1900 Simler Avenue

Big Spring, Texas 79720

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Leonard Brown from Compton, CA. I am forty three (43) years old and my story starts like this.

I was indicted in Manhattan New York on May 8, 2002 on a one count drug conspiracy charge. I was arrested in Los Angeles, CA on February 28, 2003 and have been incarcerated up until the present date. I was extradited to New York in March of 2003.

My story is a simple one about betrayal, corruption and injustice. I retained a criminal defense attorney from Los Angeles, CA named Frank E. Digiacomo to represent me in the New York case. Mr. Digiacomo made his first appearance in my New York case on May 9, 2003. A day prior, I had a meeting with Mr. Digiacomo to discuss the particulars of my case. During that meeting I requested that he file an illegal search and seizure suppression motion for my vehicle based on the fact that when I retrieved my vehicle from the site of the search I found no search warrant affidavit or invoice of the items taken. My identity was unknown to agents prior to the search of my vehicle but was illegally discovered as a result of the seizure through photo’s of me and mail addressed in my name. Drugs were also recovered from my vehicle. Mr. Digiacomo told me that “he didn’t see a need to file a suppression motion that would fail” because “he was sure that agents had a telephonic warrant for my vehicle.”

My illegally obtained identification and the drugs that were found was the impetus behind the government’s investigation of me which significantly directed the government’s investigation towards me.

The filing of a successful suppression motion would have dismissed the New York indictment. When he declined to file the motion I then instructed Mr. Digiacomo to file a motion to dismiss the indictment for delay in prosecution, Based on the fact that warrantless search of my vehicle which occurred in Los Angeles, CA by New York and Los Angeles D.E.A. agents occurred on February 22, 2000. The motion was filed on July 1, 2003. The government’s response brief was due on July 23, 2003. My reply brief was due on August 6, 2003, but was not filed. Oral arguments were set for August 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, Mr. Digiacomo sent me a letter stating that I was looking at a life sentence if convicted and that the government would use evidence from the search of my vehicle to corroborate their case against me and he suggested that I enter a plea agreement. A plea was not what I wanted.

I immediately called him and requested my full and complete case discovery material. He only sent me copies of co-conspirators trial transcripts. The transcripts contained testimony of a “C.I.” named Card who testified that my co-conspirator Bridges sold Card drugs numerous times in California and on one occasion, Card alleged that Bridges fronted him drugs in California to take to New York sometime in April of 1999. This transaction plus monitored calls between Card and Bridges from New York to California having alleged coded drug conversations gave jurisdiction to New York for the indictments. Bridges was indicted in early 2000, went to trial in September of 2000 and was convicted and sentenced to life. Card also told the jury that Bridges told him that he took the drugs from someone name Rod who owed him money and then gave those drugs to Card in April of 1999.

My indictment charged me with an overt act that described Card picking up the drugs in California from Bridges and selling them in New York in April of 1999, but Card’s testimony at Bridges’ trial that the drugs came from Rod contradicts the allegations that I provided or had any knowledge of the April 1999 drug transaction. This conspiracy was manipulated by the New York prosecutors, based on the fact that they indicted four individuals for the same conspiracy at different times. Bridges was indicted in early 2000. McKenzie was indicted in early 2001. Williams was indicted in 2001 and I was indicted on May 8, 2002. I later realized that I had two defenses against the charges:

1) a Fourth Amendment violation based on a warrantless search,

2) Actual innocence based on never fronting any drugs in California to be sold in New York.

On August 21, 2003, I was also indicted in Los Angeles, CA on a four count drug conspiracy. During a phone conversation on August 23, 2003, Mr. Digiacomo informed me of the California indictment and again suggested that I take a plea deal for both the New York and California cases. He offered to handle the California plea for an additional $10,000,00. I told him no thanks; I’ll worry about the California case later. He then offered to handle California free of charge. I declined the offer again.

