Have you been harmed by unethical conduct in the US legal system on matters not concerning the mold issue or family court?

We are aware that there appear to be many people in the US experiencing retaliation for speaking the truth.  We are also aware that there are many who are incarcerated that are claiming innocence – with evidence and witnesses to corroborate their claim.

Has this happened to you or anyone you know?  

All Comments are moderated on this blog.  This is not a cite to vent or character assasinate those with whom you disagree.  If you have evidence of wrong doing involving the US legal system, we will gladly share your information here.


One thought on “Other



    August 27, 2013

    For those fighting the corrupt and subversive culture within the California justice system, the John Turner case is the gift that keeps on giving. (JOHN TURNER v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SCN282017)
    Amid solid documentation of audio tampering, falsifying documents and misconduct on the part of the San Diego County District Attorneys Office (SDDA), the Oceanside Police Department (OPD) and the Palo Alto Police Department of San Mateo County, CA (PAPD), a review of the trial transcript clearly demonstrates that the prosecutor’s expert rebuttal witness confirmed the defense expert’s findings: audio tampering. Nonetheless, the recordings remained in evidence. Impartiality and constitutional rights could not seem to find a perch anywhere the SDDA, PAPD and Judge Daniel Goldstein’s courtroom were involved.

    Prosecution rebuttal expert Barry Dickey of Audio Evidence Lab in Mansfield, TX, was paid $10,000 to fly to California and testify, though qualified experts are within driving distance of the Vista, CA courthouse where the trial took place. Instead of a formal report, Dickey brought loose lab notes and exhibits to court. As evidenced by the trial transcript, Dickey stated that the recording devise, an Olympus DM-10, is limited to 8000 HZ of frequency content, which explained obvious and damning evidence of audio tampering: redigitization. Dickey’s testimony seems to imply a design flaw or deception by the manufacturer, Olympus Corporation, as being responsible for what would be clear indications of tampering and possibly perjury based on Detective Anjanette Holler’s testimony. What followed defies description and belief. Dickey immediately undermines his own testimony as he displays exhibits (his exhibits as well as those of defense expert Kent Gibson) that show approximately 22,000 HZ of frequency content in the recordings, which Dickey states is consistent with an original recording off the DM-10. [See Exhibits 1 & 2 attached or go to http://www.Judicial-Exploitation.org/PR%5D. If Dickey’s representation regarding the Olympus DM-10 is correct, how can there be approximately 22,000 HZ of audio content in the supposed original recordings provided by Detective Anjanette Holler of the PAPD? If Dickey’s representation is false, does it constitute false testimony? In any event, this obvious evidence of tampering is uncontested and once again, we must look to Detective Anjanette Holler and the supposed original recordings, which are not original and show strong indications of tampering. Is $10,000 the going rate for such an expert to provide this type of testimony?

    We now have experts from both the defense and prosecution confirming audio tampering. John Turner has alleged audio tampering since October 2010. Since the trial, which ended February 28, 2012, Turner has insisted that the recordings were not authenticated at trial. However, the trial transcripts, which were not available until October 2012, indicate the complaining witness authenticated the recording during her testimony. Turner states:

    “It was my request that the complaining witness not be allowed to hear the newly produced recording from February 8, 2012, prior to testifying. No one was more attentive to her testimony and the prosecutor’s attempt to authenticate than me. When questioned immediately prior to hearing the recording, the witness stated that certain subject matter was not mentioned in the conversation. She was visibly shaken upon hearing the sentences and phrases that had been inserted into the recording. Though the transcript indicates that she authenticated the recording that is simply not true. The question DDA Flaherty actually asked was, ‘Does that fairly represent the subject matter of the conversation?’ There were no follow up questions regarding anything added to or deleted from the conversation Besides, no prosecutor would have risked impeaching their own evidence, as well as indict their own department, at that point in the trial. Especially when considering the witness’ statements and reaction moments prior. Nothing more than common sense is needed to realize the transcript is inaccurate. In addition, Detective Anjanette Holler of the PAPD testified that the recording had no evidentiary value on the date it was originally recorded, June 15, 2010. [See Exhibit 3 attached or go to http://www.Judicial-Exploitation.org/PR%5D. That was not the case on the date she testified at trial 20 months later.”

