Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
September 25th 2009
Mr. Zimmerman,
I am extremely troubled as to the position I now find myself in.
I believe I deserve an explanation and proposed solution to the continue
injustices. I feel your decision to allow the problematic issues to continue
lingering, and to this day, remain unaddressed, has now placed me in a less
favorable position in the eyes of the Court and even further away from the truth.
Since the onset, I have consistently begged and pleaded with you to present all of
the issues to the Court. I have provided you document after document, detailing
the events that have violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and my
Constitutional Rights. There is no reason that the majority of the same issues I
began this relationship with, are still unaddressed.
My decision to seek withdrawal of the guilty plea was based on the fact that all of
the issues, at some point, were going to be presented to the Court. I strongly
believe that once presented, the Judge’s would take into account the totality of
these issues and rule in my favor. Your refusal to inform the Court of these
pertinent issues, I believe have resulted in Judge Cooper’s denial to withdraw my
guilty plea.
I cannot live with the fact that many critical issues have been bypassed,
sidestepped AGAIN. At this point, it does not look as if they will ever be addressed
and completely unfair.
Here is a brief example.
August 6th email (STOUFFLET to ZIMMERMAN) :
[STOUFFLET] “August 6 2006, three years ago today, I was indicted. As
stated in the subject of this email, three years have come and gone and this
case is further than the truth than ever before because many have now
pleaded guilty, including myself. Until the truth is exposed, I will not stop
doing what is necessary to expose it. Even if I am sentenced, I will not stop
until the facts are told and the prosecutors and my former defense counsel
are be held accountable for their actions.”
Page 1 of 6
“You, just like me, had no reason to think Garland and Samuel didn't cover
all of the issues in defending me but after 7 months, it is clear they failed
miserably. And yes, initially your focus was all on getting me out of a forced
guilty plea but you cannot continue to overlook all of the problems this case
is contaminated with and the "smoking guns" to back everything up.”
“In closing, I do still want you to represent me but you must be willing to
address all of the issues immediately.”
August 7th (STOUFFLET to ZIMMERMAN):
[STOUFFLET] “If you allow the facts to determine what must be done, then
it is out of your control because the rules are clear and there are no other
options. Please allow me to provide you evidence to each issue this weekend
when we talk.”
“After this weekend, if you are still reluctant, please understand I still must
move forward and will address the Court Tuesday morning.”
August 9th (ZIMMERMAN to STOUFFLET):
[ZIMMERMAN] “Everything you allege is the same thing we have already
alleged and stuff that you will testify about in court September 11, 2009.”
“Most of everything else you have written we are addressing.”
“How much energy do you want me to devote to side issues? As opposed to
our strongest issue? Think about it!!! In every case there may be cumulative
and relevant stuff, but it doesn't mean you throw everything in including the
kitchen sink. You pick and choose the important stuff. You know what is
important? The fact that you had advice of counsel. “You kno what is
important? The fact that another District threw this case out on the grounds
of advice of counsel. You know what is bad faith by the prosecutors? They
indicted you in a wish washy case knowing you had many lawyers. You
know what is important? The fact that the lawyers who advised you and the
pharmacies weren't indicted.”
“I am trying to make this easy for the judge. Just remember that the judge
only thinks you are a lunatic because you send him all of these letters.
Clients don't send judges 50 page letters that is why you look like a "lunatic"
(your words). When you start throwing around conspiracy theories, people
start thinking you are a lunatic. There isn't a vast conspiracy against you. It
was just a few greedy lawyers who left you hanging in the cold.”
Page 2 of 6
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Your Honor, I believe that's it, other than maybe
some redirect.
THE WITNESS: But I do have some things I would like to add before
the proceedings are over. Okay, that's fine, whatever Judge Cooper
allows.
THE COURT: You can't do it that way. Anyway, have you finished your
direct examination?
FAILURE TO PRESENT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF
FORMER DEFENSE COUNSELS INEFFECTIVENESS
If the Hearing to withdraw the guilty plea wasn’t the “place” to present such
issues, I had previously asked you on several occasions to seek the Court to
perform a “Formal Inquiry” or request that a “special prosecutor” be appointed to
the case to investigate these matters. You elected neither, reassuring me that all
of the issues were going to be “raised through my testimony” at the September
11th Hearing. As extremely evident today, this was not done nor do I believe now
was ever your intention.
If you were not going to address these issues, you should have allowed me to do
so through other means.
These issues date back from the very beginning of our relationship, before the
filing of the initial Motion to Withdraw the Guilty Plea. At that time, you refused,
stating that you were the lawyer and the Motion was going to be filed, your way.
When you did not include these issues, you and I agreed to terminate our
relationship and requested the Court allow you to withdraw as counsel and
appoint new counsel to me. The morning of the scheduled Hearing on this matter,
we met and you agreed to include the “Ineffectiveness” claim.
You amended the Motion to Withdraw the Guilty Plea [Doc 22] and included the
claim of “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” but again failed to include the issues
that directly attributed and provide the grounds for which I requested Garland
and Samuel’s representation be terminated. The amended Motion made no
mention of these issues, only alleging Ineffectiveness as it pertained to:
1) I had the right to rely on the “advice‐of‐counsel” defense and the legal
advice defense counsel provided was erroneous and rises to the level of
ineffectiveness.
