January 8, 1999, Plaintiff Lambros' letter to Judge Mason and Attorney Donna Rae Johnson as to an overview of Title 18 U.S.C.A. 201(c)(2), in LAMBROS vs. FAULKNER, Civil No. 98-1621. Total of two (2) pages.


January 8, 1999

John Gregory Lambros, Pro Se
Reg. No. 00436-124
USP Leavenworth
P.O. Box 1000
Leavenworth, Kansas 66048-1000 USA


Magistrate Judge John M. Mason
612 Federal Court Building
316 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Donna Rae Johnson
Attorney at Law
700 St Paul Building
St . Paul, Minnesota 55102

RE: LAMBROS vs. ESTATE OF FAULKNER et al.
CIVIL CASE NO. 98-1621 (DSD/JMM)

 

Dear Judge Mason & Attorney Johnson:

On December 12, 1998, Attorney Johnson submitted her "MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS."

On page six (6) of the above described document Attorney Johnson states, "First of all, it was the prosecution that arranged any plea bargain, and plea bargains have been regularly used by the courts. Even if the matter is now under consideration, it was completely valid at the time Mr. Faulkner was representing Plaintiff.

This week the law library received the October 8, 1998, case U.S. vs. REVIS, 22 F.Supp.2d 1242 (N.D.Okla. 1998) were U.S. Judge J. Holmes offered an excellent overview of Title 18 U.S.C.A. ~201(c)(2), stating on page 1248:

There is no question that permitting a criminal defendant to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contains a requirement for truthful testimony is a practice of long-standing. However, there is no authority that supports the claim that a long-standing practice, if contrary to law, should nevertheless be upheld.

In this regard, the argument by John W. Davis to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 is worthy of note. Appearing on behalf of the South Carolina school system, Mr. Davis stated, "[s]ome time to every principle . . . comes a moment of repose when it has been so often announced, so confidently relied upon, so long continued, that it passes the limits of judicial discretion and disturbance." The principle in favor of which Mr. Davis argued was RACIAL SEGREGATION. Following re-argument in that case, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the long-standing practice of RACIAL SEGREGATION and with it the notion that historical practice can substitute for law. Accordingly, if the practice of providing leniency for testimony in a plea agreement is unlawful under 18 U.S.C. §201(c)(2), then is must be overturned, NO MATTER HOW LONG THAT PRACTICE MAY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. (cites omitted) (emphasis added)

(U.S. vs. REVIS, at 1248)

Thanking you in advance for your time in sharing Judge Holmes thoughts.

Respectfully submitted,

John Gregory Lambros

c :

Clerk of U.S. District Court
District of Minnesota
316 North Robert Street
Room 708
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101


The address for the Boycott Brazil homepage is:
http://brazilboycott.org

Return to Boycott Brazil Homepage


For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:

JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
USA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.