COMES NOW, Petitioner,
NOLAN KLEIN, not by nor through his exclusively Motion to Compel District
Attorney, Richard Gammick, counsel on record. This above Writ of
Mandamus is an extraordinary / extenuating circumstances action, wherein,
Counsel is not retained by this honorable Court nor KLEIN, thus, in proper
person KLEIN respectfully submits his Writ of Mandamus. This Writ of
Mandamus is presented upon the record of cases CR88-1692, (Appeal
No. 27514). CR88-1692P, CV90-3087, CV
KLEIN v HELLING,
, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Case No. HC-0140892, Seventh
Judicial District Court, filed August 19, 1992, Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus CV-N-94-193-DWH, United States District Court.
KLEIN entitled actions on
accompany Points And Authorities, and all the records filed in said
enumerated cases, as well as, KLEIN”S Writs of Habeas Corpus
CV-N-94-193-DWH, as part of the record and TONJA BROWN’S,
appointment as Administrator/Executrix in the Matters of the late Mr.
NOLAN KLEIN estate. (attached) Affidavit of Tonja Brown
submitted as part of the record.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1.
December
17, 2009.
Supreme
Court
State
of
Nevada , ADKT 427, ORDER; (ID. At 2, first Paragraph) : IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct shall be repealed and
that the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, as set forth in Exhibit
A, shall be adopted in its placed….. (
Id. At Exhibit A-Page 25) RULE 2.15 Responding to Judicial and Lawyer
Misconduct
(A) “A Judge having
knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of the Nevada Rule
of professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other
respects shall inform the appropriate authority.”
(B) “A Judge having
knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rule of
professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects shall inform the appropriate authority.”
(C) “A judge who
receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another
judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate
action.”
(D) “A
judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a
lawyer has committed a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional
Conduct shall take appropriate action.
COMMENT
[1]. “Taking
action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation.
Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to the
appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge
or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or
denying known misconduct among ones fellow judicial colleagues of the
legal profession undermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in
efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This Rule
limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent
judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent.”
[2] “A judge
who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or lawyer may have
committed misconduct but receives information indicating a substantial
likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action
under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropriate action may include, but,
is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who violated this
Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected
violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly,
actions to be taken in response to information that a lawyer has committed
a violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct may include but
are no limited to communicating directly with the lawyer who may have
committed the violation or reporting the suspected violation with the
appropriate authority or other agency or body.”
ISSUES
PRESENTED
PETITIONER, NOLAN EDWARD
KLEIN, WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS, IN VIOLATION
OF PETITIONER’S FOUTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEEN AMENDMENTS,
CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
THE HONORABLE:
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE GIBBONS,
JUSTICE HARDESTY, PICKERING, DOUGLAS,
SAITTA, PARRAGUIRRE, CHERRY, GOVERNOR JAMES GIBBONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL
CATHERINE CORTEZ-MASTO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF LAWYER’S MISCONDUCT AND CRIMES
pursuant to ADKT 427 SHALL INFORM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY:
1. The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND, KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
THESE VIOLATIONS WOULD LEAD TO THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF NOLAN KLEIN.
(a) Washoe County
Deputy District Attorney, RONALD RACHOW, was the prosecuting attorney in
the above entitled Case CR88-1692 STATE v NOLAN EDWARD KLEIN:
Prosecuting Attorney RONALD RACHOW knew that KLEIN’S defense was being
based on MISTAKEN IDENTITY and that KLEIN had an alibi placing him in
Jack’s Bar in Carson City, NV during the time of the crime. RACHOW
knew that he was violating KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights when RACHOW on
November 10, 1988 filed a Motion in Opposition of KLEIN’S November
4, 1988 Motion for Discovery And Production of Exculpatory Materials.
Rachow intentionally violated Judge Peter Breen’s court ORDER
dated December 8, 1988 to turn over all the Materiality and Exculpatory
Evidence to the defense. This is proven by RACHOW’S own
handwritten notes on defense’s November 4, 1988 Motion for
Discovery And Production of Exculpatory Materials. Rachow knew he
was defying Judge Breen’s court order and thereby violated BRADY v
MARYLAND and KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights to receive a fair trial.
(b) 373 U.S. 83
(1963) Brady held that “the suppression by the prosecutor of
evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where
the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of
the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id at 87. The
Court observed: “Society wins not only when the guilty are
convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system or the
administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”
Id Brady’s constitutional due process standard has been incorporated
into an explicit ethical duty upon government attorneys.”
(c)
RACHOW’S
acted in Bad faith. KLEIN was deprived due process, loss of liberty
and life itself caused directly by Rachow’s deliberate concealment of
evidence, done in deliberate indifference to the same, and outright
defiance and contempt of court as demonstrated by handwritten notes to
withhold exculpatory evidence.
(d) RACHOW violated KLEIN’S Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
, “No State…shall deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” the
touchstone constitutional principles which underlies our system of
criminal justice in the
United States : when the government seeks to deprive one of life
or liberty, due process requires the
prosecution, the very adversary which seeks to punish
the accused, to provide the accused.
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of
law, and with the colors of justice…”
US v Jannotte, 673 F. 2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)
2. RACHOW
violated several NRS Statutes under NRS 199, 41, Code of
Professional Conduct, Supreme Court regulation ADKT 427 when he
intentionally withheld the evidence that was clearly in violation of Brady
and KLEIN’S Due Process.
NRS 199.310 Malicious
prosecution. A person who
maliciously and without probable cause therefore, causes or attempts to
cause another person to be arrested or proceeded against for any crime of
which that person is innocent:
(a)
On June 10, 2009 found in the District Attorney’s file in the
above entitled case
was RACHOW’S unsigned Memorandum
dated November 10, 1988 to Defense
Counsel Shelly T. O’Neill. This
was typed and never received by Ms. O’Neill, because, everything had
been turned over from the Washoe County Public Defender’s to KLEIN .
This was presented in KLEIN’S Post-conviction Petition, CV90-3087.
This memorandum states: “attached to this memo please find
materials that may be exculpatory and/or statements to the defendant.
This information is provided to you pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes
Chapter 174 and Brady v
Maryland . I have also attached a copy of the rap sheet of defendant.”
“I have reviewed the file
as of November 9, 1988, and I believe that the attached material is all
that falls within statutory discovery and Brady. If I discover any
other material that arguably falls within Brady or within the provisions
of the Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 174, it will be provided to
you in an expeditious manner.”
