Adam Paul v. Kansas Case No: 09-CR-001064
Detailed Summary
3 JAN 2011
I, Adam Paul, am making a sworn statement that the content of this letter is true, to the best of my knowledge and will offer a factual defense and appeal to the charges of ARSON K.S.A. 21-3718, CASE NO. : 09CR1064, In the District Court of the 29th Judicial District of the State of Kansas, sitting within and for the County of Wyandotte, State of Kansas. By using documentation as evidence and reconstructing the timeline of events, I can prove with detail I did not, on or about May 29th, 2009, knowingly and felonously, by means of fire or explosive, damage a building or property, to-wit: a dwelling at 1414 S. 7th Street, Kansas City, Kansas, with intent to injure or defraud a lien holder or insurer.
The court was in error, by not identifying various Constitutional Rights and numerous Kansas Statutes to protect those rights concerning a homeowners policy held in my name. The unfounded charges were created by an intentional distortion of facts by State Farm Insurance Company, who put their own interests before an accidental fire loss and guided this subsequent unjust trial to force only liability on my person.
There was a direct violation of the Physician-Patient Privilege in order to issue the warrant for my arrest in this case without probable cause. Due to this negligence and a failure to recognize the illegal activity by the insurance company, artificial evidence continued to be collected without my being properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against me. As a consequence, my character has been disgraced and human dignity destroyed.
I graduated High School in Phoenix, Arizona in May2000, then I moved to Kansas and decided to join the U.S. Marines on 27 NOV 2001. I completed 4 years active duty and received an honorable discharge on 27 NOV 2005. During this time in service, I saved money to buy a home for when I returned. I bought the house located at 1414 S. 7th Street on 15 NOV 2005. The structure and roof were sound but the inside required an extensive remodeling. After paying for the property in full, all the required permits, and inspections, the home passed the county code enforcement standards and I had just enough money left to complete the home in its entirety.
A short time later, there was a break-in at the residence with a police report filed in Mar2006, over $5,000 of tools were stolen and although the home was habitable, I lacked sufficient funds to complete the whole restoration and did not have insurance to cover the loss myself. Although only an option at first, I made the tough decision to re-enlist, this time in the U.S. Army on 15 AUG 2006. I asked my father Greg, if he could maintain the property and I would reimburse him for all materials and labor while I was in the service, he approved.
After a significant amount of training I was deployed to combat in Afghanistan, 15 MAY 2007, and more than half way through this tour, I sustained an injury and was medically separated from my original unit, A CO 91ST ARBN SQDN, on 26 FEB 2008. I was sent to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC and received a medical retirement due to a service-connected physical disability incurred while conducting operations in a combat zone. My official discharge was 27 NOV 2008, and as a result of this tour in combat, I suffered a psychological disorder identified by the Veterans Administration and was to continue my treatment while I transitioned back to civilian life. I made all my appointments with the VA each month leading up to the fire.
After my honorable discharge from the Army, I came back home to Kansas City, Kansas for a transition back to a civilian lifestyle and I reimbursed my father for taking care of the property, as I promised. By now, this home located at 1414 S. 7th St. was complete with all new appliances, including furnace/air units installed, 4 NOV 2008. Considering I had spent a large amount of money on this home and the deed was free and clear, taxes paid with no lien holder, I purchased a 12-month insurance policy. I was the primary owner and only listed insured person through the Homeowners Policy by State Farm Insurance Company, effective 5 JAN 2009.
It was about five months later when my home caught fire and I was almost killed in what I would describe as spontaneous combustion, on 29 MAY 2009, early Friday morning. During the time leading up to the fire, I worked mostly on the interior, the walls and hardwood floor, occasionally my father would stop in, to help me with the kitchen cabinets and counter top sink. Although the house was almost complete, there was still heavy traffic with gasoline air compressors, various equipment and power tools to finish the last couple areas. Later in this trial, testimony by an expert determined "gasoline samples can be detected up to six months after a small amount is spilled." I did not realize the danger at the time but my father also kept large amounts of flammable materials under the sink and in the southwest bedroom.
I remember him applying stain to the cabinets a couple days before the fire, 27 MAY 2009. I had also worked part of the day before the fire, staining a wide area of hardwood floors in the living room, 28 May 2009. Expert testimony in this trial also revealed "fumes from wood stain could cause a similar explosion to gasoline vapors." Later that same day, while the stain and lacquer was drying on the floor, I went to the gas station to fill about 27 gallons of gasoline in a 40 gallon metal drum. I placed the drum on the north side of the house, This was to be used primarily for the riding lawnmower and generators in the future, after all, this was a large corner lot to take care of. I was getting ready to go visit my friends in Valentine, Nebraska for the weekend and I wanted my father to have the gas there if he needed it while I was gone.
Shortly after midnight, early morning 29 MAY 2009, I was ready to head up to Nebraska. I was hungry and going on a long trip, so I decided to cook some steaks. I ate them in the living room and then must have dosed off while sitting on the couch. When I got up, I started walking back towards the kitchen and it was already mostly on fire and spreading. I would have put it out if I could, but I saw sparks before I could do anything.
After that, all I remember was being engulfed in flames, putting my hands over my face, screaming and hoping I wouldn't die. Just after being burned, everything was very vague and I could not think clearly, as if I was in a very bad dream. I managed to get out of my burning house, get into my truck which was parked on the gravel, close to the north side of the residence. I could not locate my phone and the fire department had not shown up, so I drove away searching for help. This was an emergency and although I did leave the scene of an accident, this was not Arson.
Considering what I had been through at the time this occurred, I believe I was numb as well as in shock. Once I started to drive from my burning home, I just kept driving, I could not find help right away and did not realize how bad I was injured. I did not feel any pain during this time and somehow I ended up where I was originally headed before I got burned, about 9 hours driving from Kansas City to Valentine, Nebraska.
I tried to contact one of my friends there, Jessica G. She was not at her home so I checked myself into the nearest hotel, it was the Holiday Inn by US highway 2 and I slept the rest of that day and next night. An explanation I have given to this type of behavior was, after being burned in the fire I had a traumatic experience which caused a relapse in symptoms, from a prior diagnosis given while in the Army. At the time this happened, I was taking serious psychotropic medication administered by the Veteran Affairs Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri.
When I awoke the next morning, something was very wrong. This was not just a bad dream but the pain was finally realized by the excruciating burned, white skin peeling off my hands and arms. While checking out of the hotel, I thought, I need to get medical attention right now! I reached for the door to my truck but my hands were too swollen, I could not even move them. I went back to the clerk at the front desk and told her what happened, she told me she would call someone to give me a ride to the nearest hospital.
I was admitted into the Cherry County Hospital, 30 MAY 2009, at 05:03AM on Saturaday. While I was there, my clothes were removed and discarded by staff. My shoes were melted, when they took them off, skin from my ankles were stuck to the insides of the shoes. At that time I was given pain medication to help as they started to peal the dead skin off my arms down to my fingers and wrap the areas to prevent infection. During this procedure, at 09:35AM, I was told I would be transported to the burn unit, at St. Elizabeth Medical Hospital, located in Lincoln, Nebraska. While being transported and heavily sedated, the nurse handed me the phone and told me it was my father, somehow he had contacted me but I do not remember anything that was said in this phone call.
Come to find out, Kansas Fire Marshal, Chief Hockett's interpretation of these events were recorded on his application for the arrest warrant in this case. A clear violation to the Kansas Statute of the Physician-Patient Privilege was evident on more than one occasion at this time. Mr. Hockett's first entree of information states, "On May 30th I (R/I) spoke to Lt. Jamon Slama of the Valentine, NE sheriff's Dept. who stated, "We have an individual in our hospital (Cherry Cty. Hosp.) I overheard him say, "I was in an explosion/fire in Kansas City, KS. I drove myself to Valentine, NE to see my girlfriend. I was cooking when the fire happened." Mr. Hockett's second entree states, "I (R/I) spoke to RN Kathleen at Cherry County Medical Center who stated, "Adam has second and third degree burns. We are going to life flight him to St. Elizabeth's Burn Center in Lincoln, NE."
Ironically these statements were supposedly by my father, according to the Fire Claim Service Record, located in Activity Log 06-01-09 pg.22, provided by State Farm. This was the same day the file was opened and the entree states, "They had spoken to the ins. father and have been told that the insured left the property after having been burned in the fire, began driving to his girlfriends house in Valentine, Nebraska but stopped in Cherry, Nebraska to spend the night." This information was given to State Farm via Mr. Hockett, before the "status of FD investigation" was established and before they completed their own investigation.
