August 8, 2014
The Honorable Mark Herring
Office of the Attorney General of Elizabeth
900 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Attorney General Herring:
This is a complaint about corruption and I am writing to request that this complaint be investigated. I contacted a lawyer who told me that you office investigates corruption. This complaint is about corruption, fraud, malfeasance, a hate crime, and the heinous conduct of Prosecutor Lezlie Green (Brunswick County), attorney David Boone, attorney JeRoyd Green, and Judge Perkinson. The United States Supreme Court describes what they did as corruption. Prosecutor Leslie Green needs to be fired immediately. She is a threat to the well-being of our society. Her behavior represents disrespect for the law and the Constitution. We beg the Office of Attorney General; please do not support this kind of behavior. It is time that people start looking at what is right and legal and stop protecting people who are corrupt and have complete disregard for the law/Constitution. I can prove everything in this letter.
Charles Lynch (alias), and a codefendant, Thomas Smith (alias), were convicted of misdemeanor sexual battery on 6/5/2005 in the Brunswick County J&D Court. Attorney David E. Boone represented Lynch. Attorney JeRoyd Green represented Thomas Smith.
The facts her are undisputable. Proof is provided here of their irreprehensible egregious conduct. The proof is in David Boone’s own words/written documentation. The evidence here will show that the defendants were lied to by their lawyers, the prosecutor, and the Court by omission. These errors caused the defendants to have illegal convictions. They were denied due process that prevented them from going to trial to establish their innocence.
Defendants were sentenced on June 7, 2005 in Brunswick General District Court. The Judge did not interrogate them. The Judge did not ask “how do you plea, do you understand the plea, or if their pleas were voluntary. There was no “plea colloquy” of any kind by the Judge. The Judge did not say anything to defendants regarding the consequences of their pleas.
The law requires that the judge ask certain questions to ensure that the plea is voluntary, intelligent and knowing.” It is settled law that acceptance of a guilty plea absence of affirmative showing that the plea was intelligent, knowing, and voluntary constitutes reversible error when the record does not disclose that the defendant voluntarily and understandably entered the plea of guilty ( Boykins v. Alabama, Padilla v. Kentucky 253 S. W.3d 482 U. S. S. Ct. (2009); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 770,771 (1970);Lynch v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 304 (1938).
Defendants are victims of “fraud upon the court.” Fraud upon the court is where an officer of the court is corrupted or where the Judge has not performed his judicial functions. When a Judge does not interrogate a criminal defendant, he has not performed his judicial function. If a Judge does not perform his judicial duties, he is guilty of “fraud upon the court,” he wars against the constitution and has engaged in treason to the Constitution and you can bet that there is also deprivation of liberty and property without due process (Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 10th Circuit (1985); VA Code 8.01-428D.)
Defendants were not told that they would be required to register with the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry maintained by the Virginia State Police. In Boykins v. Alabama, Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that bad legal advice about the collateral consequence of a guilty plea amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of Constitutional rights. In violation of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment to the Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution, Defendants were denied their right to effective counsel when Prosecutor Green, David Boone, and JeRoyd Green gave them incorrect advice prior to his entry of their guilty pleas with regard to the requirement that they would have to register with the Sex Offender Registry and Crimes against Minors Registry maintained by the Virginia State Police.
These young Afro American men were innocent and they were adamant that they would not take a plea that required that they register as sex offenders. Hence, Lezlie Green, Judge Perkinson, David Boone, and JeRoyd Green set them up so that they would not know the consequences of their pleas. Judge Perkinson did it by omission and the others by lying to their clients. What these people did was murder these young Afro American men lives.
THE EVIDENCE
Attorney Boone admitted repeatedly in his Memorandums to the Court that he violated Lynch’s Constitutional rights (violation of due process), and committed fraud against his client.
