[van-announce] John Graham Defense Update December 17, 2004

[Gung-Fu Garlicbobcat]

John Graham Defense Update December 17, 2004

Included are the revised updates from the extradition hearings of  the 
past two weeks. These updates have also been posted on the  John
Graham Defense Committee website,  www.grahamdefense.org. This
concludes our updates from these  extradition hearings, until court 
reconvenes on January 25th,  2005.

We thank you for your continued interest and support.

Matthew Lien
John Graham Defense Committee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello friends and supporters,

As you probably already know, December 6, 2004 was the first  day of 
extradition hearings for John Graham. Following are  updates from  those
hearings, for your information.

Day 1: December 6, 2004

In the morning prior to court, John was feeling some stress but  was  also
very positive to be walking the path of truth. He was  surrounded  my many
friends and family members, some from the  local area and  others who flew
to Vancouver to observe the  hearings and offer their  support.

During the first day, John's lawyers and the Crown began  presenting 
their positions before BC Supreme Court Justice  Bennett. John's
lawyers reviewed the details of his arrest with an  officer on the 
witness stand, examining how John was first  detained on a false
accusation of harassment. While in police  custody on this charge,  John
was allowed to contact a lawyer --  which he did. After this call, 
however, John was then informed of a  new charge relating to the US 
indictment for the murder of Anna  Mae Aquash. The original
complaint evaporated and was replaced  solely by this new charge.  After
being informed of the new charge,  John was not asked if he  wished to
contact legal counsel -- an  apparent violation of his rights,  as John
was now in further  jeopardy -- and was further interrogated.

Another witness for the Defense was a woman employed at the  local  police
detachment where John was required to check in on a  daily  basis. Not
only has John been checking in consistently and  reliably,  but he had
also made friends of the staff and had sold  one of his  hand-crafted
willow chairs to a woman working there.  John has been  crafting such
items to help subsidize his income,  since the restrictions  of house
arrest make it nearly impossible to  find other employment.

Day 2 - December 7, 2004

The second day was devoted to a few procedural matters, with a
great deal of time spent reviewing the arrest procedures and the  
apparent violation of John's rights once informed of the charge
relating to the US indictment.

At the conclusion of the second day, the hearings were adjourned   until
Thursday at 10:00 AM.

Day 3 - December 9, 2004

The day began with the lawyers for John Graham continuing their
review of the arrest procedures and possible violations of John's   rights.

A new argument presented centered around the identification and  a 
photograph of John taken at the time of arrest in Vancouver.  The  photo
was faxed to the US for identification. The individual  which the  US
relied upon to positively identify the photo was John  Trudell, a  witness
for the prosecution. John Trudell looked at the  photo and  identified it
only as "Graham". He never referred to the  person in the  photo as "John
Boy," as he had consistently in the  past. Furthermore,  the arrest sheet
sent from Vancouver  described the man in custody  as Caucasian, 87 kg in
weight, and  188 cm tall -- several pounds and  inches more than John's
weight  and height, not to mention the
oversight that John is clearly an  Indigenous man.

Subsequently, the judge ruled the booking sheet inadmissible.

This raised many important questions about the procedures during   the
arrest. This also led to questions about how the US had  obtained  the
original description of John Graham, and how they  determined it  was the
same description as the "John Boy"  described in much of the 
documentation. It appears as though the  US may have sent agents
north to Canada, to meet with John and  obtain identifying information, 
and then return to include this  information in a warrant for John's 
arrest. This would suggest they  had no idea who they were looking  for,
and supports John's  assertion that agents had repeatedly come to  the
Yukon and  threatened him to name a killer responsible for Anna  Mae's
death,  and that if he did not, they would "ruin his life".

Once John was arrested, the US and Canadian authorities, and  John 
Trudell, concluded the Canadian authorities had arrested the  right  man
-- even though much of the information describing John  on the  arrest
sheet was incorrect.

John's lawyers also questioned much of the case law which the
Crown was relying on to defend themselves against apparent
procedural improprieties. It was expressed by John's lawyers that  the 
case law was outdated, and had since been replaced with  cases that  had
set new precedence supporting an individual's  rights as balanced  with
the rights of society -- in John's case, the  balance had shifted  much
too far from an individual's rights as  enshrined in the Canadian  Charter
or Rights.

Near the end of the day, the Crown asked to know if John's  lawyers 
intended to request a Stay of Proceedings, to prepare  their position 
against such a request. It was confirmed that John's  lawyers did  intend
to request a Stay of Proceedings, based in part  on an affidavit  provided
by the legal counsel for Arlo Looking  Cloud, the credibility  and
reliability of another witness, and new  information about the 
availability of another witness which raised  questions about the US' 
certification of evidence.

Arlo Looking Cloud is the only alleged eye witness the prosecution  
intends to call, to testify against John Graham in a US trial. The  
affidavit, however, declares that Arlo will refuse to testify against 
John  should such a trial occur (as he demonstrated recently when 
refusing  to testify before a Grand Jury). Many believe Arlo was  coerced
into  providing false testimony against John, which  inadvertently led to
his  own conviction earlier this year. Now that  Arlo is no longer under
the  influence of alcohol and other drugs  (as he admitted to being in his
 videotaped "confession") and is  now being represented by unbiased  and
qualified legal counsel,  Arlo has recanted much of his previous 
testimony. Accusations of  drugs and alcohol being provided by the 
original authorities from  the time of his arrest persist.

