|
|
||||
|
|
For I know the plans I
have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, |
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
| Home Page |Court-Related | Getting Personal | Images | Sports Fans | Contact Us | |
||||
Welcome to the only official Lawrence Phillips Websitelast updated December 21, 2009
Phillips' accuser, A. Weisler, presented a letter to Lawrence Phillips' public defender prior to the December 18, 2009 sentencing and it is printed verbatim below. Although Phillips' public defender, the judge and prosecutor had the letter from Phillips' accuser in their possession before sentencing, the letter was only briefly mentioned in court as follows:
Prosecutor: "Ms. Weisler submitted a letter through Mr. Wadler (Phillips' public defender) and the court has that." Judge: "Yes, I have that letter."
No mention of the letter was made again, not even by Phillips' public defender. The letter from Phillips accuser, Ms. Weisler reads:
"Honorable Judge Wells, From the first time Lawrence and I met we had a connection and have remained friends ever since. He has been there for me when I've had no one else. I felt pressure not from Lawrence but from the prosecution. They made many trips to my home and to my place of work. I felt like I had done something wrong. This all happened over 4 years ago and I honestly don't remember much. Because of that I let them know I felt uncomfortable about testifying. It was made quite clear I had no other choice. When on the stand, I felt very nervous and felt the words were being put in my mouth and that certain details were misleading. I felt to a certain degree pushed to answer in a certain way. Lawrence has a very big heart and if someone is lucky enough to have Lawrence in their life they have found a true friend. He really is a caring person and on many occasions put others before himself. Sincerely, Amaliya Weisler."
Although it is regretful that Ms. Weisler waited until after the trial to publicly declare that she was being coerced and intimidated by prosecution; she privately attempted to tell Phillips' original public defender, Z. Zehawi, of the coercion and sought his help before trial began, but she was denied. Nevertheless, we applaud Ms. Weisler's courage to personally appear at sentencing, present written facts to the court which support that injustice occurred, and attempt to right another outrageous wrong. It is also admirable that Ms. Weisler refused the court's offer of "restitution", which would have been assessed Phillips although he is indigent. Phillips family asked that it be noted that no one, including Phillips, has been in touch with Ms. Weisler since trial began and they in no way encouraged her actions on behalf of Phillips.
We respect and give credit to Ms. Weisler's courage and understand that threats and fear of retaliation were very real considerations.
On his own behalf, Phillips presented a 15 minute speech summarizing the injustices, deceitfulness and hypocrisy carried out against him under the pretense of justice. Phillips referred to San Diego County Judge Einhorn's recent reversal of Cynthia Sommers' murder conviction for which that judge has since been reportedly blackballed. The reversal occurred after evidence was proven fabricated, fictitious, untrue (a supposed lab test showing arsenic, a poison, in her late husband's tissues). Phillips questioned whether an environment that places a judge under pressure to protect prosecutors even when they violate the law, is capable of fair and impartial justice toward accused persons-in San Diego California or anywhere else. Phillips also mentioned the court case: People vs. Oliver, which successfully defends the constitutional rights of an accused person to a fair trial and on appeal, overturns a conviction. Phillips is currently preparing a statement and it will be published on this website as soon as it becomes available.
Prior to sentencing, Phillips was strapped to his seat and required to remain so during proceedings. Even individuals convicted of murder are not treated in such manner, but apparently the spirit of restriction ruled the day. Several people in court, including Phillips' accuser, Ms. Weisler, expressed prior to court, a desire to actually speak on Phillips' behalf. None were extended that opportunity. Why was this court so afraid to let anyone other than prosecution and an unprepared public defender speak? Have you ever heard of a sentencing in which no one is allowed to speak on behalf of the accused? What are they so afraid of? What didn't they want those present to hear?
Phillips was fined $10,000, even though Ms. Weisler specifically refused any restitution. It is likely that in addition to denying Phillips a fair trial, the court is trying to recoup the outrageous costs to taxpayers to pursue a senseless prosecution which even the accuser sees in hindsight, was designed to misuse and take advantage of her and Phillips rather than to protect her or the public. From whom does the public really need to be protected in this and similar instances, such as noted above? Also, the $10,000 restitution is a way to permit any moneys sent to Phillips' for incidentals during incarceration to be confiscated so that he remains indigent while incarcerated. However, inmates owing restitution are allowed to receive packages from suppliers who are pre-approved by California Department of Corrections. Anyone desiring to send packages to Phillips (or their own loved one) can contact this website ( Contact Us ) for further information or go to the following website http://www.californiaqp.com/ for a list of pre-approved suppliers and the items available for purchase which supplier will send directly to inmate.
