REVIEW FILES FOR BRADY MATERIAL

OR DISMISS COMPLAINT

Comes now the defendant pro se, and respectfully moves the U.S. Attorney to review all information for Brady material, and further moves that all Brady material be provided to defendant prior to or at the date set for hearing in the District Court.

On August 8, 2007, Defendant served Plaintiffs’ counsel, Robert Simpson, with a letter seeking pre-trial discovery. On August 24, Mr. Simpson addressed his letter in reply, denying discovery or all items requested, with exception for a purported videotape of events in dispute, from which Plaintiffs censored all audio soundtrack, and censored most of the timeline, by destruction of evidence.

The Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 at p. 85, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 at 218, 83 S.Ct. 1194 at 1196, (1963) held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material, either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16, Defendant requests material for preparation of Defendant's defense, and U.S. Constitution's requirement for due process, Defendant is requesting any Giglio information that Plaintiffs have on the Defendant and any other witnesses that may be testifying against Defendant. Additionally, Defendant is requesting any evidence that is known to the government or can be discovered by the government that would be discoverable Brady material or Jencks material. Defendant makes a specific request under Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995), imposing upon law enforcement and the prosecutor a "Duty to Learn" favorable information relating to the defendant.

This discovery request is limited to requests under FRCrimPro Rule 16(a)(1)(A); Rule 16(a)(1)(B); Rule 16(a)(1)(E); Rule 16(a)(1)(F); Rule 16(a)(1)(G).

To that end Defendant requests that all officers and investigative agencies concerned with this case make certain that Defendant is apprized, in writing, of any information or any evidence that has come to light that might be viewed in anyway as "favorable" to Defendant. This includes information that is favorable to Defendant on the issues of suppression, guilt, and\or punishment from both a substantive perspective and as impeachment information and material tending to discredit the government's witnesses.

Defendant is requesting not only any notes, documents, videotapes, audiotapes or other physical evidence that might contain discoverable evidence, but also that Plaintiffs memorialize and provide Defendant with any such information that has not yet been reduced to writing. This request continues until and throughout the trial should one occur

This motion includes but is not limited to:

1. All videotapes and audiotapes by prosecution witnesses, including Keith Gad, including all videotapes for the entire shift of witnesses on the entire day or shift of the litigation in this case, to include the complete audio track of such videotapes, all maintenance records and work orders for the videotape equipment relevant to this case, and names of relevant maintenance technicians and supervisors.

2. A list of all cases prosecuted by U.S. Attorney's Office involving a "failure" and/or repair of Park Service video recording equipment to record audio, for all defendants prosecuted in U.S. District Court, Eastern District in Knoxville, for the period of 12 months preceding the initiation of the present case against Defendant.

3. Names and addresses of all witnesses and their supervisors in their chain of command

4. Prior inconsistent statements of witnesses, including any accusations, charges or convictions for perjury

5. Prior complaints against witnesses

6 Prior or pending internal disciplinary actions against witnesses

7. Any other relevant actions in the personnel file of witnesses, including failure to meet quotas for "contacts", tickets or arrests; motor vehicle crashes, injuries and fatalities involving witnesses. The term “personnel file” includes all records maintained by the employer on witnesses, including records of internal affairs investigations, citizen complaints, crash investigations, driver license administrative actions of remedial or punitive nature, records in the "Human Resources" department, records containing psychological or other medical information concerning witnesses, Social Security number, date of birth, driver license number and current home address (required to conduct a background check, per Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine). Defendant is indigent and cannot afford a private investigator, thus all personal records of witnesses must be provided to Defendant to conduct his own investigation into the criminal history of prosecution witnesses. Defendant agrees to keep such personal information private.

8. Prior convictions of witnesses, including all misdemeanor traffic citations

9. Any and all records and information revealing prior misconduct or bad acts attributed to any witness

10. Any and all consideration or promises of consideration given to or on behalf of the witness. By "consideration", Defendant refers to absolutely anything of value or use, including but not limited to criminal, civil or tax immunity grants, assistance or favorable treatment or recommendations with respect to any criminal, civil, immigration, tax court, court of claims, administrative or other legal disputes with the government or any other parties, payment of money or fees, witness fees and special witness fees, provisions of food, clothing, shelter, transportation or other like benefits, placement in a "witness protection program", and anything else which could arguably reveal an interest or bias in the witness in favor of the government or against the defense or act as an inducement to testify or to color testimony.

