Knights in
Dirty Armour II
Chapter
VIII
POST CONVICTION
RELIEF
BY KEVIN ADAMS,
ATTORNEY
Kevin Adams wrote a very
efficient (and of course professional) P.C.R. for Marie. He raised two issues, both
are “Constitution” issues warranting reversal of the conviction of
Marie.
They are, Proposition No.
1: “Ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel: failure of trial counsel
to object to inadmissible hearsay during the trial and failure of
appellate counsel to raise the ineffective assistance claim against
trial counsel on appeal for his failure to
object.”
This is a valid issue;
James Rowan and Catrina Conrad Legler were “ineffective” and it is
left at that. Why they
were “ineffective” is, in this layman’s mind, is an important
issue. Are they simply
less than quality attorneys?
No, they are not.
James Rowan is a very good attorney as is Catrina Conrad
Legler. If I leave the
world with the comment that these two attorneys are not worth their
salt it is a taint to their rather well deserved excellent
reputation. They were
“ineffective” because their hands were tied behind their backs by
the Court and rules of Oklahoma pertaining to Indigent
Defense Attorneys paid by the state.
I will omit all the legal
nomenclature and caselaw as it would be redundantly superfluous to
what I have already written.
Suffice it to say Kevin Adam’s Brief was well written and
brings out the issue of the Probable Cause Affidavit and an
expansion of the notarized statement of Nora Stanart concerning
Gilda Marie’s factual location far removed from Benjamin when he
suffered his trauma. He
does point out facts and evidence elucidating Marie’s actual factual
innocence.
1
In the former, James Rowan
objected numerous times and was ignored. He was cautioned by the
court not to keep interrupting. He asked for a mistrial
because he was not allowed to present a defense. He was not allowed to show
how Benjamin received his injury the evening October 29, 1999 from a
backward fall off a piece of furniture as described by Dr.
Krouse. Judge Post
ruled that he could not talk of furniture in that house because no
evidence had been brought by the state that there was any furniture
for Benjamin to fall from.
Judge Post simply gagged him; put a dirty sock in his
mouth. That made him
“Ineffective” in defending Little Insignificant (and
innocent) Marie.
Katrina Conrad Legler and
her incompetence as an attorney:
Hardly. I read her appeal
brief. Rather lengthy
and covered most of the issues but “Ineffective Assistance of Trial
Counsel” because or whatever reasons will remain unknown, and one
can only speculate but I do believe that she would be scoffed at if
the attempted to label James Rowan as “ineffective” when it is known
by the record he did all he was allowed to do by Judge Post
with her sock in his mouth.
James Rowan is a fine
honourable attorney.
His only personal impediment was a recent physical injury
which disabled him from moving like a jackrabbit when Judge Post
called him and Judge Post had no patience for his slow mobility and
let all know that; she also scoffed at Kevin Adams for “talking”
with his hands as some people do. Even on the telephone. She did not object to Mr.
Ramsey’s hands over his head describing the volcanic activity of
“Brains gushing out the top of his head.”
And, of course, it is
terribly unethical to point out faults in a judge, no matter how bad
they are. An example of
that is the recorder who would not report her judge for playing with
himself with sex toys while sitting in trial, “I didn’t want to be
found dead in a ditch somewhere.” His colleagues didn’t
prosecute him; he quietly retired. Fortunately, there are
factually few judges like him and Dynda Post.
2
Catrina Conrad Legler
quoted the late Patrick Crawley (Attorney General) concerning the
“Two inch fracture” and “The toddlers head was busted open.” Treated as gospel, this
fracture so large and top of his
head “busted open” is rather difficult to accept as an accident
but Catrina does believe that Marie is innocent. I would not accept such a
description as an accident.
Being directly involved I knew there was no fracture at all
when I carried Benjamin into the hospital. The suppressed radiologist’s
report that there was no fracture bore this out as fact. Nor was there the tiny
bruise on his hip where they had laid what I assume was a portable
oxygen tank; it was the right colour and size and a bruise did
develop where it was placed.
I believed that when
Charles Ramsey ranted and waived his hands in volcanic activity to
the jury that Benjamin’s “Brains were gushing out the top of his
head” was simply a figment of his wild imagination. It is so bizarre to conceive
that someone would actually bash open a child’s head, just plain
morbid when done in a hospital room, to create evidence of a murder
to cover up for ones perjury on a Probable Cause Affidavit. Then take photos for “show
and tell” to State’s witnesses prior to trial: “This is what happened when
John Beat Benjamin’s head against the bedpost.”