On August 25, 2003, Mr. Digiacomo made his second and final appearance in New York for oral arguments on the delay in prosecution’s motion which was denied by the District Judge. After the oral arguments hearing, Mr. Digiacomo visited me before he departed back to California. He started the conversation by suggesting that I cooperate with agents from California that he knew previously from past cooperation deals that he negotiated for other clients. I told him that he must have lost his mind because cooperation from me was out of the question, period. I told him that I wanted to make a full and competent evaluation of a possible defense in the New York case. He replied that I could get life if I lost at trial. We ended our conversation with me agreeing to allow him to negotiate a joint plea agreement. My next pre-trail conference was set for September 29, 2003, but was cancelled and reset for November 3. 2003. This pre-trial conference was cancelled and reset for December 8, 2003, where I was represented by associate counsel John Raimondo from New York.

The District Court set my next pre-trial conference for January 6, 2004 to permit defendant to review the additional wiretap discovery from the California case to permit discussion of a possible disposition. I was never notified that my cellphone was the subject of the California wiretap nor did I ever receive or review any wiretap discovery.

The January 6 2004 pre-trial conference was reset for February 27, 2004. Mr. Digiacomo did not start any plea negotiations until February of 2004. The February 27, 2004 pre-trail conference was reset for March 26, 2004. At this point in time, I became very concerned about entering the plea agreement without reviewing all of the evidence in both cases. I called Mr. Digiacomo and told him of my concerns toward entering the plea deal and again requested my full and complete New York and California case discovery. He again failed to comply.

In March of 2004, I then had a family member contact N.L.P.A. (National Lawyers Professional Associates) in an attempt to retain their services to help me obtain my case discovery from Mr. Digiacomo in order to evaluate a possible defense against the New York charges. N.L.P.A. contacted Mr. Digiacomo who was not forth coming with them by not providing the case discovery material and informing them that I would be signing the plea deal. The March 26, 2004 pre-trial conference was reset for April 22, 2004-

Sometime around April 16_; 2004, associate counsel John Raimondo was sent by Mr. Digiacomo to visit me at M.C.C. New York. He had with him a plea agreement that had already been signed by Mr. Digiacomo on April 6, 2004. Mr. Raimondo asked me to read the plea agreement and asked if I understood it. I told him that I didn’t understand some of it and didn’t agree with some of the information contained in it such as the illegally seized drugs from my vehicle on February 22, 2000. The drugs were never charged in the indictment as an overt act or possession count. I told him that I was not going to sign the plea. He left a copy with me and I mailed it to a family member with instructions to fax it over to N.L.P.A. Due to the fact that money was tight, N.L.P.A. was not legally retained and could not assist me with any legal advice or demand that Mr. Digiacomo turn over my case discovery. I was holding out until N.L.P.A. could be retained but unfortunately Mr. Raimondo returned to visit me on April 22, 2004 just hours before the scheduled pre-trail conference. He asked me did I sign the plea, I told him no and that I had mailed it to a family member. He then told me that he was glad that he brought another copy with him. He also said that Mr. Digiacomo had called him earlier that morning and cursed at him when he told Mr. Digiacomo that I hadn’t signed the plea agreement the first time it was presented to me, Mr, Raimondo went on to say that Mr. Digiacomo was very angry and told him to tell me that there was no more time to consider the plea agreement and if I did not sign the “GOD-DAMN” plea on that day of April 22, 2004 the New York prosecutor would be ready to take me to trial in one week, I was fearful of going to an unprepared trail in one week where I had not read the discovery. I felt that I signed the plea agreement under duress from mental coercion and misrepresentation. At the time I signed the plea, I had not been presented with the California indictment nor had I been arraigned or received any copies of the discovery of the California case.

Combined with the fact that Mr. Digiacomo withheld important parts of my New York case discovery, the mental coercion and duress had been put in play*

I was transferred to California and in July of 2004 I entered a guilty plea to both the New York and California cases. As part of the plea, I could not be sentenced until my co-defendant in California went to trial.

