TWO FORGED FEDERAL WAIVERS: DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION FOR JOSHUA “3EEZY” BURTON
The Issue
🚨 FORGED FEDERAL DOCUMENTS. 91 HOURS IN CUSTODY. COLOR OF LAW. PREJUDICE. A BLACK DEFENDANT WITH NO PRIOR DRUG CONVICTIONS — WHILE A WHITE GOVERNMENT INFORMANT WITH A DRUG HISTORY RECEIVED DIFFERENT TREATMENT. 🚨
WHO WILL INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED TO JOSHUA BURTON — “3EEZY”?
My son, Joshua Mazique Burton, a Black man and recording artist known as “3eezy,” had NO prior drug convictions and NO prior convictions involving drugs.
3eezy is a rap name he has used since his teenage years — NOT a drug-lord identity.
Yet the federal government portrayed Joshua as someone who had been dealing drugs for approximately three years.
WHERE IS THREE YEARS OF EVIDENCE?
And why was Joshua, a Black man with no prior drug convictions, prosecuted while Robert Starnes, a White government informant with the drug history described in the trial evidence and testimony, received dramatically different treatment?
🚨 WE ARE DEMANDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE RACIAL PREJUDICE, DISPARATE TREATMENT AND MISCONDUCT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits racially discriminatory government enforcement. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized that even a facially neutral law violates equal protection when administered with an unjust discriminatory purpose. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) addresses the demanding legal standard for proving selective prosecution.
We are asking an independent attorney to investigate whether Joshua's treatment meets those standards.
🚨 A PROFESSIONAL FORENSIC EXAMINER FOUND THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT JOSHUA'S
Joshua maintained that he NEVER signed two federal waivers, dated April 1 and May 6, 2024.
Our family paid for an independent professional forensic examination.
THE EXAMINER DETERMINED JOSHUA DID NOT AUTHOR THE QUESTIONED SIGNATURES AND IDENTIFIED HIS FORMER ATTORNEY, GLENN BRENNER, AS THE WRITER.
TWO FEDERAL WAIVERS. TWO FORGED SIGNATURES. HIS OWN ATTORNEY.
Joshua fought the forgery issue in federal habeas proceedings. The Fifth Circuit VACATED AND REMANDED the dismissal. The July 31, 2026 remand mandate has now been satisfied.
🚨 THEN LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL JAIL RECORDS
March 28, 2024 — Joshua arrested.
Approximately:
91 HOURS IN CUSTODY.
Then the records state:
“RELEASED WITHOUT PROSECUTION.”
“FEDERALS PICKED UP THE CHARGE NO CHARGED.”
“RELEASED TO THE FEDS.”
Joshua maintains he never appeared before a local magistrate during those approximately 91 hours.
The first questioned/forged federal waiver is dated APRIL 1 — THE SAME DAY THE JAIL RECORDS SHOW JOSHUA BEING RELEASED TOWARD FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) establish constitutional protections concerning prompt probable-cause determinations following warrantless arrests.
WHO HAD CUSTODY OF JOSHUA? WHO AUTHORIZED EACH TRANSFER? WHO SIGNED WHAT? AND UNDER WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY?
Those questions matter when investigating whether anyone acted under color of law to deprive Joshua of federally protected rights.
Federal civil-rights law, including 18 U.S.C. § 242, addresses willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. Whether that crime occurred here is for an independent investigation and prosecutors to determine.
🚨 THREE DAYS BEFORE TRIAL — RUSSELL WILSON II FILED A MOTION IN LIMINE
Joshua's appointed defense attorney Russell Wilson II filed a motion in limine three days before trial that, according to our review, prevented the jury from hearing critical matters involving the forgery and Fifth Circuit proceedings.
Joshua asked for forensic testing.
Wilson initially said he would obtain it.
HE DID NOT.
JOSHUA'S FAMILY HAD TO PAY FOR IT.
Our family also witnessed Wilson making no objections during trial while laughing, huddling and interacting with the judge, prosecutors and others involved in the proceedings.
Our family believes this conduct raises serious questions about prejudice, conflict, coordination and possible conspiracy that an independent attorney must investigate.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) requires effective assistance of counsel and addresses deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
HOW COULD JOSHUA RECEIVE A FAIR DEFENSE IF HIS OWN ATTORNEY WAS HELPING KEEP EVIDENCE JOSHUA CONSIDERED CRITICAL AWAY FROM HIS JURY?