    Defense counsel requested, in the presence of the jury, that the jury be allowed to review a copy of defense audio expert Kent Gibson’s Declaration (Report) during his examination. Mr. Gibson’s clients include the FBI and U.S. Secret Service. The judge denied the request. Though the request is not contained within the trial transcript, it did occur. The judge references the fact that the jury did not see the report in a discussion after the jury was excused. [See Exhibit 4 attached or go to www. Judicial-Exploitation.org/PR to see all exhibits. See Page 906, Line 16]. In an overt display of bias and questionable ethics, the court not only allowed prosecution expert Barry Dickey’s exhibits and personal notes (not a formal report) to be shown to the jury via a projected TV screen but Dickey is also allowed to approach the jury. [See Exhibit 1, page 928, Line 22 or go to www. Judicial-Exploitation.org/PR The use of the name Mr. Gibson is in error. Dickey is on the stand.] This demonstrates the obvious bias of Judge Daniel Goldstein and may provide insight into what may be a corrupted jury selection process. Shortly after the trial, John Turner documented what he referred to as an obvious familiarity between the judge and certain jurors.

    Mr. Turner made the following statement:

    “There is a consistent and effective strategy in use: control perception to undermine or hide the truth. It is a psychological strategy based in part on convincing you that something does not exist. There is an old Chinese saying, ‘A lie told by one becomes the truth when told by a thousand.’ By using position of public trust, avoiding documentation of unethical conduct (keeping it off the record), altering records and doing so at each and every stage of the process, a façade of legitimacy is created when all that exists is consistency of complicity. [See Exhibit 5, a sworn statement from a witness attesting to the transcript being altered] The level of corruption, as indicated by its breadth, is like cancer, which spreads until its removal is no longer practical. Eventually, the host dies. Ironically, the host is the state and the state will defend and protect this cancer from the antibodies designed to arrest it, namely, oversight, accountability, exposure and public scrutiny. These people are gambling with house money: they don’t lose, even when they lose.”

    Has this been the furtherance of a political agenda? I know only the reality of what I have experienced. Politics is business and the line between the two is, at times, indistinguishable. What I know is that what I have experienced is not philosophical ideology but practical application. Applied with a different brush and more liberally, the threat to our government, our way of life, is not real but potentially catastrophic. Regardless of the light by which we view it, there is undeniable evidence of corruption and complicity, beginning with the police, onward into the prosecutor’s office, into the court, and then diverging into the appellate process and correctional system. The evidence comes directly from the perpetrators in the unmistakable form of written confessions, some of which are referenced herein. All we have to do is read them.

    Whether or not there is a conspiracy afoot is up to the reviewer, but it is not a theory, for the facts are clearly in evidence. Furthermore, there is no argument underway, for this is all one-sided: them, their, documents, their sworn testimony and their actions.

    It gets much, much worse.


    John Turner is seeking legal assistance. If you can assist or offer a referral, it would be greatly appreciated.

    If any internet research regarding this case should be done, please use Bing or Yahoo, not Google. See previous press release updates at: judicial-exploitation.org/PR/

    Please inquire here:

    John Turner AL6447

    CIM II/A4-130L

    P.O. Box 441
    Chino, CA91708


    (443) 326-5208

    If you call and leave your name, organization and contact information, so I can contact you directly. Be advised, when I call the announcement will be, “This is Global Tel Link. You have a prepaid call from John Turner, an inmate at the California Institution for Men. To accept this call, press 5.” Please inform your staff of this automated announcement so that the call is not confused with an automated telemarketing call. The call is prepaid, so the expense is mine.

    Lawyer referrals are appreciated.

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s