In December of 2004, my other co-defendant was transferred from M.D.C.-LA to San Bernardino County Jail where I was being detained. Fortunately, he was assigned to my unit and when he and I spoke for the first time, he told me that he signed a deal for 48 Months on a phone count. I learned for the first time that my cellphone was wiretapped.

In January of 2005, I immediately wrote the California District Judge Audrey B. Collins and explained that my attorney, Mr. Digiacomo failed to inform me that my cellphone was the target of a wiretap. T also stated that I wished to fire Mr. Digiacomo for being ineffective throughout all of the proceedings and I wished to withdraw my plea of guilty.

On April 14, 2005, I was brought before the Judge for a status conference based on the letter I wrote. I stated for the record my reasons for wanting to fire my attorney. The Judge allowed Mr. Digiacomo to withdraw as counsel after he requested to be relieved and failed to rebut the allegations. Since then, I have had three different court appointed attorneys. I filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw my plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel which is governed under the “fair and just reason” standard. The District Court abused its discretion by denying the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. I then filed a reconsideration based on “newly discovered evidence”, which was also denied.

On my sentencing date of March 27, 2007, I argued on the record that I should be allowed to file a renewed motion based on new evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on the fact that in January of 2007, I was notified by a co-conspirator in the New York case who informed me that he filed a successful illegal search and seizure suppression motion in 2001 pertaining to his home and my vehicle which was parked on his property based on a warrantless search. He was granted suppression of his home but lacked standing to challenge the search of my vehicle. I argued that Mr. Digiacomo was ineffective because he misrepresented to me that there was a warrant for my vehicle, which he failed to inform me that my co-conspirator filed a successful suppression motion and that he failed to file the suppression motion for my vehicle that was meritorious. I was informed that Mr. Digiacomo collasped in a California court room and was taken to the hospital in November of 2004 where he was diagnosed with a brain tumor that required emergency surgery.

On April 16, 2007, Mr. Digiacomo died ofhis illness. I now claim that his irrational behavior which resulted in him being ineffective was a product of his serious unknown medical condition that ultimately ended his life.

This overview is a letter to L. Wishart concerning Archer’s 2255 Motion and Hearing that was granted. The issues were: I) A Brady Issue and II) Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel (J. Momot) as a result of counsel not bringing Ron Stevens to my trial to testify on my behalf.

William Archer is a federal inmate serving a sentence in federal prison for violations of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841, the drug statute. Archer was indicted by a federal grand jury in 1993 and charged with continuing criminal enterprise offense and as a predicate for the CCE charge conspiracy to violate drug laws.

Archer proceeded to jury trial and was convicted of the charged offenses. The Ninth Circuit reversed his conviction for the CCE offense but affirmed the conspiracy offense and sentence

Archer filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After an evidentiary hearing the district court denied the petition.

The following is a chronology of events from a letter sent to attorney L. Wishart from Archer concerning the § 2255 petition and the evidentiary hearing, that followed. The issues that Archer advanced on his § 2255 petition and ,was the subject of the hearing was: (1) The government willfully withheld exculpatory Brady material from the defense; and (2) Defense counsel was ineffective for not calling, as a defense witness, Ron Stevens who would have testified that he was the person who supplied drugs to the target of the investigation (the only drug transaction that tied Archer to drugs). Attorney Momot committed numerous errors of constitutional magnitude that, in effect, left Archer without representation at all.

(a) In the State of Nevada:

1. William Ralph Archer was arrested in January 1992 and
charged with ex-felon in possession of a firearm in Nevada, Eighth
District. He bonded out of jail by posting the amount of $3,000.00
An attorney was obtained and the charges were dismissed upon
Archer providing documentation proving that he was not an ex-felon.
Archer paid a fine for carrying a concealed weapon - a knife -

he had on his person and he was released from custody.’

