SKANKS ON THE BENCH - DC

            Fighting Mass-Incarceration by Exposing                                                  Racist Corrupt Judge and Prosecutors

    Over the past two-years ITJ has successfully helped DC residents to fight back against Jim Crow policing, prosecutors, and judges. We have exposed and documented the scheme between the police, U.S. Attorneys office, and DC judges to routinely subject black residents to malicious prosecution, coercing many into pleading guilty to non-existent crimes. We have also exposed and documented DC judges engaged in lawless practices in civil matters such as probate, child custody, suits for damages, landlord and tenant. 

      In the fall of 2013, ITJ began contacting and presenting our cases and evidence to the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety of the DC City Council, and in March appeared with several DC residents to testify. The problem has been that not a single council member has ever been serious about addressing the criminal racist practices of judges, prosecutors, and police. On this page are some of the sample cases presented to the Committee: 

  
 My Three Skanks

   In 2009-10, three DC judges chose to expose themselves in relationship to the false arrest and prosecution of Kwasi Seitu, the chief advocate of ITJ. Seitu was then subjected months of harassment and illegal detention at the hands of these judges acting without legal authority. in relation No cause ever existed for subjecting Seitu to any criminal prosecution, yet for two-years Seitu was subjected to bogus judicial proceedings and "orders." When Seitu was first taken before Jenefer Anderson was to be addressing the lack "probable cause," she  that morning, but instead decided to seize and jail Seitu, then use the threat of  indefinite detention in order to get him to waive his rights and enter a guilty plea. 

    Seitu was held over night and all day in chains by Anderson, when she came to him with a demand that he agree to submit urine weekly, and report to CSOSA weekly or otherwise continue to be held. Seitu agreed only to gain his release and the next day, filed a complaint with chief judge Lee Satterfield, pointing out that Anderson was insisting on maintaining the malicious prosecution. Anderson then disappeared and for months nothing occurred. When Seitu was once again subjected to an illegal arrest, he was taken before judge Florence Pan, who tried to accomplish what Anderson could not, using the same tactic of illegal detention and the threat of continuing it. Just as Seitu had done with Anderson, he agreed to the demand placed before him by Pan in order to get out and the next day take action against the illegal actions of Pan. 

    The purported case against Seitu was a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana brought by a corrupt white cop who Seitu had confronted four-months before, where that cop was part of a "Black Ops" team that had broken into an elderly black woman's home without a warrant. The officer, Scott Pinto, was part of an invasion of an elderly woman's home in a neighborhood where Seitu just so happened to be visiting with friends and witnessed the massive raid. Seitu led other residents in witnessing and questioning the police, none of whom wore badges or name plates. When police turned on the residents, by threatening to record names, Seitu thwarted the police. Even though they wore no identifying insignia, they did not want Seitu to focus on the tag numbers of the unmarked vehicles they arrived in, so began fleeing the scene. However, following one group to their car, Seitu goaded them into giving a name by attacking their bravado, and Scott Pinto bit. Even though Seitu was unable to get a single plate, he had "Scott Pinto" as a member of the operation, but the family of the elderly woman did not pursue any further action.

   When Pinto approached Seitu on the street four months later, he again had on no name plate and refused to give his name, while holding Seitu under the threat of using deadly force, Pinto never explained his reason for stopping and detaining Seitu, just kept his hand on his Glock. Eventually, other officers arrived for no other reason but to back up Pinto in his illegal action, not a one questioned Pinto as to what he was doing, but instead all made it very evident that they were all prepared to violently violate Seitu's rights if he did not submit. Pinto charged Seitu with "possession of marijuana with intent to distribute," but his report presented nothing by law that justified the stop, detention, and illegal search. It then did not matter what Pinto claimed he found or charged, his every act was illegal and criminal, including his then using the "intent to distribute" charge to steal the $173.00 that Seitu had in his wallet. 

