Michigan Citizen Files Two Judicial Corruption Cases with U.S. Supreme Court

“FRIVOLOUS FILER” DEMANDS CRIMINAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION

as told by David Schied

(Aug. 30, 2011) — Editor’s Note:  A Michigan man who has claimed civil rights violations on behalf of his minor son and himself by corruption within the judiciary in the state of Michigan has filed two petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court after they were dismissed by two lower courts.

The petitioner, David Schied, had filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  He stated that while both cases were filed before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bond v. United States was issued in June 2011, he had included “similar arguments” to those presented in Bond in both instances.

Schied had tried to bring his case to a county grand jury but had discovered that the state of Michigan had not convened a grand jury in over ten years at that time.  Grand juries had been replaced with an “investigative subpoena statute” which had been passed in 1995 and which became effective on January 1, 1996 (page 2 [marked “42” at bottom left]).  The Michigan Criminal Law Annual Journal of 2002 also states that the statute allows for a “one-man grand jury,” which is a judge who holds hearings “in secret.”  For cases involving more than one county, “The attorney general, or each participating county prosecutor, must file a motion seeking permission in the Michigan Court of Appeals to convene…a multi-county grand jury.”

Mr. Schied’s story was previously covered at The Post & Email here and herein which he explained that the loss of Michigan’s grand juries to government prosecutors and judges has resulted in judicial corruption.  Schied was a school teacher credentialed in the state of California and lost his job due to what he perceives as corruption within the school system, the judiciary, and the Michigan Attorney General’s office, which is part of the Executive branch of government.

One case began at the county court level and went up to the Michigan Supreme Court and “because they didn’t do anything about it, it ‘evolved’ into a U.S. District Court case.”  Mr. Schied then took the case, which was a Writ of Mandamus, to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.  He stated that this case evolved into the two now filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Schied has claimed that an individual has a right to ask for a grand jury hearing to initiate criminal proceedings and wants the high court to rule on that assertion.

“They call me a frivolous filer.  Because I’ve filed so many different cases, I’ve had rulings against me from the federal court that uses my case as precedent which says that private individuals such as you and me have no right to initiate criminal proceedings against any other individual, and particularly government officials, or to demand access to a grand jury.  I found both state and federal statutes that tell me otherwise, and this is what I’m presenting to the U.S. Supreme Court.  We as individuals have always had the right to a citizen’s arrest, and that begins criminal proceedings right there.  I found the statute at the state level and at the federal level, even with jury instruction, that says that a criminal complaint constitutes an indictment by definition.  At the federal level, I found 18 USC, Sect. 3332 which states two things regarding the federal special grand juries.  The special grand juries have the duty to inquire about crimes that are being reported in their district where they’re set up.  From the time that a special grand jury is put into place, they have an outstanding request and a call for ‘Give us your crimes.’ That’s their duty  The other half of that statute says that it’s the prosecutor’s job to bring the crimes to the grand jury, and if a ctiizen requests it, they are also required to bring the crime being presented by the citizen to the grand jury.”

Schied has brought his complaints to U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid in the Eastern District of Michigan as well as her predecessors.

Schied summarized the events which he stated cost him his means of making a living as follows:

An FBI report, which they refer to as an ‘identification record,’ came in to the school district erroneous.  It stated that I had a conviction in 1977 and had the status of ‘probation.’  It was from teenage stupidity.  I was deprived of my federal right to challenge and correct that FBI report.  I was fired instead.  The school district official wrote two letters to a laundry list of people calling me a convict and a liar.  She wrote the name of the original offense for which I had received an early termination of probation 35 years ago as a teenager.  I had received a withdrawal of the plea, a dismissal of the indictment, a set-aside of the judgment; for all purposes, the whole thing had been wiped clean except what would have been left of the arrest record.  I also showed her a pardon, which I found out later signified that the record being held by the state of Texas was erroneous from the very beginning in 1979 when I received the set-aside.  They didn’t update their records, and because they didn’t update the records, I was eligible for a pardon when I shouldn’t have been.

Schied stated that he showed the documentation of the set-aside and pardon to the school district superintendent before he was hired, but was fired from his job.  He also reported that “She stuck the FBI report, along with her two letters, into the district public personnel file and immediately started disseminating it under the Freedom of Information Act to the public, which is a crime.”  Schied later obtained a substitute teaching position in a different town where he was told his record could be expunged.  He stated that he earned two letters of recommendation while there.

Mr. Schied told The Post & Email that his special-needs, gifted son was denied public school services which he should have received because of Schied’s experiences with both school districts, hence the lawsuit on his son’s behalf.  He stated that he took his complaints to the local school district, the Michigan Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education, naming the President’s Secretary of Education as “running a criminal racketeering operation.”