(b). It is
KLEIN’S belief that RACHOW would not have obtained a legal conviction
had he not violated BRADY v MARLAND and had presented to the defense as
well as the jury all of the evidence. This is based on the record
and the following that during the Jury deliberations the Jury was
DEADLOCKED and could not reach a decision until they heard two defense
witnesses Barbara Hillman and William Richards’s testimonies to be read
back. Judge Charles McGee informed the Jury that it would take to
long to have both testimonies transcribed so he ordered the Jury to pick
one. They picked William Richards testimony. William
Richards was a patron of Jack’s Bar on the evening of May 9, 1988 during
the crime was being committed. RICHARDS testified that he and KLEIN
were playing pool until well after the time of the crime was being
committed at 9:15 p.m.. This was raised in KLEIN’S Post-Conviction
Petition CV90-3087, DV-N-94-193-DWH
3. The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
When Rachow withheld the discrepancies between KLEIN and the Sparks Police
Departments, prime suspect ZARSKY who disappeared after the crime.
(a)
That
under Petitioner's district court criminal case #CR88-1692, there were
reports and composite drawings of suspects from three separate robberies,
sexual assaults and attempted sexual assaults, of which Petitioner was
suspected of committing because of the uncanny resemblance of the suspects
in all three cases, i.e., that all three crimes took place in the same
general area of Sparks, Nevada; that the victims in all three cases gave
virtually the same general description of the perpetrator; and that in two
of the cases, the victims said that the perpetrator game them his name and
that he had something wrong with his mouth and/or teeth.
(b)
In the case in which Petitioner was convicted, the victims
gave the same general description of
5'9" tall, tan complexion, sandy/blond hair, dark/brown eyes, and
dirty clothing. During preliminary hearing, Bridgette Sloan testified that
the perpetrator had broken teeth.
See, Preliminary
Hearing Transcript,
October
3, 1988, pg. 60. At trial Ms. Sloan stated that he had brown eyes.
See, Trial
Transcript, January
24,
1989, pg. 99. Further, at trial the other victim, Theresa Rodela testified
that the perpetrator had
something wrong with his teeth or mouth, but couldn't remember
what, and the he had dark eyes and that the
Petitioner's eyes are blue.
See,
Trial Transcript,
January 24, 1989, pg. 62-64. These factors pertaining to
the description of the perpetrator are of special importance when viewed
in light of the two other similar crimes of
which Petitioner was suspected of committing.
(c)
That the second crime Petitioner was suspected of committing
is listed under
Sparks
Police Department Case
No. 88-4238, which was a robbery/Attempted Sexual Assault committed on
April 21, 1988. The general description given by that victim and the
composite drawing of the perpetrator are virtually identical in most all
respects. As in the case Petitioner is convicted of, the victim in the
April 21, 1988 case also identified the perpetrator as having teeth
chipped/missing and a speech impairment or cleft pallet. The victim was
also able to describe the perpetrator's vehicle as a possible 1965-67
Pontiac Bonneville - Dirty White. Also, the April 21, 1988 attacker gave
the victim a name. All of the above characteristics of the crime and
description were also found in the case for which Petitioner was charged
and convicted. Furthermore, Petitioner's vehicle closely matched the
vehicle description given in the April 21, 1988 attack
(d)
That because the descriptions by the victims in SPD Case No. 88-4892 (the
case Petitioner was actually
charged with), and SPD Case No. 88-4238 (the April 21, 1988 case), were so
similar to one another, the police contacted the victim of the April 21,
1988 crime and asked her to come down and try to identify the Petitioner's
vehicle as the same vehicle driven by the April 21, 1988 perpetrator, at
which time she was driven by Petitioner's vehicle for attempted
identification, however, she did not identify the Petitioner's vehicle as
the vehicle driven by her attacker on April 21, 1988.
(e)
That the third case Petitioner was a suspect in was logged under SPD Case
No. 87-11777 that was committed on
November 18, 1987. And like the other two cases, the description of the
perpetrator bore a
remarkable resemblance to one another.
(f)
That due to the striking and remarkable resemblance and
similarities in the characteristics of the crimes and the
descriptions of the suspect, it was the affirmative theory of the
investigating detectives that all
three crimes were committed by the same person, and that the Petitioner
was the prime suspect in all three cases.
(g)
That the only reason Petitioner was not charged with the
crimes committed in SPD Case Numbers 88-4238 and
87-11777 is that Petitioner was identified by those victims as not being
the same person that committed the crimes against them. KLEIN had been
cleared and his vehicle all of this was withheld from the defense in
violation of KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights in order for RACHOW to secure
a conviction.
(h)
That Petitioner's defense pursued at trial was mistaken
identity and alibi, and evidence of another person committing the crimes
alleged to have been committed by Petitioner, would have been consistent
with the theory of defense pursued at trial, and was corroborated by the
victims' own testimony at trial that the perpetrator had broken teeth or
something wrong with him mouth and brown or dark eyes, whereas, Petitioner
does not have broken teeth or a mouth deformity, and his eyes are blue,
this exculpatory evidence was prejudicial to Petitioner's trial defense.
4. The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
(a)
The fact that Petitioner had been named in Theresa
Rodela's lawsuit on
November 4, 1988,
approximately ten weeks
prior to Petitioner's trial ultimately resulted in counsel's failure to
present valuable impeachment evidence when Ms. Rodela testified that
Petitioner was not named as a defendant in her pending lawsuit, and
actually went on to name all the defendants in the lawsuit, with the
exception of the Petitioner. Trial Transcript, January 24, 1989, pg. 71.
(b) Whereas
Ms. Sloan testified at preliminary hearing that she could not identify the
Petitioner as the perpetrator of the crimes at the time she had seen
Petitioner in person approximately two weeks after the crime. Preliminary
Hearing Transcript, October 3, 1988, pg. 57-61. However, Ms. Sloan still
managed to name Petitioner by his true and correct name in a civil suit
during the time that she stated she could not positively say that
Petitioner was the same person that committed the crimes. The civil
complaint was filed several weeks prior to Petitioner even being arrested
and a preliminary hearing was held, but still alleged in her civil
complaint that Petitioner had committed the offense as alleged in the
criminal complaint against him.
(c)
That several times during closing arguments of KLEIN’S trial, RACHOW,
expressed his opinion of the victim’s motives and veracity by stating,
“remember what they look like and remember how positive they were when
they said it was him. They have no motive to come in here and
lie.” “You heard they have a civil suits going. They have
civil suits going….but it’s not against him. It makes no
difference to those girls whether or not this particular individual is
convicted except as a victim of the crime. They seek justice.”
(d) Under cross examination of Sloan when asked, Q. “
Do you believe that your composite looks like my client? A.
“Somewhat” Q. About a thousand other guys as well? A.
“Yeah”
(d)
On June 10, 2009 it was discovered in the file of the above entitled case
that RACHOW had withheld the letters found in the file that he was
corresponding with the Victim’s attorney pertaining to the lawsuit back
in September 1988. In fact, the attorney representing the victim had
named another person other than KLEIN and it was RACHOW that informed them
that it was not the person and then named KLEIN.