🚨 THEN HIS FAMILY WAS KEPT OUT FOR THE VERDICT
We came to federal court to hear Joshua's verdict.
WE WERE MADE TO SIT OUTSIDE.
Joshua's family was not allowed inside for the verdict reading.
According to what our family witnessed, Russell Wilson did not object.
We demand the complete verdict-day transcript and courtroom record showing who ordered our exclusion, why we were excluded, whether the courtroom was formally closed, and whether any objection was made.
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) protect the Sixth Amendment right to a public criminal proceeding and establish constitutional requirements surrounding courtroom closure.
🚨 NOW COMPARE THE TREATMENT
JOSHUA BURTON — BLACK.
NO PRIOR DRUG CONVICTIONS.
ROBERT STARNES — WHITE.
GOVERNMENT INFORMANT WITH THE DRUG HISTORY DESCRIBED IN THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.
According to the testimony our family relies upon, Starnes continued using, obtaining and selling drugs, was placed in rehab shortly before trial, and money was returned to him.
WHY WAS STARNES TREATED DIFFERENTLY?
What promises, benefits, protection, charging decisions or agreements did he receive?
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) protect a defendant's right to material favorable evidence, including material impeachment information concerning government witnesses.
PRODUCE STARNES'S COMPLETE COOPERATION AND BENEFITS RECORD.
🚨 EVERY ROLE MUST BE INVESTIGATED
GLENN BRENNER — Former defense attorney: identified by the forensic examination as the writer of Joshua's questioned/forged signatures.
HABIB EL-KHOURY — Texas DMV Investigator: his role in bringing Joshua into the federal case, the operation involving Starnes, Joshua's transfer to federal authorities, and any actions taken under color of law require investigation.
ROBERT STARNES — White government informant: his drug activity, cooperation, benefits, rehab, money and different treatment require examination.
ABBY POLICASTRO & MARISSA AULBAUGH — Federal prosecutors: what they knew about the forged documents, Starnes, any benefits or favorable treatment, and when they knew it must be independently investigated.
RUSSELL WILSON II — Joshua's appointed attorney: his motion in limine filed three days before trial, failure to obtain the promised forensic examination, lack of objections alleged by the family, courtroom conduct and failure to object when Joshua's family was excluded require independent review.
JUDGE ED KINKEADE — Presiding judge: the handling of the motion in limine, forged-document issues and verdict-day courtroom exclusion should be reviewed through the appropriate independent judicial process.
🚨 THIS IS BIGGER THAN ONE QUESTIONABLE DOCUMENT.
It raises questions involving:
FORGERY.
DUE PROCESS.
EQUAL PROTECTION.
RACIAL PREJUDICE.
DISPARATE TREATMENT.
COLOR OF LAW.
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
PUBLIC-TRIAL RIGHTS.
GOVERNMENT-INFORMANT BENEFITS.
POSSIBLE COORDINATION OR CONSPIRACY.
WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION — NOT A COVER-UP.
United States v. Burton, No. 3:24-CR-00159-K-1
Northern District of Texas — Dallas Division
We need a TRUSTWORTHY OUTSIDE FEDERAL APPELLATE, HABEAS OR CIVIL-RIGHTS ATTORNEY to review this case immediately.
START WITH THE FORENSIC REPORT.
READ THE JAIL RECORDS.
COMPARE THE APRIL 1 DATES.
READ THE MOTION IN LIMINE.
PULL THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.
PULL THE VERDICT-DAY TRANSCRIPT.
INVESTIGATE THE INFORMANT BENEFITS.
FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL.
NO BADGE. NO LAW LICENSE. NO PROSECUTOR'S TITLE. NO JUDICIAL ROBE SHOULD PLACE ANYONE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.
JOSHUA BURTON IS NOT BENEATH IT.
SHARE UNTIL THE RIGHT ATTORNEY, INVESTIGATOR OR JOURNALIST SEES THIS.
#Free3eezy #JusticeForJoshua #JoshuaBurton #3eezy #CivilRights #CivilRightsViolation #ColorOfLaw #EqualProtection #DueProcess #RacialJustice #RacialBias #BlackMenDeserveJustice #ConstitutionalRights #SixthAmendment #PublicTrial #FederalCourt #FifthCircuit #DOJ #WrongfulConviction #CriminalJusticeReform #AttorneyMisconduct #ProsecutorialMisconduct #JudicialAccountability #PoliceAccountability #InvestigativeJournalism #DemandAccountability #JusticeReform
86
The Issue
🚨 FORGED FEDERAL DOCUMENTS. 91 HOURS IN CUSTODY. COLOR OF LAW. PREJUDICE. A BLACK DEFENDANT WITH NO PRIOR DRUG CONVICTIONS — WHILE A WHITE GOVERNMENT INFORMANT WITH A DRUG HISTORY RECEIVED DIFFERENT TREATMENT. 🚨
WHO WILL INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATE WHAT HAPPENED TO JOSHUA BURTON — “3EEZY”?
