Justice Postponed is Justice Denied

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!


    Rodney Williamson is in desperate need of your support. He was convicted of a non-violent drug offense.  During his trial he was denied his Fifth Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.  He is currently still attacking his conviction in the courts, because of his unconstitutional conviction and his non-violent drug offense, he qualifies to be considered for another clemency or pardon.  He needs your support in asking President Trump to review his case.

        His original sentence was life without the possibility of parole.  In January of 2017, President Obama commuted his sentence to three-hundred and sixty months (30 years).  He is very thankful for this blessing.

        Below is a history of his conviction.  You can fact check all exhibits by logging into pacer.gov .They will have all his court records available for public viewing.  You can support him by signing this petition and/or calling the U.S. Pardon office on his behalf.

        I would like you to keep in mind that this is not about being guilty or innocent; this is about the protection of his constitutional rights.  His Sixth Amendment Right to counsel was not protected by the people who took an oath to do so.  For that reason alone his case should be reviewed by President Trump for a pardon or another clemency.  Thank you for your positive support!  

Written by Rodney Williamson for the purpose of having his case reviewed for pardon or clemency.

AT EVERY STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING I WAS DENIED MY FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND MY SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

On December 18, 2006 I was indicted for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine (18 U.S.C. 841 (b)(1)(A)) from 2001-2006, in the middle district of North Carolina, Southern district of New York and the division of St. Thomas Virgin Island.

THE GOVERNMENT USED PERJURY TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY.

                Government informant G.I. testified that he sent me three shipments of ten kilograms of cocaine, starting December of 2004 and on into May 2005 (via drug mules and a driver)that he received from his drug suppliers in the Virgin Islands.  See Exhibit One.   I met G.I. on my first trip to the United States Virgin Islands in May of 2005.  See Exhibit Two.   In September of 2007, the Government used G.I. as a government witness, in a drug conspiracy trial.  (Red Ball II) G.I. testified he did not receive drugs from his supplier starting December 2004 through May 2005, because of a drought.  See Exhibit Three.  I.C.E. Agent J.B. was the case agent on both cases.  Agent J.B. debriefed G.I. several times in 2006.  The prosecuting attorney used perjury testimony in Grand Jury.  G. I. grand jury testimony violated my Fifth Amendment due process right.

THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED MY RIGHT TO COUNSEL BY USING AN INFORMANT TO INTERROGATE ME WHILE RECORDING THE CONVERSATION WHEN I WAS AFFORDED MY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

On January 29, 2007, after being indicted, Agent J. B. asked E. A. to wear a recording device while having lunch with me.   See Exhibit Four.  E. A. asked questions that were equivalent to a police interrogation.  Agent J.B. and A.U.S.A. S.H. violated my Sixth Amendment right to counsel when they reviewed, used the recording to follow investigatory leads, questioned trial witnesses, introduced it as evidence at trial, and told the jury to use it to corroborate their witness testimony.  See Exhibit Five.

MY PRE-TRIAL COUNSEL CHANGED HIS STRATEGY AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORDING; HE REFUSED TO REPRESENT ME AT TRIAL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT BECAME PRIVILEDGED TO MY TRIAL STRATEGY.

                I was arrested on June 5, 2007 after arraignment my family retained N. T. for the purpose of trial counsel.  N.T. went on a family vacation (7-6-07 — 7-26-07), while on said vacation his law partner M. O. received a copy of the January 29, 2007 recording.  Prior to N.T. family vacation, the defense plan was to take the case to trial.  After returning from his vacation and reviewing the recording N.T.’s trial strategy changed.  The change in trial strategy caused a dispute that resulted in N.T. withdrawing as counsel of record.  See Exhibit Six.  The Government’s use of the January 29, 2007 recording interfered with my attorney client relationship.  The Government became exposed to statements that I would have only shared with my lawyer and used in my defense.  N.T. did not file any pretrial motions, he was not aware that the recording violated my Sixth amendment right to counsel.   See Exhibit Seven.

MY TRIAL LAWYER TOLD THE DISTRICT COURT HE WAS READY TO REPRESENT ME AT TRIAL BEFORE HE DISCUSSED THE FACTS ON MY CASE WITH ME, HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF MY FACTS AT THAT TIME.