At sentencing, the public defender did acknowledge for the record that he only received the case 3 weeks prior and implied that he did not have sufficient time to adequately prepare for sentencing. He only spoke with Phillips briefly for 15 minutes in that three week period. Phillips' public defender did not address prosecution's malicious representation of prior charges which Phillips was either not prosecuted or was not permitted to face (Canada forced Phillips out of the country then refused to allow him re-entrance to face charges--which by the way, were not initiated by the girlfriend but by a coach who was in dispute with Phillips). The public defender instead made libelous and slanderous statements against Phillips' family, an outright fabrication that Phillips was removed from his home as a child because of violence. Phillips desires to pursue appeal and is indigent but the public defender gave no indication that Phillips' right to appeal will be pursued. After court he told Phillips "I'm sorry. Good bye". Since there is a limited period that Phillips is allowed to file the appeal (60 days), any qualified person willing to assist Phillips with the appeal should he not be supported in that process by the justice system, is asked to contact this website as soon as possible: Contact Us .
Phillips supporters, what mainstream media and this court doesn't want you to know is--there is much to be optimistic about! So hang in there, justice is coming. Ms. Weisler's courage in stepping forward is a glimpse of positive things soon to come.
**********************************************
The first ever Press Conference promoting fair justice for former NFL player Lawrence Phillips by California's criminal justice system was successfully held in West Los Angeles, California (USA) on August 27, 2009. Speakers supporting Phillips called for termination of the use of Phillips' celebrity for political purposes and for the denial of his rights as an accused person to be appropriately addressed. One media outlet was represented at the conference. Following Public Defender Zaki Zehawi's failure to pursue or present ANY witnesses or evidence on Phillips' behalf despite access to such (see more below), and Lawrence Phillips' conviction in that trial (August 2009) which was held without Phillips and without any family members, supporters or witnesses on Phillips' behalf present (they were told the proceedings were closed to the public as they waited outside in the hallway); sentencing scheduled for October 8 2009 was delayed when Public Defender Zehawi was replaced after the trial's conclusion. Sentencing re-scheduled to November 20, 2009 was also delayed when the replacement public defender was officially noted as experiencing an unexpected medical emergency. As noted by smiles during press conference photos below, Phillips' supporters continue to hold out hope that he will receive fair justice which they believe has been denied him thus far. The sign in photos indicates "and justice for all (includes) Lawrence".
Private interests get rich from the orchestrated creation of public hysteria over crime rates that are often artificially created by unjust and unlawful prosecution of vulnerable populations (the poor, youth, minorities). Even children are not safe from the cruelty of private gain at all costs. Whomever can be used to fill a prison, jail, or detention center bed so private owners and operators can be paid, or self-serving authorities can benefit, then they'll misleadingly prosecute, deceitfully detain and craftily conspire to keep jails, prisons and detention centers filled, even if children are sacrificed.
Even incarcerating children for money is not shameful for those who profit from the imprisonment of people without fair legal processes! Still don't believe the use of Lawrence Phillips' celebrity as "poster child" for crime (and other accused persons in vulnerable positions) has an entirely different purpose than the one you're being led to believe? Here's more evidence: judges and probation officials in Luzerne County Pennsylvania (USA) have been indicted for prosecuting children for private gain--a probation officer who was part of the scheme and others testified that cases were "fixed" -- so money could be made by court officials (through kickbacks) and their friends (who owned a juvenile detention facility) by jailing youth in the name of something.... but certainly not justice! Click for more: http://www.citizensvoice.com/brulo_won_t_be_defendant_in_civil-rights_cases or http://www.timesleader.com/news/hottopics/judges .
What do "tough on crime", excessive prison rates (financed by taxpayer dollars), racial- and class-based prosecutions, extreme sentencing, and disregard of inhumane conditions inside prisons and detention facilities all have in common? They are used as cover by a significant number of people in power to justify the use of public monies to benefit personal ambition, self-interest and private gain. Example: privately owned and operated prison businesses such as the GEO group - the 2nd largest private prison management group in America and a publicly traded stock on the New York stock exchange http://www.thegeogroupinc.com/ - is a private, FOR PROFIT corporation financed by taxpayers' payments to house and service prisoners. Vicious and malicious prosecutions in the USA are increasing as jailing people, including children, becomes more about businesses making money and authorities getting promotions than about preventing or appropriately addressing offenses. **************************************** Phillips states that he did not commit the domestic violence assaults and kidnapping charges of which he is accused and was convicted August 13, 2009 which allegedly took placed in August 2005. He states that he understood his obligation to prove his innocence and did not take for granted the opportunity to have his "day in court" so that he could defend against such allegations. Phillips was prepared to prove with evidence and witnesses the untruthful nature of such allegations as well as suspected motive. However from the very beginning Phillips' assigned public defender, Mr. Zaki Zehawi of San Diego Public Defender's office refused to seek out documented evidence, contact or subpoena witnesses supporting Phillips claims, access records and documents submitted on Phillips' behalf from a law professional or even to respond to the accuser's plea for assistance when she called Mr. Zehawi, allegedly claiming pressure and threats by prosecution. Even when witnesses attended the "trial" proceedings to show willingness and availability to support Phillips, Public Defender Zehawi contended he was unable to contact witnesses (while they were forced by the court to sit outside in the hallway while 85% of "trial" took place behind closed doors). Again, while Mr. Zehawi claimed he was unable to contact witnesses supporting Phillips', the court as well as Mr. Zehawi were notified that the same witnesses he claimed he could not contact were sitting outside in hallway because the court was "closed to the public" for most of the trial. Phillips' witnesses were never called nor even acknowledged.