I never spoke with anyone at the Sheriff's Department, but I did in fact tell the nurses when I was burned in Kansas City to inform them I had not had medical attention in over 24hrs. The first Breach of Privacy occurred when Chief Hockett acquired information relevant only to my care from the deputy at the Cherry County Hospital by eavesdropping. The second violation of my Right to Privacy was by Mr. Hockett gathering personal information from a nurse without my permission or knowledge. After Mr. Hockett unlawfully obtained this information he told my dad to call me right away before I was transported.
As I was admitted into St. Elizabeth's Hospital, 30 MAY 2009, at 03:02PM on Saturday by ambulance. During the next few days, I was continued to be given large amounts of pain medication. The nurses continued to scrub, wash and then wrap the burned area, until my skin graft surgery, which was completed, 2 JUN 2009 on Tuesday. The next day, 3 JUN 2009, after recovering from surgery, Gladys Powell, a social worker at the hospital, advised me to obtain a Power Of Attorney. Then my father called me, he said he wanted to check on me to see how I was doing. I decided to give him a Durable Power Of Attorney, signed on 4 JUN 2009, in the event I was unable to handle my own affairs due to the type and amount of medication I was taking. Unfortunately after that, he did not return any of my phone calls and this was the last time I had contact with him.
Later that same day, I received a phone call from Mike Haire, he introduced himself as an Insurance representative from State Farm. He told me, "under the coverage of your insurance policy you could collect living expenses for an apartment" and I declined. Then he said, "although this is your policy, only if you agree, your father could except these payments" and once again I declined because I was not sure what was going on. This was the first and only time I talked with anyone regarding insurance policy coverage prior to the warrant issued for my arrest. This conversation was with Mike Haire and there was even an entree made in the State Farm Activity Log by Mike Haire himself, claiming "Adam intends to stay and find an apartment in Lincoln as an outpatient until he completes his rehab." 06-11-09 pg.14 This statement contradicts the testimony later at the preliminary hearing, 1A pg. 12, "Greg expected he may come back to live with Greg in that apartment after he was able."
For the remainder of the time in the burn intensive care unit at St. Elizabeth's, I was recovering from full thickness, 3rd degree burns over 11% body surface area. The skin used to graft over these areas was removed from my back and legs. This fresh skin was applied over the burns and stapled into place. For a while it was very difficult to do the most basic things, like walk and go to the bathroom. Finally, after almost two weeks since being admitted, the doctor told me I was healing well and I would be transferred to another hospital a few miles away, so I could focus more on my rehabilitation and physical therapy.
I was admitted to Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital, 11 JUN 2009. I would remain there for the next few weeks, the nurses helping me to recover from these horrible burns. I was told it would be over a year for my skin to completely heal. Every day was the same routine, scrub the burned areas, wrap them and continue therapy to stretch the newly formed skin. I was scheduled for discharge from inpatient rehabilitation on, 1 JUL 2009.
This whole time while at Madonna, I had no knowledge of decisions made and current insurance activity or any other information regarding the fire. Although much later, discovered at the preliminary, my father had filed a claim on my policy, 1 JUN 2009 and received correspondence the next day from Mike Haire, Activity Log, 06-02-09 pg.19 This entree also contradicts testimony given at the preliminary, 3A pg. 6 and 21A pg. 8, stating he was "not aware of who made the claim."
Mike Haire, or anyone from State Farm ever bothered to tell me a claim was made on my policy, knowing I was at St. Elizabeth's on 06-03-09 pg.19, and instead continued to manufacture evidence to carry these charges against me. Over six months later, at the preliminary, was the first time I learned a check was issued on 06-11-09 pg.14, in my name from this policy and sent to my father. The very next entree in the State Farm Activity Log, 06-16-09 pg.14 states, "The fire is incendiary; there is a financial motive identified."
There is no way, after what I accomplished, I would burn my own home on purpose. I can prove by the insured coverage amount of $85,000 and compared to the loss, even with full reimbursement, I stand to lose and have lost more, than anything gained. I had a nice home completely paid for, vehicle paid off and over $70, 000 in earned savings with no debt, for six months leading up to this fire. Everything I owned I earned in an honest fashion, through years of service to my country as Member of the Armed Services.
Case in point, less than one year after the fire, considering over $10,000 in court costs and my savings wiped out due to displacement with a total loss of all my property including my home, I owed and continue to owe more than all these assets combined in the form of debt to the bank and medical bills. At the time of this writing, I have never 'knowingly' accepted the actual terms of my insurance policy, with the 'intention' to ever receive compensation and in fact have never attempted to, nor received any compensation whatsoever to date from State Farm or anyone else for that matter.
On the morning of my discharge from Maddona, I woke up, took my pain medications and started my burn cares as usual. Unexpectedly, I was interrupted by Chief Randall Hockett, of the Kansas City, Kansas Fire Department. Considering the illegal evidence at the start of this investigation, extending from the privacy violations at the Cherry County Hospital, Chief Hockett did not have authority to collect a statement from me while at Madonna Hospital. Although a resident of Kansas and injured at the scene in this accident fire, there was never a disclosure to me of any kind about my previous involvement in his investigation. However, he did want to ask me questions about how it started. While being confined to a hospital bed and heavily sedated, I was interrogated by coercion and pressured to cooperate by giving a statement under oath.
In this recorded statement, 1 JUL 2009, I was apologetic and declared the cause of fire as an accident. There was no mention of a lien holder or anyone other than myself injured. I told him I had insurance, but there was no mention of a Power of Attorney, who specifically was covered on the policy or when exactly I talked with my father. I answered the questions the best I could as they were asked.
After this initial statement, Mr. Hockett concluded, left for a moment and returned to my room continuing the recording without telling me. I was unaware he was carrying on with the recording and the couple statements I made regarding insurance were incomplete, admitted as inaudible and were merely a reference as to what was discussed on 4 JUN 2009, between Mike Haire and myself while at St. Elizabeth's. I also told them I intended to stay in Nebraska with Laurel Jones, after I would be discharged from the hospital.
At this point, there were already many Kansas Statutes disregarded within the investigation itself and I was unsuspectingly a target to Arson charges. The distinctive purpose of Mr. Hockett's interrogation was to support already tainted evidence in this court. Therefore, violations of Habeas Corpus were starting to take place. As a patient of an out of state hospital while incapacitated, I was not within jurisdiction of this court concerning the prohibited actions conducted by Chief Hockett in order to obtain an otherwise legal statement from my person.
Insufficient evidence for the charges as required insurance information for probable cause was not listed on the warrant for my arrest for a 'fraud' condition under the charges of Arson K.S.A. 21-3718. I was implicated by Mike Haire, early on, 06-02-09 pg.20 and he was listed as a witness on this warrant but later at the trial he testified to not talking with me at all until after the warrant. Under these alleged charges of Arson, which is being or has been committed, a relevant complaint or victim must be produced and according to this latest conflicting testimony by Mike Haire, I never had access to State Farm Insurance for a 'knowing intention' to defraud to even exist.
My father, Greg submitted recorded statements to Mike Haire, 3 JUN 2009 and Chief Hockett, 8 JUN 2009. Much later, only after I obtained legal counsel, did I discover he gave plenty of false statements and tons of personal information not even related to the fire itself. For example, one statement concerning my financial status was made to Mr. Hockett by my father, about how much money I actually had in my savings account. In another statement to Mike Haire, he claimed he actually had money tied into the house itself. In both statements to the Fire Dept. and State Farm, my father had offered information related to my psychiatric condition without my knowledge at all.
My father was listed on the warrant as a witness as well and present at the preliminary, after all records from the State Farm Activity Log show he had received six checks from Mike Haire, which included a check in my name, starting 06-11-09 pg.14, for a total of $6400, with the last check issued, on 02-08-10 pg.30 The last page of the Activity Log shows it was endorsed two months after the preliminary. Due to so many differing statements by my father, he was not considered a reliable witness by the State, did not testify in the preliminary and only hearsay of my father from then on would be submitted.
After the interrogation by the Kansas City, Kansas Fire Department I was discharged from the hospital, followed my stated intention and stayed with Laurel Jones, a nurse in Lincoln, Nebraska. While only being there during this time, I talked with no one else, until I found out about a week later by Steven Alexander, my attorney, a warrant was made for my arrest, officially stamped and issued on, 9 JUL 2009. I then left Nebraska and reported to the Wyandotte County Jail, I paid $2500 bail, to Preacher 10 Bond Co and was released, 16 JUL 2009. I could not understand why charges had been filed against me for Arson because I had done nothing wrong and in fact I was not only a victim by the actions of the Fire Department, I was also unaware of the ongoing illegal activity by State Farm months after my arrest.