On August 11, 2007, I met with C. B., for the purpose of retaining him as trial counsel.  On August 13, 2007 C.B. appeared in court and informed the courts that he was ready to go to trial.  He did not discuss trial strategy with me before making this statement to the court.  See Exhibit Eight

POST TRIAL I WANTED TO FILE INEFFECTIVE ON MY TRIAL LAWYER, I DID NOT GET TO DO THAT BECAUSE I WAS REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAWYER.

                Sometime after the guilty verdict, I discovered, I could file ineffective assistance of counsel issues in the district court. (Motion for New Trial Rule 33 (b) (2)) During a discussion about my presentencing report, I asked C.B. to file ineffective on himself.  My request caused a conflict of interest.  C.B. filed a motion to withdraw notifying the court of the conflict and that I could not afford to retain counsel.  See Exhibit Nine

AT SENTENCING THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE ME TWO UNCONSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS, THE COURT WAS ON NOTICE OF A CONFLICT WITH ME AND COUNSEL AND I COULD NOT AFFORD TO RETAIN COUNSEL.  

                At the motion to withdraw hearing, November 20, 2007 the court gave me two unconstitutional options:

1) Hire new counsel

2)  Represent myself    

The only realist option I had was to represent myself, for the remainder of the trial proceedings.  See Exhibit Ten

ON DIRECT APPEAL MY APPEALLATE COUNSEL DIDN’T BRIEF HIS OWN ORAL AND WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, HE DID MAKE ORAL OBJECTIONS, HIS OBJECTIONS VIOLATED APPELLATE RULE 28 (A) (9) (A).

                J.D.J. was appointed to represent me on my direct appeal.  J.D.J. raised the Sixth Amendment right to counsel issue, for the first time.  My conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  See Exhibit Eleven.  After remand but before the second supplemental brief, I brought to J.D.J.’s attention that the Government’s witnesses testimonies and trial strategy was fruit of the poisonous tree or derivative evidence of the January 29, 2007 recording, and he should brief that evidence in his second supplemental brief.  J.D.J. did not brief the illegal fruit in his brief; however, at the second oral argument he made oral objections to the illegal evidence.  Those objections violated Appellate Rule 28 (A) (9) (a).  The court of Appeals did not acknowledge the objections but instead used the illegal evidence to affirm my conviction.  J.D.J. filed a hearing enbanc and petitioned the Supreme Court, in both motions he briefed his oral objections in further detail.   See Exhibit Twelve

                My indictment drug weight was the result of perjury testimony.  The jury found drug weight was the result of illegal evidence (January 29, 2007 recording).  The Government told the jury to use the recording to corroborate their witnesses testimonies, without this corroboration my drug amount would be significantly lower.  I was never in possession of drugs or drug proceeds.

All the listed exhibits can be found on official court records

Exhibit One

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

August 2007 Trial Transcripts Page 85 Line 21-25, Page 86 Lines 1-7 

Exhibit Two

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

Doc # 271 Pro se motion for New Trial Rule 33 (b) (1) Exhibit #2

Exhibit Three

Division of St. Thomas and St. John          Criminal No. 2006-80

September 2007 Trial Transcripts G. I.  Testimony Page 125 Line 21-25

Exhibit Four

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

August 2007 Trial Transcripts Page 166 line 16-25, Page 167 Line 1-25

Exhibit Five

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

August 2007 Government Closing Arguments Page 22 Line 18-22

Exhibit Six

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

August 13, 2007 9:40 a.m. Page 5 Line 13-25, Page 6 Lines 1-17 

Exhibit Seven

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

Doc # 327 Response to Motion to Disqualify A.U.S.A. S.A. Page 3 Footnote 1

Exhibit Eight

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

August 13, 2007 9:40 A.M.  Page 2 Line 21-25, Page 3 Line 1-25

Exhibit Nine

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

Doc # 165

Exhibit Ten

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

November 20, 2007 Motion to Withdraw Hearing Pages 10, 11, 18, 19, 20 and 23

Exhibit Eleven

Supreme Court of the United States       No. 09-8915

Brief for the United States

Exhibit Twelve

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals               Case Numbers 08-4055, 11-5179, 12-6933

Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc No. 12-6933 Pages 9,10, 11 and 12

Petition for Writ of Cetiorari        United States Supreme Court No. 12-10633 Pages 20,21,and 22

Exhibit Thirteen

Middle District of N.C.                    Criminal No. 1:00-CR-474-1

Doc # 329 Motion to Amend

 



Today: Aimey is counting on you

Aimey Giacinto needs your help with “President of the United States: Justice Postponed is Justice Denied”. Join Aimey and 209 supporters today.