My son, Joshua Mazique Burton, a Black man and recording artist known as “3eezy,” had NO prior drug convictions and NO prior convictions involving drugs.
3eezy is a rap name he has used since his teenage years — NOT a drug-lord identity.
Yet the federal government portrayed Joshua as someone who had been dealing drugs for approximately three years.
WHERE IS THREE YEARS OF EVIDENCE?
And why was Joshua, a Black man with no prior drug convictions, prosecuted while Robert Starnes, a White government informant with the drug history described in the trial evidence and testimony, received dramatically different treatment?
🚨 WE ARE DEMANDING AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE RACIAL PREJUDICE, DISPARATE TREATMENT AND MISCONDUCT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits racially discriminatory government enforcement. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized that even a facially neutral law violates equal protection when administered with an unjust discriminatory purpose. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) addresses the demanding legal standard for proving selective prosecution.
We are asking an independent attorney to investigate whether Joshua's treatment meets those standards.
🚨 A PROFESSIONAL FORENSIC EXAMINER FOUND THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT JOSHUA'S
Joshua maintained that he NEVER signed two federal waivers, dated April 1 and May 6, 2024.
Our family paid for an independent professional forensic examination.
THE EXAMINER DETERMINED JOSHUA DID NOT AUTHOR THE QUESTIONED SIGNATURES AND IDENTIFIED HIS FORMER ATTORNEY, GLENN BRENNER, AS THE WRITER.
TWO FEDERAL WAIVERS. TWO FORGED SIGNATURES. HIS OWN ATTORNEY.
Joshua fought the forgery issue in federal habeas proceedings. The Fifth Circuit VACATED AND REMANDED the dismissal. The July 31, 2026 remand mandate has now been satisfied.
🚨 THEN LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL JAIL RECORDS
March 28, 2024 — Joshua arrested.
Approximately:
91 HOURS IN CUSTODY.
Then the records state:
“RELEASED WITHOUT PROSECUTION.”
“FEDERALS PICKED UP THE CHARGE NO CHARGED.”
“RELEASED TO THE FEDS.”
Joshua maintains he never appeared before a local magistrate during those approximately 91 hours.
The first questioned/forged federal waiver is dated APRIL 1 — THE SAME DAY THE JAIL RECORDS SHOW JOSHUA BEING RELEASED TOWARD FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) establish constitutional protections concerning prompt probable-cause determinations following warrantless arrests.
WHO HAD CUSTODY OF JOSHUA? WHO AUTHORIZED EACH TRANSFER? WHO SIGNED WHAT? AND UNDER WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY?
Those questions matter when investigating whether anyone acted under color of law to deprive Joshua of federally protected rights.
Federal civil-rights law, including 18 U.S.C. § 242, addresses willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. Whether that crime occurred here is for an independent investigation and prosecutors to determine.
🚨 THREE DAYS BEFORE TRIAL — RUSSELL WILSON II FILED A MOTION IN LIMINE
Joshua's appointed defense attorney Russell Wilson II filed a motion in limine three days before trial that, according to our review, prevented the jury from hearing critical matters involving the forgery and Fifth Circuit proceedings.
Joshua asked for forensic testing.
Wilson initially said he would obtain it.
HE DID NOT.
JOSHUA'S FAMILY HAD TO PAY FOR IT.
Our family also witnessed Wilson making no objections during trial while laughing, huddling and interacting with the judge, prosecutors and others involved in the proceedings.
Our family believes this conduct raises serious questions about prejudice, conflict, coordination and possible conspiracy that an independent attorney must investigate.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) requires effective assistance of counsel and addresses deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
HOW COULD JOSHUA RECEIVE A FAIR DEFENSE IF HIS OWN ATTORNEY WAS HELPING KEEP EVIDENCE JOSHUA CONSIDERED CRITICAL AWAY FROM HIS JURY?
🚨 THEN HIS FAMILY WAS KEPT OUT FOR THE VERDICT
We came to federal court to hear Joshua's verdict.