The date of this warrant marks an obvious violation of my Rights to Due Process because of the bias treatment by Chief Hockett and the collaboration of Mike Haire to conceal material facts and Attempt to uphold policy provisions, for the sole purpose of malicious prosecution. I support this affirmation along with other documents, including recently obtained evidence directly from State Farm Insurance, located in the Fire Service Activity Log. Only after more than a year of criminal proceedings since this arrest warrant was served, was this information finally released to me, after this unfair trial, which was brought about by the deliberate withholding of my rights regarding activity on my Homeowners Insurance Policy. The information from the initial investigation did not prove the listed charges and only later would alleged 'evidence' continue to be gathered and submitted in this unjust trial.
The same day I was released from Wyandotte County Jail, I returned to where my home used to be, for the first time, six weeks after the fire. I saw there was nothing left and people had been dumping trash on the grounds. I attempted numerous times to call my father, each time I was unable to reach him. I tried to pick things up but my hands hurt too much for me to do much. This is when I noticed the even burn on the hardwood floors. It was then I realized the fumes from the stain most likely caught fire in what I described as "a giant fireball" in the statement and this is also why I was burned by my ankles and my shoes melted.
While I was there, I managed to find the 40 gallon drum of gasoline that I thought had blown up, It was damaged, mostly empty with some gas leaking out, the drum somehow moved from its original location. Later, at the preliminary hearing, Chief Hockett testified he did not move the drum but also never checked the contents, although the drum was in numerous photographs, offered as exhibits by the Fire Department. Also in every statement by the Fire Department it was insisted to be a 55gal drum, when in fact it was only a 40gal drum.
In Chief Hockett's Investigative Summary, a report made from the day of the fire, he begins his "exterior investigation and photography on the southwest corner of the residence, proceeding in a clockwise direction." as he continues to walk around the house, he notices the north wall of the house "blown-out and into the yard." As he gets to the northeast side, he never notices the 40gal metal drum but "detects the odor of gasoline" and obtains a 'fire debris' sample from inside the house, which is negative. Prelim4A pg.33 At this point, Chief Hockett probably stepped in or sloshed through a puddle of gasoline, leaked from this drum, crushed from the falling north wall of the residence. Then with his own gasoline saturated boots, contaminated the scene and walked inside the kitchen taking his second 'fire debris' sample which oddly enough came up positive.
When I was done inspecting for myself, I went back to Lincoln, Nebraska with Laurel and continued to live with her until I could heal completely. Laurel is my Alibi because I was with her the whole time after leaving the hospital and she was able to help me throughout my outpatient care at Madonna, 10 JUL 2009 to 17 SEP 2009. While living with her during this time, I received a phone call from Mike Haire, on 21 JUL 2009, Tuesday morning. According to Mike, this would be the first time he had contact with me. Laurel was with me and a witness to the content of this conversation, as I had the phone on speaker.
In the first part of this conversation, I told Mike Haire, "I was arrested for Arson" and he said with surprise, "Really?" "State Farm had sent investigators to the scene and they reported it as an accident due to a faulty stove located in the kitchen." This is contradictory to his entree's on, 06-09-09 pg.19 I didn't find out until a year later by an inspector I hired, the stove was actually removed and kept without my knowledge and a sample of gas was never obtained directly from the stove itself. Information in the warrant about the stove is inconsistent to testimony by Chief Hockett, prelim14A pg.23 Entree's made by Mike Haire, starting 06-02-09 pg.21, including 10-16-09 pg.9, proves the precedence of his investigation over my rights as an insured.
Later in the phone call by Mike Haire, 21 JUL 2009, he asked me if I wanted to collect living expenses and I told him "I will not accept any compensation from State Farm, the investigation and charges are my only concern." Then he told me, "according to policy provisions, it is your duty after a loss to provide a recorded statement if requested." I wanted to cooperate entirely, so in good faith I gave a recorded statement. This was essentially the same information I gave to the Fire Department, insisting it was an accident and even after being booked these questions were part of the same ongoing secret investigation, detailed answers to my defense were never recognized in an effort to twist my statements for Entrapment.
At this point there have been a number of breaches to my Homeowners Policy by State Farm, who was obligated under contract to notify me, especially about money being paid in my name without my knowledge on 11 JUN 2009. Considering the results of their ongoing actions and along with contradictory testimony by Mike Haire, proves he never intended to act in good faith according to policy agreements. Because the multiple breaches of this contract were initiated by State Farm and prior to any actions I innocently took, I shall not be held liable in any way. Mike Haire chose not to give me required information regarding a Homeowners Policy in an Attempt to gather evidence to support the unfounded charges of Arson and this in effect is a serious Crime Committed by a Corporation.
About five weeks later, 2 SEP 2009, I received another phone call from Mike Haire, 09-03-09 pg.9 Laurel Jones can testify to this conversation, I had the phone on speaker this time as well. I made it clear to him, I did not intend to accept any compensation as the result of this fire loss. Once again he referred to my duties after loss, which he claimed required me to fill out a 'Statement of Loss' and inventory sheet. Also, just before this call, an extension for SOL was filed automatically in this policy without my knowledge or consent, 08-17-09 pg.10 and Mike Haire knew I had a lawyer stating in this same entree, "He has an attorney appointed to him for the criminal charges, but this attorney is not representing him on the civil side."
Towards the end of this call, 2 SEP 2009, he reassured me that the purpose of the Statement of Loss was to fulfill my duties as a homeowner under the policy and would not be used until after the outcome of pending charges. He told me he would mail the SOL packet to my address, nevertheless, I hung up the phone confused and frustrated. Then I called Chief Hockett for the first and only time, in a very short conversation. I asked him if the investigation was complete at the scene so I could begin to clean up the area, he agreed, I was polite and then hung up the phone.
I ended up selling all my property rights in Kansas City, Kansas on 3 SEP 2009, for only $2000, in an urgent sale to avoid code enforcement fines and to assist in my paying legal fees. I finally hired Mr. Steven D. Alexander, 4 SEP 2009, an attorney from Kansas to represent me for the criminal charges of Arson. I agreed to pay a total of $4000 for his services in this case, made appointments to meet later and then headed back home to Nebraska.
While there with Laurel, I received the first ever mailed correspondence from State Farm yet was never sent any information about the current status or activity under this Homeowners Policy. I filled out the form with honesty and good faith and returned the Statement of Loss, 9 SEP 2009, which would later be used as 'evidence' by the State in this trial. Soon after I sent the SOL, I received a letter from my attorney Steve Alexander, dated 30 SEP 2009.
In this letter, forwarded by a lawyer representing State Farm, James L. Sanders, was a reference regarding my duties after loss, including obtaining a statement under oath. It was at this time and due to this letter, Mr. Alexander advised me, to which I complied, do not speak with anyone from State Farm Insurance Company. There is an entree by Mike Haire, 11-02-09 pg.8 and notes comments by Mr. Alexander about the correspondence with State Farms lawyer, Mr. Sanders had made references to KSA 21-3718 and this "indicates a clear link between State Farm and the State."
During the next 90 days leading up to the Preliminary Hearing, on 31 DEC 2009, I continued to meet with Steve Alexander at his office, to go over a defense to the charges and allegations of Felony Arson. It was at about this time I learnt I would continue to be given limited information throughout this case, as Mr. Alexander could only reveal such material to me after it was obtained and submitted by the State of Kansas, Assistant District Attorney, Casey Meyer.
Although arrested and released by bond in Jul2009 and with many Appearances before the magistrate, I never had access to the formal charges or read the information on the warrant, which led to the prior Mistake of completing the Statement of Loss in Sep2009. Mr. Alexander had not even received initial discovery or information from the warrant until the following month, in Oct2009. I never did understand the true nature of the charges until after the preliminary, in Dec2009. Knowing I was not involved, State Farm extracted the Statement of Loss in an Attempt to make a connection to the charges.
While at this Preliminary Hearing, 31 DEC 2009, my attorney started by asking Mike Haire who was covered on the policy, in his testimony he said my father "may qualify as an additional or insured by definition as a resident relative under the policy." prelim1A pg.8 and "at this point in time we are extending benefits to Greg under the additional living expenses." prelim6A pg.8 The decision to pay this claim was made exclusively by Mike Haire, 06-11-09 pg.14, along with prior allegations he made as a plaintiff directly linked to the State. 06-02-09 pg.20
Additional conflicting testimony by Mike Haire is revealed when my attorney asked him if he knew the amount of the check that was written in my name and his sworn testimony was "There have been multiple checks. I don't know the amounts." prelim6A pg.11 According to the Activity Log, the issuing of checks and their amounts were the sole responsibility of Mike Haire, starting on 06-09-09 pg.19
During the testimony of Chief Hockett, he offers only one sample of gas from the kitchen as physical evidence and does not show intent for anything. When he was asked if I knew how the fire started and after the half-a-dozen times I had told him how I thought it started, Mr. Hockett miss quotes me from the recorded statement saying "he noticed a dish towel on fire on the stove and he went into the kitchen and then the kitchen exploded." prelim22A pg.21 This quote was listed as my statement on the warrant as well, yet these words never came out of my mouth. I never said "I noticed a kitchen towel was on fire" out of the whole 47 page recorded statement.
