Vaccine Exemption Template

Many are needing vaccine exemption forms as schools and businesses attempt to coerce people into getting shots to attend. Here is a religious exemption example for North Carolina. You can tailor it to any state by looking up your state statutes for religious exemptions and typing it into the form.

Update: Here’s another version that you may wish to modify or use “as is.”

employee-religious-exemption-november-2021Download

Vaccine exemption genericDownload

NORTH CAROLINA IMMUNIZATION LAW

RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 130A-157

If the bona fide religious beliefs of an adult or the parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis of a child are contrary to the immunization requirements contained in this Part [Chapter 130A, Article 6, Part B], the adult or the child shall be exempt from the requirements.

Upon submission of a written statement of the bona fide religious beliefs and opposition to the immunization requirements, the person may attend the college, university, school or facility without presenting a certificate of immunization. Pursuant to the aforementioned N.C.G.S. 130A-157.

 I, the undersigned, declare the Covid-19 vaccine as set forth in N.C.G.S. 130A-152 contrary to my bona fide religious beliefs as these vaccines contain aborted fetal cell lines and differ from standard vaccines by allowance of the synthetic mRNA or DNA code to enter the cells. This level of intrusion into my body’s cells is unacceptable as the body is God’s temple and defiling it could jeopardize my salvation according to my religious belief. Therefore, as permitted by law I request an exemption from the immunization requirements set forth by (Name of the institution) for admittance and participation as required by the above statute. I agree to stay home if I am ill or have a fever.

Name: _____________________________________________

Signature: ___________________________________________

Date:  ______________________________________________

Advertisement

Letter to Police, Businesses to Ignore Mask “mandate” in North Carolina

Comrade Commissar Cooper is encouraging police to fine businesses and patrons for not wearing masks. He has ZERO authority to “mandate” anything. If there is no law on the books, there is no violation code so there can be no legitimate fine. Send this to your local police departments and mayors, town councils.

LETTER

I demand that you follow the United States constitution, North Carolina constitution, and civil liberty laws by refusing to  enforce any of the mandates, but especially the masks.  It discriminates against people unable to wear them due to medical reasons, emotional reasons, such as anxiety and religious objections. Aside from exceptions, the constitution protects our right to breathe and to move freely in public. I have put together a document outlining all laws that apply and would appreciate it if you would follow the laws on the books and not Cooper’s made-up Covid rules. That is the oath that all officers take. There is NO law on the books for violating a mask policy. No regulation — no violation. The constitution is not suspended even during times of emergency, and by the way, we are not in a state of emergency and the statute is being exploited by Cooper.

This is going to crush small businesses and there is no evidence that masks reduce viral spread. There is plenty of evidence that they’re harmful to human health. I’ve attached a peer reviewed study describing the evidence of harm. I suggest you read it and share it with your staff. There’s a reason we’ve never done this before. We need to take our health into our own hands since the government continues to ignore studies that prove masks are not only ineffective but harmful.

And a final point, it is illegal for staff at businesses to pose as law enforcement officers by attempting to enforce the law (although there is no law on the books forcing people to wear a mask). It is also illegal for them to practice medicine without a license. A mask is a medical device and as such informed consent is required, as well as a medical examination to ensure the person is healthy enough to use the device. Only a doctor can legally prescribe this, certainly not a store clerk and certainly not a governor. I am urging you to do the right thing. Do not attempt to enforce this. Let ______ remain a free town and trust that individuals will behave responsibly.

Notice to police departments

Mask Studies

Notice to Businesses

Know Your Rights About Masks, Social Distancing, Temperature Checks and Contact Tracing

With the assistance of The Healthy American, I put together a notice to businesses to educate them on their rights and the rights of their employees and customers. No one can be denied entry for not wearing a mask. It is a public accommodation and everyone has a right to enter freely without covering their face. They do not need to provide an explanation. The governor’s mandates are not laws. A governor is not authorized to write laws, that is reserved for the legislative bodies in all states. This includes when we are under a state of emergency. The constitution is not suspended during a state of emergency, although they have somehow convinced the majority of people that is the case. Mandates are not enforceable, NONE of them. This includes masks, temperature checks, distancing, reduced capacity, outdoor dining, business closures, curfews and contact tracing. Stand up to the tyranny. Open your business fully. Face the licensing commission and inform them of your legal rights to operate your business without unlawful restrictions.