Public Defender Zehawi's consistent and unyielding objective, according to his own advice to Phillips and his mother, was to force Mr. Phillips to plea bargain while ignoring evidence and witnesses supporting Phillips' claims.
Phillips efforts to secure his due process right to a public defender protecting his constitutional and statutory rights (effective counsel) were first denied when Phillips contacted Public Defender Zehawi's supervisor, Mr. Vic Erickson of the San Diego Public Defender's office. Supervisor Erickson met with Phillips and listened politely then stated that Phillips should plead guilty and plea bargain. A few days earlier, Mr. Erickson had advised Phillips' mother that she should "have a conversation with Lawrence about plea bargaining" when she called and Mr. Zehawi's voicemail directed messages to Mr. Erickson. In two final efforts at fair representation Mr. Phillips appealed to Judge Kerry Wells, the presiding judge, on two separate occasions. During the first two days of the "trial" Mr. Phillips appeared in person prior to jury selection, and declared Mr. Zehawi's failure to follow through on witnesses and evidence supporting Phillips and asked to have his case reassigned. Judge Wells' denied Phillips' request on Day 1. On Day 2, the public defender, Mr. Zehawi, admitted that he lacked the expertise to properly represent Phillips - essentially agreeing to be removed from Phillips' case. Judge Wells again denied the request. The jury was never notified of Phillips' claim that Mr. Zehawi refused to bring evidence or witnesses on Phillips' behalf or that Mr. Zehawi admitted that he lacked the skill to properly represent Phillips. The jury was simply told that Mr. Phillips "refused to attend trial". It may clear up matters to explain that Phillips has been incarcerated since 2005 and was under the control of corrections (jail personnel) during his absence at trial. He was not somewhere on the streets or at home ignoring his obligation to attend court, as jurors may have been led to believe.
Due process that is Constitutionally guaranteed was denied Lawrence Phillips, a continuing pattern of injustice towards him.
Activities supporting Phillips' right to a fair trial in which he is appropriately represented are continuing.
Thanks to each and every one of you who continue to send emails of support to and for Mr. Phillips!
One writer to the website writes: "First of all, thank you for this site...It's nice to see someone is defending Lawrence. Anyway, I just had a question...Does anyone know why the accuser is saying he did all these things to her, but says she is STILL dating him? There is something wrong with that picture."
To Contact: legal@lawrencephillips.info ******************************************************************************************** Coming Soon to this Website -- Blogs! Your Personal Experiences, Reports, Alerts, Successes, Challenges or that of loved ones - to broaden the effectiveness and impact of public attention to criminal justice system flaws and abuses such as Phillips has experienced in California. Readers have expressed a desire to get involved in changing the system by sharing their personal criminal justice abuse experiences and/or those of loved ones in a public forum. Together, we can make a difference by spotlighting details such as involved parties, locations, number of instances, and individual stories. With numbers come attention and with attention comes change! Thanks for your continued support of fair and impartial justice. ********************* A Nebraskan writes to this website: As a native Nebraskan I have always been a fan of the huskers. Lawrence's name brings a smile to my face when I think of that Gator game.. During the last several husker "re building years" we would remember that game to get us through the rough patches. The 2007 Oklahoma State game comes to mind - anyway I have always wanted to see Lawrence reach his potential on the pro field and was always sorry to hear when things weren't going his way. My prayer and hope is that this part of his life will strengthen him and that he will find his place in this life that will bring him joy and peace. God Bless.
