Jim Fetzer
As it happens, John Remington Graham, B.A., LL.B., a retired professor of law, who remains qualified to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of three citizens of the United States, James Fetzer, Ph.D., Mary Maxwell, Ph.D., LL.B., and Cesar Baruja, M.D., on behalf of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been tried and convicted of the Boston marathon bombing. In this brief and its accompanying appendix (initially submitted to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, subsequently to the US Supreme Court), Attorney Graham outlined proof that Dzhokhar cannot be guilty of the crime of which he has been convicted for the obvious reason that the backpacks don’t match!
Most of us recall from the O.J. Simpson trial that Johnny Cochran made the mantra that, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” But in that case, the incriminating (skin-tight fitting) bloody glove found at the scene of the crime was (flagrantly) used to exonerate O.J. by having him put on a latex glove before the bloody one, which guaranteed that it would not fit. That was deliberate. In the case of Dzhokhar, the images of the brothers at the scene of the crime (which appear to have been photoshopped in) were flawed by not insuring the backpacks they were wearing in the footage corresponded to the backpacks that exploded (which were rather compact black nylon). This, by contrast, was a stupendous blunder.
Here are the four photographs included as attachments to our brief, where the first (Exhibit 1) shows one of the two pressure-cooker bombs that exploded at the scene; the second (Exhibit 2) shows the type of pressure cooker that was used for this purpose; the third (Exhibit 3) shows one of the two (identical) black nylon backpacks in which they were carried to the scene; and the fourth (Exhibit 4) shows that neither Tamerlan nor Dzhokhar was wearing a backpack of the kind the FBI identified as having exploded at the scene. Tamerlan, notice, is wearing a larger and bulkier backpack not similar in design to those that exploded, while Dzhokhar is wearing a whitish (or silver) backpack. They obviously don’t match!
In correspondence with Jack Graham, the First Circuit informed him that the evidence we had adduced for its consideration would be taken into account; but when the time came for its ruling, it was as though the proof of their innocence did not even exist. When the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, therefore, Jack was on the case (assisted by funds from the three of us) and submitted another amicus brief, this time to the highest court in the land. We know that our submission has been received, because it has been acknowledged on the docket of the United States Supreme Court, which you can verify for yourself.
Concerned that we not experience a repetition of what we incurred with the First Circuit, therefore, Jack has written to Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General of the United States (3 July 2021) and subsequently to Ginger Anders, Dzhokhar ‘s Attorney (16 July 2021), reaffirming our concerns that the United States Supreme Court not engaged in an act of judicial murder. Review the key argument of our brief and his letters to the Solicitor General and form your own conclusion. If you think something is terribly, terribly wrong, consider making the effort yourself to follow up our efforts by writing to them on your own behalf and that of the United States of America.
RE: United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 20-443 on the docket of the United States Supreme Court
From: jack.graham@globetrotter.net <jack.graham@globetrotter.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 7:34 AM
To: ‘SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov’ <SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov>
Subject: United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 20-443 on the docket of the United States Supreme CourtTo the Acting Solicitor General of the United States:
Counsel, — Our attention has been called to the recent administrative order of the new attorney general calling for review of pending federal death penalty cases. While things of this kind are typically punctuated by hypocritical partisan political theatrics, we believe that the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev deserves special attention, because, as our amicus submission of May 5, 2021, including appendix, points out clearly enough, the prosecution was political from the outset, including gross abuse of the First Amendment by major news media which systematically suppressed obvious and decisive exculpatory evidence, while lawyers on both sides of the case acted improperly, pretending that such evidence did not exist at all, so that the accused was not prosecuted fairly, or represented at all, and the death penalty was imposed for political reasons in the knowledge that the accused could not have been guilty. For your convenience, I attach extra copies of our submission and appendix of May 5, 2021 for your review. I pray that this inhuman, ridiculous “false flag” masquerade come to an end. The first reform of the death penalty must be that intentional misconduct of prosecutors and court-appointed counsel for the accused, tacitly approved by judicial officers, together with uncivilized journalism of major news media, as we have seen in this case since April 15, 2013, should be eliminated. Before we settle limitations in which the death penalty may lawfully be imposed, it would help if we got rid of judicial murder. – John Remington Graham, a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court (admitted August 5, 1971, #83902).
Copies to Dr. James Fetzer, Dr. Mary Maxwell, Dr. Cesar Baruja, friends of the court, and Ginger Anders, Esq., court-appointed counsel for Mr. Tsarnaev, before the United States Supreme Court
For those who may want to learn more about the Boston bombing, as in the case of Sandy Hook, I have brought together a dozen experts (in that case, thirteen), including Sheila Casey, Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D., Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D., James F. Tracy, Ph.D., Mike Palecek, Allan William Powell, John W. Whitehead, J.D., Craig McKee, Ole Dammegard, Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., and Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., to sort out what really happened. Amazon.com has banned the book (of course), but it remains available at moonrockbooks.com.
