Home
Military Watches
Find us on Facebook

Flyer to be used in Protesting Hmong Trial

Printer Friendly VersionPrinter Friendly VersionSend to a FriendSend to a Friend

GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL CASE

CASE # 2:07-CR-0266 FCD

Next Hearing: Sacramento Federal Court 10/5/09 at 11am

 

Evidence demonstrates that Government Agents in this case made numerous false statements and material omissions in their sworn affidavits, which have fundamentally mischaracterized the defendants’ alleged conduct – the Prosecution repeated many of those misstatements, even while they held clear and irrefutable evidence contradicting them! This constitutes outrageous government conduct and violates the due process clause requiring this Case be DISMISSED!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HERE ARE JUST 4 EXAMPLES OF THE OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT:

 

1. MISCONDUCT:  Agents fabricated supposedly incriminating exchanges between the undercover ATF agent and General Vang Pao which appear nowhere on the tape recording of the single occasion on which they met and they (Agents/Prosecutors) failed to mention that the General assailed the idea of an insurgency in Laos, forbade anyone to participate in such a plan, and said that there must not be “any other violence whatsoever”

    REALITY: On 9/18/09, the Prosecution dropped all charges against General Vang Pao due to lack of evidence.

 

2. MISCONDUCT: In sworn affidavits Agents attested (and Prosecution repeated) that the case started when one defendant contacted a “defense contractor” and tried to purchase weapons.

    REALITY: Evidence shows the man contacted was an “acquaintance” NOT a “defense contractor” and this man was NOT involved in arms sales in any way - he was an inventor of “kinetically charged” water.

 

3. MISCONDUCT: The Government claimed the initial desire of defendants was that they wanted weapons to be used in a “coup plot” to overthrow the Government of Laos

    REALITY: Weapons were originally sought solely for self-defense of Hmong victims of genocide in Laos as they were being hunted down and slaughtered. There was no plan for any other action…until the Government Agent convinced them to develop one.

 

4. MISCONDUCT: Government Agent claimed defendants created plans to overthrow Lao Government.

     REALITY: The Government Agent encouraged and orchestrated an Offensive Action in Laos. Defendants demonstrated an inability to concoct even a rudimentary plan…so the Government Agent directed the “scheme” himself.

FOUR FACTORS THAT DEMAND A DISMISSAL THIS CASE:

 

n  The defendants were not active participants in the “crime” before the government got involved

 

n  The alleged criminal enterprise was not ongoing at the time the government got involved

 

n  The defendants would have been unable to commit the “crime” without the governments involvement

 

n  The misconduct was performed by a government agent, not a private informer