NOTICE TO BUSINESSES

 

ATTN: Owner or Manager

RE: Mask and Distancing in this jurisdiction

• You are under no lawful authority to require your employees or your patrons to wear a mask.
• There is no statutory law that requires you, your employees or your patrons to wear a mask.
• These are GUIDELINES of the State Dept of Health and local health boards. Any other ORDER is unlawful and must be challenged.
• Preventing entry to your establishment of someone not wearing a mask violates these laws:
  • NC Constitution (Article 1, section 1, 5, 6, 19)
  • US Constitution (1^st and 4^th Amendments)
  • Federal Civil Rights Law (Title 11, Section 2000)
• If you refuse entry to your establishment, which is open to the public, you are also restricting the free movement of an individual and engaging in false imprisonment. https://falseimprisonment.uslegal.com/civil-actions-for-false-imprisonment/
• You are in violation of several laws if you prohibit the entry of someone if they are not wearing a mask.
• Furthermore, it is unlawful to enforce 6 feet separation, as it restricts the movement of individuals and may be construed as false imprisonment.
• Declaring this as your “store policy” does not absolve you from your violation of the law. You may not set policy that violates discrimination laws.
• There is no regulation “on the books” that requires you to operate your business outside, with plexiglass dividers, or with restricting the number of patrons.
• REGULATIONS are the laws that are created through an administrative law-making procedure by departments and agencies to fulfill and carry out STATUTORY law. When a regulation is passed, it is given a code number and written into the NC Administrative Code (NCAC).
• NO REGULATIONS are “on the books” that require masks, distancing, and other protocols.

---

Please share this with businesses in your area. I also prepared documents for schools and police departments. I am going to do the same for licensing commissions so they can be educated about the law as it applies to business licenses. These documents can easily be adapted to other states.

LINKS TO FORMS TO PROVIDE TO POLICE, BUSINESSES AND SCHOOLS:

Businesses

Police Departments

Schools

You Have The Right To Visit Nursing Homes (Even During A Pandemic)

The governor’s mandates in most states have called for the isolation of nursing home residents, but understand that mandates do not suspend laws. A governor can not create laws. There is no emergency. Hospitals are not overwhelmed. Mandates need to be lifted, but until we can accomplish that, you can demand to visit nursing homes.

1. Request an in-person visit at the facility. If you are declined, get the names of the people who are preventing the visit and also the highest level person at the facility.
2.  Find the Health Department Rights and state statutes for Nursing Home Residents in your state. It may be included on the Department of Child and Family Services website.
3.  Find the section that specifies the rights and print it. Example, here is the section on the NCDHHS website.

North Carolina’s Bill of Rights for Nursing Home Residents

(Condensed Version)
EVERY RESIDENT SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS: (1). To be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of personal dignity and individuality. (2). To receive care, treatment, and services that are adequate and appropriate, and in compliance with relevant federal and State statutes and rules. (3). To receive at the time of admission and during stay, a written statement of services provided by the facility, including those required to be offered on an as needed basis, and of related charges. Charges for services not covered under Medicare and Medicaid shall be specified. The patient will sign a written receipt upon receiving the above information. (4). To have on file physician’s orders with proposed schedule of medical treatment. Written, signed evidence of prior informed consent to participation in experimental research shall be in patient’s file. (5). To receive respect and privacy in his medical care program. All personal and medical records are confidential. (6). To be free of mental and physical abuse. Except in emergencies, to be free of chemical and physical restraint unless authorized for a specified period of time by a physician according to clear and indicated medical need. (7). To receive from the administration or staff of the facility a reasonable response to all requests. (8). To associate and communicate privately and without restriction with persons and groups of the patients choice at any reasonable hour. To send and receive mail promptly and unopened. To have access to a telephone where the patient may speak privately. To have access to writing instruments, stationary and postage. (9). To manage his/her own financial affairs unless other legal arrangements have been implemented. The facility may also assist the patient, but is required to follow stringent guidelines. (10). To have privacy in visits by the patient’s spouse, and if both are patients in the same facility, they shall be given the opportunity, where feasible, to share a room. (11). To enjoy privacy in his/her room. (12). To present grievances and recommend changes in policies and services personally, through other persons or in combination with others, without fear of reprisal, restraint, interference, coercion, or discrimination. (13). To not be required to perform services for the facility without personal consent and the written approval of the attending physician. (14). To retain, to secure storage for, and to use his personal clothing and possessions, where reasonable. (15). To not be transferred or discharged from a facility except for medical, financial, or their own or other patient’s welfare, nonpayment for the stay or when mandated by Medicare or Medicaid. Any such transfer shall require at least five days’ notice, unless the attending physician orders immediate transfer, which shall be documented in the patient’s medical record. (16). To be notified within ten days after the facility’s license is revoked or made provisional. The responsible party or guardian must be notified as well.