My actual recorded statement about how it started was given for the third time on page 24 of CD#1, when asked how it started I said, "I think I made a mistake and didn't turn the burner off all the way and the hand rag was too close and it caught fire." Information derived from the illicit warrant was monotonous and although admitted as circumstantial evidence was hard-pressed by Casey Meyer prelim15L pg.50 Mr. hockett, was finally allowed to testify outside his field of expert opinion and speculate why I drove to Nebraska the night of the fire. prelim21A pg.44
The decision by the magistrate, Dec2009, to carry this case to trial through false testimony, whereby agreeing with the State witness's was an act of Defamation to my character. Conflicting testimony by Mike Haire at the subsequent trial proves the decision was weighed on insufficient evidence, prelim10L pg.51 The quote by Judge Jan Way, "Unfortunately, we didn't have the evidence as to who made the claim." Then concludes by contradicting this lack of vital evidence to the charge, "the defendant is sharing in proceeds from a claim in his name or at least it's in his name weather he chooses to use it or not is going to be sufficient at this time for probable cause." prelim23L pg.51 Ironically I was barely made aware of this claim at this preliminary.
During the next few months I was pressured by my attorney, Steve Alexander, to hire experts to help assist in this case, he pointed out in our contract, I had agreed to "pay all fees of private investigators or expert witness deemed necessary for the proper defense in this case." At the time I made the agreement, Sep2009, I was unaware of the deliberate violations of my rights linking to these charges and I actually had money to hire experts. As my resources shrank in this case, I tried to inform Mr. Alexander of the countless facts discovered which would not necessarily make experts required, to no avail, I spent a great deal of time focusing on this part of a defense as if the charges were truly legitimate.
Exactly one year after this accident fire, with a $2000 retainer for his services, I hired Curt Hucksorn, a Fire Investigator of Huckshorn Consulting Inc. on 29 MAY 2010. During this time, Mr. Alexander also expressed the need for expert testimony from a "psychological/medical condition" which could "explain reasons I drove to Nebraska after the fire." Needless to say, I had already quickly and tirelessly spent large amounts of money on the countless miles traveled and the arrangements kept for potential experts between Nebraska and Kansas City. Approaching the end of Mr. Huckshorn's retainer, I had to cancel his services before he could reach a conclusion, 16 JUN 2010, due to the resources in my savings account being completely exhausted. These facts regarding my financial condition were also subject to scrutiny by the prosecution.
On numerous occasions I tried to contact Irina Puscariu MD, the Psychiatrist at the Kansas City Missouri, Veterans Affairs who was responsible for my care at the time of this fire. Unfortunately, I was told by her associates there to seek guidance at the VA closest to my residence in Nebraska and the appointments I attended with her at that time in May2010, would not help me with my current legal problems. I arranged a meeting with the Doctor at the local Nebraska VA specializing in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 22 JUN 2010, after relaying to my attorney the information provided by this Doctor I was given notice by Steve Alexander his Motion to Withdrawal from my case, 25 JUN 2010 and a Notice of Hearing for this withdrawal, 12 JUL 2010.
At this Hearing for the Motion to Withdrawal, Judge Dexter Burdette granted the motion by my attorney, Mr. Alexander, for ethical reasons and I was informed to obtain legal counsel for a defense in this case within seven days or my bond would be revoked. On 19 JUL 2010, I declared myself indigent and was booked into jail until an attorney could be provided at no cost. Finally, on 30 JUL 2010, my original bond was re-instated by Deborah Erickson, a public defender appointed as council for my defense in this case. It seemed she was much more understanding and agreed with many of the issues I had presented to her.
During the next few months leading to the trial in Nov2010, I would meet regularly with my newly appointed attorney, Deborah Erickson. I continued to express to her significant information in this case, starting with pre-warrant events and the persistent injustice, endured from at least three separate parties contributing to the charges, all the way to this moment. I was completely honest, did everything she asked me to do, including obtaining psychological testing from the Veterans Affairs in Nebraska, 4 OCT 2010. Also, I faxed a release of information, 2 NOV 2010, from the psychiatrist at the VA in Kansas City, Mo.
At the beginning of this 3-day trial starting on 8 NOV 2010, my attorney, Deborah Erickson filed a few motions about Coercion by the Fire Department while I was in the hospital and disclosure of my psychiatric records as Evidence Affecting Credibility. These motions were not observed in open court and the jury was not able to witness Judge Dexter Burdette decisions which greatly affected the outcome. The judge did not allow these motions to take affect and I was not able to reference a psychiatric condition sustained while in the service, as a defense during my testimony in this unfair trial. Also, incorrect statements were made about my insurance policy which was not part of my defense and the lawyer from State Farm, who was there at the trial was called to testify except the judge denied this on the grounds of hearsay.
Throughout this trial, sworn testimony from Mr. Hockett, along with experts provided by State Farm and Mike Haire went on the record. Finally I testified, amongst other things, about the actions I took shortly after the fire, leading to my hospitalization and was prevented from giving full answers due to the failed pretrial motions. Regrettably, this line of questioning was cut short and I was not asked questions about the following events relating to unlawful tactics I experienced from the Fire Dept. while receiving care for my injuries. My only witness in this case was Laurel Jones, except her testimony was not necessarily required and according to my attorney, Mike Haire confessed in this trial by his inconsistent statement saying, "I was not in contact with Adam until after the warrant was issued."
May it please the court at this time, I Adam Paul of Nebraska and at the next scheduled hearing, 28 JAN 2011, will request this court for an acquittal to the charges in this case, ARSON K.S.A. 21-3718, CASE NO. : 09CR1064 and to Vacate Sentencing immediately. As once a law abiding citizen of the State of Kansas, I am deeply saddened that the Wyandotte County, District Court of the 29th Judicial District, could allow such injustice to manifest for such a prolonged period of time. I have been at a disservice on more than one occasion by officials of this county regarding this case, by this and overwhelming new evidence, I pray the court act in a way according to our Constitutional values and reverse this guilty verdict now.
Thank you for your time in this matter,
Sincerely, Adam P.
Involved Statutory Provisions
21-3203: Defamation
21-3210: Entrapment
21-4002: Breach of Privacy
22-2511: Warrant Quashed for Technicality
60-420: Evidence Affecting Credibility
60-427: Physician-Patient Privilege
26 JAN 2011
Direct Appeal
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
Motions made before trial by appointed counsel, Debera A Erickson were inaccurate, not complete and the deficient performance prejudiced the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The motions failed to reference a violation of a Physician-Patient Privilege on a facially defective warrant. After speaking with her about making an amendment about this privacy violation on 25 JAN 2011 her reply was, "I will not make an amendment to any motion and this is something you're going to have to bring up to the appellate court." I asked her why this was not presented as a motion in the pretrial and her reply was, "If there was a problem with privacy then you should sue the hospital that took care of you," she then ended the conversation with, "I'm going to hang up now, see you at your sentencing." This is completely unprofessional behavior by an attorney and I cannot expect a person of this nature to defend my rights properly at the next hearing. Regardless of who is at fault for the breach, the fact is that the source of the charges in this case are derived from a violation of a Kansas Statute. Proper disclosure was not made by the Fire Marshall.
I had explained to her in detail every aspect of my defense, yet during the trial, information was presented by her that was not true or part of a defense which was previously discussed with her before trial. Mrs. Erickson offered her own false assumptions in open court about decisions made by the insurance company and failed to make proper objections while inquiring about unrelated personal financial information during trial. The information in question was private and Mrs. Erickson failed to call witnesses on my behalf, one who was prepared to testify about these matters. Although the State Farm Activity Log was in her possession since Aug 2010, this was not produced by her or even brought to my attention and I was not able to review this vital information, until after the trial. The transcripts for this trial will support this information.
Involved Statutory Provisions
21-4005: Malicious rumors concerning financial status
22-3213: Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses.