In July 1992, the United States government (the DEA and the FBI) picked up the ex-felon in possession of a firearm charge and arrested Archer. He was held without bail by the federal officers. (The FBI-, Archer believes, knew they arrested him of false grounds; contrary to the Estoppel Doctrine).

Early in the morning hours, agents for the United States Government kicked open Archer’s front door, rushing in with automat weapons, to capture Archer, two pre-teen children and Archer’s girlfriend. The agents forced Archer, half dragging him, into

his front yard to be shown-off to more than a hundred people with guns and cameras. The masked agents [?] threatened Archer’s girlfriend with violence if she did not vacate the property, while the other men placed Archer and his little, scared children in two cars. Afterwards, the masked agents threatened to murder Archer’s dogs in the yard if he didn’t command the dogs into a truck to be taken away.

4. Archer was able to communicate with his girlfriend letting
her know that his scared little children were in a police [?]

car and that she, as the baby-sitter, should command custody from the agents. The agents let the girlfriend take the children take the little children, and, not knowing where to go, they went to the children’s grandmother’s home…to find 11 men in black with masks holding the scared little children’s grandmother (74 years old) looking scared to death not knowing who these people were and if she was to be “murdered” as the girlfriend and the two small children overheard the unidentified masked men state to their grandmother: “We don’t care who we kill here this morning!” Only in America!!

5. The threat of “summary murder” if the little children’s
grandmother [74 years old] presented any problems to the men in
black with masks, plus, they would not let her have a drink of
water nor go to the bathroom until she would sign a waiver for

the men in black to search her only home. Grandmother was forceful coerced to sign the consent to search after seeing her scared little grandchildren standing out in the street crying. She signed she signed her rights away for her little grandchildren, afraid and crying. Only in America.

6. Archer was held in false detention for over 72 hours
without bail, so that Special Agent Landrum, DEA, and AUSA Little
and Green could formulate a new set of charges… No less than

5 indictments in an 18 moth period.

At last, Landrum, Green and Little found that they could charge Archer with C.C.E. without any crime being committed, ^:i.e., by way of Archer speaking on the phone and a weapons charge because there was weapons in his home.

One of many defenses of Archer’s was the “Brucker” discove: papers that were delivered by Cheri Wheeler to Ron Stevens’ home. These documents were taken in a raid by Landrum, Green and Little and are still in evidence. Only in America…somewhere.

The “Brucker” discovery documents were missing and there was information that Archer’,s counsel was named in them concerning drug related matters with Brucker. .Attorney Momot, at trial, motioned at “side-bar” to suppress the documents even though there was favorable information for the dismissal of charges against Archer. [His trial].

10. So, the court withheld the “Brucker” evidence to save
the “good name” of Momot… a conspiracy to convict Archer of
crimes he is innocent of through United States Government misconduc
malice of prosecution and the ineffectiveness of defense counsel,
that will be investigated!

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS TO SUPPORT ARCHER’S ALLEGATIONS AS OUTLINED TO L. WISHART

Attorney John Momot’s investigator, M. Wysocki delivered the Paul Robinson papers to Archer’s mother and sister - after Archer’s trial and before Ron Stevens signed his plea agreement. If you let Stevens see front page of envelope with Ted Manos’ name on it, with Stevens’ hand-written notes on the front page [you have a copy], that would have jarred his memory at the hearing for the § 2255 petition.

John Momot withdrew as Archer’s counsel since Archer was angry that Momot did not call Ron Stevens to the stand at Archer’s trial. Momot also failed to call Seymour Brown to the stand during the trial. All through the trial he was supposed to be there. In addition, Momot failed to call Bertram Brucker

to the stand. Momot swore to Archer that Stevens, Brown and Brucke. would all be present at Archer’s trial to be able to testify on Archer’s behalf. With Archer being angry at Momot for failing to call these critical witnesses, Momot filed a motion to withdraw as defense counsel citing a conflict of interest as justification. Immediately afterwards, Archer’s sister, Ruby Connor, delivered to John Momot, a copy of the Paul Robinson papers.