There are also statutes from the NC General Assembly (and in your state) that protect the rights of nursing home residents.

Part 2.  Nursing Home Patients’ Bill of Rights.

§ 131E-115.  Legislative intent.

It is the intent of the General Assembly to promote the interests and well-being of the patients in nursing homes and adult care homes licensed pursuant to G.S. 131E-102, and patients in a nursing home operated by a hospital which is licensed under Article 5 of Chapter 131E of the General Statutes. It is the intent of the General Assembly that every patient’s civil and religious liberties, including the right to independent personal decisions and knowledge of available choices, shall not be infringed and that the facility shall encourage and assist the patient in the fullest possible exercise of these rights. (1977, c. 897, s. 1; 1983, c. 143, s. 2; c. 775, s. 1; 1995, c. 509, s. 72; c. 535, s. 25.)

This means that every resident has ALL civil liberties even in an emergency! The right to make independent personal decisions is not suspended, so if you are blocked from seeing your family member and they try to force them to take a Covid test or a treatment against their will, it is illegal.

You can read the statutes that apply in North Carolina – 131E-115 – 127.

There are Federal rights that protect the nursing home residents.

The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident’s highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required under § 483.24, § 483.25, or § 483.40; and

(c) Activities. (1) The facility must provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community.

 

There are also rights outlined by the facility, so please look those up and make them abide by them! Every facility is required to have a resident’s bill of rights.

4. Write a letter to the head of the facility and copy the document pertaining to their rights infringements.

5. If they still refuse to allow in-person visits, file a complaint to the agency that established these rights. Stress the fact that an emergency does not suspend laws.

Please watch this short video courtesy of Peggy Hall and John Jay Singleton. Find a way to make it happen. The law is on your side.

The Unreliable Co#$% Test

A recent New York Times article described how at least 90% of Covid-19 tests are producing false positive results because the tests exceed the recommended threshold value (or number of cycles). Most labs are running the test to 40+ cycles which is not recommended because the results are invalid at that high a level of amplification. They basically begin detecting any protein or RNA and will show as a positive that can’t be trusted.

The North Carolina State Lab of Public Health uses two methods – The CDC 2019 nCov Real Time PCR test and the TaqPath Covid-19 Combo Kit.

The CDC kit was released shortly after the supposed US outbreaks of Covid-19 were confirmed. Many state labs are likely using this kit. The Ct threshold is 40, thus 90% of the tests are likely false positive.

Researcher, David Crowe described the significance of PCR cycle thresholds:

The PCR algorithm is cyclical. At each cycle it generates approximately double the amount of DNA (which, in RT-PCR, corresponding to the RNA that the process started with). When used as a test you don’t know the amount of starting material, but the amount of DNA at the end of each cycle will be shown indirectly by fluorescent molecules that are attached to the probes. The amount of light produced after every step will then approximately double, and when it reaches a certain intensity the process is halted and the sample is declared positive (implying infected). If, after a certain number of cycles, there is still not sufficient DNA, then the sample is declared negative (implying not infected). This cycle number (Ct) used to separate positive from negative is arbitrary, and is not the same for every organization doing testing. For example, there is a paper published that reported using 36 as the cutoff for positive, 37-39 as indeterminate, requiring more testing, and above 39 as negative. Another paper used 37 as the cutoff, with no intermediate zone. In a list of test kits approved by the US FDA one manufacturer each recommended 30 cycles, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. 40 cycles was most popular, chosen by 12 manufacturers, and one each recommended 43 and 45.