22-3502: Arrest of Judgment
60-427: Physician-Patient Privilege
"State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765, 793 P.2d 737 (1990), sets out the standard of review for allegations of defects in the information raised for the first time on appeal. Hall stated:
'Information defect challenges raised for the first time on appeal shall be reviewed by applying (1) the reasoning of K.S.A. 22-3201(4) complaint/information/indictment amendment cases as expressed in State v. Switzer, 244 Kan. 449, 769 P.2d 645 (1989), State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 768 P.2d 268 (1988), and State v. Rasch, 243 Kan. 495, 497, 758 P.2d 214 (1988), as that reasoning relates to jurisdiction and the substantial rights of the defendant; (2) the "common-sense" test of State v. Wade, 244 Kan. 136, 766 P.2d 811 (1989), and State v. Micheaux, 242 Kan. 192, 747 P.2d 784 (1987); and (3) the rationale of United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1099 (1977). Of paramount importance, we shall look to whether the claimed defect in the information has: (a) prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of his or her defense; (b) impaired in any way defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (c) limited in any way defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial under the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, § 10. If a defendant is able to establish a claim under either (a), (b), or (c), the defective information claim, raised for the first time on appeal, will be allowed."
Signed and Notarized By: Adam P.
"State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765, 793 P.2d 737 (1990), sets out the standard of review for allegations of defects in the information raised for the first time on appeal. Hall stated:
'Information defect challenges raised for the first time on appeal shall be reviewed by applying (1) the reasoning of K.S.A. 22-3201(4) complaint/information/indictment amendment cases as expressed in State v. Switzer, 244 Kan. 449, 769 P.2d 645 (1989), State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 768 P.2d 268 (1988), and State v. Rasch, 243 Kan. 495, 497, 758 P.2d 214 (1988), as that reasoning relates to jurisdiction and the substantial rights of the defendant; (2) the "common-sense" test of State v. Wade, 244 Kan. 136, 766 P.2d 811 (1989), and State v. Micheaux, 242 Kan. 192, 747 P.2d 784 (1987); and (3) the rationale of United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1099 (1977). Of paramount importance, we shall look to whether the claimed defect in the information has: (a) prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of his or her defense; (b) impaired in any way defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (c) limited in any way defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial under the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, § 10. If a defendant is able to establish a claim under either (a), (b), or (c), the defective information claim, raised for the first time on appeal, will be allowed."
Signed and Notarized By: Adam P.
16 FEB 2011
Judge David J. King,
Re: Commission on Judicial Qualifications
This letter is a response to correspondence regarding a complaint about Judge Jan Way. I am attaching a copy of the initial complaint and the reply I received from this office.
Although I have separate pending legal issues in another court, I sent the following information in order to supply relevant evidence of which should be useful to this Commission according to Kansas Jurisdiction. As a US Citizen, I stand by this complaint for any investigational purposes of unethical practices under the Code of Judicial Conduct, additional evidence for a valid complaint shall be produced upon demand.
The information in the complaint was not intended to question the discretion of a Judges decisions within the law, rather to prove, given the evidence presented, that the judge acted outside the law in accordance with Kansas Statutes, therefore a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct did in fact exist. Many complaints will follow under the Jurisdiction in question and is not limited to this one circumstance, as I am bound by the integrity and justice of the courts.
I understand the large area this office is responsible for, yet to prevent problems in the future, please acknowledge the merits of alleged information pertaining to the Commission of Judicial Qualifications, I would like to believe every individual complaint is taken seriously. Sincerely, Adam
22 FEB 2011
Violation of Judicial Conduct:
This is a formal complaint about Judge J. Dexter Burdette of Division 9 of the 29th Judicial District Court in Wyandotte County Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, concerning unethical conduct with regards to a 3-day trial, starting on 10 NOV 2010, and at sentencing, 28 JAN 2011, Case No. 09 CR 1064. An investigation supported by the transcripts in this case will prove Kansas Statutes for Criminal Procedure were not followed during the course of this trial and factual Violations of Judicial Conduct are evident. As a result, Private financial information was unlawfully disclosed, irreverent to the charge and presented to the Jury during the course of this trial.
I was granted council through Indigents' Defense Services on 30 JUL 2010. After of which additional private information relating to these services was gathered from Navy Federal Credit Union through subpoena. The private information in question, according to Statute, should have been gathered through the application process and before the financial affidavit was accepted as evidence for appointment of a defense attorney and can only be used for this purpose before an appearance at trial.
During the pre-trial motions my attorney, Debera Erickson had submitted personal bank statements for each month leading up to the fire going back six months. I produced these statements to offer a defense to allegations that the cause of the fire was financially motivated. After presenting this material the states prosecution, Casey Meyer argued that "since these statements were offered as evidence than bank statements six months after the fire should be submitted too." Since this information was intended for the state board of indigents' defense services but instead used to argue the direction of a motion, a violation by interference of the defense counsel duties was consummated.
Without any regard to case law under Kansas Statutes and without an ordered delivery of such statement for the inspection of the court in camera, Judge Burdette exceeded his obligation to rule on subject matter within the scope of the law. I never agreed with my attorney to submit the original statements as a condition of additional private information being used at trial, instead I was asked private personal information about statements never produced by the prosecution on several occasions by Ms. Erickson in the middle of this trial with no opportunity to examine such statements.
Although this Personal and/or Private information after the fire is not even applicable to the charge of ARSON K.S.A. 21-3718, should not have been presented to the Jury or used in any way other than the reason it was obtained and by the way it was used constitutes a breach to privacy and leads a reasonable person to believe these actions were only made as a way to insult the integrity of my defense during legal trial proceedings.
It is unfortunate that a few State of Kansas officials, who are trusted in positions which demand they carry honor, truth and Justice be so light they still bear motivations to construe events for an outcome which can only be delivered by lack of qualifications and serve to protect their positions instead of what is right. I recommend an investigation into the conduct of all Judges and in the district of attorney's office within this jurisdiction, to ensure proper rights of Kansas citizens are protected in the future, also I will be reporting with petition to the District Supreme Court of the United States.
:Included is a Detailed Summary, Warrant and Financial Affidavit in this case.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely Adam P.
Violations of Kansas Statutes
21-4002: Breach of privacy
21-4005: Malicious rumors concerning financial status.
22-3213: Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses.
Article 45: Aid To Indigent Defendants
22-4502: Same; procedure to obtain services for representation before appearance.
22-4520: Same; prohibition on interfering with professional duties of counsel.
10 MAR 2011
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
This complaint is by formal petition, to express persistent grievances referenced in Case No. 09 CR 1064, by the 29th Judicial District, Kansas for an arson trial which took place on 10 NOV 2010 and at a following sentencing on 28 JAN 2011. Whereby the ensuing legal proceedings within shall undeniably prove a cruel and unjust removal of Unalienable Human Rights initiated by the State of Kansas under the Constitution of the United States of America. This petition addresses two parts, a complaint by the indictment from the state and a grievance to the conditions for probation ordered at sentencing.
Through a merciless campaign to escape its own liability of careless actions, authorities within the State of Kansas abuse its power by ignoring individual rights of innocent citizens in order to protect the inadequacies of certain public officials and their corporate sponsors, who by ill repute is causing grave hardships upon my family that continue to this day. Therefore an official public declaration by this letter of petition is sent to the Supreme Court of United States for review of the trial transcript and subsequent probation orders outlined in Case No. 09 CR 1064. This will ensure proper relief can be afforded and justice can be restored once and for all.
All the real evidence gathered in the course of this investigation and by the charges, not only produces a proper factual defense to the accusations but also proves a malignant trend by the *State of Kansas towards the value of Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights of everyday citizens. Whereby the nature of this grievance is such, that one cannot expect a fair trial or an appeal for that matter to take place within Kansas jurisdiction, therefore I officially file this petition in accordance with KSA 22-4505 section ( C ).
Although wrongfully convicted by circumstantial evidence currently under an appeal, a general synopsis proves without a doubt, the charging agent of the Kansas Fire Marshall had compromised its duties by an improper search and seizure before a thorough investigation could be completed or factual charges could be produced. This shows an ill impulse on behalf of the state to respond blindly, with malice and to enable others to infringe on the remainder of rights which have already been reduced by these subsequent actions.
Unfortunately, the abuse of this power is recognized only by the state choosing which laws to enforce. Disregard for one statute does not increase the value of another and if Due Process and the Exclusionary Rule for evidence had been applied earlier in this case, additional inherent rights could have been preserved. Official documents in my possession, representing the order of the events in which they occurred, will prove malicious intent by the state to deliberately overlook evidence and then unlawfully persuade the trial jury to avoid responsibility of prior negligence to lawful statutes.
Whereby inherent rights are discarded after convictions, then accusations can be produced for lack of these rights……….
After producing the facts for acquittal derived from the new evidence to the judge at sentencing, the reply was simply, "I don't believe that's what happened." So either the Detailed Summary was not read by the judge or he does not believe the first couple statements of information in the warrant produced the charges for an indictment. This is odd because during the course of the trial, not one motion was granted in favor of my defense, yet due to the judge's misgivings and downright illegal procedure amongst other unethical conduct, breaches were committed in the middle of this trial similar to the ones in the charging document which brought me to the order of the Kansas district court in the first place.
