Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4

F.q

r~)

f""~;.;: .lsi: CCl!:?r

1J:~..11 .. ~.',~ ,~;:- ;' ;r',,'"'l ,{L/,: .
..t]

,C'.

William C. Bond
Pro Se Litigation
P.O. Box 4823
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
443.970.2887
proselitigator@aol.com

2illS :"UG 28 PK 2: I ~

BY. VI..

August 28, 2015

The Hon. Richard D. Bennett via: Hand Delivery
U.S. District Judge
C/o Clerk
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Baltimore Division
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
RE: Criminal Action No.: 1l-OOS47-RDB-ll
Dear Judge Bennett:
I write to you about three (3) issues in this case:
Issue One:
My designation as a party, with pro se 'represented by' name & address information, is still not
upon the docket sheet. I
I will supplement this letter with all the contacts I have had with the clerk's office and your
chambers about this issue, if requested, but I am sure you are aware of the problem.
I have been told there is a 'technical issue' relating to this problem. All I can say is it should not
take three (3) weeks to solve such an issue.
Further, this case, prompted by my intervention, has renewed media attention upon this matter,
some of which is national. I state that it is extremely prejudicial to my interests that a casual
observer of the docket would be unawares that I am now the moving party to unseal this case.
I ask that you immediately see that this matter is resolved and/or explain why it cannot be so that
I may take additional action to protect my rights, if necessary.

I have intervened in and been listed upon the dockets in three other Maryland federal
cases since 2009, including one under this court's control.
1

Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4

Issue Two:
A re-sentencing hearing for Mr. Adams was on the court's calendar for Monday, August 24,
2015.
On August 18, 2015, 1 sent an email to the government requesting confirmation of that hearing
still being planned given Mr. Adam's pending motion. No reply from the government was
forthcoming. But soon after, 1 noticed the court's calendar was modified and Mr. Adam's
hearing was deleted.
1 am concerned about this because the docket shows none of this action. It also suggests that
there is some sort of unknown communication going on between the court and the government.
I continue to be troubled by this situation.
Issue Three:
The Baltimore City Paper recently published a news story about the appellate court's remand in
this case titled" A 'plain error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling sealed, and a murderer will
be resentenced," by Edward Ericson, Jr., dated August 13,2015.2
In this news story were several things of interest:
> The story recounted part of U.S. Circuit Judge Andre M. Davis'
concurring opinion that, of course, federal judges should "express
reservations or disapproval of manifestly irregular, if not illegal,
'strategic choices' by prosecutors ... "
> The story also recounted: The appeals judges noted that "nearly
all the record of this matter ... remains sealed." In its (sealed)
footnote I 1, the appeals court advises (1) the Maryland District
Court to "consider alternatives to sealing the [entirety ofthe)
record" and carefully "weigh the competing interests at
stake." They advise (2) the prosecutor to notify the courts "if
sealing this record (in whole or in part) is no longer
necessary."(Emphasis & numbering added.)
> Finally, the story quotes the Maryland u.s. Attorney, including
his thoughts and opinions upon the sealed appellate published
opinion: However, "The order does not reverse the conviction,"
says U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, in an email to City Paper.
"The sealing order prevents us from discussing the details of the

It is attached, without media, as exhibit no.: I. It may also be viewed, with full media,
here: http://www.citypaper.comlblogs/the- news- holelbcpnews-a- plain-error-unconfessed-anappeals-ruling-sealed -and -a-murderer- will-be- re-sentenced -20150813 -story. html
2

Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4

case. The legal issue was raised for the first time on appeal. The
government agreed that the district court committed an error, but
argued that the district court's error did not meet the legal standard
of a 'plain error.'"
Rosenstein says the matter turns on a technical point. "A party who
does not object in the district court - when the court could easily
correct the error - forfeits the right to appeal, with limited
exceptions," he writes. "When a defendant raises an error that was
not challenged in the district court, the court of appeals will
consider the claim only if the district court committed a 'plain
error,' which means that the court of appeals will reverse only if
there was (I) an error; (2) it was clear or obvious; (3) it affected
the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) it must be corrected to
vindicate the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. "
Clearly, those statements by Mr. Rosenstein, coupled with Mr. Adams' motion and a plain
reading of what is available of the appellate opinion, raise very serious questions as to Mr.
Adams' motion to terminate his counsel.
Those statements, as they also discuss 'details' not in the appellate 'sealing order,' appear to
waive any governmental interest in keeping the district court record sealed.
Conclusion:
None of the parties have responded to the August 27, 2015, public deadline imposed by the court
regarding movant's motion to unseal the record in this case.
This nonaction constitutes a clear waiver.
This court must immediately unseal the entire sealed record of this case and/or all the records
sealed upon which the unsealing of the sealed appellate published opinion relies; or state
succinctly upon the record why they cannot in an expedited manner.
In sum: this court must correct the party listing section of the docket, this court must cease
keeping matters off the docket, such as Mr. Adams' future hearings, and this court must
immediately take the steps necessary to unseal the relevant records so that the subject sealed
appellate published opinion may be revealed to the public.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Very truly and respectfully yours,

Please see: Docket entry no.: 809.

Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4

LN~

William C. Bond
cc: Robert R. Harding via: Email and/or Us. Mail
Pat M. Woodward via: Email and/or Us. Mail
Paul D. Hazlehurst via: Email and/or Us. Mail
John Henry Adams via: Us. Mail

Baltimore City Paper - A 'plain error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling sealed, and a
Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814-1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 4

18'

AFtDII1a.tlES

SECTIONS

AF'pai~error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling se led>,eamlillElllurderer wil be

News
Email

ResizeText
Facebook

Twitter

8+1

A-

610gs

Eats& DrinkS:ltrt
.i.n.ly.
t..a>t

i*h

pl.ilf':

ColumnsandComics
U,

if.

1200~1.

is

"d:Uficull"

.rt"Ol:"_

Mel _

t~

IN

~dll1a.ry

Mk:fS.J

Ii'.

Oif O\l:<'

pUN' ac1.l<ot':l

:Jeiilt.d SU'4'."

""

111 Ul

5:56 D. S.

.\II09tn4t4

129.
~~

Part of the redacted court decision.

EdwardEricsonJr.
UpdatedAugust 13, 2015
A convicted murderer faces resentencing in federal court after an appeals court vacated his
sentence and chastised prosecutors-and
then sealed their ruling. John Henry "Little
Johnny" Adams, a convicted enforcer for the fearsome Dead Man Inc. gang, had a hand in
at least four murders in Baltimore, according to federal prosecutors.
But it is not clear what he has pleaded guilty to, what his old sentence was, and what,
exactly, the prosecutors did that was questionable.

http://touch.citypaper .com!1

8/28/2015

Baltimore City Paper - A 'plain error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling sealed, and a murder... Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814-1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 4
In June, a three-judge panel voted to send Adams' case back to Judge Richard D. Bennett in
the federal district court in Maryland "for further proceedings based on this ruling." The
ruling itself was sealed except for footnote number 10, which suggested that the prosecutors
should not have fought the appeal at all. It reads, in part:
"We are somewhat surprised that the government failed to confess plain error on appeal
and thereby enhance the integrity of judicial proceedings. We are again reminded of the
Supreme Court's decision in Berger v. United States, where the u.S. Attorney was properly
described as representing a sovereign 'whose obligation ... in a criminal prosecution is not
that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.'''
Judge G. Steven Agee dissented on the footnote, saying his colleagues-Judge
Robert B.
King, who wrote the opinion, and Senior Judge Andre M. Davis, who joined it in full-were
being too hard on Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein. "Sometimes the government
may press an argument on appeal that, from our position, seems less convincing," he wrote.
"But we should expect some aggressiveness, as the Government is obliged to 'prosecute the
accused with earnestness and vigor.'''
A big chunk of Agee's published opinion is obscured under black ink, redacted.
Judge Davis, who served as a district judge in Maryland until 2009, wrote a rejoinder to
Agee, saying, in part, "Unlike judges, such as our concurring friend, who apparently believe
it is never appropriate for those of us in the Judicial branch to express reservations or
disapproval of manifestly irregular, if not illegal, 'strategic choices' by prosecutors, I believe
judges need to say more, not less, to the political branches about the serious defects in our
criminal justice system."
The appeals judges noted that "nearly all the record of this matter ... remains sealed." In its
(sealed) footnote 11, the appeals court advises the Maryland District Court to "consider
alternatives to sealing the [entirety of the] record" and carefully "weigh the competing
interests at stake." They advise the prosecutor to notify the courts "if sealing this record (in
whole or in part) is no longer necessary."
So much of the case is sealed that even experts had trouble interpreting the publicly
available parts of it. Two experienced lawyers City Paper consulted thought the ruling
overturned Adams' conviction.
However, "The order does not reverse the conviction," says U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein,
in an email to City Paper. "The sealing order prevents us from discussing the details of the
case. The legal issue was raised for the first time on appeal. The government agreed that the