He describes the cases and the actions he has taken as follows:

I have two cases filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, one on behalf of myself and the other on behalf of my child. In addition, I have filed a separate case (“Petition”) for a “Writ of Mandamus” in request that the U.S. Supreme Court command that the State and Federal government stop obstructing my persistent attempts to get access to the Special Grand Jury, and to order the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, and the Michigan Attorney General to cooperate in giving me access to the Special Grand Jury for reporting a conspiracy of crimes and constitutional violations against me and against my young child in cover up of a long “chain” of government crimes that has been playing out since late 2003.

At its base, the criminal allegations involve multiple “streams” and “tiers” of government offenses which I might outline in summary as follows:

1) Stream 1: This stream stems from a Michigan school district superintendent – “Dr.” Sandra Harris – who in 2003 deprived me of my federal right under 28 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) to challenge and correct an FBI identification record received by this Michigan employer under strict conditions of my protection as set up by Congress in 1974 under the Crime Prevention and Privacy Rights Compact which otherwise outlines the conditions under which employers in the 50 states are issued the “privilege” of receiving criminal history data from the federal government while still honoring the privacy rights of individuals under the Privacy Rights Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. Section 552a).

Significant about this first stream is the fact that not only did this district official ignore the NOTICE published at the top of the FBI report itself that cited my right to “challenge and correct” the identification record, but she also disregarded my proof that while the FBI report had listed a “disposition” of a 1977 “conviction” with a “status” in 2003 of probation, I was providing her with ample evidence that there was an “early termination” of probation on a single teenage offense for which I was entitled in 1979 (i.e., a quarter century prior to applying for a job as a Michigan schoolteacher) to “withdraw the plea”, and with a Texas court “dismissing the indictment” and “setting aside the judgment,” which was supposed to have effectively “wiped clean” everything of the criminal record except for the record of arrest.

Adding to my evidence that the FBI identification record, stemming from information being furnished to the FBI by the Texas Department of Public Safety, was erroneous and far outdated, was the fact that I also was able to produce a Texas governor’s “full pardon and restoration of full civil rights” that I had received in 1983. What I did not know in 1983 or even in 2003 but which I have since come to realize is that, under Texas laws and by reason of a Texas Attorney General’s Opinion, anyone that had received the type of “set aside” that I received withdrawing the plea and dismissing the indictment IS NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE FOR A PARDON BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO PARDON after receipt of such a set-aside.

The evidence of my having both a set-aside and a governor’s full pardon should have only emphasized my claims to this Michigan school district employer that the FBI record was incorrect and that I was entitled to exercise my federal right to “challenge and correct” its accuracy while retaining my job as a schoolteacher. However, instead this official wrote two defamatory letters to district and school supervisors, to union officials, and to my peer teachers calling me a “convict” and a “liar”, then firing me and placing those two letters into the District’s “public” personnel files along with the erroneous FBI report itself. Subsequently, that school district official began immediately disseminating that “nonpublic” FBI document (which still remained the property of the Federal government and subject only to a single use of evaluating my qualifications for employment) to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, in criminal violation of my rights and in criminal violation of the system set up by Congress under the Crime Prevention and Privacy Rights Compact.

Both Texas and Michigan also have numerous laws prohibiting the use and dissemination of criminal history information known to have been set aside, pardoned, or otherwise used to evaluate a teacher’s qualifications for employment, and this “Dr” Sandra Harris violated all of them while knowingly placing the burden upon me to use the government “system” of “due process” to prove her guilt. Perhaps she also knew then that the corruption of Michigan government would find Every way possible – even illegal ways – to cover up these crimes while protecting Michigan government officials with claims of “government immunity” for their tortuous actions.

2) Stream 2: This stream stems from a second school district in my hometown (since 2003 until just last year) that hired me as a schoolteacher with the understanding that the FBI identification record that I was giving “permission” for them to receive through the State Police (and subject to the Crime Prevention and Privacy Rights Compact) was erroneous. That school district, from which I received two honorary letters of recommendation, subsequently turned around –after I had proven myself to have successfully “challenged and corrected” the erroneous FBI report by simply using the governor’s Pardon to get the State of  Texas to simply provide me with a court “Order of Expunction” of what was otherwise supposed to have been only a remaining “arrest” record — and retaliated against me for pursuing both civil and criminal allegations against the first school district official.

In essence, this second Michigan school district administration hired me as a “long-term, full time” substitute teacher to care for their most severely handicapped students (i.e., I was credentialed in four areas of special education from a previous career as a schoolteacher in California) on the condition that I provide the District with copies of the “set aside” and “full pardon” (and subsequently the Texas court “Order of Expunction”) clemency documents. In return, I got two emails, spaced a year apart and promising that the District would “return or destroy” these documents upon proof that the State of Texas had properly “expunged” all of their records and that the FBI report had been successfully “challenged and corrected”. This I did while also trading the Texas court “Order of Expunction” for the return of the set aside and pardon documents in 2005.