One motion I agreed with at the time which was denied, was a previous reference to a psychiatric condition, this was to be used as a defense to accusations resulting from the covert breach of privacy by the Fire Marshall while in the hospital. Although what was believed to be a superb defense at the time, the pressure to use this was misappropriated by Ineffective Assistance of Counsel who offered such a defense as a substitute for a failure to identify statute violations from the beginning by the frivolous behavior initiated by the Fire Marshall.
I have been a victim by a terrible accident and forced to bare full penalty imposed by the negligence and bias response of state officials to protect a corporate sponsor over any acknowledgment of human rights violations. By agreeing to these charges by the state, would be misplacing the responsibilities of the other parties involved. At this time, I officially retract all references to a psychiatric condition as personal information, an otherwise credible defense was excluded at the trial anyway and only becomes secondary to the prior unknown breach of privacy quoted in several official statements deemed as complaining persons by the Kansas district court.
By overlooking individual rights, the state simultaneously permitted the involvement of third parties and affectively ignored its sworn duties to protect all people under the Kansas Bill of Rights. Ironically the psychiatric references could not be made at the trial, yet the terms of the probation ordered a psychological evaluation now irrelevant to the case. After signing the probation order the judge was wearing an obvious smile while discussing restitution to the insurance company and there was a question as to if I should be held liable for the payment made by them to a separate third party. This payment was made without my knowledge to substantiate a complaint and the reason I was subjected to the district court in the first place.
I did not attempt to defraud the insurance by burning my house. The arrest was not justified through probable cause or proven to be connected in any way to the fraud charge of the arson statute and had the state conducted a thorough investigation, could have identified and prevented continued victimization this activity caused by a separate third party. It is imperative to understand, the state's actions enabled the insurance company to breach the contract by honoring a false claim by a third party, then paid money on this claim and shifted a supposed liability by malicious actions to satisfy the intended result for my arrest in this case.
This third party claim listed under policy coverage's, was used as a mechanism by the insurance company to counterfeit a complaint to the state and avoid addressing any responsibility. Under the policy held in my name and regarding the coinciding arson statute for that matter, I was to be included in the decision making process if any, regarding the policy leading up to and at the time of the charges. Contrary to hearsay and contradicting testimony of key individuals, the official records supplied by these institutions prove I was incapacitated in the hospital at the time, unaware of this activity.
In law and practice Kansas lacks Privacy provided by the 4th Amendment and violates Habeas Corpus..........
Instead, all this was clandestine while the Kansas fire marshal enabled spying in the hospital and illicit evidence continued to be extracted and forged to somehow connect me with the already fraudulent activity by the insurance company and a third party, who paid money under false pretense in a way to compress the arson charge in this case. The supposed victim was the paid third party, yet this alone did not satisfy the desired charges by the state, this is why I was never informed about the breaches until the day of court and by then it was too late for a defense. A nurse from Nebraska, will testify as a witness on my behalf as an alibi to my being unaware of this activity at the time of these occurrences.
The stance produced by this petition demands a fair balance of limited duties by the state to enforce laws while protecting all peoples rights under the constitution. The times we live in are compelling enough without the state incorporating a precedent for an obtuse intrusion into our daily lives to satisfy an overwrought importance of certain laws only chosen for such impeding use. Whereby the conduct of the Kansas district court represents a grotesque imposition and leaves one destitute, barley able to file an affective grievance of victimization brought about by the senseless prying of the state.
According to the probation order cited in this case, there appears to be little or no opportunity for an honest citizen to follow the guidelines set forth and if one does obey the terms they are doing so without the mutual respect needed in order to accomplish such citizenry. The punishment of this order forces an unjust dismantling of necessary rights to exist and live in society. What's left are unjust terms which must be met or face an impending threat of coercion without regards to Habeas Corpus or other inherent rights which should be extended to every human being, including those confined inside prison walls.
A genuine rejection to this probation order is declared, by the way it is written and applied in this case, proves an ultimatum is given by the district court: To give up additional unalienable human rights unrelated to any possible guilt of the alleged crime or endure the hardship of confinement as to avoid the inevitable additional charges threatened by violence through the state. Being forced to choose by a forfeiting of the necessary rights to be a productive member of society or to serve a humane confinement eventually to be released with equal rights, one could easily decide if with fair treatment, yet considering this predicament, if not likely accessible now than one can safely assume it not be while imprisoned.
The contradiction here is a felony requires someone to automatically be under the guise of a subgroup, stripped of the supposed rights of other people, yet sacrificed nonetheless as a means to live amongst these same individuals. Unfortunately the probation orders signed by the judge in this case sets a precedent with no incentive to be an honest, productive citizen which in effect turns the justice department inside out, forcing innocent citizens to limit natural civil behavior by the supposed conduct of criminals on the run.
Therefore a predetermined handicap to a lack of human rights is a precursor to incarceration and could not even be bargained by an animal in a cage, so to hand down this demise as a concealed choice, can only be identified through an oppressed society. As if suffering 3rd degree burns and loss of a home was not detrimental enough to recover from, does not even relate to a person not being afforded the right to privacy and unlawful search or seizure. One can heal or build another house, but no one will find it worthwhile to do so if absent are the values of these important rights.
The charges and evidence produced in this case are irrelevant to the remedy of imposed orders which violate common human rights and Habeas Corpus..........
For example:
Probation Order #4: To check my home for supposed violations of probation.
Just because probation was ordered, it is still an unlawful search and seizure to enter my home forcefully without probable cause under the 4th Amendment.
Probation Order #12: To not carry any type of weapon.
This forces a forfeiture of my right to protection under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I was charged with arson and this case had nothing to do with a weapon, this order is unlawful by restricting a firearm for the simple fact of being charged with an unrelated felony.
Probation Order #21: Complete a mental health evaluation within 45 days.
This is not addressing any problems I may have with mental health, if forced to complete an evaluation, the time spent would be to satisfy a prerequisite of the district court and not the particular needs I may acknowledge. The judge would not allow this reference admissible at trial as evidence, yet this is somehow a special concern as terms for sentencing imposes a substandard arrangement by the terms of this probation order and proves unjust bias.
Probation Order #23: Submit DNA specimens of blood and saliva to the KBI.
Concerning this new statute, is a petition in and of itself, except somehow it justifies the atrocious behavior mandated by certain Kansas officials, from the beginning of this case leading all the way up to this very last instance. Throughout any evidence revealed within this case, DNA was never a topic of interest presented at any point during the trial. For the state to obtain DNA without just cause is a violation of Habeas Corpus under the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
A redundant theme here presented by the State of Kansas is a reputation for an individual person to receive no representation on behalf of the statutes and laws unless it is of the sole interest of the state to do so. In Accordance with KSA 22-4505, previously cited in this letter, it is required the defendant receive a copy of the trial transcript. In a letter attached, sent from the Kansas Appellate Defenders Office, it expresses in bold type, "we do not provide copies of any district court documents to clients."
In conclusion, I am being forced to adhere to laws and statutes which are not being followed by the same people who enforce them. I want to cooperate fully as a productive honest citizen in accordance with our values supported by the constitution but find it impossible when not afforded the same opportunity for justice. With this petition I respectively declare an involuntary fulfillment of any obligations to the Kansas district court and refuge is sought under Habeas Corpus laws, until a transcript is produced and an appeal is decided in this case.
Thank you for your time in this matter,
Faithfully and Truly Yours,
Adam P.
Involved Statutory Provisions
Search And Seizure
Statute 22-2511: No warrant quashed for technicality. No search warrant shall be quashed or evidence suppressed because of technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.
Statute 22-2515: Same; order; application; crimes for which order may be issued; disclosure and use of contents of wire, oral or electronic communications; effect on privileged communications.
Statute 22-2517: Unlawful interception of wire or oral communication; evidentiary status of contents
Arson Reporting
(e) "Immune", as used in K.S.A. 31-403(e) and 31-404, shall mean that a civil action may not arise from any action taken pursuant to K.S.A. 31-403 and 31-404 in the absence of gross negligence, bad faith, malice or fraud on the part of an individual, insurance company, or person acting in its behalf, or authorized agency.
8 April 2011
Relief from Order of Probation and Appellate Review
I am writing this as correspondence to the letter from the Kansas Appellate Defenders Office dated February 3, 2011. I would like to submit a request to an update of any information in the appeal process for Wyandotte Co. Case No. 09 CR 1064. Also, In Accordance with KSA 22-4505, it is required the defendant receive a copy of the trial transcript, please afford me an opportunity to obtain such material.
