"...your moral authority to rule
over the rest of us is on the line."



    From:       steve@kubby.com
    Subject:     Complaint of fraud, perjury and malfeasance to the Attorney General of California
    Date:     September 26, 2005 8:50:14 AM PDT
    To:       scott.thorpe@doj.ca.gov
    Cc:       *MEDIA, kubby-announce@kubby.com


TO: Scott Thorpe
Office of the Attorney General
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA  95814


Dear Mr. Thrope,

Thank you for replying to my inquiry.  Please be advised that I do have compelling evidence of fraud, perjury and malfeasance by Placer County Prosecutor Christopher Cattran and the arresting officer, Michael Lyke.

Those who have followed my excursion from a lawmaker and candidate for Governor into the seedy underbelly of the California justice have seen with their own eyes how police, prosecutors and even judges have lied and broken laws in order to harm me and discredit medical marijuana.

The trail of evidence includes:

 1.  An anonymous letter that was wrong on nearly every  count,  - yet still launched a massive six month investigation and a raid on my home by heavily armed police, from local and federal agents.

 2.  Fraudulent claims about a  non-existent DEA report that was used to get a warrant to search my home.

 3.  Conspiracy by the prosecutor and two recused judges, who acted illegally, in order to raise my misdemeanor appeal to a felony appeal, which was itself illegal.

The evidence clearly shows  there is an abuse of power, fraud, and conspiracy, by members of  your ranks, especially since much of the created fraudulent evidence used against me was produced by the members of the California DOJ.

Even more disturbing, is the profound animosity, by those who are supposed to protect us, towards sick, disabled and dying patients who advocate for medical marijuana reform.

Frankly, I have learned not to expect justice or fairness from the California "Just Us" System.  I can only hope that when you have completed your investigation and you have made the decision against me, as we are fully expecting, that the only court I trust, the Court of Public Opinion, will look at this case and see the clear abuse of power and blind allegiance to the Drug War that gives license to prosecutors and officers to make up evidence and lie at will.

Despite showing fraud at every step of the way, despite the police concocting evidence, despite a fraudulent appeal by the District Attorney, despite judges sneaking back into the case to secretly and illegally turn me into a “felony fugitive,” and despite my outrageous betrayal by the California justice system, I will go through the motions of requesting an investigation by your office.

My complaint is enclosed.  Remember, the court of public opinion will be watching what you do about it.

I believe you will understand that you have a vested interest in seeing a just outcome to this complaint, because your moral authority to rule over the rest of us is on the line.  Why?  Because you, meaning the justice system, expect us, the people who pay taxes for your salary, to be fair and honest.  If we are not, we are threatened with arrest, court and jail.  What consequences do you have for police and prosecutors who violate the standards to which you hold us?

Let freedom grow,

Steve Kubby



==============================================


September 26, 2005


Robert Anderson
Chief Assistant Attorney General
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA  95814



Dear Mr. Anderson,

I am writing you to make the following serious criminal complaint:

The evidence will show that a non-existent DEA report was used to fraudulently persuade a judge to sign a search warrant for my home with the purpose of having my wife and me arrested. You will also see how the prosecutor from Placer County, Christopher Cattran, willfully and deliberately avoided having to admit that DEA report used to justify the warrant never existed.

It all started with the Statement of Probable Cause to obtain the search warrant, which falsely claimed: "Brady was also checked through DEA’s N.A.D.I.S. system and there were two returns found.  The first returned was on Brady, Peter.  This showed that Brady was part of an investigation in 1985 with the DEA office in the state of Florida.  Brady gave information and/or was involved with the smuggling of large quantities of marijuana from and/or to Jamaica.  The second return was on Helbert, James.  This showed that Helbert was part of an investigation in 1982 with the DEA office in the state of Florida.  Helbert was involved with smuggling of marijuana in Jamaica as well." (James Helbert was an alleged alias for Pete Brady.)