When I wrote Catrina Legler
about the discrepancy of the “Two inch fracture” by the late
Attorney General Patrick Crawley, she was disallowed, by OIDS to
write a rebuttal of such a statement being in error. The Court of Criminal
Appeals did not scrutinize what was not noted and had no way of
knowing that such a fracture did not exist before Benjamin entered
St. Francis Hospital and became, as George Klatt stated, “Property
of the State.”
This “Two Inch Fracture”
went uncontested and if it were fact, as the Court of Criminal
Appeals believed, I would side with them as such a fracture is not
possible in any normal non-inflicted household fall on carpet.
3
Proposition
2:
“RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES AGAINST ME”
This is a Constitutional
issue we should all be aware of as it is in the Constitution,
6th Amendment.
This is a conundrum which
is why what is called a “Daubert” hearing should have been held by
the Court. If not asked
for by defense attorneys, which it was, it would have been held
sua-sponte by a competent judge as caselaw, which I will not cite
here, dictates.
This would have solved the
conflict created by Judge Post in disallowing separate trials. Marie has the Constitutional
Right to confront witnesses against her. As I stated I was outside
she had the right to call me as a witness and confront me concerning
that statement and whatever else information/evidence concerning the
events of that fateful evening.
I was charged with the same
(non-existent) crime as Marie.
(“John confessed to killing Ben…etc…” Probable Cause
Affidavit sworn to by George Klatt). Thus I also had a
Constitutional Right:
“Not to testify.”
I did not exercise this “Right” as I was not called to
testify. Had there
properly been separate trials I would have been called to testify
and could not refuse to do so even if I so elected.
Judge Post was determined
to send someone to prison for murder when she publicly
declared, before the trial, that Benjamin was a “Murder
Victim.” When it became
obvious she could not “get” me, she focused on Marie as her
scapegoat and charged me, after the trial, with the bogus charge of
“Accessory After The Fact” when there was no evidence whatever to
warrant such a fictitious charge. This phony charge, put to
the jury, declared Marie as a murderer.
4
Judge Post then regrettably
informed Charles Ramsey, when he asked, that she could not increase
the seven year sentence on this bogus charge, as he requested, but
she would refuse bail.
This guaranteed me silence for two more years in prison when
I should have been out and able to rebut the “fracture” discrepancy;
submit a pro-se for Marie on her appeal and it is near impossible
that they would have affirmed her conviction. Counting all “good
time” that I had earned, that was denied by the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections, I had served that seven year
sentence before I was
sent to prison on the bogus charge by Judge Post.
If she will do that to me,
she will do that to others and I have found a couple of those
“others” thanks to her putting me in the same cage with
them.
My primary goal is Justice
For Marie. Charles
Ramsey harped to the jury “Justice for little Benjamin” when what
happened to Benjamin was a tragic accident. I seek “Justice For Marie!”
In memory of our little boy.
And I will not
“Walk away in ignorance” when I receive that “Justice For Marie” as
my eyes have been opened to other atrocities and, one at a time,
until I am downed by a heart attack or assassins bullet, I will
continue to make little dents in court house corruption and link some of
my findings from this website to a new one I have purchased,
judicialjackasses.com.
Lao Tzu or Confucius, I
cannot remember which, said, “To seek vengeance, first go dig two
graves.” Though I may
be digging mine for an unknown assassin like Jeremy Reed/Jones, of
whom I was in the same cell with, by the way, I am not seeking
vindictive vengeance. I
am seeking Justice. We
have all seen the statues, Justice stands, with the exception of one
in old Carson
City Nevada,
blindfolded. I have no
control how her sword falls when one perverts her scales.
The Pro-se Post Conviction
Relief documents filed in Mayes County Oklahoma October 14, 2005,
are verbatim in their entirety in the following
chapter:
5
Knights in
Dirty Armour
II
Chapter
IX
POST CONVICTION
RELIEF
FILED IN MAYES
COUNTY
14 OCTOBER
2005
EXCERPTS
FROM POST CONVICTION RELIEF
BY
KEVIN ADAMS
“There existed evidence
that Mrs. Schoonover’s counsel could have confronted John Schoonover
concerning whether he killed Benjamin Schoonover. In the November 16 1999
affidavit filed by George Klatt, Officer Klatt swears that he was
told by Judy Girdner that on October 31 1999 she overheard John
admit that he killed Benjamin.