It has been over 60 days since last contact by letter and the urgency in this matter is increasing, due to the hardship from the order of probation by the district court and the continued grievance this creates to myself and dependants. Along with other details of this letter received, I request relief by the Kansas Appellate Court from the conditions within the Order of Probation until the appeal process can be completed.
There are other issues not mentioned in the sent Detailed Summary that may be helpful regarding this appeal. At the time my bond was revoked for a withdrawal of a previous lawyer and just before being jailed on 19 JUL 2010, I had made an oral request to the 29th District Judge Dexter Burdette, a motion for a change of venue. The reply from this judge was "you cannot make any motion, only an attorney can make a motion for you and because you cannot afford an attorney, your bond will be revoked and you will be placed into custody."
I had already paid the bond in full, months before hiring an attorney and never was late for an appearance. According to Kansas Statute 22-2801: Declaration of Purpose, under Conditions of Release, there was no reason I should have been held confined. This was just one circumstance of a windfall of many civil rights violations I was subjected to and systematically persist by this court.
After this Judge unfairly accepted the withdrawal by my paid attorney, I was subjected to ambiguous discrimination, wrongful arrest and unnecessary confinement for 13 days. Although I mentioned this to my new attorney who was a public defender, it was never presented in the form of a motion to the court. I mention this now as an honest concern to this expressed grievance, to prevent any further judicial exploitation of personal incompatibility, please do not allow Judge Dexter Burdette to be involved in the affairs of this appeal process in any way, for I feel as if there is a personal grudge against me. Note: Also included is a complaint filed with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications and the order of probation with response letter.
Signed, Adam P.
Probation Office Relief Letter
Date: 8 APRIL 2011
This letter is in response to a denied request for probation to be transferred to the current state of my residency in Nebraska. By this circumstance it is impossible to fulfill the probation currently ordered. Although in disagreement and currently under appeal/petition for sentencing by this order of probation, I am cooperating with the best of intentions in mind for my 7-month old child and dependents/family.
Therefore a contradiction is presented by probation order #11, which says to support all of my dependants. Unfortunately I am a disabled veteran and live on a fixed income. The legal process has taken about two years to reach this point and I have been residing in Nebraska during this whole time. All of the money I receive is paid as an expense to necessitate this household and by returning to Kansas for an extended period of time, I am unable to take care of my child and pay additional costs for rent/relocation.
To avoid any violation or continued grievance, I request this be a special circumstance to remain in Nebraska to fulfill my obligations to my child/dependants until the outcome of my appeal and petition is established.
Sincerely, Adam Paul
Sincerely, Adam Paul
Friday, April 8, 2011
To whom it may concern:
Dear Sir or Madam,
As suggested by the Nebraska Probation Office, I Laurel *** am writing this to help Adam, the father of my child, stay here to offer support and care. I am a nurse and Adam is with her during the times I am working long shifts at the hospital, and to have him gone for 45 days puts an unexpected strain on our family situation.
I believe Adam is innocent, because we have been living together the whole time since he left the hospital, after being hurt in the fire in Kansas. I hope that Adam can forgo the probation while the appeal process is underway.
Yours faithfully.
Laurel ***
It is to my understanding under certain circumstances, disclosers can be made for emergencies and in criminal investigations with a warrant. In this case which is a part of (OCR) Jurisdiction and Federal law, no warrant was issued before the supposed information was recorded and was not an official disclosure by the medical staff charged with my care. The breach occurred by a deputy standing outside my room listing in on a conversation taking place between myself and nurses treating a life threatening injury. Again all of this information was sent along with the complaint form and is described in the Detailed Summary.
According to the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, [45 CFR Parts 160 and 164] and under the RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO HEALTH INFORMATION, [45 CFR §§ 160.300; 164.512(b); 164.512(f)], Frequently Asked Questions section, it states:
Q: Will this rule make it easier for police and law enforcement agencies to get my medical information?
A: No. The rule does not expand current law enforcement access to individually identifiable health information. In fact, it limits access to a greater degree than currently exists. Today, law enforcement officers obtain health information for many purposes, sometimes without a warrant or other prior process. The rule establishes new procedures and safeguards to restrict the circumstances under which a covered entity may give such information to law enforcement officers. For example, the rule limits the type of information that covered entities may disclose to law enforcement, absent a warrant or other prior process, when law enforcement is seeking to identify or locate a suspect.
The question to legality here is the conduct of the deputy, to obtain supposed information in the manner described on the warrant and then to offer these statements to a law enforcement entity. As a patient, consent was never an option regarding such statements and the disclosure which was offered by the physician was incompatible to the severe legal consequences resulting by noncompliance from improperly handled medical records. Note: I am also including the warrant, official records from Cherry County Hospital and photos taken by St. Elizabeth Medical center.
Adam P.
11 April 2011
Department of Health and Human Services
Privacy Complaint
I am writing this letter in response to a letter dated MAR 09 2011, signed by the Office for Civil Rights, VII Regional Manager, Frank O. Campbell. In this letter, Reference Number: 11-123682, it says the (OCR) is closing the complaint and cannot investigate because the complaint occurred beyond the 180 day limit. According to the official (DHHS) website, for Health Information Privacy, a complaint must: "Be filed within 180 days of when you knew that the act or omission complained or occurred. OCR may extend the 180-day period if you can show good cause." The date I became aware of this occurrence is explained in the Detailed Summary and Direct Appeal officially filed with the district court on 28 JAN 2011.
First initial contact with this office was made by a Health Information Privacy Complaint I mailed on 02/08/2011, also included was additional pages of the Detailed Summary, signed on 3 JAN 2011, the same week it was drafted and I first became aware of the "occurrence." In this case I would have had to become aware of the privacy violation starting in 09/08/2010 to be eligible and clearly at that time I had not made the connection until after the trial, 10 NOV 2010 when I finally received the State Farm Activity Log issued by the insurance company referenced on page 5 of the detailed summary. In this letter I am also sending the Direct Appeal, signed 26 JAN 2011, which explains Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and why these documents were never produced in a timely manner.
In a phone call on Friday, 11 MAR 2011, I spoke with Jan Ro-Trock regarding these proceedings. After explaining to her the details about the time limit discrepancy, I also corrected her that the initial complaint was about a privacy breach of information listed on a warrant for my arrest, which was obtained illegally at the Cherry County Hospital, before I hung up with her she reassured me I would be sent a follow up letter which I have still yet to receive.It is to my understanding under certain circumstances, disclosers can be made for emergencies and in criminal investigations with a warrant. In this case which is a part of (OCR) Jurisdiction and Federal law, no warrant was issued before the supposed information was recorded and was not an official disclosure by the medical staff charged with my care. The breach occurred by a deputy standing outside my room listing in on a conversation taking place between myself and nurses treating a life threatening injury. Again all of this information was sent along with the complaint form and is described in the Detailed Summary.
According to the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, [45 CFR Parts 160 and 164] and under the RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO HEALTH INFORMATION, [45 CFR §§ 160.300; 164.512(b); 164.512(f)], Frequently Asked Questions section, it states:
Q: Will this rule make it easier for police and law enforcement agencies to get my medical information?
A: No. The rule does not expand current law enforcement access to individually identifiable health information. In fact, it limits access to a greater degree than currently exists. Today, law enforcement officers obtain health information for many purposes, sometimes without a warrant or other prior process. The rule establishes new procedures and safeguards to restrict the circumstances under which a covered entity may give such information to law enforcement officers. For example, the rule limits the type of information that covered entities may disclose to law enforcement, absent a warrant or other prior process, when law enforcement is seeking to identify or locate a suspect.
The question to legality here is the conduct of the deputy, to obtain supposed information in the manner described on the warrant and then to offer these statements to a law enforcement entity. As a patient, consent was never an option regarding such statements and the disclosure which was offered by the physician was incompatible to the severe legal consequences resulting by noncompliance from improperly handled medical records. Note: I am also including the warrant, official records from Cherry County Hospital and photos taken by St. Elizabeth Medical center.
Faithfully and Truly Yours,
14 APR 2011
To: Navy Federal Credit Union,
This letter is regarding a Money Market Savings, Member Account, 300*******. As I understand, federal law allows personal banking records to be released to state prosecutors for investigational purposes. There was such an instance that occurred on or about Nov 2010. I was never aware until later when the release of such information was used in a serious financial and legal disposition. Now that the government had obtained the information, I would like to know what and to who it was sent and at what time.
According to the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 found on the NFCU internet site, it states, "when the reason for the delay of notice no longer exists, you will be notified that your records were obtained." Please send this information to my address on file, I believe I am entitled to have the Bank Statement Member Copies regarding the release of these personal records, especially considering I know about it now when I was never informed to begin with.