    Pinto's report did not provide any basis for any of his actions, he claimed that Seitu became the suspect of an unspecified crime for merely patronizing a black business the he (Pinto) believed was guilty of illicit activity. Just two-weeks prior to Seitu's visit to the business, Pinto had conducted an illegal search of it, where he came in and began to trash the business owned and operated by Caribbean blacks, Pinto charged them with "possession of drug paraphernalia" incense sticks. This bogus criminal action by Pinto resulted in one being identified as an "illegal" to the INS and deported, and that business folding. It just so happened that Seitu was at the business to discuss the illegal search and Pinto's baseless charges, which the U.S. Attorneys office had "papered" for prosecution.   

     When Seitu then appeared in court on the charge brought by Pinto and the prosecution based thereon by the U.S. Attorney, he appeared before Jenifer Anderson. The matter should not have made it beyond the shift commander, more less to the initiation of a criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney, but here Seitu not only had to unjustly appear, but then was told by Jenifer Anderson to come back and be prepared to "keep coming back" until he submitted with a guilty plea. However, Seitu was not about to accept this Jim Crow treatment and demanded that Anderson show probable cause and thus, explain how and why she had failed to perform her judicial constitutional duty to have first "found probable cause," which was never done. Under Jim Crow, any constitutional "guarantee" is treated as subject to "discretion" by police, prosecutors, and judges. Seitu, however, immediately forced the lack of a case in law and fact, which was supported by the failure and refusal of Anderson to address the issue. In response, instead of addressing the legal challenge, Anderson decided to jail Seitu and try to intimidate him into submission. 

    Seitu out maneuvered Anderson and Pan, while at the same time using their every act to collect evidence as to how the rest of the system shielded their criminality, allowing them to continue in their effort to break Seitu. Through Anderson, Seitu got Lee Satterfield and the entire DC Appeals court as equally corrupt and unworkable, with the unworkable part being established by the fact that no law existed when it came to punishing and suppressing Kwasi Seitu. It did not matter that there was no cause in law and fact, months later, Seitu was seized in an early morning police raid on his residence based on a bogus arrest warrant issued by Florence Pan. On his first encounter with Pan, Seitu called on her to produce probable cause, which she could not and then refused to address claiming that it had been previously found, at which point she was informed by the court clerk that no probable cause determination had occurred; this was now seven months after the arrest and three court appearances. 

    Disregarding this fact, Pan had Seitu taken to and held in St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital under the pretense of a 45-day "competency" observation, on a non-existent misdemeanor case. Seitu convinced the hospital staff that they wanted nothing to do with what was going on, so the hospital did nothing but ask Pan to remove him, so Pan then had Seitu moved to the city jail. The questioning of Seitu's competency was initiated by Jenifer Anderson after she had Seitu seized for demanding the court show jurisdiction, and she would have to account that morning. Thus, Anderson whipped up this issue off the tips of her fingers, having nothing to do with legal right and authority, but did not expect that anyone could or would come back exposing it. This is way Anderson disappeared, had she pressed it, Seitu would have simply built a case against her, so the WHITE-Asian, newly appointed to the court by Barack Obama, was sent in to take the beating. Unfortunately for Pan, she proudly took on the assignment without thinking, got her ass kicked, the pain of which is still just reaching her brain.

    When Pan could no longer illegally hold Seitu in St. Elizabeth's, she had him moved to the city jail, but had a problem since there was no legal basis for it. Still, everyone went along with pretending all was legit. For a week Pan had Seitu brought to the courthouse early in the morning from the jail, meaning he was awakened at 3 in the morning, held in shackles all day while being herded from cell-block to cell-block all day nearly every day. Florence Pan was bent on wrenching from Kwasi Seitu a total surrender of his every civil, constitutional, and Human right. When Seitu refused, Pan lashed out by charging him with "contempt" of her, not of the court, and then charged him with two counts of "failure" to appear when he "appealed" for to higher judicial authority for the arrest of the illegal conduct of Pan. Thus, Pan sought Seitu to be summarily prosecuted for having exercised and stood by his Natural rights, and those under "the law." 