Implicit in using a Ct number is the assumption that approximately the same amount of original RNA (within a multiple of two) will produce the same Ct number. However, there are many possibilities for error in RT-PCR. There are inefficiencies in extracting the RNA, even larger inefficiencies in converting the RNA to complementary DNA (Bustin noted that efficiency is rarely over 50% and can easily vary by a factor of 10), and inefficiencies in the PCR process itself. Bustin, in the podcast, described reliance on an arbitrary Ct number as “absolute nonsense, it makes no sense whatsoever”. It certainly cannot be assumed that the same Ct number on tests done at different laboratories indicates the same original quantity of RNA.

Professor Bustin stated that cycling more than 35 times was unwise, but it appears that nobody is limiting cycles to 35 or less. Cycling too much could result in false positives as background fluorescence builds up in the PCR reaction.

Clearly, the lack of uniformity in tests and the high cycle thresholds makes testing extremely unreliable, so the number of fatalities from Covid-19 can’t be trusted, and the running tally of cases does not have any correlation to viral spread whatsoever.

It’s likely this is occurring everywhere in the world as PCR is the only mode of testing being used. None of the tests are FDA approved. They have temporary approval based on Emergency Use Authorization. The FDA continues to add additional test kits and reagents every day despite the fact that we are not in a state of emergency. It’s time for the FDA to set reliable standards on these tests.

Also, consider the serious consequences of treating people who may have received a false positive for Covid-19 disease. This is dangerous. And consider that we are unnecessarily quarantining people with false positives, then contact tracing and it is all based on a meaningless test.

The CDC recently stated that asymptomatic people no longer need to be tested, likely due to the exceeded cycle threshold. If asymptomatics are not a threat, no one needs to wear a mask. This all needs to stop now.

Judge orders new DNA testing in Mark Carver case

Mark Carver was convicted in 2011 for the murder of UNC student, Ira Yarmolenko. Yarmolenko’s body was found near her car, at the bottom of a steep embankment at the Catawba River in Gaston County, North Carolina. Carver was fishing nearby with his cousin, Neal Cassada.

Evidence used to convict Carver was “touch DNA”, a mixed sample. Reports are now indicating that this type of evidence is unreliable, and can even be the result of secondary transfer. The vehicle which was swabbed for DNA was also contaminated as several police officers touched the vehicle during the investigation.

The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence who is representing Carver requested DNA reports that were never shared with the defense, as well as additional DNA testing. The judge is allowing it.

Aside from the DNA, there was no other evidence linking the men to the crime. It is frightening that people can be convicted with nothing but flimsy evidence. Hopefully this new testing will finally free Mark Carver.

The Charlotte Observer has been covering the story.

 

Jason Young Case: The Jewelry Box

On November 3, 2006 Meredith Fisher dialed 911 to report that she had just found her sister lying on the floor and that she believed she was dead. Paramedics arrived and confirmed the death. Her husband, Jason  who was out of town on a business trip would be convicted of the murder in 2012 with no evidence linking him to the murder.

Investigators observed that two of the three drawers were missing from a jewelry box.  Why would the killer(s) take the drawers? Why not simply take the valuables? Michelle’s diamond wedding ring set was removed from her finger. Also, Young’s family noticed that expensive jewelry was missing, while the costume jewelry was left behind.

While researching this case in an effort to find new evidence that could prove Jason’s innocence, I came across an evidence sheet in which Detective Spivey obtained the jewelry box from Meredith Fisher following the first trial. I was surprised because I assumed the item would have been stored as evidence. However, I learned from Jason’s family that police swabbed the box for DNA and placed it back in the home. It was there when the house was released following the two week investigation.

Jason never entered the home again after leaving for his business trip the evening of November 2. He knew it would be too painful to ever go back there. He put it up for sale and he and Cassidy moved in with family. When the house finally sold, Jason’s family packed everything up and put most of  the belongings into  a rented storage facility nearby. The box would have been stored there, though the Youngs didn’t give it much thought. They were all coping with a lot, as there were online vigilante attackers harassing them, and it seemed like investigators were focused solely on Jason — despite the fact that he was verified checking into a hotel one-hundred and seventy miles away the night/morning that Michelle was murdered and no evidence pointed toward Jason.

