|
I, Monte Lee Bridges, am a victim of the Shasta county "Hang em high" judicial club. I have enclosed three documents: 1. My motion to amend the A.O.B. (They wouldn't accept). 2. Page 6 from my pre-sentence which is the only, almost accurate document in my file. 3. My last letter from No. California Innocence Project (they haven't said no yet--(maybe they don't write noes), I have until June, 2003 to file a habeas corpus, but I'm not confident to do so with my limited legal knowledge and research here is next to impossible. As you will glean from the enclosed, the crux of the case is the 3/16" smeared palm print. That's how they framed me! Naturally I would appreciate any assistance proffered. What little money I had when I got here (2-7-01) is nearly gone. I can't even draw my SSA retirement, which began in September 1999. I'm 65 now, but in spite of a bad heart and other disabilities, I'm active and thankfully my mind is still sharp. I'm fighting for medical treatment for my heart and I'm hoping to live until justice is served for me and to Shasta County. I will do anything required to help bring them down. All my life I was one of the many flag wavers from sea to shining sea, but my ideology came to a screeching halt in Redding in October of 2000. (Trial time). I actually believed in the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. Ha! Well, I'm rambling. Thank you much. Yours encumbered, Monte Lee Bridges
P.S. My sentence is 30 to life. I can't see the parole folks until 2029 when I'm 92! That's one reason I sent you page 6--it's fairly accurate. What the court used was two pages of completely erroneous criminal history. Katherine Hart (the Appellate Attorney) refused to have them amended/corrected. Northern California Innocence has several documents that I sent them over the past year.
Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District The People MOTION TO AMEND TO AOB Plaintiff/Respondent CO37546
Shasta County No. 00F 4037
Monte Lee Bridges Defendant/Appellant. ------------------------------------------------/
COMES NOW, MONTE LEE BRIDGES and says: Appellant respectfully prays the court will accept the above-titled motion and give it the same deliberation as the incomplete AOB already filed. Appellant's attorney, Katherine Hart, refused to include important issues in the AOB and further refused to make corrections of gross errors. Justice will not be served if this motion/amendment is not considered. Appellant has already been "railroaded" in instant case and there is no more room for inaction. Appellant is making a reasonable request--that the court merely add four hand-printed pages and one official document to AOB. Resp. sub. This 30th day of Sept. 2001 Monte Lee Bridges Appellant
September 18, 2001 At this moment there is doubt as to whom this document will go. Ultimately it will go to the Court of Appeals as is-or-prepared in proper form by an attorney. Appellant cannot gain access to a typewriter, paper,--nothing. Contained herein are corrections to A.O.B., which Kathryn Hart refused to make and issues that she refused to raise. Without the following information A.O.B. is woefully inadequate. A.O.B. pgs 17-18--almost completely in error--see enclosed page 6, Pre-sentence report. It is correct except there were (5) five administrative parole violations and it doesn't show that Appellant turned himself in on three occasions. (1975 to 1990-only P.V.s) A.O.B. pg 36-37. "During Bush's interview with investigator Thomas, Bush referred to the phrase "U.S. Bank" (RT 715:11-14) The context in which Bush referred to "U.S. Bank" appeared to be with reference to the Bank of America robbery in December of 1999." (RT 730:16-18) Bush was apprehended immediately after robbing Wells Fargo Bank, June 12?? During the ensuing video tapes interview Bush twice said "U.S. Bank." The first time was obviously a reference to Bank of America because he said, "back in December." The second time he said, ". . .and then there was U.S. Bank.. . ." After the prosecutor was made aware he told Elliot Burick, Appellant's attorney at that time, "We have another suspect."--yet he had proclaimed to have a "matching print" a month prior--May 10, 2000. The video was played in the courtroom with the jury absent. The court refused to allow the video or any reference to Bush's bank robberies, with notes, two blocks apart and each two blocks from U.S. Bank! The court stated, "It (the video) would have just confused them." (Discovery--Reversible Error). Three prospective jurors admitted to knowing personally, Sheriff Jim Pope, Shasta County. One of them because foreman of the jury. He was a self proclaimed golfing buddy of the sheriff. The court should have excused him and defense counsel refused to excuse him despite appellants pleas. This juror's presence and role of foreman constitutes Isolatable demonstrated prejudice. The court erred--reversible error. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Defense Attorney Gorder's expertise was in question by Appellant upon their first meeting and the trepidation only increased. Appellant was granted permission for self-representation but Gorder refused to assist so Appellant reluctantly let Gorder proceed. He would not: . . .contact "Marlene," secretary at the Federal Probation Office, until five months after the robbery by which time she couldn't "remember" that Appellant was speaking with her form his home telephone between 2:40 & 2:45 p.m. on the afternoon of the robbery, Friday, May 5, 2000. (According to police reports the robbery occurred between 2:30 & 2:40 p.m.) . . .contact Appellant's P.O., Jeff Oestreicher for the above verification. Appellant called Oestreicher on Monday, May 8, 2000 at approximately 9:30 a.m., stating, "I called you Friday, I guess Marlene told you." Oestreicher said yes and the ensuing conversation want on five or ten minutes. Less than thirty minutes later Appellant's one room apartment was "raided" and that was the first time that Appellant even heard of the bank robbery. . . . contact "Dan," a desk clerk at the Lorenz who exchanged greetings with Appellant at approximately 2:35 p.m. on May 5, 2000, when Appellant went to check his mailbox located at the end of the main desk. (In Lobby) (5) Five months later "Don" didn't remember. . . .excuse friends of the sheriff at voirdire despite Appellant's pleas. . . .ask victim teller, Alicia Miller about her statement to detectives that the robber had "no noticeable accent." Appellant has a distinct southern drawl which is why detectives asked her. . . .verify with the Lorenz Manger, Willie Smith, that Appellant was never in jeopardy of eviction. Willie Smith was the catalyst in Appellant's adopted persona of always broke. She told Appellant to not loan money to residents, just "always be broke." Appellant, to his ultimate loss, did adopt that persona both at the Lorenz and the card room. . . .bring up the $2,500 loan that Appellant made with Bank of America; again despite Appellant's pleas. Appellant could account for the money he had accumulated, but Gorder would not present it accurately, only in general. . . .call Elliot Burick, Appellant's first attorney, to testify that the prosecutor told him after Bush's arrest, "we have another suspect." . . .call the other two floor managers or the owner of the card room to refute Richard Cook's testimony. . . .call Sergeant Hagen who took Appellant's lefthand-left side print on June 10, 2000--one smeared & one clear. Appellant signed clear one after. (Usual procedure is to sign card first.) . . .continue questioning Barbara Phillips, the print examiner. He elicited these facts from her. 1. She had a "match on May 10, 00" 2. She wasn't sure so she had to have someone else check it. 3. Then she had to take it to Sacramento, because the two of them weren't positively sure. 4. Then she said they had only 1/3 of an inch of smeared print. Then Gorder held up the cards and asked, "Why is this card dated June 10th?" She replied, "I don't know." He let it drop! Had he pursued his questions her entire testimony would have been destroyed. (How could she match a print taken June 10 on May 10?) The following is exactly what occurred. 1. There was no print of any kind in the U.S. Bank belonging to Appellant. 2. On the evening of June 10, 00, Sgt. Hagen had Appellant brought to the print area of the Shasta County Jail, where he proceeded to take a print of the left side of Appellant's left hand. He moved Appellant's hand and smeared the first card then took a clear print on anther card. These were the cards taken to Sacramento for matching and then used at trial! That's why the cards Gorder proffered were dated June 10, 00, and, that's why Phillips written report was not made until July 12, 00. If Gorder had called Sgt. Hagen to testify and pursued his questioning of Phillips, the "print" would have disappeared and a verdict of innocent would have followed. The jurors who were polled said it was the print that convinced them. It is painfully obvious (to Appellant) that had Gorder only followed
Appellant's request by questioning unimpeachable witnesses before they
"forgot" and calling all the aforementioned to testify, the outcome would