    Less than hour after her last effort to get Seitu to fold, Pan had him taken in chains through the hallways of the courthouse to seniior judge Russell Canan. Without any process, Canan found Seitu guilty of two counts of "failing to appear" and then tried to give a legitimate cover to his being detained. It did not matter to Canan that there was never any legitimate cause for the case, that there had been no failure to appear or respond. The record shows that it was Kwasi Seitu who was more the prosecutor starting from the false arrest by Pinto, to the malicious prosecution, to criminal complicity by the members of the judiciary. One question hence forth, was whether the American judiciary is more fraternal, than "legal." ITJ has shown that the American judicial system operates more on considerations of race, class, and fraternity. The "Rule of Law" comes after those and whatever sub-considerations may come up in the discussion of perpetuating the system of racist injustice.

    Determined to extract at least a pound of black flesh per lynching, Russell Canan summarily found Kwasi Seitu of exercising his civil and constitutional rights in opposition to the desires and interests of his lessor colleagues, so declared Seitu guilty on no crimes and sentenced him to continued detention for an additional two-weeks. Seitu was summarily declared guilty raising "appeals" to higher authorities, who took no action to respond and protect as they were required to do by law, and thus sent back to the jail for two more weeks of illegal detention. Seitu was not accorded the right to first being arrested for any offense, then charged with additional non-existent offenses and within an hour, was subjected to a "bench trial" on the charges, declared guilty, and sent back to the jail. The original matter merely disappeared, the U.S. Attorney dropped the matter for "lack of probable cause," which it should have determined from the very beginning, especially when the cop set forth none. 

    Kwasi Seitu was subjected to more than four months of incarceration without any showing of lawful  cause and authority, and punished for not only refusing to subjugate, but for daring to struggle against it. Thus, yet another major crimpe had been placed into Kwasi Seitu's everyday existence, whereby he merely seized to exist in any of his business for over three months. Unfortunately, due to the assassination or imprisonment of the most revolutionary black element, the knee-grow philosophy has become the controlling ideology of the Black struggle, so no real revolutionary support existed in or out for Seitu's effort. Still, he went through the effort and sacrifice of exposing and documenting Jim Crow from the street to the courts. 

    Beyond the judiciary, Seitu pursued redress with the Commission on Judicial Disability and Tenure, which is specifically charged with arresting and addressing judicial lawlessness. Seitu has since shown through his own case, and that of other black DC residents, that the DC judiciary operates in contravention of the law. From the failure of Lee Satterfield to address the initial complaint, to the refusal of the DC appeals court to issue mandamus, Seitu had established beyond reasonable doubt  as a matter of court record that indeed, he was subjected to the ruling of the U.S. "Supreme" court in the case of Dred Scott v. John Sanford (1857). In that case not only did their "Supreme" court declare that black and Native people have no rights that "those holding the power and government" of the white settler state were bound to respect, but that even "emancipation" of these oppressed people by the oppressor would continue their oppression.

    Kwasi Seitu has pursued and documented his efforts to have the government redress these blatant crimes against him, only to further establish the systemic denial of Jim Crow injustice at every level of the system not only in his case, but in a number of other cases in DC. Due to Seitu's notoriety and enmity amoungst DC's judiciary, he has focused in on exposing the general racist criminality of the DC judiciary. By doing so, Seitu understood that he had no possible way off ever obtaining redress unless he applied his experience to that of his community, so focused continued focusing his efforts in helping others to accomplish what he had. 

     In 2009, black DC resident Dorita Dixon, a middle-aged school teacher with no criminal background, was violently arrested and charged with assaulting seven white MPD officers. Ms Dixon was locked-up over night, and when she appeared in court, was summarily declared guilty by a judge and sentenced so many hours of "community service." As if the racist criminal injustice committed against Ms. Dixon was not enough to salve the pretense of crime claimed by the MPD, she was then being required to perform "community service," as if she was not part of the "community" as defined by the judiciary. Dorita was arrested and charged with assaulting seven well armed and equipped white males as MPD officers, even though their report reflected no no action on Ms. Dixon's part that could even remotely be considered as an assault on ny person, more less a police officer. Still, these facts from the police report, did not deter the U.S. Attorney from "papering" a criminal prosecution of Mr. Dixon. 

