DRUG WAR: LIES, COVERUPS AND OF THE DESTRUCTION OF A COUNTRY
dennis l. blewitt, J.D. May, 2016
It took a while for me to recover from my grand jury experience. I was still fairly idealistic then. That was to change over time. I still didn’t connect the dots. Sally Denton had published her book, “Bluegrass Conspiracy” and “Smith County Justice,” “Compromised,” “Politics or Heroin in SE Asia,” and other books. I also started seriously research the subject. At first, I wouldn’t discuss my findings, believing that I would be locked up in a looney bin. That soon changed.
In addition to having drug cases in over 30 U. S, state and Federal jurisdictions, I started receiving information anonymously by chance meetings and deliveries to my mailbox. All in all, the experience was surrealistic. It made me question my sanity and ability to think and understand. I was starting to agree with my friends that I was bat-shit crazy. After all, why should a nobody from nowhere Colorado have these surrealistic experiences, when my clients, who were on acid quite often seem perfectly normal. I asked people if two plus three still equaled five. There was agreement. I would describe things I saw, and no one argued. But, when I would speak about what I had observed and how I interpreted events, observations and experiences, I could see the disbelief and skepticism in people’s eyes. The information mysteriously supplied started to make sense and form a pattern. I would run into strangers who would tell me things which would later prove to be true.
At that time, all new clients had to have a reference. I had to feel comfortable with them. I didn’t care about a fee, I only cared about them being a plant to set me up or otherwise harm me. Then came an inquiry from an ex-client. He had been a large scale distributor with his own fleet of airplanes. I had represented him in Colorado, Missouri, Kansas and S. Dakota. He was arrested east of Denver with about 500 pounds of marijuana on the interstate. He had landed a plane with a confederate and an agent whom he had employed to write his memoirs. He documented the trip on film for his memoirs. Of course, he didn’t know she was a Fed at that time. That came later. At the time of the arrest, she made it a point to try to get me to advise some kind of questionable conduct, but I was too naïve and didn’t succumb to her charms like my client had. In any event, within one hour of his arrest, they told him they would release him on a recognizance bond if he would agree to work for them to try to obtain anything usable against me. If he could set me up for something, they would dismiss his 500-pound marijuana case. We had a jury trial, and he was convicted. I appealed the case. The Government spent all the money investigating and capturing him. However, the agents took the film from the camera to a corner drug store for developing. The contact prints showed people unloading marijuana from a plane, but wasn’t good enough to identify anyone. When the jury asked for a magnifying glass, I suspected that the case was lost. And, sure enough, two hours later a guilty verdict was announced. The judge sentenced him to one year per 100 pounds. He also stated that the main reason wasn’t the marijuana, but the fact that he had fathered several children and didn’t pay any support. The judge said he was obligated to stop a one-man population explosion. This was the last of several matters that I had handled for this defendant. He seemed to have lost confidence in me after his 5-year sentence. Or at least so it seemed at the time.
However, I was not to have been so lucky. Although this particular client had great entertainment value, he was also a pain in the ass. Additionally, he had a monumental ego, reflected by the fact that he had hired a federal agent unknown to him at the time, to transcribe his memoirs, which turned out to be a confession of great significance however for some reason this document never seem to have gotten into the court files or records I suspect because he had significant ties to the intelligence community.
Out of the blue, his new lawyer contacted me and informed me he was filing a post conviction case for the defendant based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. That didn’t particularly surprise me, because many choose to do that when their lawyer loses a case. However, the grounds that this defendant used were unique. At that time, there been several cases of prosecutorial misconduct including planting spies and Jim Garrison’s office while he was trying to indict people on the Kennedy assassination, and planting spies on the Russell means defense team. I knew that the secretary, recording the client’s memoirs was employed by the drug agency, which I thought was outrageous enough, but, curiously, that wasn’t the grounds for his appeal.
It seems, that when my client was arrested and in the custody of the federal agents, they told him that his case could be dismissed if he was able to get any evidence against me. Although he tried he was unable to do so, for which he blamed me. Had I done something illegal or unethical, and he would be a freeman today. They told him that it be fairly easy to do. They also said they would be greatly appreciative. So under his theory, he couldn’t tell me everything about the case that I needed to know to defend him, because to do so would incriminate him in a way that might be leveraged against him if he were to get something against me. Follow? I sure is held didn’t. So, because he couldn’t tell me what I needed to know to defend him he had inadequate representation of counsel. All I needed then was the white rabbit and the red queen. I considered using this in a class I talk about postmodern criminal defense. It was a scenario that could rival that of Umberto Eco. However, since I realized that I wasn’t anywhere near the writer that Eco was, I decided not to. Additionally, I couldn’t determine whether to style it as Eco or Kafka or maybe a synthesis of the two. So, I bumbled along, blissfully ignorant of the swamp in which I had chosen to play.