(f)
That prior to KLEIN’S September 15, 1988 arrest, Bridgette Sloan, had
filed suit against KLEIN before she was able to identify KLEIN in court at
the Preliminary Hearing. Sloan was not given the photo lineup of KLEIN in
May 1988, however, Theresa Rodela identified KLEIN thru a Photo
line-up taken on May 22, 1988, thereby , making it a positive
Identification and in court identification of KLEIN.
(g)
That over the years study after study have been done on positive
Identification thru eyewitness testimony, and photo line-ups have shown
that wrongful convictions have occurred due to these types of photo
arrays. In fact, KLEIN’S style of photo line up protocol is
no longer being used through out our country because it has lead to
wrongful convictions. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT OF THIS WRITING,
KLEIN’S PHOTO LINEUP HAS BEEN SHOWN TO 149 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NO
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT KLEIN OR THE SUSPECT LOOK LIKE AND THEY HAVE PICKED
KLEIN, NUMBER 3 OUT OF THE SAME PHOTO LINE UP THAT WAS SHOWN TO RODELA.
This photo is what would be best described as tainted, because, the photo
array depicts six men three on each side. Five of the men are from
the chest up and KLEIN is cut off at the BEARD/CHIN. KLEIN is the
darkest one featured and your eyes are drawn to him first unlike the other
photos. This is called unconscious transference and this type of
photo line up is no longer being used by law enforcement agencies.
Neither , victims knew at the time of the crime that KLEIN had a full
beard and not a 2-3 day old stubble as described by the victims.
Evidence will show later as to why Counsel O”NEILL did not present beard
evidence at trial CV-n-94-193-DWH,
CV90-3087
(5) The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
(a)
Because of the known discrepancies in the victims’ identification
testimony as compared to Mr. Klein’s actual physical characteristics
which would come to light during the trial, RACHOW told the jury that this
case was going to come down to identity, and whether they were going to
believe the victims or not, and if they did, everything would flow.
Trial transcripts January 27, 1989 CV-09-30-87, N-94-193-DWH
(b)
KLEIN was denied his right to a fair trial and due process of law to
prejudicial prosecutor RACHOW’S misconduct by repeatedly vouching for
the credibility of witnesses and accusing defense witnesses of having
motives to lie, in violation of KLEIN’S fifth and fourteenth amendment
Constitutional Rights.
(c)
RACHOW expressed his personal opinion as to the motives, veracity and
credibility of the victims: and (2) RACHOW’S statements were misleading
to the jury, where KLEIN was in fact named as a defendant by both victims
in two separate lawsuits based upon the events that KLEIN was being tried
for.
(d) These
lawsuits were settled after trial at an award of nearly three quarters of
a million dollars. RACHOW knew about these lawsuits prior to KLEIN
being arrested and convicted.
(e)
Because of RACHOW violating KLEIN’S constitutional Right to due process,
RACHOW is responsible for the wrongful conviction of Nolan KLEIN and
because of his bad acts that resulted in the facilitation of a conspiracy
of others to conceal a crime that RACHOW had violated BRADY v MARYLAND
that ultimately lead to the wrongful death of an innocent man, Nolan
KLEIN. (e)
Because of RACHOW violating KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights and Due
Process RACHOW is responsible for the wrongful conviction of NOLAN
KLEIN and because of his bad acts, that resulted in the facilitation of
the conspiracy of others to CONSPIRE TO CONCEAL A CRIME that RACHOW had
violated BRADY v MARYLAND that ultimately lead to the wrongful death
of an innocent man
(f) RACHOW is in
violation of ADKT 427, Brady v Maryland NRS 199, 41, 174
6.
The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
(a) Because
of these discrepancies in the victims’ testimony, RACHOW was well aware
that he needed to support the state’s position that despite these
inconsistencies in the descriptions of the suspect as opposed to KLEIN’S
physical characteristics, the victims were still correct in their
identification of KLEIN. This was a close case. There was no
physical or forensic evidence that linked KLEIN to the crime. The
Jury seemed concerned about convicting KLEIN whereas it appears that they
were giving KLEIN alibi defense serious consideration before informing the
court they could not reach a verdict until they had the testimony of two
defense witnesses read back to them, however, the court, Judge McGee would
only allow one witness’s testimony read back to them, Bill Richards.
The jury reached a verdict on January 27, 1989, after Bill Richard’s
testimony was read back.
(b)
In January 1990 Tonja
Brown would make contact with one of KLEIN’S juror’s who would inform
her what a reason they convicted KLEIN was. Had Judge McGee given
what the jury requested both testimonies. According to the juror,
the believed that RICHARDS was being truthful, however, they believed that
he was mistaken as to the time he left Jack’s Bar in Carson giving
enough time to drive to Sparks to commit the crime. If McGee had
given the jury what they requested both testimonies they would known that
Richards was not mistaken because HILLMAN’S testimony supports RICHARDS
making no mistakes as to the time KLEIN left Jack’s Bar in Carson City.
Had RACHOW turned over all of the evidence the jury would have had to
speculate that RICHARDS was mistaken as to the time KLEIN left the bar..
See CV-n-94-193-DWH, CV90-3087. trial transcripts January 23-25, 1989
(c)
William RICHARDS would
later become a Deputy with the Carson City Sheriff’s Office who
continues to stand by his testimony. Barbara Hillman is now
deceased.
7.
The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
RACHOW WITHHELD EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO STATE’S WITNESS LOUANNE GRITTER
AND PUBLIC DEFENDER SHELLY T. O’NEILL THAT IS NOW BEFORE THE 9TH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
(a) That on May
4, 2009 the Honorable Judge Brent Adams issued an Order compelling Washoe
County District Attorney Richard Gammick to turn over the DNA test results
and the entire file in the above entitled case. On June 10, 2009
newly discovered evidence was found in KLEIN’S FILE pertaining to
statements made by state’s witness LOUANNE GRITTER that RACHOW withheld
from the defense. RACHOW withheld information that showed motive and
reason for GRITTER TO LIE. See letter to Steven Quinn filed
September 8, 2009 and Writ of Habeas Corpus CV-N-94-193-DWH
(b) That on or
about September 4, 2009 that I, Tonja Brown, personally telephoned and
spoke to Deputy Attorney General Steven Quinn and informed as to the newly
discovered evidence that supports KLEIN’S claims in the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 8, 2009 I filed a letter
written to Deputy Attorney General Steven Quinn detailing our conversation
as to the discovery of what was found in the District Attorney’s file on
KLEIN. I provided him copies of the evidence that supports KLEIN’S
claims in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is still
pending. Exhibit Letter to Quinn.
©
That I personally submitted this information to members of the Pardons
Board that have yet to notify or do anything about all of the newly
discovered evidence which is violation of the new Supreme Court
regulations, ADKT 427 and in violation of NRS 199 Crimes Against Public
Justice concealing a crime.
8.