    When Dorita appeared for court, she was subjected to less than a judicial proceeding, for the judge, Geofrey Alprin, merely declared her guilty and sentenced her to so many hours of "Community Service." Alprin acted with saying little more than good morning to Ms. Dixon, he never informed her of why she was before the court, nor as to its actions to declare her guilty, convicted, and sentenced. It was expected that due to the leniency of the "sentence," tht Ms Dixon would not challenge the fact that she had been arrested, charged, prosecuted, and declared guilty in the first place. Dorita contacted ITJ for help and soon she was in  court challenging her false arrest by the MPD, the malicious prosecution by he U.S. Attorney, and the facilitation of these racist criminal schemes by the judges of the court.

    ITJ appeared in court with Dorita on the first two hearings that where supposed to be in response to her petition to dispel the conviction, helping her to deflate and defeat the scheme to make the hearings appear to be initiated by the government, we made it clear that the proceedings were initiated by Ms. Dixon against the government. Kwasi Seitu was prevented from appearing in court for the third and final "hearing" for the government, whereby he was drugged, kidnapped, and held in Virginia the week of the hearing. Still, being prepared for such devious acts, Ms. Dixon was given a plan and talking points the week before, which she stuck to and forced the government to concede that it never had a cause of action against her. Dorita has not pursued, or shown any interest in pursuing this further even though ITJ involvement was based on an understanding of serving a broad impact. Aside from the lawless racist arrest to which Dorita was subjected, she was also subjected to malicious prosecution, and malicious judges. ITJ helped her to fight back by exposing the scheme and the sham, assuring that their would be no bogus "trial and conviction." Dorita was not even accorded the pretense of speaking for herself, of being presumed innocent until proven guilty," the judge simply declared her guilty and condemned her to light duty under the pretense of  doing the "community" a service by illegally enslaving its black residents...sounds familiar? If you are black, it ought to.

   Out of this case ITJ was able to open and establish criminal records against five senior judges of the DC "Superor" court engaging in conduct which they know to be illegal, beginning with Geofrey Alprin. The petition to void the "arrest and conviction" of Ms. Dixon was made to Lee Satterfield, chief judge of the "Superior" court, who has a duty just like the rest of us to rport crime, particularly as it occurs in the court he is supposed to be overseeing. Instead of taking legal action to arrest an illegal situation, Satterfield quietly and unofficially passed the matter off to senior judge Truman Morrison to dispose of as he saw fit outside of the law, to which Morrison attracted the assistance of  .

 and his cohort senior judges he would recruit. Morrison first sent 

 

isisisDorita Dixon in petitioned the D.C. "Superior" court for redress of her grievances as to the violation of her civil, constitutional and human rights

Dorita Dixon was accosted, assaulted, and falsely arrested by seven white MPD officers last fall. They then charged her with assaulting them, and even though their report contained not a single fact to support any criminal charge, the U.S. Attorney "papered" the case for prosecution. When Dorita appeared in court, her court appointed attorney rushed and pressured her into signing a "deferred prosecution" agreement, whereby she would plead guilty in exchange for being sentenced to 36-hours of "community service." When Dorita was then taken before the judge, instead of him inquiring whether Dorita was knowingly and intelligently waiving her rights, the judge simply declared her guilty and sentenced her to the hours of community service. Dorita had no intent of pleading guilty, nor entering into any "deferred prosecution" agreement, so then contacted ITJ for assistance. In short order, Dorita then filed a petition with the judge setting forth: 

  • she was lawlessly accosted, assaulted, sexually harassed, illegally seized, illegally searched, kidnapped, falsely imprisoned, and made subject of a false police report by seven armed white men posing as police officers.
  • the U.S. Attorney then “papered” the charge made by the seven armed white men that Dorita assaulted them, and that the reason they were “arresting” her was because she had “fake, counterfeit” Moorish-American plates on her car.
  • when she appeared before senior judge Geoffrey Alprin, he simply declared her guilty and sentenced her to 32-hours of community service, barely speaking more the five words to her.
  • that the judge void his “order,” since it was void and he knew it, and that he also order all public records cleared of the charge. 