11. Plea agreements

12. Any evidence of any drug use on the part of any witness

13. Any and all prosecutions, investigations, or potential prosecutions pending or which could be brought against the witness, and any criminal, civil, immigration, tax court, court of claims, administrative, or other pending potential legal disputes or transactions.

14. The existence and identification of each occasion on which the witness has testified before any court, grand jury, or other tribunal or body or otherwise narrated in relation to the Defendant, the investigation, or the facts of the case.

15. The existence and identification of each occasion on which each witness who is an informer, accomplice, co-conspirator, or expert has testified before any court, grand jury, or other tribunal or body.

16. All documentation of any kind, at any location, relating to a policy of selective enforcement against travelers by motorcycle in East Tennessee, to include all memorandums involving witnesses' chain of command in U.S. Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and/or U.S. Attorneys Office, or any other relevant agency, corporate entity or private enterprise. All documentation of the prosecution of U.S. Park Service and U.S. Forest Service employees for motor vehicle crimes, infractions, petty offenses or small offenses during the past 12 months prior to the initiation of the present case.

Defendant's own private statements and notes are not discoverable by Plaintiffs, per Rule 16(b)(2), and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Defendant does not make this discovery request per Rule 16(a)(1)(C) or (D). Defendant is not an "organization" as defined by Rule 16(a)(1)(C), nor is Defendant requesting a copy of Defendant's prior record as defined by Rule 16(a)(1)(D). Thus prosecution is not entitled to reciprocal discovery on those issues, per CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 255 fn.12 (3d. ed. 2000):

If defendant has requested and obtained any discovery whatever under either subdivision (C) or (D) of Rule 16(a)(1), this is enough to trigger a reciprocal right in the prosecution and the defendant is required to make available, on request by the government, any materials of the kinds described in subdivisions (A) and (B) of Rule 16(b)(1). If defendant invokes only subdivisions (A) and (B) of Rule 16(a)(1), and requests discovery only of his own statements and prior records, the prosecution has no right of discovery.

Rule 16(b)(2), Information Not Subject to Disclosure, includes

(B) a statement made to the defendant, or the defendant's attorney or agent, by:

(i) the defendant;

(ii) a government or defense witness; or

(iii) a prospective government or defense witness

Defendant requires discoverable items from Plaintiffs, before Defendant can decide whether to file Motions to Suppress, which must be filed prior to trial, per FRCrimP Rule 12.

In this bifurcated civil portion of this trial, or if this is a civil trial (so-called “petty offense” for alleged breach of civil contract which by ex parte contract with Plaintiffs carries no sentence of jail), Defendant requests full discovery under Rule 26 of FRCP.

Defendant requests a scheduling conference to set a final date for reciprocal discovery. Defendant is disabled and indigent, and requires additional time to provide Plaintiffs with reciprocal discovery of Defendant’s video and audio tapes, due to illness, lack of monetary funds and technical difficulties.

Defendant does not waive his right to present such videotape and audiotape evidence, if the Court fails to Order discovery in this case. Defendant maintains that since Plaintiffs failed to preserve their video and audio tapes, and failed to provide those tapes to Defendant, then Defendant cannot be punished by the Court for failing to provide reciprocal discovery of Defendant’s tapes within an accelerated time period.

Speedy Trial limitations are tolled during pretrial motions for discovery. Defendant does not waive his right to a speedy trial under FRCrimP.

Defendant objects to the Court clerk docketing as “Trial”, the pre-trial hearing date of September 12, 2007. This hearing should have been docketed as a scheduling conference. Defendant objects to the Court attempting to convert an “arraignment” hearing into a trial. Defendant objects to Magistrate Guyton declaring during the arraignment, “I will never allow discovery in this case!” (paraphrase) Defendant demands Constitutional due process in this case. Defendant objects to the Court’s apparent “rush to judgment” in this case.

Defendant does not consent to personal jurisdiction of this court by Defendant’s special appearance in Court under duress, in response to Court Order threatening potential arrest for a failure to appear at “arraignment”. Any special appearance in Court to argue this pre-trial motion is not consent to personal jurisdiction of this Court.

CONCLUSION

For the state to proceed in a preliminary hearing in good faith, it must provide to the defense all exculpatory evidence, pursuant to Brady, in its possession or which, through diligence, it may obtain. Defendant seeks an Order to force Plaintiffs to comply with discovery. If Plaintiffs fail to comply with such Order, Defendant seeks an Order for dismissal with prejudice of this case.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________

John Davis Lee II, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE