December 20, 2023
ATT: President Joe Biden
RE: Edgar N. Pitts, A Belizean Prisoner Wrongfully Detained in America
Dear Mr. President,
My name, is Edgar Pitss, I’m 48 years old, and I’ve been in prison ever since I was 19. At the young age of 20, I was sentenced to 592 months in prison. Of that 592 months, 292 months, was for drug charges, or which a verdict of “guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, was never reached or rendered by a jury. On July 19, 2022, you issued an Executive Order 14078, to bring wrongfully detained Americans being detained abroad, home. And, I am happy to see that your Executive Order has already led to the repatriation of numerous Americans from countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Russia. And there is no doubt in my mind, that before you leave office, you will continue to have success in bringing all wrongfully detained Americans, home. According to the law cite/d as authority in you order (22 U.S.C. 1741 et. Seq), the criteria to be considered wrongfully detained, may include in part (as relevant), the following:
The individual is being detained in violation of the law of the detaining country;
The judicial system is not independent or impartial, is susceptible to corruption, or is incapable of rendering just verdicts;
The individual is being detained in inhumane conditions;
Due process of law has been sufficiently impaired so as to render the detention arbitrary.
The above-mentioned criteria, doesn’t apply to me directly, because I’m a Belizean and not an American, and here, America is the detaining country. But since the Executive Order is asserting America’s moral authority, then the criteria are universal, and they apply to me directly, whether I’m an American or not, because justice, is supposed to be universal.
So, if America expects the rights of its citizens to be respected abroad, then it must also hold itself to its own standards (criteria), when it comes to the rights of those like myself, from other countries. And when viewed in light of America’s own criteria, I am being “wrongfully detained” by the American government. Paul Whelan, an American being detained in Russia, was determined to be wrongfully detained. And it was reported, that talks between the U.S. and Russia are ongoing, to secure his freedom and safe return to his family. I’m pretty sure you have seen the pictures of Paul Whelan standing in that glass cage (in a Russian courtroom) waiting for his verdict, as he held a sign for the world to see, which state:
Sham Trial!
Meatball Surgery!
No Human Rights!
Paul’s Life Matters!
Decisive Action from POTUS and PM’s Needed!
Now, if I had protested my trial (here in America) in a similar manner, my sign would have said:
My Trial: A Mockery of Justice!
Presumption of Innocence: A Joke!
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Empty Rhetoric!
The Judicial System: Dog Eat Dog Justice!
My 30 Years of Imprisonment: Inhumane!
Belizean Lives Also Matter!
I’m Being Wrongfully Detained!
Decisive Action Needed from Belizean Government to Repatriate Me to Belize!
I am not aware of how Paul Whelan’s trial was conducted in Russia to make the U.S. classify him as being “wrongfully detained.” But if his trial was anything like my trial here in America, then he is being wrongfully detained.
Dog Eat Dog Justice!
The history of dogs in U.S. is in fact a history of injustice and oppression of black people. There were times when dogs had more rights than black people. Because the dogs that were used to pursue and capture runaway enslaved people, had more rights than the runaway enslaved people that they pursued. Some might argue that this is still the case, because there isn’t a lack of images of police dogs chasing, capturing and then biting black suspects. And people it seems, are conditioned to believe that if a dog bites you, then you must have done something wrong.
During the Civil Rights Movement, these dynamics of oppression were displayed for all to see. Black people who were asserting their God-given right to be free, were met with water hoses and ravenous dogs. Here again, the dogs had more rights than those that they were trained to attack and bite. The dogs seemed to be mere extensions of their master’s bigotry and inhumanity, as was exemplified in the movie Django.
My Trial: A Mockery of Justice!
“We’re going on in spite of the dogs and fire hoses”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
My trial, which was supposed to be a truth-seeking function to determine my guilt or innocence, should have been a serious and solemn event, and not a trivial on that made time to be entertained by a dog.
I was a 19-year-old black teenager on trial in Lynchburg Virginia for a drug conspiracy. The prosecution called a K-9-unit officer to testify about his dog detection of drugs, on money that was seized. After the prosecution was done with its examination, the defense with its cross-examination, and the officer excused, the presiding trial judge then asked the officer if he had his dog in his car. The officer answered, “yes”. The judge then told the officer to get his dog, and in the meantime, he ordered the prosecution to call its next witness.
The witness was called and sworn in. In the midst of the testimony, the K-9-unit officer returned with his dog. The judge then dispensed with the testifying witness and placed his full attention on the K-9-unit officer and the dog. The jurors, prosecutors, my lawyer, the judge himself and others in the courtroom, all appeared enthralled by the dog’s presence. Even though I was just an ignorant 19-year-old teenager, there was still a basic sense of decency, that kept telling me that something was wrong with the dog’s presence in the courtroom, as entertainment.
Here, the Judge along with the prosecution, were not appealing to the scientific or legal minds of the jurors. Instead, they were appealing to their emotion and prejudice. I say this, because they had the opportunity to test the dog’s ability to detect drugs on money, yet hadn’t within that whole time. Instead, they decided to conduct a “dog without the pony show”, to trivialize my trial, with their antics. If the dog was a witness against me, it wasn’t sworn in, and I couldn’t cross-examine it. Thus, violating the Confrontation Clause, of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that sounds absurd, that is exactly the point I am trying to make.
Because, not only was it absurd for the judge to have introduced the dog into the courtroom, but it was also trivial to have done so in a trial, where I was facing a life sentence. So, the entire proceeding was trivialized. Thus, violating Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which states:
“A judge should uphold the integrity and the independence of the Judiciary”
You see, the sole purpose of bringing the dog into the courtroom was to tilt the trial in the prosecution’s favor. Because the introduction of the dog by the presiding judge amounts to endorsement of the dog, and hence, the prosecution’s theory of the case. It showed his familiarity with the dog, and the dog’s handler; and this, his confidence in both the dog and the officer.
The judge displayed his familiarity with the dog’s abilities by instructing the K-9-unit officer to make the dog perform for its transfixed audience, the jury. The dog barked, wagged its tail, rolled over on its back, jumped around to the command of its confident and proud master.
The courtroom erupted in laughter. The officers of the court (The prosecutors, The Judge, and my lawyer), were all laughing. Even the witness who was still present on the witness stand, was laughing. This fragrant mockery of justice took place in the presence of the jury, who were also laughing. To accommodate this farce, the court’s stenographer had to leave her post to avoid contact with the dog, which prevented her from doing her job. The judge abdicated judicial control of the courtroom and became both the source and the instigator of these extraneous antics. This distraction allowed the prosecutor to fraternize with the jurors, as the courtroom descended into the prosecutor’s paradise, and my hell. While the court appointed lawyer remained seated next to me, at the utterly defenseless table, with a huge joker-like grin on his face. The moment the dog entered the courtroom, it had more rights than I did at that money. This had been its traditional role, as it relates to black people. As an ignorant 19-year-old, I couldn’t quite understand what I felt. All I knew was that something was really wrong. But, as a 49-year-old black man, I now know that I was experiencing, a dehumanizing process, because the introduction of the dog into that courtroom by the judge was deliberately done to nullify my right to a fair and impartial trial. Done to unjustly convict me. Here, I’m being “detained in violation of the law of the detaining country”, which is the United States of America. At my trial, there was obviously no order, no decorum, nor dignity, as required for the proper administration of criminal justice.
In the United States Supreme Court case Allen v. Illinois, it was held that “a criminal trial in the Constitutional sense, cannot taken place where the courtroom is bedlam. A courtroom is a hallowed place where trials must proceed with dignity and not become occasions for entertainment by the participants, by extraneous persons, by modern mass media, or otherwise…. The flagrant disregard of proper conduct should not and cannot be tolerated.”
The Judicial System is not independent or impartial…
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, said at his Senate Judiciary Confirmation Hearing, that the role of a Judge is like an umpire to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch of bat. It is obvious that the Judge who presided over my trial, was doing more than “calling balls and strikes.” He was also setting up plays against me, with the aid and assistance of the prosecution, and my court appointed lawyer. This became evident to me not only with the “dog without the pony show”, but throughout the duration of my entire 3-day trial. For example, the prosecution was examining a key witness against me, when it was allowed to elicit highly prejudicial testimony. I was not on trial for murder in California, not was I charged with murder. Instead, I was on trial in Virginia for a drug conspiracy. But with the aid of the Judge, the prosecution was allowed to elicit highly prejudicial testimony from its witness.
The presiding Judge asked the witness “Have they charged you with any offense in California?” The witness answered, “Not yet”. The Prosecutor with apparent assistance and approval from the Judge, then told the witness, “Well go ahead and tell us what you think you may be charged with in California.” The witness answered, “I guess aiding and abetting to a murder that happened down there?” The Prosecutor then asked, “Who would you be testifying against in California?” The witness answered by identifying me. This is prejudicial testimony.
My court appointed lawyer allowed this prejudicial presentation to unfold in full. He should have objected by the first mention of California, because I was on trial in Virginia for a drug conspiracy. I was not on trial in California, nor was I on trial for murder. Thus, making the statement irrelevant. But my lawyer allowed both the Judge and the Prosecutor to prejudice the jury against me. After my lawyer allowed the prejudicial presentation of said statements, he made a vague objection and asked to approach the bench. At that moment and when I saw the officers of the court (The presiding Judge, the Prosecutor, and my lawyer) all huddle together as if they were on the same team, in an “off the record” bench conference, I realized that I was all alone. I felt entrapped by a team of vipers. I once heard someone say that “if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu”. I was infuriated by all this realization. And I’m sure that it was visible on my face for all to see. But my anger was justified by their next move. Because what was discussed at their secret off the record bench conference was partly revealed by the line of inquiry the Prosecutor took when she resumed questioning the witness. And this is significant, because it demonstrates that my lawyer had not only failed and refused to defend my rights under what is supposed to be an adversarial system of justice, but her furthered the Prosecution’s interest to my detriment. The Prosecutor resumed questioning the witness by asking, “Have you told the truth here today?” The witness expectedly answered, “Yes, Ma’am.” And without any objection from my lawyer, the Prosecution was free to ask another leading question, “Is it your intention to tell the truth if you’re called upon to testify anywhere else?” He answered, “Yes, Ma’am.” Satisfied with the answer given and apparent complicity of my lawyer, and with the accommodating nature of the Judge to her violation of my rights. The Prosecutor then said, “I have nothing further.” Thus, drawing inference to the jury, that I might also be guilty of killing someone somewhere in California. It was a dirty move to prejudice the jury against me, to obtain a conviction. They didn’t have confidence in the strength of the case, which was weak, so they did what any insecure and unscrupulous opponent would do to win. They cheated in violation of their oaths, as officers of the court. However, what wasn’t apparent to the jury was that the witness perjured himself because he later recanted his testimony against me. So, when the prosecutor asked him “Have you told the truth here today” and the witness answered, “Yes, Ma’am”, not only did the witness know that he was lying then, but so did the prosecution, my lawyer, and the Judge. Thus, deceiving the jury into convicting me based on lies.
The Judicial System…is susceptible to corruption or is incapable of rendering just verdicts.
(22 U.S.C. 1741 et seq)
There I was on trial for a drug conspiracy, while the officers of the court (The Judge, the Prosecutor, and my lawyer) were themselves, conspiring to deprive me of my young life and liberty. The irony couldn’t have been more obvious. To convict me, they had to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution and integrity and independence of the Judiciary. Thus, turning the courtroom itself into a crime scene. And the jurors into unwitting witnesses and accomplices of that crime, by rendering the guilty verdict. But this couldn’t have been possible without the complicity of my lawyer who was court appointed. Thus, owing his loyalty to the Judge, and not to defending my Sixth Amendment Right to “effective assistance of counsel”, which renders the Judicial System “incapable of rendering just verdicts”. Do you see this?
These types of boobytrap arrangements are so common that the court appointed lawyers, and public defenders are known as public defenders and dump trucks by indigent inmates they are asked to represent. Even lawyers and judges themselves admit that this contradiction exists and persists in the American Judiciary. For example, in a report by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers entitled Federal Indigent Defense 2015: The Independent Imperative reported that:
“Giving the Judge the power to appoint or re-appoint panel lawyers, generates build-in conflicts which make unlikely defense lawyers will get in the face of a Judge, which is their job”, explained one Judge. One lawyer who no longer receives appointments was told by others on the panel that the reason she was not receiving appointments was because she advocated too strongly and needed to “kiss the judge’s ass more”.
With a system like the American Judiciary that has such lofty ideas, why isn’t there a scandal about what was revealed by this report? My trial was held about 20 years before this report was written. So, these “built-in conflicts”, amount to a fully ingrained cultural problem of corruption that persists within the American Judiciary System. And this was demonstrated at my trial when the presiding Judge:
- Promoted the elicitation of an uncharged crime to demonize me in the eyes of the jury;
- Held an off the record bench conference of which only the only the officers of the court are privy to what was discussed;
- After having said off the record bench conference, he allowed the prosecution to continue its prejudicial line of inquiry;
- Conspired with his fellow officers of the court to deprive me of a fair trial; and to ultimately convict me and sentence me to 592 months;
- Introduced the dog into the courtroom to trivialize my trial and to ultimately tilt my trial to the Prosecution’s favor;
- Turned my trial into a circus by not only admitting the dog into the courtroom, but also use the dog to entertain the jurors and others:
No one challenged the Judge when he introduced the dog into the courtroom. No one was shocked into action by this indignity. No one reflected on their oaths as officers of the court. No one cared that my young life was on the line. And no one brought up the guidelines for judicial control. Instead, not only did they participate in the circus, but they enjoyed the biased entertainment that they were used to by laughing. Thus, rendering them inured to the injustice of these “built-in conflicts”. These “built-in conflicts”, which have a negative influence on lawyers have turned or have sustained the auction block nature of the judiciary, which sheds more light on the “pay to play” set up of the American Judiciary. As stated by the report:
“The fact that Panel Lawyers in her district believe they need to compromise their advocacy to continue to receive cases, is wholly at odds with their primary function, the zealous representation of their clients, with the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system and the constitutional protection of an accused’s Sixth Amendment Right to counsel…”
“Due process of the law has been sufficiently impaired so as to render the detention arbitrary”
(22 U.S.C. 1741 et seq)
In order for the Judge, my lawyer and the Prosecution to have violated my rights in such a blatant manner, they had to have come to the conclusion that the Presumption of Innocence, Due Process, and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, didn’t apply to me. And to have reached that conclusion, they had to have dehumanized me as a Belizean (illegal alien); dehumanize me as a black youth (murderer); and entrapped me as a poor person (ineffective counsel, biased Judge, Prosecutorial Misconduct). As was exemplified by the Dog Without the Pony Show and “off record bench conference”. And the unjust introduction of the uncharged crime of murder.
So, these so called “built-in conflicts” are not benign occurrences without victims. Even though the report pointed out these traps, it failed to tell the story of a single victim of which there are many. I know because I am one of about two million that are currently being mass incarcerated in America and I’ve had about 30 years to think about how and why I became a victim of America’s Judicial System.
In conclusion, I pose this question:
If I were an American who was treated by the Belizean Judicial System the way that the American Judicial System treated me – would America classify me as being wrongfully detained?
The answer is a resounding YES. And this is because as an American being detained abroad, I would be covered by the criteria mentioned.
Paul Whelan
I call on the family of Paul Whelan to support my efforts to be repatriated to my country of Belize….As they fight for Paul Whelan’s safe return to his family.
The Reader
I implore the Reader, if you believe that I should be repatriated to Belize, to please send a copy of this letter to President Biden and get others to do the same. Also send copies (via email) to the following Belizean media platforms:
Amandala Newspaper – https://amandala.com.bz/news/
The Reporter Newspaper – https://www.thereporter.bz/
Breaking Belize News – https://www.breakingbelizenews.com/
Love FM Radio Station – https://lovefm.com/ and others
Thank you – And I welcome all help and advice.
No Comments