The
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that was withheld in violation of
BRADY v MARYLAND
KLEIN’S FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.
RACHOW WITHHELD EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO STATE’S
WITNESS LOUANNE
GRITTER AND PUBLIC DEFENDER SHELLY T. O’NEILL
THAT IS NOW BEFORE
THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
(a).
That on June 10, 2009 statements found in KLEIN’S file of Louanne
GRITTER revealed conversations with members of the District Attorney’s
office, including, RACHOW. Such as, but not limited too,
Gritter calling RACHOW to inform him that KLEIN has been calling him
collect to see if he has spoken to his public Defender, Shelly T.
O’Neill. Gritter states that she does not want to speak to
KLEIN’S public defender O’Neill, because she is afraid that O’Neill
will learn about the crimes she has committed. Gritter would make
arrangements to see RACHOW to discuss this. RACHOW violated
KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights by withholding this information.
(b)
Gritter
goes on to mention how she has some difficulty identifying KLEIN’s voice
from others and then later says she will identify his voice on the 911
call. At trial RACHOW would bring state’s witness Gritter into
identify the voice on the 911 taped call as KLEIN’S. RACHOW would
play the tape of the suspect’s voice on the 911 call. RACHOW did
not bring into court the taped interview of KLEIN’S voice during his
detention on May 22, 1988, all without Miranda Warning. Trial
transcripts, CV90-3087, CV-N-94-193-DWH
©
That during KLEIN’S trial not one defense witness was asked to hear the
911 call. If RACHOW or defense counsel O’Neill had brought
the tape of KLEIN’S voice during his May 22, 1988 questioning to play
for the defense witnesses and jury to hear that would have concluded that
KLEIN was not the one who called the 911 operator. I base this on
hearing the 911 tape after trial. The 911 call is not the voice of
Mr. KLEIN.
(d)
During the June 20 – 21, 1991 Evidentiary hearing when asked of
Counsel, O’NEILL about the 911 call tape, she stated, “ O’Neill
testified ‘I believed it did not sound like Nolan Klein on the tape
recording, and Mr. Klein was adamant that it was not he that telephoned
the Sparks Police Department and made that confession.”
9. KLEIN’S
FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY COUNSEL
PUBLIC DEFENDER SHELLY T. O’NEILL WHEN SHE COMMITTED PERJURY DURING THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
(a) That during
the testimony of Ms. O’Neill she would go onto commit perjury and later
in 1993 be confronted with it, wherein, she would admit that she lied
during the Evidentiary Hearing of June 20, 1991. A perjury complaint
would be filed by Tonja Brown and forward to the Washoe County District
Attorney’s Office where it would remain. When RICHARD GAMMICK
would become the new District Attorney Tonja Brown would receive and
continues to possess a letter from GAMMICK stating that the Statute of
Limitations had run out on prosecuting O’Neill for perjury. See
, Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Case No. HC-0140892, Seventh Judicial District
Court, filed August 19, 1992, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
CV-N-94-193-DWH, United States District Court.
(b) That Attorney, Treva
Hearne would contact O’NEILL regarding any comment she would like to
make pertaining to the book “To Prove His Innocence’ that featured Ms.
O’NEILL in it. O’NEILL picked up the manuscript and
returned it without comment.
©
That O’NEILL in 2007 was being considered for the position of the Washoe
County Public Defender’s Conflict Unit. That Tonja Brown would
present the documents supporting O’Neill’s perjured testimony of June
20, 1991. O’NEILL would be asked by the Committee if she had
anything to say, and she stated. “NO” O’NEILL was not
considered for the position. This is on record with
Washoe
County See
Case
No. HC-0140892, Seventh Judicial District Court, filed August 19, 1992,
CV-N-94-193-DWH,
exhibit from book To Prove His Innocence.
(d)
That this perjury by
O’NEILL would continue to haunt KLEIN’S case that would
ultimately be a factor in his cases.
See, Letter to Keith Munro in book To Prove His Innocence.
(e)
That on June 10, 2009 the Washoe County District Attorney’s file on
KLEIN would prove that O’NEILL had committed the perjury during the 1991
because, O’Neill could not have known about ZARSKY because RACHOW never
turned over the evidence. It also discredits her testimony,
credibility, trustworthiness, honesty and integrity.
See letters to Steven Quinn and Keith Munro, Case
No. HC-0140892, Seventh Judicial District Court, filed August 19, 1992,
CV-N-94-193-DWH
(e)
That because of O’NEILL’S
perjured testimony her actions violated KLEIN’S Constitutional Rights
that ultimately lead to the wrongful death of NOLAN KLEIN on September 20,
2009 for which O”NEILL should be prosecuted and disbarred. Attached
email to District Attorney Richard Gammick and John Helzer.
9.
KLEIN’S
FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED WHEN SEVERAL
INDIVIDUALS CONSPIRED TO CONCEAL A CRIME IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BAD FAITH
AND ILLEGAL ACTS COMMITTED BY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, RON RACHOW.
(a)-(q) THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF NOLAN KLEIN.
(a) Deputy
District Attorney, Scott Edwards was representing the Washoe County
District Attorney Office during KLEIN’S post-conviction. EDWARDS
had the District Attorney’s file on KLEIN. The same file that
contained the newly discovered evidence on June 10, 2009 that RACHOW
withheld in violation of Brady v Maryland and Mazzan,993P.2d at
37-38, 42-42 and FN1-3, NRS 199 Crimes against public justice, NRS.
193, 197, 205, 207, 252, 41 and the Code of Professional Conduct,
EDWARDS had KLEIN’S
Petition raising 33 grounds. Edwards knew that KLEIN was presenting
witnesses that he had between a 2-3 inch beard weeks before the
crime, the day of the crime, up and to weeks after
the crime and the suspect did not. Edwards knew KLEIN
maintained his innocence and that someone else had committed the crime.
Some of this evidence that was discovered on June 10, 2009 was received
from the Sparks Police Department containing evidence regarding prime
suspect Zarsky, but, not all of it. In 1991 we could not
prove if the Sparks Police Department turned over this evidence to the
District Attorney. KLEIN would receive his entire file from the
Public Defender’s office and none of this evidence was in KLEIN’S
file. On June 10, 2009 the truth was discovered that RACHOW never
turned it over to the defense. Thereby, supporting the perjury
against O’NEILL that later she would not deny that she had admitted that
she had committed the perjury during the post-conviction hearing Edwards
continued to fight KLEIN’S Petition know that the handwritten notes from
RACHOW were in the file that indicated that RACHOW had withheld evidence
in support of KLEIN’S claim that there was someone else responsible for
the crime. On June 10, 2009 evidence from Gritter was found in the
file, such as, but not limited to a letter to RACHOW when she was being
contacted by an investigator during KLEIN’s pos-conviction hearing
regarding her being the Secret Witness. Statements from Gritter were also
found in the file that support KLEIN’S case that is pending before the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals. All of this evidence RACHOW had and
withheld and with the help of Edwards to keep this a secret from the
defense he would have to conspire to conceal a crime RACHOW
violating BRADY v MARYLAND when he intentionally withheld this information
from the KLEIN and the Courts. .. See, CV90-3087,
CV-N-94-193-DWH.