Attorney Boone told Mr. Lynch that he would not be required to register as a sex offender by taking the plea. He had a letter hand delivered by Everett Phelps to Lynch on 6/24/05. He backdated the letter to 6/8/05 to make it appear that he had sent it during the appeal period. This proves that Lynch was not advised of the consequences of his plea prior to making it on 6/7/05, as the law requires. A letter from attorney Boone dated June 8, 2005, received by Lynch on June 24, 2005 (after the appeal period) telling Lynch that it “would be his responsibility to find out if he would be required to register as a sex offender” is proof that Mr. Lynch was not informed that he would be required to register as a sex offender. The law says that it was Attorney Boone’s and Judge Perkinson’s responsibility to inform Lynch and his codefendant of the consequences of their pleas (Padilla v. Kentucky, citing Boykins v. Alabama). This letter is Mr. Boone’s admission and proof of “fraud upon the court,” ineffective assistance of counsel, and violation of Lynch’s Constitutional rights. Bulloch v. United States. The Court’s failure to advise Defendants of the consequences of their pleas is fraud. This shows that David Boone intentionally lied to Mr. Lynch the date of his conviction and that he intentionally withheld the information from Mr. Lynch until after the appeal period.
What do you call lawyers who are so dishonest, deceitful? In Down v. McNeil, 520-F3d 1311, 11th Circuit (2008), the Court defined this kind of behavior as egregious conduct, outright willful deceit, knowing and reckless factual misrepresentation; a lawyer’s dishonesty. The Court defined such conduct as egregious because it established circumstances, conduct so extraordinary, and conduct so diligently dishonest. Attorney Boone, Prosecutor Lezlie Green, and JeRoyd Green committed wrongful acts that reflected adversely on their honesty, and engaged in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and malfeasance.
The court order does not state that Lynch is required to register as a sex offender. Mr. Boone told Lynch’s mother, Elizabeth Taylor (alias) on 6/7/2005 that Lynch would not have to register because the Court Order did not state that he was required to register.
There are affidavits from persons in court that the judge did not determine if defendants’ pleas were voluntary, knowing and intelligent and that they were not told that they would be required to register as sex offenders. These are available for your inspection.
Mr. Boone stated in Memorandum Brief to the Court dated August 15, 2008 page 3, paragraph 4) that he did not give Lynch full disclosure regarding his plea. Mr. Boone states that “I inquired,” referring to Mr. Lynch:
“As to whether I would be required to register as a sex offender.” Mr. Boone stated in the Brief that he said that he was “uncertain because he did not have the statute on hand, but that he assumed that such registration was required.” Mr. Boone also stated that he would mail Lynch a copy of the statute.
In Mr. Boone’s own word, “uncertain” makes the plea “not knowing, not intelligent and not voluntary.” You cannot make an intelligent, knowing and voluntary plea without knowing the consequences of the plea. If indeed, he were uncertain, he would have requested that the Judge inform Lynch of the law in relation to his plea as required to meet the due process obligation of the law. Mr. Boone did not do that because they had conspired to keep that information from defendants so that they would accept the plea.
In a Brief to the Court dated May 21, 2009, page 5, Mr. Boone stated that he gave Lynch full disclosure regarding the plea and that he knowingly, intelligently and maturely” considered and agreed to the plea.
These are conflicting statements. Mr. Boone’s letter of June 8, 2005 proves that he deceived Lynch and did not give Lynch full disclosure. Mr. Boone was providing false information to the court/perjury.
Mr. Lynch began calling Mr. Boone within a few days (2 or 3 days) of his conviction asking for him to perfect an appeal. Mr. Lynch learned from me (Taylor) that there were affirmative defenses for the charges against him. There were more than 5 persons to testify to his innocence. The complaining witness had recanted her statement.
Memorandum Brief from David E. Boone et al dated July 2, 2008 page 8, paragraph 2. Mr. Boone states that Lynch asked him to appeal. Note that Mr. Boone states in Memorandum August 15, 2008, Page 4, and paragraph 2, that Lynch said that he did not want the appeal and that it was Ms. Taylor’s idea to request an appeal. Then he states in Memorandum Brief, dated May 21, 2009, Page 5, paragraph1 that Lynch asked him to appeal and that he advised Lynch against an appeal and he agreed. Mr. Boone refused to note the appeal. These are conflicting statements, again, showing Mr. Boone deceiving the court.