13. Attorney Don Green was eventually appointed to Archer’s
case for sentencing and direct appeal. Don Green furnished Archer
with the trial transcripts just before the sentencing hearing.

At this time, Don Green possessed copies of the Brady material, the Paul Robinson paperwork, yet Green elected not to mention this fact at sentencing. (Ruby Connor had delivered these papers to Green).

After Archer reviewed the trial transcripts something very important caught his attention: At day one, pages 1 through 46, Archer noticed, for the first time, that there was a “side-bar” discussion regarding Bertram Brucker, “a black guy” being involved with John Momot in buying and selling drugs, as per a DEA-6 report of Brucker’s 1990 drug case, which Archer knew nothing about. (Brucker is a white man).

The Brucker papers were what Cheri Wheeler delivered to Ron Stevens - believed by the Government to be drugs for the Stevens McGregor DEA entrapment drug buy. These papers were taken by

the Government from Stevens’ home at the time of the search and his arrest. These papers were shown to the news media before the trial. Archer was supposed to be involved in devil cults, child pornography and “snuff flicks,” where people got killed. This prejudiced any publicity coming out of this case and was surely a strong foundation for a change of venue. But, no!

The Landrum affidavit, in support of the search, involved Burt Brucker, stating that Archer was involved in child pornography devils cults and “snuff flicks.”

After being moved from CCDC downtown, Archer was placed in N.L.V.D.C., North Las Vegas Detention Center. When Archer arrived there, Ron Stevens and Burt Brucker were also there. Bruck< informed Archer that he did not make those statements; he said there was a “trap and trace” on his phone in 1990, and that Allen Waid called him when Waid was high on drugs - spaced out of his mind - and was making statements about him being in a devil’s

cult and making movies and killing the stars. Brucker said that he did not believe him, that he was just high on drugs. Brucker said he did not talk to DEA Agent Landrum about this and never made statements to him about Archer.

Brucker was to be a key witness at Archer’s trial -with him testifying and refuting the Landrum affidavit, proving it, in fact, to be a false document. He would also have testified to the fact that he never made statements attributed to Archer.

John Momot agreed to meet with Brucker, thinking he might throw out the Landrum affidavit in support of the search warrant, thus making the search warrant an invalid document, thereby getting that thrown out as well. Burt Brucker was a major key

to Archer’s case.

20. John Momot met with Burt Brucker in 1992 at the N.L.V.D.C
Via -t-r-K-iV RmnVpr’s rlpnnsi nn. Momot returned the next dav

with the Brucker affidavit and Ron Stevens’ affidavit. Therefore, it can be concluded that they all knew each other, at that time, in 1992. Brucker and Stevens both signed the affidavits.

At this time, or a few days later, Brucker stated to Archer that he, Brucker, had sold drugs - mainly twenty five thous dollars ($25,000.00) worth of cocaine and quaaludes to John Momot.

At Momot’s next visit with Archer, Archer revealed what Brucker told Archer regarding Brucker selling drugs to Momot. John Momot said not to worry about it, that it was all lies and never happened. Brucker and Stevens were still to be-witnesses at Archer’s trial. It was around this time that John Lewis came to visit Archer at the North las Vegas Detention Center.

John Lewis was in jail, in the holding tank, at C.C.D.C. downtown when Archer was arrested on July 14, 1992. (records will show this). When Archer was sent upstairs he was placed

in the same cell as Lewis. Archer did not like Lewis. John Lewis was a drunk; he liked to beat up on women and was an all-around ass-hole. Lewis hung around Archer’s house, completely drunk, eating all of the food he could get his hands on and just generall making a mess everywhere he went. In Archer’s cell, Lewis read Archer’s indictment to Archer, since Archer did not have his readi glasses with him.