Meredith likely took possession of the box in the spring of 2009 — shortly after Judge Stephens issued a default judgment against Jason in a civil wrongful death lawsuit launched by Michelle’s mother, Linda Fisher. Jason’s storage shed was accessed by Linda and Meredith around that time. According to Jason’s family, they informed the storage manager that they were entitled to access Jason’s belongings as a result of the civil judgement. Whether it was legal or not, they did take things. The jewelry box must have been taken at that time. If not then, it’s very puzzling how she could have ended up with it.

The jewelry box had been  a special gift for Michelle. Jason’s mother, Pat Young had it hand-made for her. Why would Meredith  have wanted a jewelry box with missing drawers that should have held no sentimental value to her?  And why weren’t investigators puzzled about it? How did they find out that Meredith had the box? That is unclear.

In 2011, a DNA swab from the box was sent to LabCorp for more sensitive testing than the SBI’s capabilities. Analyst, Shawn Weiss identified x-chromosome (female) DNA from the swab. Since investigators only provided LabCorp with Michelle’s and Jason’s DNA profiles to compare to the various swabs, it seems no one has ever attempted to identify the origin of that female DNA on the box. They did of course eliminate Jason and Michelle as contributors.

Banana Republic Bag

On November 16 2006, investigators collected a Banana Republic bag while conducting the initial crime scene investigation. It is unclear if it is a store shopping bag or a purse/hand-bag/travel bag. The bag contained a slew of items, to include the following (from court bates stamp 002084): assorted receipts, travel documents, gift cards, photos, calendar, address book, scraps of paper with notes, names, and phone numbers, luggage tags, knife and sheath, answering machine, plug and power supply cord, financial records, and other miscellaneous documents. The investigator noted that it was collected for “trace evidence to reconstruct events.” The bag was sealed in a box where it likely remains as stored evidence. There is no indication that police ever attempted to test the bag or the items inside for DNA and finger-prints. The items are consistent with what one may expect to find in a large jewelry box like Michelle’s. In fact, at trial the defense asked Meredith what sort of items Michelle kept in the box. It’s been a while since I watched the trial, but I recall her saying that Michelle kept jewelry in there and also gift cards. That makes it even more likely that the bag may contain the contents of the jewelry box. Perhaps the killer(s) forgot to take it with them, or simply forgot it in the rush to clean up after the crime. Perhaps the bag is the key to determining who killed Michelle.

Disciplinary Outcome of Former Wake County Prosecutor Highlights Severe Flaws in our Justice System

This week, former Wake County prosecutor, Colleen Janssen learned the outcome of the disciplinary hearing to review the level of her misconduct in a criminal case. Though she deliberately withheld critical evidence from the defense and manipulated others to go along with her scheme to hide exculpatory evidence, she did not even lose her law license for a day. Instead, Judge Donald Stephens ruled that she could not practice law with a government agency for a period of two years. This means she can be begin working as a prosecutor again in two years and do private practice until that time. What a punishment for maliciously prosecuting two men — who landed in prison for over two years until her actions were discovered!

I will describe Janssen’s egregious actions in detail, but she was not the only one who participated in the willful act to hide exculpatory information from the defense. She actually had a lot of help from other public officials — which should place all Wake County cases under scrutiny. How often does this type of thing happen? Why is no one held accountable? Why are these people above the law?

2016

Colleen Janssen was asked to resign from her position with the Wake County District Attorney’s office in June, 2016 following the revelation that she withheld critical information in an armed robbery case against Bashiri Sandy and Henry Supris in the fall of 2014. It was an obvious and deliberate Brady violation that prevented the accused from receiving a fair trial. The North Carolina Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the convictions of Sandy and Supris. District Attorney, Lorrin Freeman later dropped the charges against them.

The withheld evidence — the fact that Janssen’s star witness, Marcus Smith was a drug dealer — was the foundation of the entire defense case. This fact supported the story of the accused to such a degree that there could have been no trial without it.

Background

Sandy and Supris told police that they confronted Smith to collect money or drugs because Smith had been shorting them on marijuana purchases. Smith gave them money and jewelry, and then gunshots were exchanged. Smith shot Sandy in the leg. Smith sustained a gunshot wound to the arm. It is unclear who fired that shot, but it is not relevant to this article.