WE WERE MADE TO SIT OUTSIDE.
Joshua's family was not allowed inside for the verdict reading.
According to what our family witnessed, Russell Wilson did not object.
We demand the complete verdict-day transcript and courtroom record showing who ordered our exclusion, why we were excluded, whether the courtroom was formally closed, and whether any objection was made.
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) protect the Sixth Amendment right to a public criminal proceeding and establish constitutional requirements surrounding courtroom closure.
🚨 NOW COMPARE THE TREATMENT
JOSHUA BURTON — BLACK.
NO PRIOR DRUG CONVICTIONS.
ROBERT STARNES — WHITE.
GOVERNMENT INFORMANT WITH THE DRUG HISTORY DESCRIBED IN THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.
According to the testimony our family relies upon, Starnes continued using, obtaining and selling drugs, was placed in rehab shortly before trial, and money was returned to him.
WHY WAS STARNES TREATED DIFFERENTLY?
What promises, benefits, protection, charging decisions or agreements did he receive?
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) protect a defendant's right to material favorable evidence, including material impeachment information concerning government witnesses.
PRODUCE STARNES'S COMPLETE COOPERATION AND BENEFITS RECORD.
🚨 EVERY ROLE MUST BE INVESTIGATED
GLENN BRENNER — Former defense attorney: identified by the forensic examination as the writer of Joshua's questioned/forged signatures.
HABIB EL-KHOURY — Texas DMV Investigator: his role in bringing Joshua into the federal case, the operation involving Starnes, Joshua's transfer to federal authorities, and any actions taken under color of law require investigation.
ROBERT STARNES — White government informant: his drug activity, cooperation, benefits, rehab, money and different treatment require examination.
ABBY POLICASTRO & MARISSA AULBAUGH — Federal prosecutors: what they knew about the forged documents, Starnes, any benefits or favorable treatment, and when they knew it must be independently investigated.
RUSSELL WILSON II — Joshua's appointed attorney: his motion in limine filed three days before trial, failure to obtain the promised forensic examination, lack of objections alleged by the family, courtroom conduct and failure to object when Joshua's family was excluded require independent review.
JUDGE ED KINKEADE — Presiding judge: the handling of the motion in limine, forged-document issues and verdict-day courtroom exclusion should be reviewed through the appropriate independent judicial process.
🚨 THIS IS BIGGER THAN ONE QUESTIONABLE DOCUMENT.
It raises questions involving:
FORGERY.
DUE PROCESS.
EQUAL PROTECTION.
RACIAL PREJUDICE.
DISPARATE TREATMENT.
COLOR OF LAW.
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
PUBLIC-TRIAL RIGHTS.
GOVERNMENT-INFORMANT BENEFITS.
POSSIBLE COORDINATION OR CONSPIRACY.
WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION — NOT A COVER-UP.
United States v. Burton, No. 3:24-CR-00159-K-1
Northern District of Texas — Dallas Division
We need a TRUSTWORTHY OUTSIDE FEDERAL APPELLATE, HABEAS OR CIVIL-RIGHTS ATTORNEY to review this case immediately.
START WITH THE FORENSIC REPORT.
READ THE JAIL RECORDS.
COMPARE THE APRIL 1 DATES.
READ THE MOTION IN LIMINE.
PULL THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.
PULL THE VERDICT-DAY TRANSCRIPT.
INVESTIGATE THE INFORMANT BENEFITS.
FOLLOW THE PAPER TRAIL.
NO BADGE. NO LAW LICENSE. NO PROSECUTOR'S TITLE. NO JUDICIAL ROBE SHOULD PLACE ANYONE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.
JOSHUA BURTON IS NOT BENEATH IT.
SHARE UNTIL THE RIGHT ATTORNEY, INVESTIGATOR OR JOURNALIST SEES THIS.
#Free3eezy #JusticeForJoshua #JoshuaBurton #3eezy #CivilRights #CivilRightsViolation #ColorOfLaw #EqualProtection #DueProcess #RacialJustice #RacialBias #BlackMenDeserveJustice #ConstitutionalRights #SixthAmendment #PublicTrial #FederalCourt #FifthCircuit #DOJ #WrongfulConviction #CriminalJusticeReform #AttorneyMisconduct #ProsecutorialMisconduct #JudicialAccountability #PoliceAccountability #InvestigativeJournalism #DemandAccountability #JusticeReform
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on June 25, 2026