Press Release submitted by: Joseph Robinson

Ninth Circuit Abolishes Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel;  Judicial/Prosecutorial Immunity Causes Wrongful Convictions

Plumas County, California Judges Olney, Kaufman and Pangman conspired with Prosecutors Cunan and McGowan to wrongfully convict and imprison Joseph Robinson through knowing, willing and malicious violation of his right to counsel and his right to present a defense to the jury while California allowed them to do it and then condoned it.  These court officers did it because they knew that the Supreme Court has ruled that they were “immune” from civil liability for the injury they cause by violating civil rights.                                                        

On July 31, 2001, Cunan and Olney wrongfully convicted and falsely imprisoned Robinson for 567 days before the California State Prison paroled him. Thirty days after Robinson’s release from prison, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the aforementioned individuals violated his right to counsel. When his case was remitted back to the Plumas County Court for a fair trial, Cunan and Olney dismissed all charges against Robinson.

When Robinson sued the aforementioned individuals and California for monetary damages, they all claimed immunity and United States District Court Judge Burrell ruled that they were all immune from civil liability and ordered the suit to be dismissed.

Robinson provided the court with proof of the intentional violation of his right to counsel.  This is a clear misuse of immunity to avoid liability/responsibility.  

On December 16, 2005, Robinson appealed in the Ninth Circuit. On February 28, 2007 the Ninth circuit ruled that the judges, prosecutors and California are all immune from civil liability no matter how outrageous, unlawful and harmful their conduct.

On March 10, 2007, Robinson petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing. On May 7, 2007, the Ninth Circuit denied Robinson’s petition.

On May 30, 2007, Robinson filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and presented the following questions for review:

Does an individual have the right to a civil remedy in an action at law for recovery of damages under the following circumstances?
•    Imprisonment in state prison
•    Conviction reversed on appeal for a violation of the right to counsel
•    Charges dismissed or acquitted after reversal

If yes, which party is liable to Petitioner?
Olney, Kaufman, Pangman, Cunan, and/or McGowan, and/or Plumas County, and/or California.

If no, where is Petitioner’s right to counsel?

If there is no civil remedy for a wrongful conviction and false imprisonment caused by a violation of right to the assistance of counsel, there is no right to counsel.  

The following documents are available upon request:
1.    Supreme Court Certiorari Petition   
2.    Statement of Facts
3.    Plumas County Court Transcripts
4.    California Appellate Ruling                

                                                                  
Joseph Robinson
10608-B Bethel Road
Frederick, MD  21702
(443) 878-2338
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

###