By 2005, my case against the school district and “Dr” Sandra Harris was working its way to showing me that the judiciary of Michigan has their own (political) ideas for resolving case WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY RULE OF LAW and while violating numerous of my rights under the U.S. Constitution, including my rights not to be subject to “double jeopardy”, my right to “due process”, my right to “privileges and immunities”, and my right to a jury. This second school district therefore seized this opportunity to compound the problems caused against me by the first school district official by freely disseminating the Texas  court “Order of Expunction” which outlined the 1977 offense for which I had been “pardoned” (despite there actually being nothing to pardon in 1983 if the State of Texas had updated their records properly in 1979 after I received the “set aside”). The district officials at this second school district also stood by allowing a new elementary school principal to repeatedly suspend my young child from school in retaliation against me for naming that school administrator as a (“hostile”) witness to the crimes of Sandra Harris at the first school district (where this school district administrator had previously worked as my direct supervisor and had seen firsthand that Harris had broadly disseminated the erroneous criminal history information of the erroneous FBI report about the time she had fired me).

3) Tiers 2 and 3 on each of the above 2 streams: For each of the above two school district cases, for which I had evidence of their CRIMINALLY disseminating the FBI report and the Texas court “Order of Expunction” to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, I followed both “civil” and “criminal” remedies provided to me under the law only to find felony corruption occurring in both the judicial and the executive branches of Michigan government.

a) Two “streams” of felony criminal cover-ups by felony fraud upon the Public by the Judicial Branch – In regard to the first school district case against “Dr” Sandra Harris, I was able to find out what had occurred with sustained gross negligence by the State of Texas never updating their records (for a quarter century following the receipt of the set aside and pardon) to result in the erroneous FBI reports, and I was able to rectify the situation by obtaining a Texas court “Ordero Expunction”. Yet, despite being aware of all my clemency documents, the lower court judge of Washtenaw County (in Ann Arbor) compelled me by court Order to go into deposition testimony and subject myself to testifying (under threat of having all of my claims dismissed) against myself to admit having once pled guilty (in order to explain the set aside document withdrawing that plea and dismissing the indictment) and having once been “convicted” (in attempt by me to explain how I might have ever been eligible for a pardon under Texas law when the pardon document itself stated in 1983 that a “conviction” was what was being pardoned).

Then that Michigan county judge admitted my testimony against me to prove that I had “pled guilty” and “been convicted” without providing me with constitutional “full faith and credit,” either by the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law, for the clemency documents. That judge (Melinda Morris), as well as the tribunal of judges of the Michigan Court of Appeals that ruled in 2006 to uphold the lower court judge’s decision to dismiss my case anyway, also declined to “litigate the merits” of my criminal claims regarding the free disclosure of the information contained in the erroneous FBI report (and the fact that I was claiming the FBI report to be erroneous) and the dissemination of the FBI report itself by the District administration under the Freedom of Information Act. The higher court then published their ruling as an “unpublished” decision to keep their peer group of attorneys and other judges from scrutinizing that ruling further.

In the second school district case, I took the matter – again – to the lower Circuit Court judge of a second (Wayne) county in Detroit. In that case, the lower court judge again disregarded my criminal claims that the second school district officials had provided me with two letters promising to “return or destroy” the clemency I trusted to them in good faith to support my family with employment while “challenging and correcting” the 2003 and 2004 FBI reports being disseminated to the two school districts. That Wayne County Circuit Court judge (Cynthia Diane Stephens) instead chose to cherry-pick a single law while disregarding a plethora of other laws in favor of my rights to privacy and due process (and while even allowing the government defendants’ attorney to argue that single law down to an interpretation of “moral turpitude” based upon the placement of a comma in a single sentence of that statute) so to rule, literally, that “Expungements are a MYTH” and that “schoolteacher in Michigan are subject to a LIFE SENTENCE” for their past indiscretions. (NOTE: This lower court judge was promoted to the Michigan Court of Appeals soon after establishing this ruling against me.)

b) Two “streams” of felony criminal “cover ups” by the “Executive Branch” (i.e., law “enforcement” – In regard to the first school district administrator (Sandra Harris), when I saw the judicial branch violating my constitutional due process rights by admitting into evidence against my testimony in deposition while disregarding that I had an “expungement” court Order from Texas entitling me to remain silent about all the events pertaining to what was “expunged” (and while disregarding my criminal allegations about the dissemination of the erroneous FBI report in response to FOIA requests), I decided to file a crime report with the Michigan State Police and the Washtenaw County Prosecutor. What I found as a result was a MSP “seasoned” police detective who first sat on top of my crime report (while denying my constitutional rights as a reported “crime victim” to be properly informed of my “rights”) for nearly 10 months. Subsequently, upon pressure of my letter-writing campaign to his “post” supervisors and to his regional “Inspector”, this detective then PERJURED the crime report to place a fraudulent date on of my crime report followed by gross misstatements and omissions of the facts and the evidence that I provided to him.

When I took issue in writing about this detective’s actions, providing the county prosecutors with the evidence and statements directly as originally provided to the officer, the MSP “Internal Affairs” conducted a “mock” investigation of my allegations against the officer and found “no violation”; and similarly, the prosecutor and his assistant both used a combination of “cherry-picking” of facts and laws and “color of law” to find “no violation” by the school district official.

This “dereliction of duty”, along with the “malfeasance” of the circuit court and Court of Appeals judges, opened the door and gave the “green light” for the administrators of the first school district to continue perpetrating their crimes against me. I have documentation that the erroneous FBI report was disseminated again and again to the public under FOIA in 2003, in 2006 and again in 2009,with each subsequent report of these crimes being disregarded and dismissed by the executive branch of Michigan government (inclusive of the MSP and the Michigan Attorney General).

In the second school district case, nearly the same scenario repeated itself except on an escalated scale involving “bureau chiefs” and “division chiefs” of the  Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Attorney General (Mike Cox) himself, and the attorney general’s wife (Laura Cox) who happened to be one of the Commissioner’s heading Wayne County and paying the salaries of the police department and the prosecutors of Wayne County.

In this second county, the police officer disregarded my concerns that the school district offices where the crimes were occurring were literally right next door and within a “stone’s throw” of the Northville City police station itself. The officer submitted the crime report to the prosecutor’s office in Detroit via a Fax cover letter that requested that the police NOT be compelled to “purse the matter” against their next door government neighbors. In response, despite that the “narrative report” from the police department shows that a conversation was held between the police officer and the assistant prosecutor prior to the crime report being sent, the prosecutor’s office DID NOTHING and in fact claimed to have “LOST” the crime report by claim that the police officer had written the name “Donnelison” on the Fax cover sheet instead of the name “Donaldson” and despite sending it to the correct Fax machine.

It got only worse after that….I documented the “offering of bribery” and “acceptance of the bribe” by written complaints to the Police chief and to the chief Prosecutor Kym Worthy (who was then prosecuting the Detroit mayor Kwami Kilpatrick for felony “malfeasance” among other things). I copied these and follow up written complaints to numerous of individuals employed by the Office of the Michigan Attorney General so that they would watch for themselves – with the understanding of what I had previously experienced in the first (i.e. other school district case) Michigan county – how things play out in response to my crime report so to deprive me of my civil and constitutional rights.

From that point forward in 2006, I maintained nearly daily updates to the AG’s office about what occurred after that crime report was submitted a second time to the prosecutor, and with my follow up to ensure that the prosecutor had everything. I also documented how the prosecutor retaliated against me by intentionally having me drive and pay for parking (under the pretense that I would be able to show him my evidence) only to have preplanned his intent (as documented in the narrative police report) to tell me to my face that he “did not see any evidence of a crime” (and to use the police officer as his “witness” in a return request for “favor” in the bribery case). I also documented how from that point forward the AG’s office turned away to ignore me, and how that disregard for these blatant violations of the law and due process rights was similarly disregarded by Senator Bruce Patterson and (now Presidential candidate) Congressman Thaddeus McCotter.

For each of the two above “streams” of civil and criminal offenses, I filed complaints with the State Court Administrator, with the Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and to the Governor (Jennifer Granholm). As a result, the State Court Administrator (Carl Gromek) refused to respond to my charges of felony malfeasance by the judiciary, and he refused to even provide me with the return of my 3″ packet of evidence. The Michigan Dept. of Education fingerpointed in stating that my civil rights allegations about school district officials should be addressed to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the MDCR fingerpointed back stating that they have “no jurisdiction” over civil rights issues involving the MDE because the Michigan Department of Education is supposed to have their own system for handling their own civil rights complaints. Meanwhile, the Governor Jennifer Granholm’s staff of attorneys elected to rely upon the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling that stated that “neither a set aside or a pardon is sufficient to erase a “conviction” on a 3-decade old offense for which only “probation’ was initially issued (and early terminated). The governor’s staff also attempted to place the 1977 teenage offense into a category of “sex crimes” (for which the offense never did involve either sex or children) and substantiate the malfeasant behaviors of the executive branch by claim that “no violation” had occurred.

The Post & Email asked Mr. Schied, “What are the steps you went through to get to the U.S. Supreme Court?” and he replied:

The “steps” that brought me to the U.S. Supreme Court are far too numerous to depict in anything other than what I have provided by my 40 pages of case presentation in each of the three Petitions that I have now pending in the Supreme Court. (Note that I am seeking a place to post the case and all the evidence in PDF format so that Public can see all the facts for themselves in tracing the “steps” I have taken to bring me to this.)