Purpose To HOPE - Exposing Injustice - NJ

EMAIL TO JUDGE ON 1/5/2024

Good Afternoon,

Aside from every issue that I have emailed you about that should have prompted my son's release by now, I'd like to bring this to your attention. Please request a phone conference, video conference, whatever you need to, to confirm what I am saying and have my son released TODAY, PLEASE.

- Remember, I had already informed Rachel Luban that there was a conflict of interest when Terrell Ratliffe became the attorney for Co-defendant Ananda Shanks. Mr. Ratliffe said he only met me once with Ms. Shanks and we hadn't discussed the case.
* question? If we weren't discussing the case, what were we meeting for? Right.
* I had been working with for almost a year and he had been helping me tell Mr. Hopkins what to do. I have documented proof and will testify, write a statement, whatever you need.

- This new pool attorney my son has. After he waived my son's appearance during the last scheduled court date, he had came to speak with me in the hall way as I was speaking with the co-defendant. He had let me know that he was trying to do his best and stated that if someone were to come forward and change their story, then we would be looking at a good chance because he is very good at trial would just have to convince the jury of who to believe.
* Yes, that happened. I'm sure if he were called in, he would have to admit it.
The co-defendant can attest as well.
* After he stated all of the above, the co-defendent asked if she could get a meeting the two attorneys, herself, and my son. He then told her that he was not able to speak with her.

Clearly, this causes an issue. This here, along with all of the other issues I mentioned, will prevent this case ever being able to try at a trial that will have the attention of the public. In addition to this, the grand jury indicted on the statement saying the co-defendant stated they were there but nothing happened. Sir, the co-defendant also supplied 3 other answers to the same question but those responses were conveniently left out of presentation to get the indictment. In fact, it appeared that the prosecutor made misleading statements on several occasions.

I am not sure if there is someone forcing your hand and preventing you from doing what should be done but it's evident that continuing to keep my son is not warranted. Please have my son released today. If it needs to be done when the court is closed, that is fine, I will pick him up later this evening. If you have to, perhaps ask Judge Rodriguez to sign his release. But it needs to be today.

Lastly, to get the ball rolling form, it would be helpful if I had the assistance of some people who are interested in seeing this system be turned around and finally, doing whats right by the people.

MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
PRIVATE ATTORNEY BRENT HOPMI

Brent Hopkins, from Helmer, Kasselman, & Conley Associates. This law firm charges $25,000 base. I will provide a detailed description of their performance which led to me retaining their services. I welcome all to comment their opinion regarding the performance as well as any questions that may arise. Please keep in mind that Mr. Hopkins is a former prosecutor. In fact, the whole firm appeared to be former prosecutors. Being a former prosecutor is not an issue, I suppose, unless of course the attorney is unable to change his mind-set and repeatedly prosecutes his client.

However, last year Mr. Hopkins filed a motion to dismiss the Indictment based on the FACT that the state’s prosecutor had lost audio discovery. During the court hearing via zoom, Mr. Hopkins provided supported case studies and stated that the state should be held accountable for maintaining evidence. Camden County Court Judge McBride countered that there was other evidence that could point to the defendant and he told $25K defense attorney Mr. Hopkins that he would need to prove that the state lost the initial police audio recordings from 3 different police departments with malicious intentions. The expensive attorney had no response regarding malicious intent and the Motion to dismiss the Indictment was denied.

* How can we prosecute, defend, or even Indict a case that has missing discovery?
* How are we to assume if the info on the recordings either supports or goes against other discovery?
* How do you prove someone else's intentions were malicious or beneficial? To me, The answer in the case if missing discovery would the same.
* Why wasn't there a motion to have these recordings resent? Or to subpoena those officers to coutt?
* In order to get an Indictment Dismissed in New Jersey, you would need to prove that the prosecutor had lied to the Grand Jury. So, how come the transcripts from the Grandy Jury hearing have not been reviewed? I've now asked 3 different attornies from the Public Defenders office and nothing ..
* A couple weeks after that Motion was denied, it was time for Mr. Hopkins to now defend the motion to suppress clothing and the arrest. He had tool me that the prosecutor had subpoenaed an officer from the scene and he was hoping it was the officer that stated that the suspect was 6ft tall. Hmmm... could we assume that the lost audio contained that info?