Read the rebuttal to the Malcolm Fraser July 23rd appeal very slowly and carefully.
Every citizen should be extremely afraid of the unbridled abuse of power that is communicated in this legal paper. Not only is not signed (normal in the Prosecutors Office) but the legal logic does not even reflect American legal history.
1. Accusations are not proof nor evidence of a crime on any logical nor moral level.
If accusation is proof, then here you go. I accuse Prosecutor Simmons and his Office of prosecutorial misconduct. There, that should do it, it has been said, proof enough.
The Prosecutor’s Office is telling us that the mere statements of an accuser are, to his office, evidence. Were your son, daughter, or next door neighbor to simply accuse you of something, Prosecuting Attorney Satterberg and his office considers this as proof enough.
If the above is true then why were our accusations of a crime not given the same weight (or any weight) as proof of a set up crime? And of course we have proof beyond mere accusations.
2. Prosecutor Simmons had not one single shred of proof that Malcolm Fraser committed the crime.
In fact, all the evidence pointed to a setup.
3. Prosecutor Simmons has continually misrepresented the Law.
From the very beginning Prosecutor Simmons turned hundreds of years of legal precedent on its head. Prosecutor Simmons told potential jurors, for example, that they should give the State a fair trial. Jurors have never been the “sole judge of credibility.” One of the reason for judges is to be on the watch for those times when juror prejudice or prosecutorial misconduct is so rampant that a judge must step in to rectify the situation. The legal history of America shows that no one individual, group, or segment of society is “sole” judge.
Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s mission statement declares that he seeks to work in “humility” and to be “fair.” By every definition of such words his office has demonstrated a complete lack of involvement and a determination to redefine those words. In fact, good laws have been misapplied in order to cover over the corruption inherent in prosecuting accusations of child abuse.
Let us all hope that Prosecutor Satterburg does not have another judge who will ignore the “nefarious detective” who provided his office with the accusations they so relish. An office willing to so exaggerate the facts as to be laughable needs a judge to step in and correct the injustice.
For Prosecutor Satterburg’s Office to even suggest, let alone put on paper, that a doctor has “never physically examined a penis” in his entire years of medical school and practice is absurd. The court should be insulted that such ill-concieved contempt for the intelligence of the judge is bantered about in a court of law. Any judge, on the the mere stupidity of such a statement, should throw out this case for such was the level of this trial. So much for humility.