      What Alprin did instead, was to immediately send a letter to Dorita, informing her that he had referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for “appropriate action,” which clearly made no sense considering that Dorita made it clear that she understood that the U.S. Attorney had engaged in a malicious prosecution. Alprin’s actions also made no sense because it was not the U.S. Attorney who declared Dorita guilty, so could not void Alprin’s order. A week later, Dorita petitioned Lee Satterfield, the chief judge of the court, making the same complaint, but now conclusively showing the criminal intent of Alprin. Rather than responding directly to Dorita, or acting on her petition, Satterfield passed that matter off to two senior judges, colleagues of Alprin, for them to fashion some way of dealing with the matter, by not doing so. Within a week after she sent her petition to Satterfield, Dorita received a phone call, that was promptly followed by the delivery of an “Order to Appear.” The “order” was titled the “United States v. Dorita Dixon, as if the matter was about a continuation or revival of the criminal prosecution, which her complaint against was that it was malicious. If, in fact, Dorita's allegations in her petition were assumed as true, as courts are required to do, then the order would have been entitled "Dorita Dixon v. Geoffrey Alprin, et al." and not the "United States v. Dorita Dixon," with orders for Alprin, the U.S. Attorney, and the MPD listed as "Respondents" or "Defendants. 

      The judges ordered the hearing without addressing Dorita’s petitions, to date no written response has been given to her petitions from anyone. The real purpose of "hearing" was to assess Dorita’s strength, to determine whether she would be proceeding in court unaided by ITJ, and if she had any community support. Upon seeing that Dorita was being aided in court by ITJ, and that she had community support, the matter went on to its second phase. The senior judges had already sought to confuse the nature of the proceedings as a continuation of the criminal matter, but that would only go so far since Dorita's petitions definitely undercut such notion, which would be evident upon reading them in open court. In order to avoid reading or discussing her allegations the judges had evidently decided to question Dorita’s competency to represent herself, an action which is applicable in a civil matter. The petitions filed by Dorita were "civil" in nature, similar to habeas corpus, in that it challenged a purported criminal conviction. A petition for habeas corpus is never titled as a continuation of the criminal prosecution complained of, but is listed as a new civil action that only refers to the criminal prosecution as the cause of action. 

    On February 8th, Dorita appeared in court before senior judge Patricia Wynn, who claimed that there was “something” in her petition that caused her to question Dorita’s competency. Wynn did not specify, and refused to specify, what that “something” was and ordered that Dorita submit to a competency evaluation. On February 12th, Dorita submitted to the evaluation, which concluded that she was competent. Later that day, when Dorita was to have her hearing on her petitions, she found that Patricia Wynn had been replaced by senior judge Susan Winfield, who insisted on continuing to challenge Dorita’s competency and try to get her to accept the appointment of counsel. The objective of getting Dorita to accept the appointment of counsel was to prevent ITJ from giving her assistance in court, and the attorney would then go along with suppressing her petitions. However, because Dorita did not buckle, Winfield concluded the matter and set it for another hearing on April 12th, the nature of which the judge deliberately left unclear on the court record. 

      Dorita's petitions actually dictate the nature of the proceedings, it really mattered very little that the judges had attempted to obfuscate the real nature of the proceeding. In fact, the effort of the senior judges only made Dorita's complaint that much stronger in that it exposed an even greater extent of lawlessness within the judiciary. However, it was never part of the ITJ plan to rely on the judges, but to draw their criminality out and use that as a means of educating and organizing the community. Before the next appearance the plan was to exploit the criminality of the judges, whereby Dorita's immediate support could help publicize the matter and press officials to investigate. ITJ itself has no resources to carry out the amount work needed to make the strategy a success, so has to depend on those who it does assist in mustering resources to advance their case. Since this has not been forthcoming from Dorita, ITJ will no longer be assisting her personally, it now has enough information on which it can proceed to go after those judges.       

 Brian Bowling 

      In December 2011, Brian Bowling was home and looked out his back window and saw MPD officers beating a man. Brian then went out his front door to check on his mother, who lives directly across the street from him, however, Brian was set upon by two white MPD officers. They fractured his pelvis and then went into his house and began trying to intimidate his family. Brian was then charged with armed robbery and assaulting the two officers, however, by October 2012 the U.S. Attorney had failed to proceed on either charge. A judge then ordered the U.S. Attorney, by October 31st, to show "good cause" as to why the armed robbery charge should not be dismissed for failure to have been brought within 270 days. The U.S. Attorney did not file anything, but on November 20th, filed to proceed on the misdemeanor assault charge and Brian was ordered to appear. At that point Brian contacted ITJ and in short order, Brian filed a petition to abate since just as the robbery charge dissolved as of November 1st, so did the misdemeanor charge. The rule is that all prosecutions must be commenced within 270-days when the person charged is detained, this is based on the application of the Sixth amendment right to a "fair and speedy" trial.

