3 – Due Process or Reckless Indifference?

“M this is not healthy am I just reaching out?  I can’t sleep haven’t for days and I like to watch blood drip down my wrists in the unlikely situation that someone might actually help me because I’m clearly not brave enough to accomplish the outcome I crave.” – “Victim” 2014

That is a card from me to her that she kept from the mid to late 1990s.  That would be 15+ years.  She also had moved several times to different states which means that was packed more than five times.  That card was texted to me the day before the wrist picture.

What is due process?  This is the basis for the civil suit as I formally alleged during the criminal case that I was denied due process of law which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Wikipedia describes due process as the following as well as the interpretation by the united states supreme court:

“The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses broadly, concluding that these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.”

I take serious issue with the Formal Charging Decision in the criminal case as is outlined on the pima county attorney’s office website which states:

“A detective or other officer will present to a deputy county attorney all the evidence that has been gathered about the crime in question. The deputy county attorney will review the evidence and decide whether to issue formal charges against the defendant and, if so, what the charges should be.

The charging or “issuing” decision is a critical step in the criminal justice process. It is guided by legal and ethical rules that require a reasonable belief that the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury-unanimously, beyond a reasonable doubt, and despite any reasonable defenses-that the defendant is guilty of the charge.”


– Arrested and charged with a felony of “stalking”.

3/25/2014 – Grand Jury Hearing – Indicted Class 3 Felony (3.5 years in prison)

The lead detective completely blew the testimony that resulted in the indictment as well the presiding prosecutor.

The supposed “victim”, which I discredited immediately when I willingly met with a pima county sheriff’s office deputy, was interviewed on 3/25/2014.  The detective wrote a summary interview, a full 1/3 of a page, which contradicts his own testimony multiple times on 3/25/2014.  The detective claims that the “victim” and his schedule did not coincide so he was unable to interview the “victim” in person so he did a phone interview on the day of the hearing.

This is the most shocking of all.  Before the arizona supreme court denied my petition, I ordered digital copies of the criminal case as I only had paper copies.  To my surprise, it had the audio on it which I had never heard before.  It was much worse than I even knew.  It amounted to significantly more evidence making my case immeasurably stronger for the federal case.

The detective did a 14-minute phone interview with the supposed victim after the grand jury hearing.  Only the first 8 minutes had to do with anything case related.

I have lost more than 10 years because of this which equates to 48 seconds per year.

Detective:  He mentioned something to the deputies that he thought you may have hurt yourself and just needed some help and that’s why he came down here was to help you.  You had sent him a picture of your wrist with some blood on it.

“Victim”:  We talked about something that happened in June 2013 and that was in June.  That was something that was over and had nothing to do with him.

D:  What was that a picture of?  He had mentioned that it was your wrist and that it was cut or something.  Is that what it was?

V:  It could have been something from June.

D:  But that would have been sent in June?

V:  It would not have been sent in June but it would have been a picture from then.

So, the detective, and therefore the prosecutors, never saw the picture or the text message or the card as that would have shredded the “victim’s” story.  A simple question would have been – Was the text message accompanying the picture sent to someone in June and subsequently forwarded to him in 2014?  What about the card sent the day before as well?

This would be game over.  The victim is caught in a lie and she cannot explain that away.  Well, it would have been anyway if it was done prior to the hearing.

D:  Is there anything that happened that you haven’t told us yet that we need to know for the investigation?

V (later):  Can you please give me any information about what is going on?

D:  Today I presented the case to the grand jury now I’m just going to wait until the court appearance.

D (later):  Once he is arrested and we complete the investigation, I don’t have any involvement anymore unless I am subpoenaed to go to court to testify.

The investigation is over.  He already testified and a prosecutor actually deemed this investigation appropriate without not only an in-person interview but not even a recorded phone interview as that was done after the hearing.

I have studied interpersonal communication and it blows my mind that an in-person interview was not done.  In the actual case files the detective does not disclose that this interview was done after he already testified.


A STIPULATION was filed to preserve the ability of the defense to file a motion to remand to grand jury pursuant to Rule 12.9 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure extending the deadline for 2 weeks from 5/12/2014 to 5/27/2014.

5/13/2014 – Phone Interview Done With Sister

The detective reenters the case for the first time as he did a phone interview with the “victims” sister on 5/13/2014 “in order to obtain further information about Jill and Wades relationship”.  The phone interview contained the actual transcripts like the first phone interview should have.

This is 49 days after he already testified and 59 days after metal rings were put around my wrists.

The detective was not subpoenaed to testify in court.  The detective and the prosecutors continued their investigation which directly contradicts what the PCAO outlined in the criminal justice process.


This case should have never even made it to the Grand Jury.

Of course, the rest is just a formality.  They already knew they violated my constitutional rights and they bombed this case.

A motion to remand to grand jury was filed on 5/21/2014 for redetermination of probable cause alleging the due process clause of the 14th amendment was violated.  The PCAO dismissed the case in open court at the 3rd case management conference on 6/6/2014.  The 2nd case management on 5/14/2014 was rescheduled as a motion to remand to grand jury was forthcoming.

These aren’t mistakes.  This is a reckless indifference to my rights as a human being and as a citizen of the united states of america.

There are no excuses for this sort of behavior but somehow I have been denied justice.

Is this North Korea or the united states?