Sincerely,
Adam P.
Adam P.
(All Documents Signed and Notarized by Date Provided)
To watch a video about this blog please copy and paste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0HCjO_1ApQ&list=TL9HNQXMM7JS0
26 APR 2011
Statement for
Motion to Withdraw
On 30 JUL 2010, my original bond was re-instated by Deborah Erickson, a public defender appointed under Indigents' Defense Services as council for this case. At the time, it seemed she was much more understanding and agreed with many of the issues I had presented to her. Then after the trial on 10 NOV 2010 and before Sentencing on 28 JAN 2011, I observed unethical behavior by Mrs. Erickson's attitude regarding the entire defense of this case. The week following the trial, I met with Mrs. Erickson to retrieve evidence in her possession pertaining to this case. At that time I asked her for all the material she was legally able to provide. Nevertheless, At the time of this writing I have still yet to receive additional, very relevant and vital information regarding a sound defense in this case.
Certain actions by Mrs. Erickson led me to believe undue influence and ulterior motives were present during the course of this trial. At this meeting in her office, I was given for the first time, the State Farm Activity Log Book and then was able to complete a Detailed Summary on 3 JAN 2011, supporting the most important events as the source of the charges in this case. This information was re-communicated, along with a Direct Appeal for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on 26 JAN 2011, to the Wyandotte Co. District Court at least two days before Sentencing in this case. Certain unethical comments were made by Mrs. Erickson and a copy of the Direct Appeal was sent to Disciplinary Administrator's Office.
Additional comments while in her office, regarding an inquiry about obtaining a trial transcript and her reply was, "a trial transcript will cost about 3,000 dollars and if you can afford to pay for it, than you can pay for an attorney." This simply is not true, unless a client believes this type of rhetoric and does not read the Kansas Statutes. At one point in her office she told me that her "responsibilities as counsel are over once she files an appeal and I would have to work with the Appellate Defenders Office from then on."
About two months later and just after sentencing, I asked Mrs. Erickson about the purged financial information obtained from Navy Federal Credit Union, referenced in the middle of this trial by State prosecutor, Casey Meyer and her reply was, "that was a motion made by the Judge and it was already decided." I was not fully aware all this was happening at the trial and was informed about this by a witness afterwards. I even called Mrs. Erickson a few times before sentencing to discuss this topic in more detail except she would not return any of my calls.
I agree with Debera Erickson's Motion To Withdrawal, just not her reason explained in a copy and letter dated 20th APR 2011. In it she cites, "had I been aware of the complaint I would have requested permission to withdrawal before the sentencing hearing." Unfortunately, she fails to address the fact her unethical behavior by the Disciplinary Administrator's Office is not relative to: her original duties to be an Effective Counsel for defending this case and although she did file the documents for an appeal , this step would not be necessary had she asserted a viable defense from the beginning. I find it mocking this motion was barely made by her after this last recent effort to contact her by phone as requested by the Probation Office in a meeting 18 APR 2011.
Wherefore, I respectfully request an opportunity to obtain a copy of the trial transcript directly by the District Court of Wyandotte County, so as my information in this letter is accurate and I can better assist in the appeal process of this case. Also, may it please the court at this time, since the charges issued in this case to date and if it should have any bearing on any judgment, I have made all court appearances and will continue to so.
Faithfully,
8 JUN 2011
Right to Counsel by
the Motion for New Trial
RE: Wyandotte Case No: 09CR1064
This letter is a follow up letter to a response received from the Kansas Appellate Defender Office dated 25 MAY 2011. With regards to my request for trial transcripts, this office reply was, “you are welcome to file a motion for transcripts with the district court”. This is not possible because at the time of this writing I do not have an attorney to file any motion, regarding issues originally raised in a certified letter dated 26 JAN 2011, titled Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and sent directly to the district judges office via fax machine two days before Sentencing. The letter was never mentioned until later at a Motion for Withdrawal on 13 MAY 2011, filed by my appointed attorney, in which she referenced a copy of the letter in the form of a complaint to the Office of Disciplinary Administrator.
After granting the motion, Judge Burdette's response to the issue of not having an attorney was, “at this time, an attorney will only be appointed if and when there is a violation of probation.” Nevertheless, court was adjourned before I could address the court by my letter titled Statement for Motion to Withdrawal, and notarized 26 APR 2011. I mailed a certified copy directly to Judge Burdette and his reply was, “send all other correspondence to the Kansas Appellate Defender Office because the district court will not respond.” I have been sending duplicates of all these material to the Kansas Appellate Defender Office ever since Ms. Erickson had prematurely forced me to do so referenced in the letter, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on the 25th JAN 2011.
I would like to exercise the right to effective counsel throughout the whole process of this case, especially while expressing sensitive grievances by letter. Although highly unethical and without formal redress, I am involuntarily exposed by the Kansas Court System directly and by not having the right to counsel a certain disadvantage during a critical time of the appeal process is currently taking place contradicting Kansas Statutes. The right to meet with counsel regarding these issues is vital to any defense.
*According to the 14th amendment and a Supreme Court decision by Douglas v. California, the court found “that where the merits of the one and only appeal an indigent had as of right were decided without benefit of counsel, an unconstitutional line had been drawn between rich and poor.”
I am willing to send additional copies of anything requested, only I would prefer to have an attorney to work with now at the district level, so important classified information is not compromised anymore than it may already have been. Also this request for a newly appointed attorney could identify additional legal errors in this case missed by other lawyers. I have already written letters addressed to Patrick Lawless and the latest letter I am replying to was signed by Christina Waugh, from this Kansas Appellate Defender Office.
Faithfully,
Adam P.
14 JUN 2011
Department of Health and Human Services
(OCR) Privacy Complaint and Appeal
Re: 11-126526
I am writing this letter as a final, dire need and appeal for the services the Office for Civil Rights can provide to my original Privacy Complaint, sent 8 FEB 2011 to the Department of Health and Human Services. The decision by this office to close this case was incorrectly based on (1) an "untimely" 180 day filing deadline and a contradiction by (2) "The Privacy Rule does not govern the obtaining of protected health information."
As previously stated, my complaint was in fact filed within the 180 day window. Due to the legal consequence, along with other allegations caused by this initial privacy violation, I was unaware this had happened until new evidence finally surfaced in a criminal trial and led me to the events on the date of occurrence in question. It is to my understanding with good cause this office can waive the 180-day filing rule, as I have date-stamped documents which support this complaint as being on time.
Regarding the Privacy Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 160.103, mentioned in the letter sent by (OCR) and dated May 31, 2011, it states "The Wyandotte County Fire Department may not be a covered entity." According to the (EMS) website for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Fire Department they are registered with a HIPPA Compliance Officer which can be contacted at (913) 573-5550. Although the Cherry County Hospital, which is also a covered entity, may not have taken the necessary steps to protect the private information initially, it was the Fire Marshall of the Wyandotte County Fire Department who abused the rule for the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of protected health information.
I feel this case was closed prematurely before any real evidence could be determined to continue an investigation. It seems as if this office decision to reopen the case simply is focusing on excuses to deny assistance rather than accepting a valid complaint. Towards the end of the letter in which I am now replying, it goes on to say, "This regulatory approach encourages complainants to file within a reasonable amount of time, and if such complaints prove valid, reduce the harm caused by a violation." I am currently within the appeal process to the legal charges produced by the actions described in this complaint and have contacted (OCR) out of a need to offer an official report, which can prove to be very useful in determining my innocence to a very serious felony and reduce the harm that continues to this day as a result.
If this appeal is won, an investigation by (OCR) would simply determine that the "covered entity" was not compliant to the HIPPA privacy rule. All that would be necessary is to compare the official records by the provider (Cherry Hospital) to the information on the warrant relating to the time I received care and this will prove the statements are not the same. I have already sent the official records to this office in previous letters and unless there are other records or statements I am unaware of by the actual physician, a finding in this case would be very basic.
If no other action in this case is taken and appeals to the Department of Health and Human Services, I am led to believe a serious flaw in our nations medical governance exists. If the people's health is dependent on this style of service than the results are not at all civil and the right to protected care promoted by this department is an illusion.
This being the predicament, to force someone to an obscure agreement, (in this case supposed statements while being treated) only in an exchange for medical services. These actions regarding privacy were hidden, cause had I known what was going on at the time, I would have walked right out of that hospital even with life threatening injuries. Please reconsider the opening of this case 11-126526, the protection anyone would expect is invaluable.
Sincerely, Adam PTo watch a video about this blog please copy and paste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0HCjO_1ApQ&list=TL9HNQXMM7JS0
