Critical observation in the conduct of the prosecutions Objections to dismiss.

            US Prosecutor Miri Song 

Here we have a case that was brought before the United States District Court, by federal authorities, against a pro se (Self Represented) defendant. For the United States Government there were three practicing lawyers; their names are it appear on the Objection to the motion to dismiss: Nicola T Hanna, who was responsible for prosecuting this case in the court; Laurance Middleton, and Miri Song. Upon reading the prosecution witnesses written statement, I could see that there was no evidence sufficient for the prosecution to convinced the court that I was guilty of committing the alleged offence.

As a result the pro se defendant researched, and prepared, submitted and served on the prosecuting team a motion to dismissed, the matter base of valid legal grounds (Motion to dismissed). As a result the prosecution team which is made up of three train and practicing lawyers, stepped outside the scope of their practice. In that they were required to base their objection on the evidence that the prosecution witness presented in their written and already accepted statement, however they (the prosecution) in their objection to the motion to dismiss created evidence that could not be presented in the court. Evidence that I should have have access to before the trial under the disclosure law.

Evidence that was far from the truth as to what happened in the incident that occurred. This was not only disappointed it was shameful to thing that those who should concerned themselves with ensuring that justice is done was busy trying to trying to cause a miscarriage of the justice they vow to up hold.

This is what happen when even the United States Government prosecutor is more concerned with the amount of conviction they were responsible for effecting rather than to ensure that Justice is done. These are people who have other ambitions. Their concern is not to ensure that the rule of law prevail. but to build a reputation even at the unjust conviction of an innocent person. 

It was not bad enough that in the Objection to the motion to dismissed she claimed that defendant was blocking, the body scanning apparatus, and thus prevented the public from getting the needed service. However, in the witness statements it said that I forced my way through said machine and make my way to where my personal property was.  

However after the defendant, give his final presentation, in dialog with the judge as it relates to the evidence US Prosecutor Miri Song, accused me of blocking the main door and not the Scanning apparatus. All this was done to secure a conviction of an innocent Black man.  
  It is not only a crying, dirty shame it is also an unconscionable shame.