      However, judge Harold Cushenberry decided that he was going to disregard Brian's petition and proceed with the pretense of having jurisdiction to subject Brian to the criminal prosecution. Contrary to both the rule of the court and statutory law, Cushenberry told Brian that the right to a fair and speedy trial did not extend to misdemeanor charges. Currently, Brian has been ordered to return in June to stand trial on the misdemeanor charge, to which ITJ has suggested that Brian file a complaint to chief judge Lee Satterfield, as well as organize his immediate support to engage in the same course of action suggested to Dorita Dixon. An examination of the police report actually reveals that the police lied about there being an armed robbery or robbery at all. The police claimed that a lone and unidentified white woman was walking home from work, at 1:45 in the morning, in the heart of a black neighborhood in a section of D.C. where whites do not live. According to the police report, the woman was approached by two black men and one of them twice demanded that she give him "everything she had" and when she refused, the man reached into her "jacket" pocket and took her cell phone. The man then began to flee, telling the other man to come with him, but instead the other man (who was supposed to have been Brian), twice begged the woman for $20 before also fleeing. The police said that the woman then called the police (on her cell phone) and that instantaneously, officers appeared in time enough for the woman to point out the two men running down the street. The police then claimed to have engaged in a pursuit and the men went into a parking lot, and by time the officers reached the lot, they reported that the two men had jumped into a stolen minivan and came barreling out of the lot "at a high rate of speed." A short chase ensued before the van crashed and "several black males" exited. 

      There are a number of evident problems with the story of the police, for in addition to the fact that no white people live over in that area of the city, the police never stated where the woman worked or where she lived. The police also never described the cell phone that was allegedly taken, nor explained how the woman could call the police if her phone had been taken. The incident occurred in late December, not "jacket" whether, which begs the question as to why the woman was really in a neighborhood where drugs are sold at !:45 in the morning. Even though the police charged "armed robbery," there was nothing in their report that mentioned the display or use of any weapon, and they did not charge grand-theft auto since they claim that the two men were driving a stolen minivan. Although the police claimed that "several black males" leaped from the van after it crashed, picture of the van showed only the driver's door open, even though the van had four doors. However, even worse than that, the picture shows that the van did not have single wheel on it, no glass, and appeared to have no seats as it sat on the ground. The officers also submitted pictures of themselves into evidence, supposedly to show some sort of injury as a result of Brian's alleged assault on them, which their report contained no allegation that Brian ever touched a one of them. The pictures did not show any injury or anything except to very redneck looking white men, however, one close up of an officer's lip appeared to show a cut, but an even closer photo revealed that the cut was actually a line of herpes soars. 

       What appears to have occurred that night was that a white female drug addict was in the neighborhood looking for drugs, got burned, and then told the officers. Being that she apparently knew the neighborhood, it would be safe to assume that she frequented it and was known to the police. When she complained that she had been burned, it appears that the white officers decided to attack any and every black male they found on the street that night. Along with Brian, three other black men in his immediate neighborhood, which is some distance away from the one where the alleged robbery was to have taken place, were assaulted and seized by the officers. The officers justification for being in that neighborhood was that the van crashed there, but  they never explained how the van could crash without wheels. windows, or seats. The whole case was clearly fabricated and used to conceal the fact that those white officers were just out there wilding in the black community. However, more importantly, one must ask themselves how did this ridiculous story make it past their senior officers, the U.S. Attorney, Brian's court appointed attorney, and now judge Harold Cushenberry.  Since November, the court appointed attorney has definitely been engaged in the fraudulent billing of services in a case that ended in at that time, while the U.S. Attorney is being paid to engage in criminal fraud, and Harold Cushenberry for perpetuating it.