I then started to sociogram my experiences again. I did that before I ran for DA, and sort of stopped while I was reeling from attack. I had a tip from an agent in Aspen, a case in Chicago and one in Milwaukee that enlarged my paranoia and, eventually understanding. But that took a while. Soon, I was about to be inundated with information, and with it, misinformation. In my book, I detail these delusions, but I already get enough criticism of the length of my missives. So until I find a publisher, this is it.DRUG WAR: LIES, COVERUPS AND OF THE DESTRUCTION OF A COUNTRY
dennis l. blewitt, J.D. May, 2016
It took a while for me to recover from my grand jury experience. I was still fairly idealistic then. That was to change over time. I still didn’t connect the dots. Sally Denton had published her book, “Bluegrass Conspiracy” and “Smith County Justice,” “Compromised,” “Politics or Heroin in SE Asia,” and other books. I also started seriously research the subject. At first, I wouldn’t discuss my findings, believing that I would be locked up in a looney bin. That soon changed.
In addition to having drug cases in over 30 U. S, state and Federal jurisdictions, I started receiving information anonymously by chance meetings and deliveries to my mailbox. All in all, the experience was surrealistic. It made me question my sanity and ability to think and understand. I was starting to agree with my friends that I was bat-shit crazy. After all, why should a nobody from nowhere Colorado have these surrealistic experiences, when my clients, who were on acid quite often seem perfectly normal. I asked people if two plus three still equaled five. There was agreement. I would describe things I saw, and no one argued. But, when I would speak about what I had observed and how I interpreted events, observations and experiences, I could see the disbelief and skepticism in people’s eyes. The information mysteriously supplied started to make sense and form a pattern. I would run into strangers who would tell me things which would later prove to be true.
At that time, all new clients had to have a reference. I had to feel comfortable with them. I didn’t care about a fee, I only cared about them being a plant to set me up or otherwise harm me. Then came an inquiry from an ex-client. He had been a large scale distributor with his own fleet of airplanes. I had represented him in Colorado, Missouri, Kansas and S. Dakota. He was arrested east of Denver with about 500 pounds of marijuana on the interstate. He had landed a plane with a confederate and an agent whom he had employed to write his memoirs. He documented the trip on film for his memoirs. Of course, he didn’t know she was a Fed at that time. That came later. At the time of the arrest, she made it a point to try to get me to advise some kind of questionable conduct, but I was too naïve and didn’t succumb to her charms like my client had. In any event, within one hour of his arrest, they told him they would release him on a recognizance bond if he would agree to work for them to try to obtain anything usable against me. If he could set me up for something, they would dismiss his 500-pound marijuana case. We had a jury trial, and he was convicted. I appealed the case. The Government spent all the money investigating and capturing him. However, the agents took the film from the camera to a corner drug store for developing. The contact prints showed people unloading marijuana from a plane, but wasn’t good enough to identify anyone. When the jury asked for a magnifying glass, I suspected that the case was lost. And, sure enough, two hours later a guilty verdict was announced. The judge sentenced him to one year per 100 pounds. He also stated that the main reason wasn’t the marijuana, but the fact that he had fathered several children and didn’t pay any support. The judge said he was obligated to stop a one-man population explosion. This was the last of several matters that I had handled for this defendant. He seemed to have lost confidence in me after his 5-year sentence. Or at least so it seemed at the time.
However, I was not to have been so lucky. Although this particular client had great entertainment value, he was also a pain in the ass. Additionally, he had a monumental ego, reflected by the fact that he had hired a federal agent unknown to him at the time, to transcribe his memoirs, which turned out to be a confession of great significance however for some reason this document never seem to have gotten into the court files or records I suspect because he had significant ties to the intelligence community.
Out of the blue, his new lawyer contacted me and informed me he was filing a post conviction case for the defendant based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. That didn’t particularly surprise me, because many choose to do that when their lawyer loses a case. However, the grounds that this defendant used were unique. At that time, there been several cases of prosecutorial misconduct including planting spies and Jim Garrison’s office while he was trying to indict people on the Kennedy assassination, and planting spies on the Russell means defense team. I knew that the secretary, recording the client’s memoirs was employed by the drug agency, which I thought was outrageous enough, but, curiously, that wasn’t the grounds for his appeal.
It seems, that when my client was arrested and in the custody of the federal agents, they told him that his case could be dismissed if he was able to get any evidence against me. Although he tried he was unable to do so, for which he blamed me. Had I done something illegal or unethical, and he would be a freeman today. They told him that it be fairly easy to do. They also said they would be greatly appreciative. So under his theory, he couldn’t tell me everything about the case that I needed to know to defend him, because to do so would incriminate him in a way that might be leveraged against him if he were to get something against me. Follow? I sure is held didn’t. So, because he couldn’t tell me what I needed to know to defend him he had inadequate representation of counsel. All I needed then was the white rabbit and the red queen. I considered using this in a class I talk about postmodern criminal defense. It was a scenario that could rival that of Umberto Eco. However, since I realized that I wasn’t anywhere near the writer that Eco was, I decided not to. Additionally, I couldn’t determine whether to style it as Eco or Kafka or maybe a synthesis of the two. So, I bumbled along, blissfully ignorant of the swamp in which I had chosen to play.
I then started to sociogram my experiences again. I did that before I ran for DA, and sort of stopped while I was reeling from attack. I had a tip from an agent in Aspen, a case in Chicago and one in Milwaukee that enlarged my paranoia and, eventually understanding. But that took a while. Soon, I was about to be inundated with information, and with it, misinformation. In my book, I detail these delusions, but I already get enough criticism of the length of my missives. So until I find a publisher, this is it.
No comments:
Post a Comment