**************************************************************************************************************************** The San Francisco Chronicle reported on March 5, 2009 that Phillips "cannot withdraw no contest plea". Shame on the Chronicle! Your bias is showing. When Phillips successfully challenged this same appeal court's decision in California Supreme Court in 2008, the Chronicle along with 50 other US newspapers were sent press releases and not one paper printed news of Phillips' successful challenge. Now the SF Chronicle would have you believe this court's second denial is final. Not so; there is such a thing as due process, whether the Chronicle agrees with the law or not, Phillips has not exhausted his right to appeal. Shame on you. For those of you who are interested in information other than what you are being conditioned to believe by media, here is what preceded the recently reported appeal decision.
On May 14, 2008 California's 2nd District Court of Appeals
handed down a ruling which cleared the way for former NFL player
Lawrence Phillips to proceed with an appeal which challenges a hearing from
a felony domestic violence plea which Phillips and his (then) attorney have
contended since 2000, was coerced. The prior "no contest" plea is
considered a conviction under Why a website featuring internationally acclaimed former professional football player (NFL, NFL Europe, CFL) Lawrence Phillips and why now? This website is: a God-given answer to prayers of how to address years of public misperceptions of Phillips and their impact; 2) about raising awareness of and solutions to alliances that willfully misrepresent the truth, create and promote negative stereotypes, and make nearly impossible any meaningful legal process for certain persons; and 3) to encourage the world audience that suffering has the potential to help us learn from our errors and aid our future! Adversity can help us seek a genuine connection with the Spirit that created all and whom makes all things, even redemption, possible. Looking forward to a new direction for the unfolding of Lawrence Phillips' very public legal and personal challenges, we are encouraged by California's Supreme Court decision finding apparent cause to examine a lower appeals court's decision regarding a prior conviction in 2000 against Phillips. California's highest court remanded the appeal to the 2nd District Appellate Court, and that court shelved its original ruling. This same prior conviction was the basis for prosecutor's demand for a 20-year sentence in Phillips' sentencing which was pending for two years and resulted in a 10-year sentence on October 3, 2008. The 2006 alleged "assault with a deadly weapon" (a car) resulted in no deaths, non-life threatening injuries, no hospitalizations, and mitigating circumstances which caused the car Phillips was driving to spin out of control.A good outcome is anticipated for Phillips' challenges and for everyone who has been impacted. A part of that process is to correct misinformation that for more than a decade has used Phillips' newsworthiness as a public figure to knowingly, maliciously, and persistently misinform audiences about him and exploit alleged victims by embellishing facts, most notoriously the "college girlfriend head-bashing". This report, along with other false and inappropriate characterizations are addressed in this website click here for more . While it is understandable that the public response to reports of contemptible acts is outrage, it is always inappropriate to create or join a public outcry before critically thinking and searching beyond the reported mayhem, perversity, exaggeration and propaganda to uncover the facts. In Lawrence Phillips' state of affairs, as in those of countless others, falsehoods and half-truths promoted in the public arena have undermined the capacity of just and fair actions by those who desire to honestly and fairly interpret, uphold and execute the law. It is the mission of this website to:
The sentencing's over. The 10-year sentence (or one-half of the 20 years demanded by prosecutor in 2006 conviction), was to some degree impacted by an ongoing Supreme Court decision that, to date, favors Phillips' position on a prior conviction.
During sentencing, a juror claiming jury misconduct gave a sworn affidavit that was disregarded by the judge.
How can a trial referee take no notice of constitutional rules, as if they don't exist? Should courtroom referees (judges), like corporations, interpret the rules as they wish and as they go along, ignoring the expressed intent of law and forcing incarceration while the accused waits for the fairness of higher courts (appeals)? In corporate environments, the law is fluid and increasingly stands for whatever the more powerful and influential say it stands for. Should the guiding principle of corporations and contracts be those that guide courtrooms? Is it acceptable for officials of the law to twist the law at will if the accused is considered "personally obnoxious"? This may not matter to you now because it is happening to Lawrence Phillips; but be forewarned: to ignore the exploitation of the constitutional and human rights of another is to give the offenders that same permission to ignore protections of your own "liberties".
******************************************************
A hearty thank-you to coaches, former team members and co-workers, family and friends who not only wrote numerous letters of support, but personally appeared at the sentencing on Lawrence Phillips' behalf in support of fair and just sentencing.
Additionally, we are ecstatic that post-sentencing, many of you have tuned into the Lawrence Phillips website for the flip-side of what traditional news refuses to report. Many of your comments reveal that you do not support misconduct that has been carried out against Lawrence Phillips and wish him well in the struggle for fairness and justice. We appreciate your comments, support and continued contact through our "Contact Us" page! Please check regularly for updates!
Click here to return to Top of Page Copyright 2007 by
LawrencePhillips.info. All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
||
