The Motion asking the U.S. District Court for a mental examination in regards to former alternative news activist (USWGO Alt. News) Brian D. Hill’s actual innocence has been referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe Webster for a decision to be made.
Docket text: “Motion Referred to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER RE: 151 MOTION entitled “Petitioner’s Motion for requesting Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation to Determine actual Innocence factor under False Confession element and to resolve the controversy/conflict between Government and Petitioner over “Delusional Disorder.”” (Engle, Anita) (Entered: 06/27/2018).
Anita Engle is the case management chamber Clerk for the Honorable U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas D. Shroeder. So she has appeared to have referred the Motion under Rule 35 requesting a mental examination to the Magistrate Judge one day after it was entered by the deputy Clerk. Likely due to the large number of pages in total, the Judge is going to need the three weeks response time-frame to review over all evidence, arguments, the contract with Lepage & Associates Psychological evaluation services, and the CJA 21 Voucher proposed to pay $2,550 for the expert witness service proposed to the Court.
If granted then the Court will order the mental evaluation of Brian Hill and order the fees to be paid for, as well as mandate that Brian be submitted to the mental examination for his claims of false confession, false guilty plea, that he does not have delusional disorder as he has claimed under Oath, and maybe any other issues that the Court feels must be addressed by such examination.
So within just one day, the Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Webster now has the motion at his desk or computer terminal for the U.S. District Court to consider the motion asking for a mental examination. The case law for another Appellate circuit actually states that if the Respondent or Petitioner shows controversy in regards to the issue of mental health being used in one of the grounds for §2255 Motion requesting relief that a Judge can initially grant the motion ordering either party to submit to a mental examination by a qualified psychologist, psychiatrist, or even a physical examination by a medical doctor.
Of course I’m not a lawyer and this should not be treated as legal advice, but the case law for another circuit does match Brian’s request as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 35. If the Fourth Circuit appellate Courts and/or the Supreme Court also backs the very case law which would support his Rule 35 request for a mental examination, then it is highly likely to be granted by the Magistrate Judge Webster.
Joe Webster has a history of being “an attorney, one of his first cases was a civil rights lawsuit he filed against his hometown of Madison, North Carolina. He successfully argued that it was wrong for the town to deny him, a black man, his own office space in a predominantly white neighborhood.” So it appears to me that he is against discrimination. That right there will make him more impartial and less emotionally stigmatized since federal laws do prohibit discrimination including under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That Brian’s neurological and mental health issues such as Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder has caused him to get in trouble with his former Probation Officer over having an autistic meltdown while his diabetic blood sugar was high over what he felt was further fettering with his actual innocence legal battle. His Autism in his criminal case has been used only in reference to anything to with his “guilt” but not U.S. Attorney will not recognize his mental and physical disabilities in regards to his actual innocence such as giving a false confession to police (law enforcement). The information about this Magistrate Judge was cited from a report sourced from the North Carolina Public Radio.
Furthermore the WUNC article stated that “But as he learned from the lawsuit against his own hometown, recognizing injustice is just as critical as the duty to deliver justice.”
What happened to Brian D. Hill is not only the possibility of the U.S. Government criminally violating United States Code, but is also bullying and discriminating against Brian for his Autism. So this Magistrate Judge recognizes the need to do something about the injustice as well as his duty to deliver justice as a Magistrate Judge, then he can see the injustice that is plain as day in the information on the pleadings in all of the post-§2255 filings and FOIA lawsuit filings.
When a U.S. Attorney Assistant rather accuses Brian of defaming his former U.S. Probation Officer (USPO) which was the U.S. Attorney’s key witness used against Brian for the USPO making multiple false statements in court. The false statements cross examined from the Court Transcript of course was enough evidence to even warrant a duty agent of the Greensboro FBI to consider investigating and getting a statement until his boss stopped it, then the U.S. Attorney is willing to engage in fraud on the court by allowing his witness to lie multiple times while making statements under penalty of perjury. Will the Magistrate Judge bust the U.S. Attorney for fraud on the Court too?
The Magistrate Judge has literally hundreds to maybe even thousands of pages of evidence if he reviews over both the evidence and pleadings of Brian’s §2255 Motion, the entire criminal case filings as a whole prior to the §2255 civil action, and the pleadings plus evidence filings of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that is still ongoing in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Not just pages but also Audio CD recordings, Video DVD recordings, and pictures.
In various filings of §2255 cases and FOIA lawsuits I have reviewed over out of curiosity, I have never seen such volume of evidence, affidavits including Declarations, audio discs, DVD discs, and requests for a expert in such detail which would make any reasonable person question if he is even guilty. He has fought so hard to prove his innocence in my opinion. I have never seen a pro se plaintiff fight so hard and file so many different documents and pleadings with the Court just to even push to be found innocent. Even lawyers don’t file too much evidence off the bat for post-conviction relief but Brian is determined to clearing his name and being removed from the Virginia Sex Offender (SO) Registry. The Virginia law has just changed requiring that registered Sex Offenders convicted federally of child porn have to wait 25 years after conviction before being legally permitted to petition removal from the SO registry. SO if Brian cannot be allowed to prove his innocence then he will be a registered SO for pretty much until he is forty-nine (49) years old. Brian’s only shot at proving his innocence is through the §2255. My question and the question of those who read this blog is likely whether he will be found innocent or if his §2255 Motion is thrown out of court on some technicality issue which would be horrifying. It will be interesting if this heads for the discovery phase or even an evidentiary hearing.
If a request for an evidentiary hearing is granted, the Presiding Judicial Officer aka the Judge will conduct a fair and impartial hearing on the record, take action to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of the proceedings, and maintain order. If Brian provides enough evidence that the Court bares no confidence in any factor of guilt, then Brian will highly likely be found actually innocent in a Court of law. Then Brian can be removed from the Virginia SO registry on the ground of his actual innocence, no criminal conviction shall stand. This will be more powerful than Michael Jackson who was only found not-guilty by a Jury but was not declared entirely factually innocent.
So if Brian is found actually innocent by the Judge, then will the stigmatization and emotions surrounding his criminal charge come to an end with the facts? Hmmmmmmmm
Fair Use Notice Legal Disclaimer: The image of U.S. Magistrate Judge Joe Webster may be copyrighted and the original credit goes to Efren Renteria of North Carolina Public Radio – WUNC. That is the source of the photo. I have placed political questions which are comments in such picture for the purpose of news reporting, journalism, and even social justice purposes. Thus should be qualified and protected under Fair Use of U.S. Copyright Act under 17 U.S. Code § 107.