(b)
Deputy District Attorney, Gary Hatlestad, was the prosecuting attorney on
appeal. Hatlestead continued to fight KLEIN’S Petition/Appeal
knowing there was exculpatory Evidence and Materiality Evidence, such as,
but not limited to, the handwritten notes from RACHOW were in the
file that indicated that RACHOW had withheld evidence in support of
KLEIN’S claim that there was someone else thereby, supporting KLEIN’S
defense of mistaken identity. Additional note: John Steven
Olausen case is now pending in the Honorable Connie Steinheimer’s Court
regarding Hatelstad withholding evidence in John Steven Olausen’s 1979
trial.
Hatlstead received
additional information that was supplemented in that Defense Counsel,
SHELLY T. O’NEILL, had been looking at the wrong photo, booking picture
of KLEIN, to understand the beard evidence. KLEIN’S defense
witneeses informed O’NEILL that KLEIN had a full 2-3 inch beard at the
time of the crime. This was shown in the photo lineup taken of KLEIN
on May 22, 1988. O’Neill had testified during the Evidentiary
Hearing “And, frankly, in looking at the booking pictures, Mr. Klein had
what we would term as a three-day growth of beard, or it was one of those
situations that fell into it. And I thought it was kind of
knit-picky in spite of all the other identification and alibi evidence
that we had put forth.”
Hatlstead was the attorney
of record during the hearing of the missing DNA evidence. The DA’s
office conceded that the filter cigarette butts were gone but did not know
what happened to them. The District Attorney’s Office has been
receiving Letters of Preservations since May 1989 to secure the evidence
for future DNA testing.
That on May 4, 2009 the
Honorable Judge Brent Adams issued an Order in the above entitled case for
District Attorney Richard GAMMICK to turn over the DNA test results and
the entire file in KLEIN’S case. On June 10, HATLESTEAD had the
file turned over and newly discovered evidence that was contained within
the file was discovered. Including the name of a police officer who
had contacted Sparks Police Detective Sherman Boxx regarding a man
hitchhiking carrying a blue suitcase that matches the composite sketch of
the suspect the day after the crime. The name of the officer was
found in the file who was involved in investigating who opened up
KLEIN’S DNA evidence that was in the custody and control of the Washoe
County Courthouse and the missing DNA filtered cigarette butts that the
perpetrator smoked. The DNA tests results that GAMMICK
publicly admitted on or about September 22, 2008 to opening up the DNA and
testing it that results were not there.
It is KLEIN’S belief that
sometime after conviction of January 1989 and after they received the
first letter of Preservation May 1989 and before the 1995 discovery by
BROWN, that a member of the District Attorney’s Office illegally tested
such evidence under a fictitious name, John Doe, because, the obtaining of
such evidence was illegal could have had it tested at another lab outside
the Washoe County area. It is also the belief that the tests results
showed someone other than KLEIN and therefore, the tests results were
destroyed.
©After Deputy District
Attorney, Richard Gammick had been elected to the position of the Washoe
County District Attorney he received information from Tonja BROWN
pertaining to the perjury complaint filed by Brown against O’NELL in
1992. GAMMICK would respond because of the Statute of
Limitations had run out he could not prosecute O’NEILL for perjury even
if his office felt appropriate to do so.
That in 1996 Tonja Brown
would receive a letter from the Benjamin Cardoza School of Law, Barry
Scheck, from the Innocence Project out of
New York . BROWN would receive a letter addressed to Judge Mills Lane from
Detective Niles Carson describing how they were going to take my new 1996
police report on the discovery of the missing filtered cigarette butts and
place it onto a the closed 1995 case, the opening of KLEIN’S DNA kits.
GAMMICK was aware in 1996 that there were ongoing problems with KLEIN’S
evidence while in the control and custody of the Washoe County Courthouse,
In 2008 GAMMICK admitted that he opened up the DNA and had it tested.
That over the years GAMMICK
has made several statements to the public that he knows to be not true
regarding KLEIN’S case. As the District Attorney, he was provided
the documents in July 2009 that showed RACHOW had violated BRADY n
MARYLAND and several members of the District Attorney’s Office have
conspired to conceal a crime including , GAMMICK himself. I
incorporate this © with the following (a – r) as to the knowledge
GAMMICK had pertaining to the illegal acts that have been perpetrated
against KLEIN for the last 21 years. Including, but not limited, the 1996
interview given by GAMMICK regarding the ongoing investigation into the
missing DNA evidence. In 2000 the presence of GAMMICK into KLEIN’S
evidence while in the control and custody of the Washoe County Courthouse,
while a court order Issued by Justice Springer in September 1998 was still
in effect that no exhibits were to be sent and no case was before the
District Court, thereby, giving no reason for GAMMICK to be into the
evidence when attorney, Ms. Treva Hearne would see the Index Tracking
Cards indicating that GAMMICK had been into the evidence just days before
she was viewing it. That District Attorney’s Office had signed out
the evidence and now even more evidence was missing. That KLEIN
filed within the Court,
Dept.
2
regarding this issue and Judge Charles McGee had denied KLEIN a hearing .
The Supreme Court upheld that decision. Ms. Hearne gave an affidavit
as to what she witnessed with regarding to KLEIN’S evidence and the
notions made on the INDEX Tracking cards.
GAMMICK also received
information that KLEIN was appearing before the October 2008 Pardons
Board. That KLEIN’S health was failing. GAMMICK knew that
RACHOW violated BRADY and conspired to conceal a crime by not disclosing
what RACHOW had done.
(d) On or about
February 16, 1996 Tonja BROWN received a letter from Barry Scheck and
Innocence Project. After speaking to Detective Niles Carson
regarding this letter and the brand new 1996 Police Report I filed in
January 1996. He stated that when I contacted him in December of
1995 regarding this matter he had made contact with
Judge Mills Lane who instructed
NILES to wait until be became head of the Court in 1996. Brown had asked
for a copy of the letter he wrote to
Judge Lane so that she could provide this letter to Mr. Scheck.
Carson said he would and then instructed BROWN to contact
Judge Mills Lane regarding the missing filter cigarette butts and the Innocence Project.
BROWN contacted
Judge Lane to find out what keeps happening to KLEIN’S evidence and to inform LANE
that the Innocence Project was taking on KLEIN’S case. LANE
instructed BROWN to contact Judge McGee to set up a meeting with McGee and
LANW. Brown did as instructed and called McGee’s office. The
office confirmed that McGee had received a copy of the letter from
Detective Niles Carson to
Judge Mills Lane and was then informed to contact District Attorney Richard Gammick to join
this meeting. BROWN contacted GAMMICK and was informed that GAMMICK
was not going to join this meeting and for BROWN to get an attorney.