The law is clear. If a defendant asks for an appeal, the lawyer must perfect the appeal. In Cabaniss v. Cunningham, the Virginia Supreme Court stated defendants have a right to a defense and that defense included assistance in perfecting an appeal (Thacker v. Peyton; Stokes v. Peyton).
Charles Lynch asked his mother, Ms. Taylor, to request that Attorney Boone request an appeal on his behalf. Ms. Taylor went to see Mr. Boone to convey Lynch’s request for an appeal because Lynch was having difficulty getting attorney Boone on the telephone. Mr. Boone would not come out to discuss the request. He sent a note to Ms. Taylor stating that the Brunswick case was over. Lynch called Mr. Boone to make the request. Lynch requested a two way and Attorney Boone got Ms. Taylor on the phone. Mr. Boone attempted to talk Lynch out an appeal, but Lynch said that he still wanted to appeal. Mr. Boone stated that the case was over; that Lynch was lucky to have gotten the plea, and that there were many innocent people in jail. Mr. Boone emphatically stated that the case was over and ended the conversation with “Am I not speaking English?’’ Mr. Boone wrote Ms. Taylor stating that Mr. Lynch was lucky to have gotten the plea that he had gotten and that he advised against an appeal.
Magee v. Peyton supra, 343, F.2d, the Court held that letter written after the conviction by prisoner and his father to the trial judge relating to a new trial should have been construed as a request for an appeal. Mr. Lynch and his mother called, wrote and pleaded with Mr. Boone to perfect an appeal for Mr. Lynch. He absolutely refused.
Attorney Boone’s Memorandums state that Lynch requests for an appeal were both verbal and in writing. Mr. Boone admits that he declined Lynch’s written request for an appeal. Lynch had received the letter from Mr. Boone on 6/24/05 that was dated 6/8/05 telling him that he would most likely be required to register as a sex offender. Memorandum Brief dated August 15, 2008 page 4, paragraph 3, and Mr. Boone states that he told Lynch “there existed no grounds upon to withdraw his guilty plea.” In Cabaniss v. Cunningham, the Virginia Supreme Court further pointed out that the fact that counsel and the trial judge may think that there are no grounds for an appeal does not justify a refusal to grant the defendant’s request for a review of his conviction.
In a letter to Lynch dated August 10, 2005, Mr. Boone tells Lynch that he would not file an appeal and that if Lynch insisted that he file an appeal, he would withdraw from his case and testify against him. This is outright intimidation, harassment, heinous conduct. Threatening to testify against Lynch because he wanted to appeal was morally irreprehensible egregious conduct.
The above is Mr. Boone’s admissions that he violated Lynch’s right to due process by lying to him regarding the consequences of his plea and refusing to note an appeal after Lynch’s many requests for him to do so.
The Virginia Supreme Court has held that:
“The United States Supreme Court has held and we agree that “when counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance deprives a defendant of an appeal that he otherwise would have taken; the defendant has made out a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim entitling him to an appeal.”
Mr. Boone did not file an appeal because it would have revealed that he had “tricked” Lynch to accept the plea by: 1)telling him that he would not be required to register as a sex offender by taking the plea; 2) that he induced him to take the plea by telling him that he had discussed the plea with Ms. Taylor (his mother) and she recommended that he take the plea; 3) fraud upon the court; 4) that he failed to inform Mr. Lynch regarding the affirmative defenses of the alleged charges against him; and 5) he had been paid $15,000 and he did not want to be bothered. The agreement with Mr. Boone stated that he would represent Lynch through the Circuit Court. The conviction was in the Brunswick Combined General District and J & D Court. Mr. Boone deceived Mr. Lynch into taking a plea. He refused to note an appeal. He refused to return the any of the $15,000 that he had been paid. Mr. Boone knows that Mr. Lynch is actually innocent. He ruined Mr. Lynch’s life just for monetary gains. He wanted to be available to go out to make more money rather than earn the $15,000 that defendant had paid him. May God have mercy on his soul.
