A cesspool of Judicial Corruption

TWO david in the hands of the marshal

U.S. Deputy Marshal David Meyer had custody of David. Seven weeks earlier at David's evidentiary hearing, on December 7, 2004, Meyer had taken the witness-stand and testified under oath that it was too risky to hold the trial in Moscow, Idaho–where David would be tried by his peers (as guaranteed by the Constitution) for his so-called crimes that ostensibly occurred. It was very likely that the testimony of this man helped influence the powers that be to surround the entire Federal Building with armed Home Land Security guards.

At the Hearing, Deputy Marshal Meyer admitted upon cross-examination that he "had no personal knowledge that David was a threat to anyone." David's attorney said, "It appears that you relied solely upon hearsay information from other persons, who had never sworn an oath or given an affirmation." He did not respond.

After the Hearing, although the halls of the Federal Building looked empty, I could hear voices inside the Court Room. Then I spotted Deputy Marshal Meyer in the hall leaving the room. I stopped him and said I had a few questions.

I said, "I told you that I had called your office three times, but I got no response from you. You told me you never got the messages." But now finally, he did agree to meet with me at 4:00 p.m. in his office. I arrived a few minutes early and brought along WaterOz General Manager Greg Towerton (a former U.S. Air Force investigator and personal body guard of President Ronald Reagan).

We went into the Deputy Marshal's secured office (in the same Federal Building). I came right to the point by asking:

"Are you the person who made the decision to deny my son the right to use his own computer in assisting in his own defense? Or was the decision made by a superior while you only followed instructions?"

He answered saying, "Who wants to know?"

"I want to know! David is being denied the opportunity to defend himself."

Greg Towerton brought up the case of Sammy Hussein, who they confined in the same facility with David and was at trial during the same time in a different court room. Sammy had been charged as a terrorist-supporter using his computer as a terrorist tool on the Internet to commit anti-American acts in support of international terrorism (He was later acquitted).

Greg then said, "Yet you have refused to allow David to use his computer to simply perform legal research in aid of his own defense."

Towerton went on to say that, "all other means of research, the jail law library and the Internet have been denied to him."

"That was a special case," Meyer retorted. Greg countered saying,

"What was so special about Sammy’s case? You must have known that if there were any validity to the charges against Sammy, there would be an increased risk of danger to our National security by allowing Sammy to use the same computer he used for terrorism. It could have been used to further terrorism while he was in jail; yet you disallowed David the right to perform legal research on his laptop-computer."

I followed up by saying, "You were called to testify regarding security issues associated with having his trial in [Moscow Idaho]. Your testimony indicated that you believed David was a serious security risk and needed an extremely high level of guarding.

"You testified that other detention facilities within the State of Idaho were inadequate to protect the public from what you perceived as the potential threat posed by David or his so-called 'followers.'"

What he implied was that the State of Idaho or Federal Government could not provide sufficient security to protect the government from David unless they surround the Court Building with armed guards carrying military, automatic assault-weapons. The government circulated charges that David was head of two militias. I summarized our view of David Meyer's actions by telling him:

"Mr. Meyer, obviously you are being arbitrary and capricious and are giving greater privileges to foreign nationals than to Americans. This should be especially embarrassing to you when that foreign national [Sammy] was charged with terrorism–which means that the official policy of the U.S. Marshal’s Office in Idaho is to be soft on foreign terrorists and harsh on American citizens. It is quite apparent that the only reason for your erratic differential treatment is simple arbitrariness, which is illegal under our system of justice."

I then said, "If I had been able to establish that you were the person who made the decision to deny Dave his computer, we could have engaged in a dialogue about how that decision was made and why it was not justified; and hopefully, I would have been given the opportunity to convince you to change your mind. However, by avoiding the direct question as to who was responsible for that decision, it was not possible to probe the subject further."

At the conclusion of our meeting I said, "Am I to assume that you did make the decision?"

His response was evasive. "Assume anything you like!"

I continued by telling him that it makes him appear to be discharging the duties of his office in a deceptive fashion when–I learned later–he did, indeed, make the decision.

Later, I wrote to him advising that by not truthfully owning up to the fact that he was the decision maker, he created a deception, so I had to look elsewhere to find the truth. "This appears," I said, "to be a pattern that is not acceptable in a government that boasts of 'high integrity.' Supposedly it functions 'By the People, of the People and For the People'"–is this merely sugar coating for the unwary public?

In confirmation of Meyer's deception, I contacted authorities at Ada County Jail (Boise Idaho). They said that they themselves would not have denied David the use of his own computer since they had the capacity to make a reasonable accommodation for David to do legal research for his own defense. "That decision," I was told, "was made my Deputy Marshal David Meyer."

I told Meyer that the time is quickly passing when it would have any value for Dave to use a computer in his defense. I said that it’s absolutely, critical that you give David every chance to develop his defense because the United States Government has falsely accused him of so many crimes.

"Yet," I said, "so far, we have seen nothing to show any intent by the government to honor David’s rights under the Constitution to participate in his own defense."

Obviously, we were not welcome in Meyer's office, and I suspect that he was highly relieved to watch us depart. In all fairness, I gave Deputy Marshal David Meyer a chance to exonerate himself. His responsibility and oath does not merely "suggest" that he follow the Constitution– but rather, "it demands that he obeys the Consititution."

Later, I followed up our visit with a letter:

I said, "As you know, at the time of his [David's] arrest, he was home-alone, asleep at 5 o'clock in the morning when almost 50 masked agents (25 of them armed with machine guns) dragged him out of bed, threw him on the floor, cuffed and transported him to jail. Apparently, you moved him under your authority then also. Again, under your authority, you placed him in a solitary cell in Moscow with a sign saying 'KILLER' hanging on the cell door for guards and inmates to see and to create hatred toward David, which started the process of mistreatment.

He was moved to Ada County Jail where rumors were circulated that he was a 'Cho Mo' (child molester) [This designation assures abusive treatment from the other prisoners]. He was taken to maximum security, housed with violent inmates, denied his doctor-prescribed diet and his visitation rights from his wife and mother–even though they had traveled thousands of miles to see him–all of which I now have learned was specifically denied by you. The list goes on and on, but you would know better than anyone what was done.

Granted, there is a lot at stake for the government in this case, not the least of which is the embarrassment when the public finds out what drastic measures government agents took, all based on rumors and lies.