BROWN called McGee’s Office back and informed him that GAMMICK would not
join the meeting. McGee’s office said that McGee said that he
won’t have ex-parte communications if GAMMICK isn’t coming.
BROWN then contacted LANE’S office and left him the message. No
meeting took place.
Judge Mills LANE conspired to conceal a crime, the missing cigarette butts, when he went
along with Detective Niles Carson to place this brand new 1996 case onto a
closed 1995 thereby hiding the ongoing problem with KLEIN’S evidence.
(f)
Washoe County Judge Charles McGee was the
presiding Judge over KLEIN’S trial, Post-conviction, Writ of Habeas
Corpus, missing DNA evidence hearing and in 2000 when KLEIN discovered
that the District Attorney’s Office have been into KLEIN’S evidence
for years and Exculpatory evidence keeps disappearing when the District
Attorney’s Office returns the evidence after they check it out.
McGEE conspired to conceal
a crime, the missing cigarette butts, when he went along with Detective
Niles Carson to place this brand new 1996 case onto a closed 1995 thereby
hiding and then held a hearing in his Court and dismissing the case.
(g) Deputy District
Attorney, John Helzer, conspired to conceal a crime, when he spoke before
the Nevada Pardons Board on October 29, 2008. This was placed on the
record when I appeared before the member of the Pardons Board on June 24,
2009
“ As an Advocate for the Innocent I am
here to ask this Pardons Board to adopt a policy holding those accountable
for misleading the Members of the Pardons Board. The Pardons
Board is expected to make a fair, unbiased, informative decision based on
the information that is provided to them.
I am now in possession of newly
discovered exculpatory evidence as a result of the litigation that Washoe
County Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Helzer, said we needed to litigate
the disappearance of the missing cigarette filters that Justice Gibbons
asked ADA Helzer about.
During the October 29, 2008
Pardons Board hearing in which my innocent brother, Nolan Klein was being
considered for a Pardon, KLEIN’S Attorney, and Mr. Hager repeatedly
stated to this Pardons Board that Mr. Klein has always maintained his
innocence and the Parole Board will not grant parole unless he admits
guilt. Mr. Hager went on to say and provided to you a copy of the
television interview of Washoe County District Attorney, Dick Gammick, who
publicly admitted that he had opened up the DNA and tested it.
Mr. Hager then demanded to know where the DNA test Results were?
Immediately following Mr.
Hager representation of my brother ADA Helzer spoke to the Pardons Board
as to why Mr. Klein should not be given a Pardon. He went on to say.
“Now before I came here, it’s kind of interesting, but before I even
knew this was going to be considered for a Pardon, I was reviewing his
file because I wanted to know more about it. I KEPT HEARING THINGS.
I went over and talked to Commander Asher at the Sparks Police
Department.” He continued on “And what is amazing to me, is that
we have this continued denial in the sense that you are SUPPOSE TO BUY
INTO IT.
On June 10, 2009 for the
first time the Defense saw evidence that the prosecutor Ron Rachow hid
from us. And after 21 years of incarceration it finally saw the
light of day with Mr. Rachow’s personal handwritten notes on it.
According to Commander
Asher’s report it would appear to be the THEORY OF THE Sparks Police
Dept. that Mr. Zarsky committed this crime for which my brother was
convicted of. In the documents provided to you the Prime Suspect’s
report of Zarsky refers to other crimes and the other victims that they
believed Mr. Zarsky committed too. However,
those victims from those crimes had cleared my brother and his car.
Don’t you believe that as
an Officer of the court ADA Helzer had a responsibility to speak the truth
to you and the truth would be to inform you that while reviewing the file
there was evidence that another person had committed the crime thus
supporting my brother’s claim of innocence? Cleary this information that
has been withheld from us for all of these years is in violation of Brady
and ADA Rachow makes a reference to Brady.
I ask that the Pardons
Board adopt a policy, that when an inmate who maintains their innocence
and appears before you, the District Attorney MUST DISCLOSE any evidence
that was located in the file and inform the Pardons Board whether or not
the evidence in the file was actually turned over during Discovery.
If they do not and it is discovered that they new about this and
deliberately withheld it they must be sanctioned and or disbarred and this
must be carried out. (Placed on the record Pardons Board minutes of June
24, 2009 and the Pardons Board Hearing of November 19, 2009
That on or about July 1,
2009 BROWN contacted Commander Asher of the Sparks Police Department.
ASHER was the Patrol Officer on May 9th 1988. ASHER was
the one who discovered prime suspect RICKY LEE ZARSKY. ASHER was the
one who took the victim from April 21, 1988 to KLEIN’S car and down to
the Police Department who Cleared KLEIN of the crime. Zarsky police
report. ASHER stated to BROWN that he had not spoken to
Helzer regarding this case and when asked why he never said anything about
ZARSKY or the victim from April 21st at KLEIN’S January 1989
trial, he stated, “because he was never asked.”
July 13, 2009
Sparks City Council Members:
As an Advocate for the
Innocent I base my request for the following. I ask that you place
on your upcoming Agenda to discuss a future Oversight Policy regarding the
Sparks Police Department’s evidence and the way it is handled when it is
turned over to the District Attorney’s Office. I ask that the
policy be that the Defense must be provided a copy of the list of
evidence that was provided to the District Attorney Office.
We must put in place
safeguards for those who have maintained their Innocence and in all
fairness that a Defendant receives a fair an impartial trial. The
Innocent should not have wait years if not decades because of an Honest
Mistake that was made with regard to the evidence or it being
intentionally withheld to get a conviction by an overzealous prosecutor.
There are no laws that preclude a law enforcement agency from providing
the Defense with a copy of what was provided to the District Attorney’s
office. Nor should there be.
I base this information on
what has come to light after 21 years. Recently, a Washoe County
District Court Judge has ordered District Attorney, Dick Gammick to turn
over the entire file in Mr. Nolan Klein’s case. Mr. Klein
has always maintained his innocence and his defense were based on MISTAKEN
IDENTITY, that someone else had committed the crime. We now know
that there have more innocent people wrongfully convicted thru eyewitness
testimony than any and all other factors combined.
It now appears that ADA Ron
Rachow purposely withheld from the Defense all of the Exculpatory Evidence
in this case. Including Commander Steve Asher’s police report
attached on their prime suspect, one Mr. Ricky Lee Zarsky. This
report along with several other pieces of evidence that was turned over by
the Sparks Police Department in 1988 never made it trial because Ron
Rachow withheld this evidence.
For 21 years the Washoe
County District Attorney’s have kept this secret buried until now.