Inasmuch as nowhere in this report is there a physical description of Pete Brady or James Helbert, nor were the social security numbers verified, nor birth dates verified.  In fact, there wasn’t any verification at all! It should be obvious that there was no need for such a description because it was never intended to describe a real person. It was fraudulent in its inception. Anyone could have been a “Peter Brady” or “James Helbert” – because it did not matter.

Fortunately, Pete Brady took the time to follow up on the details of this statement of probable cause.  He wrote the DEA to see how such an obviously wrong N.A.D.I. S. report on him could actually exist.  When the DEA replied with a form letter checking off a box which stated that no such file existed, Brady was naturally furious and wrote a second letter starting an appeal of action because he had gone to jail over this report.

The DEA replied in a letter to Brady dated June 24, 1999, "You were advised by the DEA on March 24, 1999 that no records responsive to your request could be located in the indices of that Office.  It has been determined by my staff that its response was correct.  Inasmuch as appeals can be taken only from denials of access to records which exist and can be located in Department of Justice files, I am closing your appeal file in the Office."

This was signed by Richard L. Huff, Co-Director.

The DEA says that no such report ever existed, so how could it have been used as a basis for a search warrant?

Then when we read the following excerpts from our trial, the pieces started falling into place:

David Nick (My wife, Michele’s attorney): "I can almost assure this court in an evidentiary hearing that whatever physical description they had of this Peter Brady that they found on the NADIS index is not anything even close to what the real Pete Brady that was at Mr. Kubby’s house looks like.  Thanks."

Deputy District Attorney Mr. Cattran responded: "Your Honor, I am a little bit at a loss ...  These comments by counsel alleging omissions and they should have done this and might have done this and could have done this and they omitted this, and I think it was reckless there, they haven’t met their burden.  I mean to even be talking about any of this stuff.  There is a burden to show that – there is a burden here that they need to show through.  I believe evidence, and we are not there. I mean procedurally, I am not talking about granting a hearing pursuant to Franks.  I am talking about the offer of proof and the requisite evidence that has to be shown to even address it.  I just don’t think we are there.  I don’t know what the court’s feeling on that is if the court thinks I am all wet."

This convoluted statement by the prosecutor is clearly evasive and calculated to suppress evidence. Nevertheless the court ruled against our motion to request a hearing and ask Mr. Lyke, (the arresting officer), what was actually on the report.  The court forced us to continue with the trial, to our utter disbelief. Now, however, in view of the DEA's statement to Pete Brady that the report does not even exist, our  legal advisors believe we have the right to challenge the court's ruling and have my conviction overturned because a fraud has been committed upon the court.

Through an abuse of court procedures, the D.A. has been able to avoid answering our accusations.  Therefore, I am specifically requesting that you investigate this matter and use your office to order the District Attorney of Placer County to produce the report upon which they relied or to admit this was a fraud and no such report ever existed.

In addition, when Mr. Cattran did not get the hoped for felony conviction against me, he initiated an appeal.  But his appeal was:

A) 24 days late.  As a misdemeanor appeal, Cattran had 30 days to appeal from the date of sentencing, which was March 3, 2001.

B) Processed as a felony appeal, by breaking the rules of the Appeals Court.

C) Ignored all of the requirements of section 1238 of the Penal Code in order to get me labeled a "felony fugitive" by the 3rd District Court of Appeals and process my appeal as a felony appeal.  Section 1238 (11) (d) was specifically created by the legislature to make sure that a convicted person did not get double punishments by serving their probation and then being forced to serve a jail sentence on top of the original probation.  At no time did Mr. Cattran even attempt to protect my rights or interpret the legislation fairly or completely.  He used his knowledge of the law to create his own interpretation of how I should be treated.  This constitutes abuse of power.


Let freedom grow,


Steve Kubby


Enc:  DEA Form Letter and Response by Richard L. Huff, Co-Director.