We (Charles Lynch and Elizabeth Taylor) became afraid of Mr. Boone at this point, but continued to make calls and pleas for his help. Lynch demanded that he file an appeal. Attorney Boone cut off all communication with Taylor because Taylor told him that it was his duty to note an appeal as requested by Lynch. Attorney Boone’s responses became more hostile and threatening with each request. Lynch told him that the decision to appeal should be his decision, but Attorney Boone just made threats and refused to appeal.
Ms. Taylor attempted to find an attorney to help Lynch when he wanted to appeal and Mr. Boone refused to note an appeal on his behalf. The lawyers refused to help. Attorney Robert Walker was one of the first attorneys that Taylor contacted while Lynch was incarcerated. He stated that he did not want to mess with a case that Mr. Boone had messed up. He suggested that Ms. Taylor look outside of the Richmond Metropolitan area because Taylor was unlikely to find an attorney in Richmond to help. Taylor called at least one hundred lawyers in Richmond, all over Virginia, some in Washington, DC, Maryland, but was unable to get help. Several attorneys who knew Mr. Boone personally stated that they believed that Mr. Boone had tricked Lynch because they knew his character, but they would not help.
Johnson cannot get a fair trial in Brunswick County. He cannot find a lawyer to represent him to get is conviction overturned. All of the lawyers have outright declined to represent him or asked retainers to be deposited with them that represented that they did not want to help. They asked for retainers of thirty to fifty thousand dollars ($30,000 to $50,000). We have been told that attorneys would be ruining their careers if they helped because the Judge did not perform his function (did not interrogate the criminal defendants regarding their pleas) which contributed to Lynch’s and Smith’s due process violation. Boykins v. Alabama, Bulloch v. United States. One lawyer said that he could not take it b/c he had to feed is family stating the legal community would be prejudice against him for doing so.
State Senator Thomas Norment, Jr., Chairman of the Court of Justice Committee, reviewed the evidence presented here. Senator Norment states that both Lynch and his codefendant have the option of filing an appeal of their convictions. He could see the travesty of justice.
(Smith, codefendant, plead “not guilty” on 6/7/05. Prosecutor Green said that she would not accept the plea. Prosecutor Green does not have the legal right not to accept a plea. That is the Judge’s job. She can proceed to prosecute him, but she cannot reject a plea. Smith’s attorney, JeRoyd Green, asked for a short recess. Mr. Smith stated that his attorney said that he asked the prosecutor if he would be required to register as a sex offender before he took the plea and Prosecutor Green said “no.” Mr. Smith was arrested after his incarceration for not registering because he had not been told that he would be required to register by taking the plea on 6/7/2005. There is an affidavit signed by Mr. Smith that is available for your inspection.)
Attorney Boone provided false information to the Court in his entire brief regarding the case in Brunswick, 2005. First, he alleged that the complaining witness was mentally incapacitated. Mr. Boone never saw or spoke to the complaining witness. When Mr. Boone read the complaining witness’ statement, he stated that she did not meet the definition of incapacitated. It does not meet the definition for force, threat or intimidation. (Johnson does not agree with everything in the statement, but it proves his innocence.) There should have never been an arrest. The complaining witness and her father signed a statement that she was not raped. The prosecutor “used” the complaining witness to ruin defendants’ lives.
The complaining witness admitted that she lied and refused to come to court on 6/7/05. The prosecutor did not have a case and offered the pleas because the complaining witness would not come to court and lie. The prosecutor did not have a case and Attorney Boone tricked Lynch into taking a plea so that he would not have to go to trial, and hence be unable to make money working on other cases. If the prosecutor had a case, she would not have resorted to “fraud” to convict the defendants.
Prosecutor Lezlie Green and the Brunswick county Police intimidated the complaining witness and her father. The complaining witness’ father told police that his daughter was not a victim of any kind of abuse. He told them that she was a liar. He initially refused to take her to the hospital after the allegation, but the police threaten to put him in jail if he did not.