Lewis tried to repair Archer’s swamp cooler when Archer first met Lewis, but Lewis failed to do so. This was a one-time event, and other than that, Lewis never worked for Archer.

When lewis arrived at the North Las Vegas Jail to visit Archer, Lewis tried to get Archer to give Lewis a motorcycle that Archer had been working on. The motorcycle was at Archer’s mother house, and Lewis knew that he was not to go to Archer’s mother’s house.

Lewis kept talking stupid about Archer letting him go beat up on the confidential informants (CI’s) in his case and stating that he could get titles for cars and bikes and other stupid stuff. Archer was not aware that Lewis was working for DEA Agent, Timmy Landrum and AUSA Tom Green or that Lewis was trying to entrap Archer into saying anything that could be used to convict Archer of a crime; unbeknownst to John Momot (Miranda).

Landrum and Green knew their case was falling apart with the Brucker and Stevens affidavits, which Momot revealed to Tom Green. After the Lewis/Archer U/C meeting at the jail,

the AUSA, after debriefing Lewis, made a decision to charge Archer with a CCE. - a new charge to save his crumbling case.

28. Tom Green went to the grand jury to seek a new indictmen
against Archer. Tom Green used Lewis’ word that there were drug
labs in Colorado and Minnesota. However, he clearly had no clear
evidence and Tom Green had to know Lewis was lying.

The AUSA, Tom Green, committed perjury and guborned perjured statements at the grand jury hearing, stating that he had evidence of drug labs, yet no drug labs ever existed, and this fact of non-existence was supported by testimony of a lab expert at Archer’s sentencing hearing. No labs, no drugs, no drug money and no drug buyers were ever found to testify, except for John Lewis and Toy Webb. This was Green-to-Landrum suborning perjury. ‘ “

The DEA Agent, Tim Landrum, testified at the hearing that Archer was arrested many, many, many times with gun charges. How many times is “many, many, many?” Archer went to court two (2) times with a lawyer, Stuart Bell, and all charges of any guns were dropped. Thus, Green and Landrum committed perjury - subornin.< perjury at the grand jury hearing.

The grand jury voted to allow Green a second superceding indictment; this one including a C.C.E. charge, a search warrant for the Rezac ranch in Colorado and an indictment for Rezac, Bullit and Kicker, all from Colorado.

Colorado issued the search warrant. The SWAT team hit the ranch and found no drugs, no lab and no money. They were confused and angry for violating rights. The Colorado judges were very upset, as Green stated in his affidavit in support of a search warrant that Green had evidence that there was a drug lab and drugs at the ranch. When none were found, the Government wrote to AUSA Tom Green chastising him for a false document.

33. The indictment against all of the people in Colorado

(listed above at f 31) was dropped. Docket Number:______________________ .

Rezac’s attorney, Charles Waterman, from Las Vegas, Nevada, was the attorney who got the charges dropped in Colorado. Attorney Momot moved to join in the motion. In essence, Lewis was an agent for the DEA (Landrum) per his immunity agreement at the time of the U/C jailhouse visit, which was known to Tom Green and Landrum. This was a violation of Archer’s constitutional rights - Miranda/ Misaha.

Archer was unable to get any appointed Federal Public Defender to litigate this issue.

Soon after the U/C jailhouse visit, Archer was moved to CCDC downtown.to keep him away from Brucker and Stevens. He and Stevens’ case were severed by John Momot, according to Ron Stevens. (Momot_ and Green began to work together).

Momot showed Tom Green the Brucker/Stevens affidavits, per his trial strategy. Momot applies to become Archer’s appointed lawyer even though AUSA Tom Green informed John Momot the^he was

to be a suspect in a drug buy between him and Bertram Brucker. (Momot is furious).