Smith told police that he was a victim of an armed robbery. The State accepted his story, ignoring the statements by Sandy and Supris — that it was a confrontation about a drug deal.

Sandy told Raleigh Police that Smith was a big-time drug dealer. That resulted in police requesting permission from a judge to place a GPS device on Smith’s car.

Smith’s Impending Charges

Janssen continued building her case against Sandy and Supris despite knowledge that Raleigh police were pursuing her “victim” (star witness) in the “armed robbery” case. In the summer of 2013, Janssen contacted detective Battle via a private email address and asked to meet with him. She asked him to hold off on arresting Smith until after her trial because she allegedly didn’t want to “spook” her witness. Never mind that the impending arrest of the witness/drug dealer should have negated the whole need for any trial since it supported the defendants’ stories, not the state’s case.

Raleigh Police complicit in misconduct

Officer Battle agreed to delay Smith’s arrest. Since police had been watching Smith, they learned the location of his stash house. Upon discovery of this information, Battle gave Janssen a “heads-up” about the probable cause and search warrant of Smith’s drug house. He clearly informed her that Smith would not be named in the search warrant and he would wait until he left the premise to search the property, thus avoiding the need to arrest Smith at that time, since it could jeopardize Janssen’s case! Never mind that taxpayers trust that police will make the appropriate arrests at the time of the known crimes! In fact, over five-hundred pounds of marijuana were found in the stash house. Battle’s cooperation gave Janssen the ability to conceal the fact that her star witness was a drug king-pin at trial!

Impending Federal Charges

Due to the amount of drugs found, this became a federal case. Laurence Cameron with the U.S. Attorney’s office would be handling the case. He became aware of the fact that Raleigh police held off on making the arrest per Janssen’s request. As a former assistant D.A with Wake County himself, he knew Janssen and contacted her to discuss the status of Smith’s impending charges. According to Cameron, Janssen did not want to hear anything about it. Deliberate denial would prevent her from violating discovery rules, and she was fine with that. Prior to that particular call, she had in fact asked Cameron not to arrest Smith until after her trial.

Cameron was concerned enough that he got his supervisor, the U.S. Attorney involved. John Bruce contacted Howard Cummings — Wake County’s First Assistant District Attorney and Janssen’s supervisor. He informed Cummings that he had received information that Raleigh Police were holding off on making an arrest at Janssen’s request. Cummings told Bruce he would “take care of it.”

ADA Cummings testified at the disciplinary hearing that he had a discussion with Janssen and that she informed him that the search of the stash house yielded nothing that could be traced back to Smith, and that his name was not on a single search warrant. That was the end of it. Cummings testified that nothing was discoverable. It’s likely Cummings and Janssen believed the truth would never be revealed . . . and it wouldn’t have been if not for the federal case. It’s extremely bothersome that Cummings was willing to look the other way, despite being contacted by the US Attorney and informed that a fellow ADA deliberately told police to hold off on an arrest. Why did he allow the trial to proceed? Why didn’t he intervene? It is the “win at all cost” mentality of so many prosecutors. Truth doesn’t matter.

Trial of Sandy and Supris

Judicial Misconduct

Just weeks before the trial was scheduled to begin, Detective Battle sent Judge Ridgeway an application for a GPS monitor on Marcus Smith in connection to his drug trafficking, and he signed it. It was also sealed. Since Ridgeway was the trial judge, he became aware of information that impeached the state’s star witness — the mere fact that the witness was being investigated for drug trafficking. This placed the judge in a difficult predicament and also further lessened the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

From the appeal document (pg. 29-30):

On October 21, 2014, one week before trial, Judge Ridgeway considered Raleigh Police Department narcotics detective J.A. Battle’s application to surreptitiously place and monitor a G.P.S. tracking device on a car used by Marcus Smith and belonging to his live-in girlfriend. The application stated that a confidential informant alleged Smith “sells large quantities of marijuana,” and that “the most recent report was made in April 2013 when robbery suspect Barshiri Sandy told the police Marcus Smith was a known drug dealer with over 1 million dollars in product in a stash house. On this basis, Detective Battle stated, “It is believed that a GPS unit attached to Marcus Smith’s vehicle will provide relevant information regarding where Mr. Smith stores illegal drugs.”

