March
10, 2006
Tim Wantland,
Attorney, Claremore Oklahoma:
I presume you have the copies of the 911 phone calls Brenda
Dilbeck made prior to the present case at bar which clearly
demonstrates there was animosity between Ms. Dilbeck and the
controllers of the premises where she was arrested. These calls corroborate
direction of Ms. Dilbeck’s action of preparation of relocating
from that residence controlled by others.
If you do not have them it will be difficult for me to get them but not for
you to get them for
corroboration.
As I read the “incident report” I note that “Perry stated
that he thought that he
might have a smoking pipe at the house…” clear evidence of
knowledge and control.
[I] “found a smoking pipe with residue in it…the smoking
pipe was inside of a yellow container with some…marijuana.”
Emphasis on ‘inside’
mine.
“Brenda Dilbeck was letting her dog
outside.”
Brenda Dilbeck volunteered a UA but was declined. Such would have proved she
had not participated in the consumption of any
marijuana.
Which brings us to Frazier v State 488 P2d 613 and
McBride v. State 507 P.2d 63. (Not the same Mc. Bride
that Jeremy Jones told me got his meth from Klatt for his personal
use)
In a civil case close proximity may be preponderance but
nothing more. We both
know that.
Item 5 in Frazier, page 614: “To convict for possession of
marijuana, it is necessary for state to prove defendant’s control
and knowledge; mere proximity to marijuana is not
enough. 63
Okl.St.Ann. sec 452.”
1
Syllabus by the Court, same page, “Possession may be proved
by circumstantial evidence, but a conviction on circumstantial
evidence cannot be sustained if the proof does not exclude every
other reasonable hypothesis except that of
guilt.”
The gravamen is reiterated in McBride and a simplified
comparison is that as McBride would not know what is in a paper
sack in the possession and control of another; Ms. Dilbeck would
not know what is in a yellow knick-knack on a table in the
permanent residence of Perry Schenk; who most certainly did know as Perry Schenk,
in control of the residence, voluntarily told Deputy Rusty
Satterwhite of the pipe containing the marijuana residue.
Randy Langley and Perry Schenk would have juvenescent
vindictive cause to implicate Brenda Dilbeck in revenge for her
911 emergency call aforementioned. “Lets get even and take
her down, too!”
In McBride, page 64 item 4 “Joint possession cannot be
established by the fact the defendant is or has been in the
company of one having possession of the marihuana in the absence
of additional independent factors linking defendant with it.”
I had a relative that smoked. Following a visit I had to
wash my clothes and shower as I reeked to my own intolerance. The offensive pungent odor
my clothes exuded due to proximity is no proof that I
smoked.
I believe Brenda Dilbeck had a nasty smoking habit
once; it shows in her face.
That does not mean she still has such smoking habit. When she tells me she has
“kicked the habit” I believe her.
You have the ability to conclude this case before it
goes to trial, thus allowing Ms. Dilbeck to continue her move to
Tulsa and resume her
responsibilities of life in her direction of reintegrating
positively into society as a productive member. Why you have not already
diligently done so remains an unanswered
question.
2
Electing to allow Ms. Dilbeck to stagnate in a cell waiting
for a trial that will result in a “Not Guilty” verdict is counter
productive to the general order of the Way. It is the wasting of a
human life.
I will turn the key on a guilty party as quickly as I will
stand to open the door for one who is not. I find no hypocrisy in
this. I have been
illegally forced to live with those whose keys I would throw
away. There, also,
according to Janet Reno, are too many “Wrongfully Convicted.” Let’s not allow your
client Brenda Dilbeck to be one of these 5%-10%. I am beating 70 with an
ugly stick. If you
elect trial, please do not give me the burden of assisting Brenda
Dilbeck in a Pro-se Appeal [or OIDS assisted] due to Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel.
If you are interested in the style I write I invite you to
read “Post Conviction Relief” and “The Appeal” chapters on my web
site knightsindirtyarmour.com. Though in the instant case
at bar I do not believe there are any improprieties by the
prosecutor and won’t be by the Judge. Consequently, by comparison
Ms. Dilbeck’s successful appeal would be rather concise and
mundane. Mr. Ely will win at a trial, simply by pointing a finger,
making such appeal for delayed Justice necessary, only if
you allow it.
Mel Gibson wrote and directed the historical fiction
Braveheart. An Aussie
portraying a Scott.
Idealistic and extreme but based on fact. Lets show a tiny bit of his
enthusiasm and help Brenda Dilbeck.
Doing otherwise allows our Selfs to
waste.*
Respectfully,
John Schoonover U.S.N. Ret.
RR 1 Box
67 Cleveland Oklahoma
74020
Cc: Mr. Ely (Craig
County
prosecutor), Ms. Dilbeck, www.
*Plagiarized from Lao
Tzu, Siddhartha, Jesus, Edmond Burke, Nietzsche, Friends Canon and
the late Lama Rashe.
3
Back / Next
/ Home
