The Independent OBSERVER

The Independent OBSERVER

Published by the Access To The Courts organization

June 25, 2007

COURT: US District Court - Toledo, Ohio

CASE: 3:06-cr-00175-DAK [CR-05-0548, U.S. v. Jeffrey L. Clemens, Los Angeles]

DATE: April 10, 2007

JUDGE: Judge David A. Katz

OBSERVED: Prejudice

A summons – alleging a violation of terms and conditions of supervised release and charging the defendant with violating Title 18 USC 876(c) [Mailing Threatening Communications] – otherwise referred to as a Notice of Hearing, was sent to the defendant, ordering him to appear on April 10, 2007. Contrary to the Notice that the defendant received in the mail (a notice of which is not included in the public docket, as it presumably should be Document 046, missing from Pacer) and contrary to the implications of the Notice of Hearing alleging a violation, the hearing was actually:

1) A means to consume energy driving the 110-mile roundtrip (perhaps to enhance the financial returns of energy stocks owned by wealthy people like Dickran Tevrizian),

2) A means to harass the defendant through presentation in open court of an email by the defendant’s brother to the US Probation Office in Toledo. [The email was irrelevant to the hearing and was actually a request for the complaint process for probation officers accused of misconduct; a prior request for the process resulted in a broad reference to an INTERNET site by Supervisor Eric Corns.], and

3) A means to issue an order restricting access to the INTERNET – a restriction already imposed by the Probation Office, mostly by their non-responses to written requests by the defendant.

The April 10, 2007 hearing represents a planned prejudicial act serving to intimidate and harass the defendant and to intimate a violation hearing. No violation was actually alleged (in either the supervision report or hearing), though a summons alleging a violation was issued, a situation smacking with prejudice, as the associated supervision report is sealed and not available to the public. If Judge Katz has an issue with a citizen requesting the complaint process from a US Probation Office supervisor (through an email referenced in item 2 above), then the judge should communicate his issue with the citizen and not with the citizen’s brother and certainly not using the court system in such an improper manner.

To Defendant: If Judge Katz (for the fourth time) presents a copy of any communication from the undersigned organization or founder in open court, then kindly object to its presentation on grounds of irrelevancy.

Access To The Courts