Prosecutor Lezlie Green stated that Sheriff Woodley, and the complaining witness’ father wanted to have the defendants prosecuted. Both parties stated that they did not desire to have them prosecuted. The complaining witness’ father stated that he refused to have anything to do with it, but he was afraid to come forth to testify for the defendants because he feared retaliation from Lezlie Green and the police.
Prosecutor Green failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that the complaining witness had recanted her story and that she was refusing to testify against the defendants.
Prosecutor Lezlie Green abuses her authority. Her job is be “just to all.” She is a state employee. The state should not allow her to maliciously prosecute its citizens.
Lynch’s mother, Ms. Taylor, went to the Brunswick County Court to discuss that Lynch’s plea was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Bill Blaine (Brunswick County prosecutor’s office) admitted that Judge Perkinson had convicted people without determining if their pleas were voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Prosecutor Lezlie Green came while Bill Blaine was making the statement. She demanded that Ms.Taylor leave the court building or she would have the sheriff to come to put Taylor out of the building.
On one occasion, Mr. John Jones (alias) had accompanied Taylor to the court. Mr. Jones had given an affidavit that the defendants were not guilty. As a result of his efforts to support defendants, he was maliciously prosecuted for driving a moped without a license even though a moped is “specifically exempted from the statute (Va. Code 46.2-301). He told the prosecutor and his lawyer that a license is not required to drive a moped. He knew that is prosecution was malicious, but he was afraid to challenge it and his lawyer would not go against the court to let them know that his arrest and conviction were illegal. Mr. Jones stated that his attorney had some relationship with the prosecutor’s office or Brunswick County government. I do not remember what it was. Mr. Jones accepted the illegal conviction, but left Brunswick County after his house arrest for fear of the police and the Prosecutor. He moved out of state for fear of further retaliation. Citizens should not to leave their birth place for fear of the police and prosecutors.
Documentation of Mr. Lynch’s and Mr. Smith’s Constitutional rights being violated were reported to the Virginia Bar. I provided written proof that their pleas were not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. I provided written proof that Mr. Boone violated Mr. Lynch’s Constitutional rights by denying him due process. I provide written verification of Mr. Boone’s numerous statements that he denied Mr. Lynch’s requests for an appeal. Both Mr. Lynch and Mr. Smith have illegal conviction because their Constitutional rights guaranteed by the 5th, 6th and 14th were violated. The Bar refused to investigate.
How can decent citizens stand by and do nothing about the egregarious conduct of Lezlie Green, David Boone and JeRoyd Green? These people actions were criminal. They are the persons that should have gone to jail. How can your office allow Lezlie Green to continue in her position when you have proof that she violated the defendants Constitutional rights to due process? How can your office allow an unethical person to hold a position knowing that she does not respect the Constitution? How can your office allow her to continue in her position when she participants in hate crimes?
If you will investigate this, you will know that Lezlie Green needs to be dismissed immediately.
I am willing to assist with your investigation. I have documentation of every word in this letter. I have been cautioned that I should not tell the truth. I have been told that they will have the police to harass my family and me. I have seen evidence of the harassment. I have a rental property. The City’s Code Enforcement condemned people maliciously condemned by property and initially refused to remove the condemn sign until I vigorously protested. They sent me a violation to cut the grass when the adjoining property grass was taller than mine. They sent me a violation because the retaining concrete wall had cracks in it. I repaired the cracks and they still tried to convict me. I went to trial rather than take a plea. The Judge ruled in my favor. The prosecutor was irate. In that case, I had corrected the violation within three month and there were people in court that day that they had not made the repairs that the City had requested in three years.
People are entitled to the protection of the government. When an employee, Lezlie Green, actions are contrary to the protection guaranteed by the Constitution, the government has a responsibility to get her out of office. There is no defense for her heinous, criminal behavior.
Prayerfully submitted,
Elizabeth Taylor
Justice4justice's Weblog 