Gilda never had an opportunity to confront John Schoonover on
whether he made that statement or not because John Schoonover was
allowed to establish his presence outside through the introduction
of hearsay statements.”
These hearsay statements’ origination was John Schoonover
himself and should not have been allowed.
“The standard of review for
ineffective assistance of counsel is two-pronged:
1, Appellant must show that
counsel’s performance was deficient,
2, Appellant must show that
the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. There is a strong
presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional conduct. I.e.; appellate must
overcome the presumption that under the circumstances, counsel’s
conduct was sound trial strategy.”
6
Kevin Adams called John
Schoonover into his office and handed him a copy of the limited Post
Conviction Relief application raising only two issues. Knowing John Schoonover is
an analytic reader Kevin Adams encouraged John Schoonover to advise
Gilda Marie Schoonover, a woman easily deceived by the noumenomous
nomenclature of the legal profession to sign the documents
as they were written when she is in fact non est factum.
Kevin Adams wrote an
excellent P.C.R. raising the two issues of “Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel” and “Violation of (Marie’s) Right to Confrontation,”
which is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of our
Constitution. Inserted
is also the admission of “Hearsay Statements” which are not
admissible which violates Oklahoma Statute section 2808. John
Schoonover approved of what he had read that was written by Kevin
Adams and advised the defendant Gilda Marie Schoonover that Kevin
Adams was bringing them for her to sign and further advised the
defendant to sign the documents he had read. Such limiting of the issues
to these two, if this was all that was wrong, should result in relief for
Gilda Marie. It totally
ignores the flagrant violations of our laws by Prosecutor Charles
Ramsey, his friend George Klatt and Judge Dynda Post.
At that time John
Schoonover again asked that Kevin Adams use as additional issues
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of Judicial Discretion. Kevin Adams stated he would
not do so. This
limiting of issues by Kevin Adams clearly shows his deficient
performance and definitely sells his client for the benefit of those
“bedpartner” colleagues whom he must work with or risk ridicule by
them for “turning” on one of his own kind. John Schoonover would
prepare a “supplemental” to the Post Conviction Relief as a Friend
of The Court and Justice, for his wife, raising the critical issues
of Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct and Abuse of Judicial Discretion
without the fear that governed Kevin Adams.
7
The Defendant, Gilda Marie
Schoonover, had placed her total faith in the judgment of her
husband and she signed the documents placed before her by Kevin
Adams. After the signed
documents were filed did the defendant receive a copy which she read
to John Schoonover and it was NOT one of the original documents
meeting any approval of the defendant’s husband, John Schoonover,
that Kevin Adams used to get his influence for the defendant to sign
I call it a
“Quitter
Statement:”
“I have read the foregoing
application and assignments of error and hereby state under oath
that there are no other grounds upon I wish to attack the judgment
and sentencing of which I am presently convicted. I realize that I cannot
later raise or assess any reason or ground known to me at this time
or which could have been discovered by me by the exercise of
reasonable diligence. I
further realize that I am not entitled to file a second or
subsequent application for Post Conviction Relief based upon fact
within my knowledge or which I could discover with reasonable
diligence at this time.”
This document is in the
best interests only of George Klatt, Charles Ramsey and Dynda
Post! Kevin Adams
places them in the plush seat of the hansom (with himself) and kicks
his client Gilda Marie Schoonover and Our Lady of Justice into the
old Ford’s open rumble seat naked into the foulest of weather!
“I know not what course
others may take but the course I choose is to give Marie Justice or
give me death. I am not
a coward.” God bless
Patrick Henry for his morals and courage.
8
So, why pursue issues such
as “Prosecutor Misconduct” and “Judicial Indiscretions” if they are
not absolutely necessary for the release of innocent Marie? Crooked officials are a
problem. Anywhere. The Quakers have an axiom,
and from memory, “When one recognizes a problem, one cannot walk
away from it in ignorance.”
It is not vindictiveness or vengeance; it is that such
officials do not limit themselves to sending unjustly only one
innocent victim to prison illegally. Janet Reno told me 5% are
discovered through DNA alone.