have ben opposite. Appellant has been denied representation because of
Gorder's refusal to follow basic procedure even a t Appellant's urging
and pleading. Gorder had plenty to work with including the truth.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:05 PM Mr. Presley, Once again I am contacting you on behalf of :
I contacted you about him last on 1/27/03. I am very concerned about him. He still hasn't received any medical help. He is a 65 year old man that has had 2 angeo plasties, and a quadnuple bypass. I was quite concerned about him as I hadn't heard from him in over a week. I finally received a letter yesterday from him. Thank God he is still alive. He stated that he hadn't heard from me all last week. I sent him a certified letter on 1/24/03. This means that the guards are not getting his mail to him. He should have received my letter at least by 1/28/03. His letter was dated to me 1/30/03, evening. This is what he stated in his letter: I've only been able to go to chow hall twice this week, and when I get back, I have to pop a nitro and sit on my bed a while before I can even take my coat off.I continue to send medical requests, but they wont see me. I know they are hoping I die before I cost them any money, and I might. If I don't, I've got a cinch case for deliberate indifference. I'll probably get some mail from you tomorrow, and the world will be right again. Right now, I'm paranoid, and suspect they're messing with my mail. I can see that you have done nothing for this man. I will start taking different steps tomorrow. What kind of people are the guards? It is obvious that this man needs medical help, and the guards, and people in medical are ignoring him. What if this was your father or brother? Would something be done by now? Do any of you have any compassion? To top it all off, this man has been wrongfully convicted, like so many others in your prison. Look up his story on "Judicial Terror in Shasta County" on the web. I am going to contact his son, and give him all of the information on how I and others have been trying to get him some help, and you just ignore it. If this man dies, the lawsuit will cost much more that the medical costs. How can your conscience live with this? Just remember, do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. What goes around, comes around. Just for your reference, I will also give you a copy of the last letter that I wrote to you about Monte Bridges. The other person is:
Mr. Bridges had an angeo plasty, and a quadnuple by-pass in 1992, and and another angeo plasty in 1999. He was scheduled for a thallium stress test in Sept. of 2000, but in May he was arrested. He had been having pain, and heart problems, but couldn't get anyone to help him. He wrote to the Prison Law Office. Steven Fama from the Prison Law office contacted John Appelbaum, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, on Nov 20, 2002 Re: Plata-individual Inmate Urgent or Exhausted 602 Medical Concern, request for review. He requested a thallium stress test. On Thursday, 1/02/03, Mr. Bridges was taken to see Dr. Watson at the medical on the yard re: several issues. He was taken to the CTC and admitted. 1/03/03 he was taken to RM for the thallium stress test. The officers wouldn't wait for the doctors to give Mr. Bridges the report, but he knew it was bad, because he barely started with the stress part, and he had severe pain in his chest and left arm. I received a letter from Mr. Bridges on 1/19/03, and he said his heart was really acting up. On 1/20/03, he went to eat, and he could hardly make it back. He said they hadn't called him to tell him the results yet, but he could tell something had taken place "behind the scenes", because one med tech made a snide remark about Mr. Bridges talking to the Captain about his meds.. I just received a letter dated 1/23/03. He said he was down again Wed, and Thursday, but he managed to make it to chow on Thursday, the first time since Tuesday eve. He still hadn't seen a doctor or gotten any test results. This man needs immediate attention for his medical needs, and he also needs a single cell, as he's a very sick man. I'm asking you to look into this immediately, before he dies, or do you really care? It's obvious that Prison Law office, and Supervising Deputy Attorney General think that this man needs help, and got it for him, but it stopped there. HDSP has put him on hold. Why????? He needs your attention immediately!!!!! Thank you for your immediate attention to all of these matters Mardele Duarte
|
The Strip Search - By Monte Bridges
Judicial Terror in Shasta County