37. Day one of the trial: Momot informs the court that

Brucker is this “black guy.” At pages 1 through 46 of the trial transcripts, it deals with statements about Momot buying drugs from Brucker and that Tom Green was threatening to file charges against Momot. AUSA Tom Green also stated that if Brucker came to trial Momot would have to take the stand to refute the charges made by Brucker.

38. Judge McKibben, AUSA Tom Green and defense attorney
John Momot held a side-bar hearing during the trial and entered
into a conspiracy to keep Brucker (this “black guy”), a potentially
valuable defense witness, from testifying for Archer. (This was

a conflict of interest… the plot thickens).

39. At trial, after Momot rested his case, he told Archer
that the Government was unable to locate Brucker at the time of
the trial. Momot also refused to put Archer on the stand nor

did he subpoena Judge Seymour Brown. Ron Stevens’ case was severed from Archer’s; Stevens says by John Momot.

40. Richie Rich was told by John Momot to leave town or
else he would be arrested. Rich was to be a witness that could
refute the three quart jars of “drugs” (actually jelly and jam)
that Webb testified at trial stating that the “jelly/jam” was

the drugs (meth oil), that the court used at the sentencing hearing to base Archer’s sentence on. The fact is, there never was any meth oil… it truly was spoiled jelly.

41. John Momot dumped Archer at trial to save his own ass.
He was suffering under the worst case of conflict of interest.
Charges were to be filed against Momot these people were brought
to court to testify for Archer (Richie Rich). Archer did not

find this out until after the trial when he read the trial transcri; that were given to him by Don Green. That’s when he knew that Momot had a serious conflict of interest in defending him.

The conflict of interest that existed between Archer and Momot was that Momot had to save himself from jail, or worse by letting Archer be convicted by an overzealous prosecutor that had absolutely no evidence and suppressed, not only evidence but took an active part in suppressing defense witnesses to the point that Archer virtually had no defense against the charges.

After trial, but before the sentencing hearing, John Momot withdrew from Archer’s case claiming a conflict of interest.

John Momot was supplied with a copy of Paul Robinson’s three-page DEA-6 report - the Brady material supplied by Stevens. Archer’s sister, Ruby Connor, supplied them to Momot. (At this point Momot still could helped Archer).

Don Green, Archer’s attorney for the sentencing phase of the case, was also supplied a copy of the Paul Robinson papers before the sentencing hearing, supplied to him by Ruby Connor. However, Don Green failed to even acknowledge the papers at the

sentencing hearing. Don Green also failed to file Archer’s direct appeal brief on time to the Ninth Circuit; he totally refused to do so.

46. Archer was in touch with Professor Charlie Wesalburg,
at the USC Law School, who filed a motion to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The court contacted Attorney Green notifying
him that he had 25 days to file an appeal brief on Archer’s hehalf.
Don Green failed to meet this order from the court and he was
fined $500.00 and lost his license to practice law in the State

of Nevada for nine months. (ineffective assistance).

Archer was then appointed new counsel, Richard Cornell out of Reno, Nevada, to complete Archer’s direct appeal. (Cornell was a close friend of Judge McKibben).

Richard Cornell never felt it necessary to visit with Archer to discuss his case and the pending appeal. Archer asked attorney Cornell if he could assist with the appeal, as well as review a copy of the opening brief before it was filed with the Ninth Circuit so that he could correct any errors or make suggestio: before it was filed. Attorney Cornell sent Archer a copy of the brief after it was filed - too late for Archer to make any correcti or make any suggestions.

Richard Cornell made a statement in the appeal brief, “With guns drawn and ready to fire,” cinching a § 942(c) gun charge for Archer. This statement was not found in the trial record

or in any transcripts; it was never presented to the jury at trial, Cornell made it up!

Richard Cornell also made a statement that the two (2) pounds of drugs seized from the Stevens/McGregor sale was found at Archer’s mother’s house. No drugs were ever found at Archer’s mother’s house. Cornell made it up!