“And that’s way too many,” she added. There are more than 1,000
women inmates in Mabel Basset Prison in McLoud Oklahoma. Even with such large
numbers, the math is not difficult. Judge Post put this innocent
victim in a similar prison.
I have met others in prison and I cannot walk away in
ignorance. To have any
respect for Justice, I must make what dent I can in
corruption.
CERTIFIED MAIL FROM
MABEL BASSETT PRISON
{In
reference to the prepared “quitter” statement
Judge Dynda
Post:
“I wish to void this. I will not stop this until I
am freed for I am innocent; I did not kill my one and only son
Benjamin Michael Schoonover.
I was forced to sign this paper; now I want to stop it. This is not the paper my
husband was showed and told me to sign. Kevin Adams has tried to
sell me up the river, I won’t allow this. Even Ramsey has told all of
our attorneys and all the jurors he knew I was innocent. But Ramsey
had to keep a conviction; he couldn’t get John, so he went after
me.
That was told me by Kevin Adams last time I saw him.”
(signed) Gilda Marie
Schoonover 404171
[Mabel Bassett
Prison
McLoud, Oklahoma 74851]
9
FILED IN MAYES
COUNTY 14
OCTOBER 2005
Motion to Supplement and
Publish
Comes now the petitioner
Gilda Marie Schoonover and respectfully moves this honorable court
to supplement the record on a post Conviction Relief application in
Case No. CF 1999-271-B submitted and filed with this court on
September 30 for reason and authority to wit:
Under the rules of the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals,
and pursuant to Graves v State, 878 p2d 1075 Okla. Cr.
1994.
This Petitioner is bringing
this Motion to Supplement and Publish.
In asking to Supplement and
Publish, it is necessary to:
1. Include affidavit stating why records need to be
supplemented.
2. State items included in Supplement.
3. Show how items are necessary for Post Conviction
Relief.
4. Show why items have not been brought
previously.
The requested supplement is necessary to seek and reach the
proper ends of Justice, that is to say: the truth, not convictions.
See Canon 5 American Bar Association rules (1926)
To further expand, the petitioner is, as can be seen by
examination
of events, and an Evidentiary Hearing being held concerning
the
improprieties, the Perjured Probable Cause Affidavit, and the
later
actions of George Klatt in both this matter and others that
were
wrongfully indicted by false affidavits which show
probability of innocence.
10
The petitioner has claimed
ineffective assistance of both trial and appellant counsel and in
support of this Motion to Publish will show in the supplement that
counsels were, in additions to reasons brought prior, ineffective by
failure to raise issues herein.
See Woodruff v. State 910 p2d 348.
In support the Petitioner
herein prays this honorable court to Supplement and Publish the
following;
Propositions
concerning:
1. Actual innocence.
2. Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel.
3. Extreme Prosecutorial
Misconduct.
4. Abuse of Judicial
Discretion.
Exhibits
Exhibit
A, The worldwide published
documentary,
Knights in Dirty Armour ,
Trafford Publishing Company, Canada, Ireland and U.K. ISBN #
1-41206406-6
Exhibit
B,
Newspaper article from the Pryor Daily Times.
(reprinted in
the Tulsa Daily World)
11
Counsel
herein has also failed to bring forth these issues in this Post
Conviction application at bar and these issues are paramount to this
application.
As to the exhibits and
attachments mentioned, these have not been previously available and
the authors will swear by their oath to the factualness of the
manuscript; and it should be further noted that no rebuttal of the
manuscript, which is both open to the public and available worldwide
has ever been brought.
Therefore, for reasons and
authority herein, this Pro-se Petitioner moves this honorable court
to allow the supplement herein and enumerated
and Publish as part of this
record.
For:
Gilda Marie Schoonover
Signed,
John Schoonover
12
FILED IN MAYES
COUNTY 14
OCTOBER 2005
Supplemental brief in an
application for Post Conviction Relief pursuant to Oklahoma
Statute 22 Sec. 1080 seq:
CF
1999-271-B
Comes now the petitioner
Gilda Marie Schoonover, an inmate at The Mabel Basset Correctional
facility in McLoud, Oklahoma, and respectfully
presents this honorable court with the following supplemental brief
to supplement an application for Post Conviction Relief presented
this honorable court and filed with its clerk on September 30, 2005,
Pursuant to reason and authority herein.