ADA Mr. Helzer even went to the Pardons Board knowing that this
information was withheld from the Defense and he said nothing, however, he
went so far as to state that he spoke to Commander Asher about this case.
On July 1, 2009 I had a long conversation with Commander Asher. At
first Commander Asher stated to me that he has not talked about this case
since the late 1980,s or 1990’s, since trial. I asked Commander Asher
why he never mentioned Mr. Zarsky’s during the trial. He said
because he wasn’t asked. When I asked if he had spoken to Mr.
Helzer he said “NO”. He then asked me why he would be speaking
to Mr. Helzer. I then informed him about what Mr. Helzer said at the
Pardons Board. Commander Asher went from NOT ever speaking to Mr.
Helzer about this case to him to not recalling whether or not he did or
didn’t speak to him about Mr. Klein.
I ask the Sparks City
Council to implement a policy for the Sparks Police Department that when
they turn over the evidence to the District Attorney, that they also
provide to the Defense a copy of what was turned over to the DA.
This will secure any chances of an honest mistake being made or malicious
intent. Then it will be left up to the court to decide
what is or is not admissible for trial.
I also ask that you please
notify me of the upcoming Agenda so that I may be present and provide you
with any other documents that may be needed in support of this new policy.
Placed on the record with the Sparks City Council. Tonja Brown
On or about July 13, 2009
Washoe County District Attorney, Richard GAMMICK received this information
and the documents that Deputy District Attorney, John Helzer had conspired
to conceal a crime that RACHOW had violated BRADY v MARYLAND in July 2009.
District Attorney Richard
Gammick, Gary Hatlstead, Scott Edwards, John Helzer and JOHN and JANE DOES
a-z, with information in hand of the clear miscarriage of justice
further obstructed justice and further deprived KLEIN of life and liberty
and basic freedom from incarceration. Their actions lead to
the wrongful death on Nolan Klein.
They are in violation of
ADKT 427, NRS 199 Crimes Against Public Justice the Nevada Code of
Professional Conduct.
(g) The Federal Public
Defender was now representing KLEIN and had sent their investigators to
investigate KLEIN’s case. Judge/Justice James Hardesty was the head of
the Court when KLEIN wrote Judge Hardesty a letter detailing the recent
development of KLEIN’S evidence while in the control and custody
of the Washoe County District Courthouse. BROWN notified Hardesty
and spoke with Judge Hardesty regarding the ongoing problems with
KLEIN’S evidence. It would appear now that the evidence had changed its
appearance again and now some how the remaining cigarette butts had now
grown in size. As head of the Courts Judge Hardesty
never looked into the matter.
On October 29, 2008
KLEIN appeared before the Nevada Pardons Board. KLEIN’S attorney
Robert Hager provided the members of the Pardons Board a copy of the
interview given by Washoe County District Attorney Richard GAMMICK that
clearly showed that BRADY had been violated. The Pardons
Board, Gammick, Helzer knew that KLEIN’S health was declining.
When Chief Justice Gibbons
asked ADA John HELZER about the missing DNA evidence that GAMMICK admitted
to testing, HELZER stated he didn’t know anything about it and
that KLEIN could litigate the matter. KLEIN was not spoken to by any
member of the Pardons Board, unlike the others who were appearing before
them. KLEIN was denied a pardon.
On October 29, 2008, June
24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice HARDESTY as a member of the Pardons
Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence that
confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory and
Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents in
support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is excluded from their own regulation. Nor
does it state that any State, County, Federal employee, elected official
is excluded from this regulation. This regulation concerns the
Public Welfare and this regulation does not state that it is or is not to
be applied retroactive therefore, it must be considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
HARDESTY dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and
the Honorable Judge Brent Adams regarding of this discovery is another day
they are concealing a crime and therefore, violating their own Supreme
Court regulation and KLEIN’S constitutional rights. Nor does it
say under NRS 199 Crimes Against Public Justice does a Supreme Court
Justice is excluded from violating ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE HARDESTY by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199
Crimes Against Public Justice
(h) On October 29,
2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice PARRAGUIRRE as a member
of the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly discovered
evidence that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the
Exculpatory and Materiality Evidence. They were also given the
documents in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
Parraguirre dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or
take any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE PARRAGUIRRE by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199
Crimes Against Public Justice
(i) On October 29, 2008, June
24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice CHERRY as a member of the Pardons
Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence that
confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory and
Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents in
support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
CHERRY dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or take
any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE CHERRY by remaining
silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of justice done
to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and John and
Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427.
(j)
On October 29, 2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice CHERRY as
a member of the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly
discovered evidence that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by
withholding the Exculpatory and Materiality Evidence. They
were also given the documents in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
CHERRY dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or take
any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE CHERRY by remaining
silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of justice done
to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and John and
Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199 Crimes
Against Public Justice
(j) On October 29,
2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice SAITTA as a member of
the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence
that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory
and Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents
in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
SAITTA dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or take
any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE SAITTA by remaining
silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of justice done
to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and John and
Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice
(k) On October 29,
2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice DOUGLAS as a member of
the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence
that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory
and Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents
in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
DOUGLAS dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or
take any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from
JUSTICE DOUGLAS by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199
Crimes Against Public Justice
(l) On October 29, 2008, June 24,
2009 and November 19, 2009 Justice PICKERING as a member of the Pardons
Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence that
confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory and
Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents in
support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
PICKERING does not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or
take any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE PICKERING by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, She is in violation of ADKT 427.
(m) On October 29,
2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 JUSTICE GIBBONS as a member of
the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly discovered evidence
that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by withholding the Exculpatory
and Materiality Evidence. They were also given the documents
in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that Justice
GIBBONS dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or
take any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
JUSTICE GIBBONS by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199
Crimes Against Public Justice.
(n) On October 29,
2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, 2009 GOVERNOR JAMES GIBBONS as a
member of the Pardons Board was given the documents of the newly
discovered evidence that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by
withholding the Exculpatory and Materiality Evidence. They
were also given the documents in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive.
Everyday that GOVERNOR
JAMES GIBBONS dose not inform the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
or take any kind of action against those who conspired to conceal a crime,
including himself, is another day they are concealing a crime and
therefore, violating their own Supreme Court regulation and KLEIN’S
constitutional rights. Nor does it say under NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice is excluded from violating
ones Constitutional Rights.
