. She refused to
kill her baby. Had she had the abortion, there would have been no
complaint by her husband's parents, and thus no case brought against her.
This also is a clear abridgwement of relevant civil rights.
In her attempted defense and pleadings, she is -- to the best of my
understanding, knowledge and belief -- being threatened with reprisals
against herself, her family (inter alia her baby, her older children and
her baby's father).
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There appear to have been clear violations.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
This has clearly been grossly violated in this case. The prosecution
have pre-empted (or attempted to pre-empt) virtually every aspect of the
'trial' proceedings, from plea right through to sentencing.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.
Clear violations.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
To threaten a mother with (or inflict) forced psychiatric destruction of
her love for her child's father is grotesquely cruel. I must hope it is
also unusual, in the USA at least. I am consulting with Dr. Richard
Ciccione, of the Americam Psychiatric Association Judicial Action
Subcommittee on this, and with Dr. Peter Gruenberg, of the Ethics
Committee for their statements concerning the 'psychiatric' aspects of
the case, and the threatened penalties.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The right to found a family is expressly recognized by the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights (New York, 1947).
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Submitted by Anthony Hugh Hollick this 12 August 1997.
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/Archives/LA-Agora
| Anduril@cix.compulink co.uk * http://www.agora.demon.co.uk |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9501894 |
ENGLAND