Page 3 of 6
2) An “aider and abettor” are crimes of “specific‐intent” to which “advice‐of‐
counsel” defenses are available.
The ineffectiveness issues of Garland and Samuel are extensive and supported by
an abundance of evidence. I have provided and discussed these issues with you
on so many numerous occasions, yet to this very day, you have chose not to
expose it.
As I understand it, to prove “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” it is necessary to
show:
1) his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable
professional assistance; and
2) there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been
different but for his lawyer's unprofessional errors.
The very issues I continue to refer to herein and have pleaded with you to expose,
I am confident would have risen to meet the burden of proof.
Your statements below from the September 11th Hearing are troubling due to the
fact that I had provided you detailed evidence over the last nine months that
support the ineffectiveness claim. I believe I was entitled to know you were not
going to present all the issues with the minimized effort your referred to below.
“The issue here is whether my client can show you fair and just reason to
withdraw the guilty plea.”
“I had mentioned to the Court that we're also alleging ineffective assistance
of counsel. That is a very high burden. I'm not saying we're not pursuing
that and I believe we can meet that burden. We don't have to meet the
burden of ineffective assistance of counsel; we just have to show a fair and
just reason for withdrawal of the guilty plea.”
“So I just want to clear up for the Court that we talked about the four
factors and I had argued that you don't have to consider the four factors as
a totality of the circumstances but you may. And we'll go through that at
the end. But I just want to let the Court know, I want to clean it up.”
THE COURT: “So you're pursuing both or you're pursuing one of –“
Page 4 of 6
MR. ZIMMERMAN: “I'm pursuing both. I'm going to show a fair and just
reason for the withdrawal of the plea. And that's a much lesser burden than
ineffectiveness.”
MR. ZIMMERMAN: “I mean, there's issue of close effective assistance of
counsel ‐‐ or close assistance of, not close effectiveness, but close assistance
in the fair and just reason. So I'm going to do both. I'm going to show the
much smaller burden, which is the fair and just reason, and then we'll even
argue the higher one. But I want to clean that up. But I don't have to meet
the highest one, so that's all. They're kind of both intertwined.”
NEW EVIDENCE RECENTLY OBTAINED
As you know, by “luck” I recently obtained new evidence that reconfirms my
belief that my defense was compromised. The newly obtained evidence reveals
and supports:
• That Garland and Samuel did not want to end up on the same list as
Parker, Gillen, and Froelich (PGF). (the “list of lawyers” I filed
grievances against).
• Garland, Samuel and the governments’ belief that “advice‐of‐
counsel” was a legal defense to me up until I would consent to plead
guilty. When I would plead, they engaged in discussions to eliminate
my “advice‐of‐counsel” defense.
• Garland, Samuel, and AUSA Sommerfeld concocted a newly invented
defense they referred to as an “almost” or “semi” “advice‐of‐
counsel” defense. “THEY” decided to eliminate my ability to assert
an “advice‐of‐counsel” defense in late summer 2007, claiming that
my “advice‐of‐counsel” defense had some “problems. The facts
reveal there were no “problems” with my “advice‐of‐counsel”
defense. (My refusal to enter into a guilty plea, I believe is a direct
result of this scheme) I also believe that by creating an “almost” or
“semi” “advice‐of‐counsel” defense allowed them a “happy‐
medium,” to quickly expose of my case, thus comprising my defense.
I was never made aware of such to those discussions. The facts reveal
that shortly thereafter, I was presented emails with false allegation
from Samuel that pressured me to plead guilty. The “almost” or
Page 5 of 6
“semi” “advice‐of‐counsel” defense was then masked with an odd
supplementation by the government, that would allow Garland and
Samuel to argue at sentencing my innocence. The guilty plea had
been amended with a “Booker” provision.
• The “close assistance of counsel” I had was erratic, unstable, and
possibly suicidal from a handwritten letter from attorney David Levitt
who played a significant role in my case preparation. (In addition to
the other issues I presented to the State Bar of Georgia for which he
was reprimanded.)
• Samuel engaged in inappropriate discussions with the AUSA
Sommerfeld that betrayed me, severely affecting the ability to
present an untainted defense.
The opportunity to question Ed Garland about this new evidence confirming the
above, was available to you on Wednesday and you chose not to question him
about any of it.
Before the Hearing when you informed me that Garland was going to testify, I
provided you a specific document which unequivocally exposes Garland and
Samuels ineffectiveness. It reveals a cover‐up of their fellow attorney’s wrongful
conduct in this case for which I attained a 51‐count indictment.
Asking Ed Garland to explain why he and Samuel chose to conceal and failed to
expose the “insufficient and inaccurate” legal advice I received from my lawyers.
Doing so would have allowed them to pursue relief for me.
There it was, right in front of you, in black and white, the proof of this. This was
the same information I emailed you just days earlier, but you avoided it. I had just
inquired about asking Mr. Samuel to come back so he could be questioned on
these very issues, and you decided against that. So here was a perfect chance to
expose what I have alleged and prove the ineffectiveness and you didn’t even
attempt to do so.
I would appreciate a written response.
Sincerely,
‐Chris Stoufflet
Page 6 of 6