When Archer contacted attorney Cornell regarding these errors, Cornell responded, saying that he was trying to make the worst case for the prosecutor, and then clean it up, leaving no case for the prosecutor.

Attorney Cornell failed to clean these issues up. Archer called Cornell, very angry. Cornell sent Archer a letter stating, “if he wanted to die an old man in jail he shouldn’t piss off

his attorney.” (ANOTHER DUMP-TRUCK ATTORNEY!)

Attorney Cornell was furnished with a copy of the Paul Robinson papers before the first direct appeal brief was filed. He chose not to address the issue.

Nobody wanted to acknowledge these papers or the implicat that they presented; nobody wanted to file Government misconduct issues at all. Nobody would even address the possibility of Archer receiving ineffective assistance of counsel.

55. It is apparent that, if the Judges, the prosecutors and the defense lawyers all belong to the American Bar Association, it is kind of hard to get them to point fingers at each other. There is simply no justice in the State of Nevada; is there anywhere

III. THE USC LAW SCHOOL PRISON PROJECT

56. Archer had used the USC Law in the past so he enlisted
their help in trying to have Don Green removed from his case.
Archer was on remand for resentencing from the Ninth Circuit,
where, at oral arguments, a Judge on the Panel stated to Richard
Cornell that he (Cornell) was ineffective for not charging John
Momot with ineffective assistance of counsel on the direct appeal;
for not asking for a jury instruction for a lessor-included offense
(the oral argument decision ..led Graves to file an amendment),
which would have dismissed the Ccpunt, Two conspiracy before the
jury convicted, leaving no conspiracy to fall back on after the
C.C.E. charge was dismissed - per the Government’s admission,

at trial in front of John Momot. Tom Green stated that the conspiracy charge was the lessor included offense of the C.C.E. charge, and as such, would have to be dismissed. The trial court, Judge McKibben, stated, “Then that’s how we will handle it then.” But no!

57. At the ^sentencing, the Judge ambushed the defense

by sentencing Archer based on a case called Midina. The defense never had a chance to ask for the lessor included offense instructic

John Momot had withdrawn from the case before the sentence hearing, but he could have asked the court for a jury instruction before trial, but he didn’t.

Attorney Don Green, at the sentencing hearing, never had a chance to ask for a lessor included offense instruction, it was too late. (No jury)(Ever notice how they overlap the responsibility so that no one is at fault?VII guess that’s why they go to school for so long.).

Richard Cornell never charged John Momot for not asking for the jury instruction - that means he was also ineffective,

so now he can’t file Archer’s § 2255 petition because he would have to be a witness. (How convenient now, no lawyer!). So now without a lawyer to file Archer’s § 2255 petition, he was faced with forgoing the petition because of the Anti-terrorism and Effect] Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) one-year deadline for filing the petition.

61. The court couldn’t appoint Archer counsel to assist
in the preparation of the § 2255 petition because he still had
an attorney of record (for the remand appeal). So Archer turned,
once again, the the USC Law School Professor, Charles Wesalburg,
who assigned Archer a student whom he got to see and work on his
nasp Tiji t~h. The Paul Robinson (Brady) papers were put into a motion

(a bare bones motion) asking for leave to stay the tolling of the one-year time limitation and leave to amend. Archer finally got something into the courts that might help get him out.

When the district court found out that Archer had filed a Brady issue with leave to amend it, he was transferred to FCI Safford, Arizona, where it made it impossible for him to confer with the student lawyer. When Archer contacted the USC Law School about his case, he had been assigned another student lawyer. (He thinks).

Archer never got to see this student. When he tried to contact the Professor, he was informed that he had also been assigned another Professor, a woman. Archer tried to talk to

her about his case, but she would hear nothing about any amendments, The Professors from USC Law School were not licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada so they gave a girl out of the public defender’s office the authority to cosign for the USC Law School. (Is this even legal?). Archer tried but could not contact this lady.

64. When “Dan the Man” Roberts, the student lawyer, talked