No. 02-5174                                                                September Term, 2002 
                                                                                     District Ct. No. 02cv00773 

Joel Brown, 

              Appellant 

    v. 

U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, D.C. 

              Appellee 
 
 

  To the Chief Judge and Circuit Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: 

  Pursuant to Circuit Rule 35, Joel Brown, petitioner/appellant, hereby petitions this Honorable Court for rehearing and suggests for rehearing en banc in the above-entitled matter after decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit, on December 6, 2002, for material points of fact overlooked in the Court's decision and for points misconstrued in that decision. A copy of the opinion of this Court is attached as an addendum. 

  In my judgment material points of fact were overlooked and one point is misconstrued, they are as follows: 

1. The point misconstrued in the decision is "[I]n America jurisprudence. . .a private party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." and, "Appellant therefore lacks standing to compel that a grand jury be impanelled." The first statement is generally true, but only in cases where it would be reviewed by lawful investigation and a professional assessment is rendered on the facts and evidence and a prosecutor determines that there is not enough to prosecute at trial or the interest of justice an agreement is reached. As such, this is not the case in two instances; one no prosecutor has run a lawful investigation or refuses to because judges or government officials are claimed in criminal allegations; and, two there then is no redress of grievances for citizens to seek their will against government officials that allegedly violate criminal statute because other government officials (their peers and colleagues) won't prosecute one of there own--creating a government that passes laws for the "People" to follow, but that they themselves are totally exempt from as long as the[y] appoint or employ the people that prosecute the law. I thought that was what the Constitution ensured would never happen?; and, the issue on appeal was not to "compel that a grand jury be impaneled." The issue was that the U.S. Attorney's Office has a duty to deliver a grand jury complaint to a sitting grand jury upon a valid request per Title 18. U.S.C.A. §3332. "In re Grand Jury Application, (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 617 F. Supp. 199; and, 

  2. The judges failed to consider the matter and violated my right to redress in the court and equal protection thereof. The evidence of this is exhibited in documents that were to be turned over for a grand jury investigation. Judge Ginsburg and Judge Henderson are subject of the Grand Jury Complaint and are "Real Party Interests" in this appeal; Other "Real Party Interests" are: Edwards, Chief Judge; Silberman; Williams; Rodgers; Tatel; Garland Circuit Judges; and, Chief Judge Johnson, Hogan, Friedman, Urbina, Kollar-Kotelly, Kennedy, District Judges. For which I purposely did not list "Real Party Interests" to prove any judges determining the appeal would not truly consider the matter they would have viewed the evidence and saw that they were listed and excused themselves from determining the appeal providing fair and equal access--none of the judges noticed that numerous judges were the subject of this appeal, nor that Judge Ginsburg and Henderson should have recused themselves. 

  In conclusion I believe that this Court should Rehear the Appeal and Suggest that it be Reheard En Banc, but I believe that it will simply be denied to cover up the corruption by judges and government officials, so I will seek to have it posted on the Internet in order to reach the public in hopes of some outcry. 

Dated: 12-26-02                     Respectfully submitted, 
 

                                               Joel Brown, Pro Se.