Lack of Integrity in USA

critical, favorable evidence in direct violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) and Strickland v. Washington (466 U.S. 668).

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law. This isn’t fiction—it’s a chilling reminder of how the miscarriage of justice can be coldly calculated behind closed doors.

In Buried Truths, dive deep into the harrowing true story of a defendant caught in a web of judicial deceit. This explosive exposé uncovers how key officials—Assistant District Attorney Keith C. Syfert, Assistant District Attorney Daniel L. Olson, Special Agents Stephen Sloan, and Special Agents Jack Mulvey, and public defense attorney Frank Cook

WHY I DECIDED TO MAKE THIS MATTER PUBLIC

I decided to bring this matter to the public because I already fought this case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

From the very beginning, I felt that I did not have an attorney who was willing or able to fully fight for my interests unless I could afford the fees that were being requested. At the time, I did not have the financial resources to pay a private attorney $10,000 or more to take on my case.

I repeatedly hoped that my story would eventually be heard.

The facts and circumstances that I describe throughout this website were known to the court. I remember Judge Reinhard repeatedly telling me, in substance, that I should speak with my attorney so that my attorney could bring the matter to the court's attention.

I understood what the judge was telling me. My problem was that I believed there were important facts that needed to be brought to the court's attention, but I depended upon my appointed attorney, Franklin Cook, to present those matters on my behalf.

I remember hoping that the court would hear from the people who were directly involved, including Franklin Cook, my court-appointed attorney; FBI Special Agent Steven Sloan; and Assistant United States Attorney Keith C. Syfert.

In my view, there were two different stories about what had happened, and I believed that the differences between those accounts needed to be examined.

I was hoping that the court would give me an opportunity for my side of the story to be fully presented and considered.

I did not believe that simply telling me to "talk to your lawyer" resolved the underlying issues I was trying to bring to the court's attention.

My purpose in making this disclosure today is not to ask the public to accept my account without examination. Rather, I want my account to be available so that it can be compared with the court record, government records, testimony, documents, and other evidence that may still exist.
After more than twenty-six years, I believe it is important that my story be preserved and made available for independent review.

I am publishing this information because I believe that the public should have the opportunity to examine the different accounts, compare them with the available evidence, and reach its own conclusions.

This website is my effort to make sure that my side of the story is no longer confined to my personal memory or to documents that may be difficult for the public to access.

I am asking for transparency, examination of the record, and an opportunity for the evidence to speak for itself.