http://touch.citypaper.com/1

8/28/2015

Baltimore City Paper - A 'plain error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling sealed, and a murder... Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814-1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 4
district court committed an error, but argued that the district court's error did not meet the
legal standard of a 'plain error.'''
Rosenstein says the matter turns on a technical point. "A party who does not object in the
district court - when the court could easily correct the error - forfeits the right to appeal,
with limited exceptions," he writes. "When a defendant raises an error that was not
challenged in the district court, the court of appeals will consider the claim only if the
district court committed a 'plain error,' which means that the court of appeals will reverse
only if there was (1) an error; (2) it was clear or obvious; (3) it affected the defendant's
substantial rights; and (4) it must be corrected to vindicate the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings."
The appeals court has so ruled.
Adams was indicted along with 21 other alleged members of Dead Man Inc. in 2011. The
defendants were charged with murder conspiracies, assaults, extortion, drug dealing, and
criminal conspiracy under the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organization Act, known as
RICO. Adams was charged in a superseding indictment with murdering James Flanery, who
was beaten and stabbed to death by a group of men on South Hanover Street in February
2009; Tony Geiger, shot in the head on Old Riverside Road in June 2009, on the city line
with Anne Arundel County; Eugene Chambers, shot several times inside his home in the
1600 block of Cyp~ess Street; and Walter Milewski, who was shot to death on the 4800
block of Carmella Drive, in Baltimore County the day after Chambers was killed.
Authorities believe that Milewski was sent to kill a fellow gang member named Jeremy
Ridgeway, killed Chambers instead in a case of mistaken identity, and so was killed for that.
According to a story in The Sun, prosecutors said in open court they had a lot of wiretap
evidence and took more than 20 people to the grand jury-of whom all but two or three
were DMI members.
Several lawyers say the appeals court's words-and

the whole case-are

unusual.

"It is unusual for a court to use the sort oflanguage it used in this case to criticize the
prosecution," says Michele Nethercott, director of the Innocence Project at University
of Baltimore. "The government always has the choice as to whether they defend a particular
action or event on appeal and some of the judges were suggesting that since the error was so
clear in this case it was unseemly for the government to continue to defend the conduct on
appeal."
Nethercott says it's not that unusual to see a complex criminal case sealed on the district
court level, but "sealing ofthe appellate opinion is more uncommon and especially

http://touch.citypaper .comll

8/28/2015

Baltimore City Paper - A 'plain error' unconfessed, an appeals ruling sealed, and a murder... Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cr-00547-RDB Document 814-1 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 4
problematic in a published opinion that could contain precedent but no one knows what the
. . says. "
OpIniOn
Jan Paul Miller, a white-collar defense lawyer in Illinois who served as an assistant U.S.
attorney in Maryland from 1995 until 2002, concurs. "It's unusual frankly for the district
court case to have as much sealed as this case apparently has sealed," he adds.
"This case is particularly interesting and unusual because the Fourth Circuit issued the
sealed opinion, but did not seal one of the footnotes," says Steven H. Levin, a defense
attorney with Levin and Curlett in Baltimore. "And it appears that the footnote was not
sealed because of the concurring opinions which addressed the substance of the footnote,
but not the opinion itself.
"Although the Fourth Circuit issued the opinion sealed, it appears that the Court invited the
District Court to reconsider whether the sealing order could be amended or lifted on some
of the trial documents or prior proceedings. Ironically, this invitation seems to appear in
Footnote 11, at least part of which is also sealed."
Levin says "Judge Davis' concurrence is probably the most interesting part of the unsealed
portion of the opinion."
Davis wrote with passion: "Contemporary discord in this country we all love, especially in
stressed communities where interaction with the criminal justice system is a regular and
dispiriting occurrence for many residents, might well be reduced if judges used our voices
to inform and educate the political branches about how the decisions they make actually
operate down here on the ground floor of the criminal justice system. In sum, when judges
'see something' judges should 'say something.'"
Adams submitted a handwritten motion on July 29 to "terminate counsel for resentencing."
In it he says Pat Woodward, his lawyer, "was part of the initial defense team that led to the
erroneous sentencing and caused Adams to be harmed." Woodward did not immediately
return City Paper's phone call. Adams was represented on appeal by Amy Lee Copeland of
Rouse and Copeland in Savannah, Georgia. She did not immediately return a reporter's
phone call.
Responses to Adams' pro-se motion are due in court by Aug. 17.
Click here for more from Edward Ericson Jr. or email Edward at
eericson@citypaper.com

http://touch.citypaper.com! 1

8/28/2015