Dear Public Integrity,

Someone had given me your address as I had never heard of your organization before. No late than one week did I then see a newscast in which it was reported that, "The Center for Public Integrity," released a statement denouncing President Bush's hindering the "Independent 9-11 Attacks" investigation.

Well, right then I decided that I would write your organization, because you might be for real. I've enclosed my beliefs about the "9-11 Attacks" and why they happened, its called "Would You Listen to the Truth (Free Speech)"; But that's not what I'm hoping that you might focus on--though I'm hoping that you can investigate and prove the relevant facts.

Now, what I'm trying to see investigated is the bias I believe that judges exhibit in favor of the prosecutor, because so many judges are elevated to the bench from the Counties District Attorneys office; I help people in here, as I am able with collateral challenges of their conviction, after state appointed attorneys on appeal have lost their cases. I'm inv4estigating one guy's case and the clear Miranda Rights violation from where the Highway Patrolman failed to advise him that the "Breathalyzer" results could and would be used against him in a court of law, even after the prosecution couldn't prove that the "Breathalyzer" was properly calibrated so that officer couldn't verify the percentage of alcohol solution used to calibrate the device.

Please, I understand the Public's need to make examples of people that show a disregard for human safety, yet in the same day and age an officer can't remember to read a suspect his rights. Please, I'm not suggesting that there's some great conspiracy among judges and state appointed counsel to overlook or not raise obvious issues in court or an appeal. What I've noticed is that attorneys would raise cut and dry issues and extensively throughout issues and the judges would grant the cut and dry issues, and decline to address the extensively throughout issue as unnecessary. Giving the judges and attorneys the benefit of reasonable doubt, the load of cases dictate such experience by the courts, and attorneys so believing that undecided issues would have won they leave out cut and dry issues believing they'll win with the extensively throughout issue. Worst case scenario the judges being ex-prosecutors manipulating the system to force attorneys to choose between acclaim for their work and their clients freedom, and the attorneys accept those terms as the client may appear guilty anyway!

Well all that is a nice story, its true, but what's not being taken into account is that, while drunk drivers may blatantly disregard human safety--unfortunately human beings, damn near to a person, steadfastly believe, "It won't be me that crashes, it won't be me that hurts or kills anyone," pure stupidity.

There are a lot of people in prison for isolated incidents that have never been a real threat to public safety. But once a person gets in a car, drives drunk--then suspend their drinking privileges for a year, again, life. In our day and age it is simple to require licenses retailers to run all ID's through a scanner to check against the "National Banned Alcohol List."

Please give my thoughts some consideration.

Respectfully,
 

Inmate Joel Brown