Judge Ellen Huvelle Unethical

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) July 13, 2010 -- Judge Ellen Huvelle presided in a supervised release hearing violation in the Federal District Court for District of Columbia on July 8th 2010 case number 02-cr-00190-ESH-1 U.S vs. Kharii W. Brodie. It was improper for Judge Ellen Huvelle to preside over that hearing for the reason that defendant Brodie in that case currently has a $65,000,000 suit against her in a civil case in the Federal District Court for District of Columbia case number 1:09-cv-01828HHK that is pending a decision before the Honorable Judge Henry Kennedy. Public records can be obtained from PACER.

Sheri L. Dyer Defendant Brodie probation officer and Ervin D. Bell supervising U.S. probation officer declared under penalty of perjury in truth and correctness that Defendant violated his probation as stated: “Violation 1. Nature of Noncompliance. The defendant is challenging the supervised release sentenced imposed by the Court and the United States Probation Office’s authority to enforce that portion of the sentence.”
They came to that conclusion based on a letter that Defendant Brodie wrote and submitted to Gennine A. Hagar, Chief United states Probation Officer dated June 7, 2010. They also swore truthfully and correctly that Defendant Brodie was 30 days in arrears with his restitution payment schedule when in fact Defendant Brodie was a day ahead. They also recommend imprisonment of 5 to 11 months.

In Court on July 8th 2010 Ms. Dyer could not provide any “proof” of any violation by Defendant Brodie. Ms. Dyer stated that her main concern was the nature and tone of the letter submitted to the probation office by Defendant Brodie. The letter stated the following:
“This letter is to inform you that my alleged criminal case judgment was assigned to your office. My probation officer is Ms. Sheri Dyer. The judgment that your office has been sought to enforced is a void judgment. The court in my case lack subject matter jurisdiction and therefore under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 the judgment is void. See enclosed motion recently filed that will brief you on what is going on.

Just to point of out a main fact; the indictment was not signed by a grand jury as required by law. That same unsigned indictment was used to convict me. That same unsigned indictment was submitted to the jury to decide a verdict. There were no accusers as required by law. The reason there was no accusers because no alleged victims under statute ever filed a criminal complaint or sworn affidavits before a magistrate judge as required by law. This meant throughout trial there were no accusers ever presented with first hand testimony. The case was a complete farce. A civil case is filed against the perpetrators in Brodie v. Worthington. A motion to dismiss is also waiting on Judge Kennedy.
Be advised that all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. The persons that knowingly assist in executing this judgment can be held liable for damages even prior to the judgment dismissal. See the following case law:

Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).
Please take this as a formal notice that individuals of this office may be held personally accountable for any and all liabilities. It would be beneficial that you verify your legal basis to enforce judgment against me. I shall abide by the current enforcement because it is placed on me by duress.

I am denied the opportunity to seek gainful employment for which I am qualified. I am restricted to travel by my own free will. Money is being extorted from me even though I am not gainfully employed. I am hindered from social intercourse. I am forced to use my prior name when my name has been legally changed. My privacy has and is being violated.
My life has been suspended for a long time and it is causing me major pain and suffering. I hope you take this letter and its content seriously because I do.”

Judge Ellen Huvelle sought to try and distort the true meaning of Defendant letter to make it sound like a violent threat meant by Defendant Brodie to the people in the probation office. Of course it was not stated in its entirety but was used as one-liners to give new meaning by Judge Ellen Huvelle. His alleged crime was a white collar crime but the way they overcompensated in the supervised release hearing and at trial was as if he was charged with a violent crime. What was he doing, chasing everyone around a room to give them a paper cut?

Defendant lawyer Mary Manning Petras kept countering Judge Ellen Huvelle warped attacks on the Defendant true meaning by a line in his letter that could not be sidestepped which stated “I shall abide by the current enforcement because it is placed on me by duress.” Remember the violation is about non compliance and the letter is supposed to be used to support non compliance. How could Brodie be accused of non compliance when he is stating he will comply? It gets idiotic when he says “I will comply” and they say no, “you will comply”. If that is not a clear sign of abuse and provocation then what is?

After reading the letter in it entirety is there any question that the letter meant nothing more than a legal letter which meant that the law would be used if law enforcers was not enforcing law but enforcing themselves? To add to ludicrous of the matter their was a overwhelming display of force by two officers sitting behind Defendant Brodie and two other officers sitting across of two of Defendant relatives. Plus, U.S. Attorney Zeno was also wearing handcuffs. Additionally, when Defendant left the Court room officers were still out in the hallway walking around pressing their ear piece to their ear. Defendant felt threatened that he had to ask his attorney to accompany him down stairs because he feared that something was up.

Civil Rights Violation     probation     Unethical behavior