GOVERNOR JAMES GIBBONS by
remaining silent and not taking action to correct this miscarriage of
justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW, Edwards, Hatlestead, Gammick, Helzer, and
John and Jane Does, He is in violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199
Crimes Against Public Justice
(o) On October
29, 2008, June 24, 2009 and November 19, ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE
CORTEZ-MASTO as a member of the Pardons Board was given the documents of
the newly discovered evidence that confirmed that RACHOW violated BRADY by
withholding the Exculpatory and Materiality Evidence. They
were also given the documents in support KLEIN’S claim in the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nowhere in the Nevada
Supreme Court’s regulation ADKT 427 does it state that the Nevada
Supreme Court Justice is precluded from this regulation. This
regulation concerns the Public Welfare and this regulation does not state
that it is or is not to be applied retroactive therefore, it must be
considered retroactive
Everyday that
ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE CORTEZ-MASTO does not inform the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals or take any kind of action against those who
conspired to conceal a crime, including himself, is another day they are
concealing a crime and therefore, violating their own Supreme Court
regulation and KLEIN’S constitutional rights. Nor does it say
under NRS 199 Crimes Against Public Justice does a Supreme Court Justice
is excluded from violating ones Constitutional Rights.
ATTORNEY GENERAL CATHERINE
CORTEZ-MASTO by remaining silent and not taking action to correct this
miscarriage of justice done to KLEIN by RACHOW. She is in
violation of ADKT 427 and NRS 199 Crimes Against Public Justice.
(p) On or about September
4, 2009 I contacted and spoke to Deputy Attorney General, Steven Quinn, to
inform him of the newly discovered evidence that supported KLEIN’S
claims that are pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Quinn stated that he would turn over the documents to Deputy Attorney
Robert Weiland and ask him if it were in the best interest of the State to
pull out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then they would do
it. I wrote a letter detailing our discussions and personally
took it in and had it filed with the Attorney General’s Office on
September 8, 2009. KLEIN died a few days later and instead of
notifying the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the Attorney
General’s Office filed a notice of death, however, as the Administrator
of Nolan Klein’s estate, all of KLEIN’S cases are moving forward.
Deputy Attorney General is violation of NRS Crimes Against Public
Justice and in violation of ADKT 427
(q) According
to Deputy Attorney General Steven Quinn he would be receiving the
documents. If QUINN did in fact, turn over the documents to WEILAND
then WEILAND too is in violation ADKT 427 and NRS 199 Crimes Against
Public Justice,
® Deputy
District Attorney John Helzer state to the Pardons Board that he heard
things and looked in the file. Because of this statement it
would apply to all the unknown JOHN AND JANE DOES who to looked in the
file and said nothing.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
That
the Honorable Judge Brent Adams, pursuant to ADKT 427, 12-17-2009, New
Set. ORDER, Report Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick, Deputy
District Attorney Ronald Rachow, Deputy District Attorney Scott Edwards,
Deputy District Attorney Gary Hatlestead, Deputy District Attorney John
Helzer, All the members of the Nevada Pardons Board, Attorney
General Catherine Cortez-Masto, Deputy Attorney General Steven Quinn,
Deputy Attorney Robert Weiland, and all John and Jane Does A-Z to the
proper authority, agency under this regulation ADKT 427.
Based on
the newly discovered evidence that former prosecuting attorney, RON
RACHOW,, had violated BRADY V
MARYLAND and Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 174. NOLAN KLEIN who has
maintained his innocence from the first day of his questioning throughout
his entire Court proceedings and in his final days leading to his wrongful
death, KLEIN, asks this Court to consider every document, pleading,
Exhibit, Grounds raised in Post-conviction, writs of Habeas Corpus, Writ
of Mandamus as to where the grounds’- issues have or have not been fully
addressed, or have reached the merits on or not in any of the state and
federal Courts
KLEIN asks
this Court to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and inform them as
to the newly discovered evidence that was found in the Washoe County
District Attorney’s on June 10, 2009 that RACHOW withheld the
Materiality and Exculpatory Evidence that supports KLEIN’S case.
KLEIN asks
this Court to Order a Hearing in the above entitled action.
KLEIN asks
this Court to file criminal charges against those who violated BRADY v
MARYLAND . Those who facilitated a wrongful death when they conspired
to conceal a crime when they violated the NRS Statutes. Those who
have violated the Nevada Code of Professional Conduct. Those who
have violated ADKT 427. I ask this Court to file complaints
with the State Bar of Nevada on those individuals who violated KLEIN’S
Constitutional Rights and be disbarred from every practicing law in the
State of
Nevada .
Wherefore,
KLEIN prays that the Honorable Court grant KLEIN’S Writ of Mandamus and overturn his conviction based on the newly discovered evidence that
was in violation of BRADY v MARLAND and the Bad Faith that had perpetrated
against KLEIN by several members of our judicial system.
______________________________________________
TONJA BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTRIX OF
THE
ESTATE OF NOLAN KLEIN.
2907 Lukens Lane
Carson City
,
NV
89706
775-882-2744
Affirmation:
The
undersigned does hereby affirm that the proceeding document does not
contain the social security number of any person.
Dated:
______________ , 2010
Signature________________________________
Tonja
Brown
2907 Lukens Lane
Carson city
,
NV
89706
775-882-27744
__________________
Proper
Person
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA
NOLAN
KLEIN
Case No: CV10 01057
Petitioner,
Department 7
V
AFFIDAVIT OF TONJA BROWN
WASHOE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
JOHN AND
JANE DOES A-Z
PARDONS
BOARD
ATTORNEY
GENERAL KATHRING CORTEZ-MASTO
JOHN AND
JANE DOES A-Z
AFFIDAVIT
Under penalty of perjury, I, TONJA BROWN,
sister of the deceased, NOLAN KLEIN, who passed away on September 20, 2009
at the
Northern
Nevada
Correctional
Center
in
Carson City
,
NV .
That I appeared before the
Honorable Judge Todd Russell in Dept 1 IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN FOR THE COUNTY OF CARSON CITY. On October
26, 2009 and December 1, 2009 I was appointed the
Executrix/Administrator of the Estate of NOLAN KLEIN to carry on with all
of KLEIN’S legal matter that are still pending within the Federal
District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and any
future proceedings on behalf of the Estate of the late Mr. NOLAN KLEIN..
That I am over the age of
18 years old, that I have personal knowledge of all matters contained
herein and competent to testify thereon. That I witnessed and am in
possession of the evidence mentioned within Writ of Mandamus. That I
have personally seen the injustice that has been done to Mr. KLEIN.
That it was, I, Tonja Brown who conducted the investigation after Nolan
KLEIN’S 1989 conviction. That I have personally seen the corruption, the
cover up, the conspiracy, and lies that has gone on in Mr. KLEIN’S case.
The evidence in my
possession confirms this.
That Mr. KLEIN’S dying
request was that I continue on to pursue justice for him to clear his
name. That when DNA technology has advanced enough to test the
minute semen sample left by the perpetrator of the May 9, 1988 crime that
is being preserved within the Washoe County Crime lab that it is to be
tested per new 2009 law on DNA testing.
That immediately after
KLEIN’S death I made arrangements to preserve his DNA at the Washoe
County Medical Examiner’s Office, in
Reno
,
NV where it remains today.
DATED
this _____ day of _______________,
_____________________
TONJA
BROWN