In fact, the GPS tracking authorization had already enabled Detective Battle to locate and seize 150 pounds of marijuana from Smith’s “stash house” in August of 2014. Marcus Smith himself had been seen at the stash house before the seizure. On the basis of Detective Battle’s affidavit, Judge Ridgeway signed the authorization, finding there was “probable cause to believe that . . . the placement, monitoring of and records obtained from the electronic tracking device are relevant to an ongoing crimonal investigation. Judge Ridgeway also ordered the application and order to be placed under seal.

None of the information was provided to the defense. The judge should have either unsealed the record OR recused himself from the case. He did neither and presided over the trial.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

The star witness perjured himself as he testified that he hadn’t sold drugs since 2005. The prosecutor knew it. The defense suspected he was lying but had no proof, even though it existed. The judge also knew the witness was lying.

Colleen Janssen was brazen enough to discredit the defense’s attempts to show that Smith was a drug dealer. This was her statement during closing arguments:

There has been absolutely no evidence from the witness stand outside of the defendants’ testimony that this has anything to do with drugs. Nothing that the police found, nothing that Marcus said. The defendants are the only people who’ve been talking about drugs, outside of that small amount of marijuana that Detective Grimaldi found in the garage and that was photographed and you saw. That small baggie of marijuana. From that, the defense wants to make you believe that Marcus Smith is apparently this drug kingpin. If that is the case, that apparently may . . . apparently that’s their position, but please think about whether or not you’ve heard any evidence from the witness stand that would support that contention or whether you just heard it from the lawyers.

The jury found them guilty.  The prosecutor’s unethical behavior is absolutely appalling.

Appeal

The appellate attorney representing Sandy and Supris became aware of Smith’s federal case and also received a copy of a letter that described how Raleigh Police delayed the arrest of Smith at the request of Colleen Janssen. When attorney Paul Green contacted Janssen to try to determine the source of the information, she delayed getting back to him for several weeks. At that point Green contacted Howard Cummings who refused to speak to him about the matter, even though he needed to confirm or deny the allegation about Janssen for his client. Janssen finally informed Green that she had no notes or emails from any such meeting with Detective Battle.

Green did his own research. He reached out to Smith’s attorney and was given the content of the private emails between Janssen and Detective Battle. Days later, Janssen “found” her private emails, likely knowing that Green would end up getting them eventually. She emailed them to Green and he filed a MAR  (motion for appropriate relief) citing prosecutorial misconduct and Brady violations. The Court of Appeals ended up overturning the convictions of Sandy and Supris and the Wake County district attorney had no choice but to address the matter. Janssen was placed on paid leave and eventually asked to resign. The disciplinary investigation followed.

Disciplinary Hearing

Jansen blamed her negligent behavior on the fact that her father had been kidnapped six months prior by an imprisoned gang member she had prosecuted. You can read about that here. Luckily her father was rescued by the FBI and he is fine; however, it is rather pathetic that she used her father’s ordeal as an excuse for her behavior in this case. Evidently it worked, thus the almost non-existent punishment. At a minimum she should have lost her law license and since her deliberate malicious prosecution led to two (very likely) innocent men being sent to prison, she should have faced prison time, but that is never the case. Prosecutors are routinely able to get away with destroying lives with little (or no) consequence.

Jansen testified that she made mistakes, and that she never made the connection that the drug arrest was significant to her case, even though she knew it was certainly crucial to the defense case. I don’t believe her. It was no mistake.

She talked about how she would have never willfully done harm to “the office.” Who cares about the reputation of the office when people are paying a huge price for her actions — prison time.

As well, so many Wake County officials testified on her behalf about how she was so honest, hard-working, etc. Namely, former District Attorney, Colin Willoughby (who fought against Greg Taylor’s innocence claims, Judge Becky Holt (who did a poor job with the Jason Young case, Judge Gessner (you can learn more about his unethical tactics in the Brad Cooper case). They all came to her defense, even knowing how deceitful she was. That’s the reality of our “justice” system.

How many more cases like this exist? How much information has been withheld from defendants? Why is there a mentality to WIN, rather than seeking the truth? Why are public officials (who are paid with our tax dollars) never held accountable for their misconduct? My hope is that the public will become more aware of cases like this.

You can watch the disciplinary hearing here.

911 Call Missing From Young Phone Records