Court was then adjourned for the day.

The Final Week - Days 4, 5, 6 and 7

Some thoughts on extradition...

As we entered the final week of hearings, we expected to  conclude  before
the week's end. Without the ability of John's  lawyers to
examine the US Government's evidence (as restricted  under US -
Canada extradition law), we are considerably limited in  what
weaknesses, abuses of process, and untruths we can  expose.

Given the current policy for extradition between the US and  Canada -- 
where the two countries have agreed essentially on a  handshake, a  brief
procedural review and a rubber stamping of  documentation for  an
extradition -- there is very little we are able  to question at this 
stage. The lawyers for John have raised many  important issues
during these hearings, and these could prove  much more useful
during an appeal to the Supreme Court and the  Minister of Justice.  We
are nevertheless fully prepared for the  possibility that the judge  may
have no choice but to issue an order  of extradition, and
recognize that this would only conclude the first  round.

The problem with this "friendly" agreement between the US and
Canada, is that it assumes the US Government will always act in
good faith when prosecuting a case against a Canadian citizen.
However, history reveals many instances where the US  Government
has engaged in wrongful and malicious prosecution  against Native 
Americans, notably those involved with the  American Indian
Movement during the 1970s.

For this reason, we believe it is unconstitutional that the Canadian  
Government should represent the United States in such a  preceding, 
rather than representing the rights of the Canadian  citizen being 
sought, and places the Canadian Charter of Rights  and Freedoms
and Canada's very sovereignty into question.

In our opinion, when a foreign nation -- let alone the most powerful  
nation on Earth -- has a documented history of prosecutorial  abuse  again
Native Americans, they must not be allowed to  extract a citizen  from
Canada without disclosing the evidence. The  Canadian
Government must defend the individual's rights and  freedoms against  the
foreign government's claim, should they be  potentially false and 
malicious -- as is evident in the charge again  John Graham.

However, during these hearings, we see the Crown repeatedly
reminding the judge that she has no authority to question the
"reliability and credibility of the evidence" beyond the summary,  even 
though much of it has been proven to be unreliable or  unavailable.  Their
position is that a Canadian judge can not have  discretion over  the
reliability of evidence, without having a detailed  knowledge of the  US
legal system.

John's lawyers continue to refer to existing case law which states  that 
the Canadian judge's role "must not be reduced to  'meaningless'". 
Precisely what the role of the judge can be,  however, seems to be 
unclear and a point of continuing argument.

We are therefore fully prepared to challenge this existing  extradition 
policy before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now... on to the developments of the second week

BC Supreme Court Justice Bennett ordered the Crown to obtain
detailed information from the US on how they identified John  Graham,  on
the origin of its identifying information, and how it  linked that 
identification to the person known as "John Boy"  described in other 
testimony. The Crown obliged. It is expected to  take a couple of  weeks
to obtain this information from the US.

The judge stated that, while she may not have the authority to rule  on 
the information obtained from the request, the Minister would  have  more
authority to consider it later. This rare order was a clear   indication
that the concerns expressed by the Defense on the  matters  of
identification do indeed have serious weight, and could  assist  John's
lawyers further on.

The Defense also continued their questioning of the evidence
described in the summary, focusing on two points specifically:

1) A witness who was certified by the US as being available to  testify, 
Al Gates, had been deceased for up to nine months prior to  his
allegedly being certified. This raises questions about the  reliability
and  credibility of the certification process. Obviously, Mr.  Gates had
not  been contacted to confirm that he would testify,  because he was not 
alive at the time. The prosecution asserts that  this is only one witness 
who was not correctly certified. However,  the Defense asserts this is 
evidence that the certification process  was not handled with due 
diligence, and casts doubt on the entire  body of evidence as certified 
by the prosecuting authorities.

John's lead attorney, Terry LaLiberte, went on to accuse the US of   fraud
and of misleading the Canadian court.

2) Another witness presented in the US summary of evidence who
came under question was Frank Dillon. Mr. Dillon has previously
stated that John told him he had to "off" Anna Mae. However, the   Defense
has acquired Grand Jury testimony where Frank Dillon
testified that John had never said this, and that John had never  used 
the word "off." The contradictory testimony obviously calls  into 
question the reliability and credibility of this evidence.

John's lawyers assert that Canada "can not extradite on evidence   which
does not exist, has not been diligently examined, or is
inaccurate." They further assert that, since the US is a party to the  
case before the Canadian court, the court must be prepared to  judge  the
evidence which has come into question.

Following these arguments, the Defense requested the judge
consider either a Stay of Proceedings, or that she disallow the
evidence provided and certified by the US. Either solution would   render
this matter closed, and John would not be extradited.

Adjourned

The court adjourned on Thursday for the holiday season, planning  to 
reconvene on January 25, 2005, at which time the information
obtained by the Crown regarding how the US obtained identifying
information for John Graham will be reviewed. We expect this to
require one or two days, assuming no further information is  brought 
before the court.

It is unclear how the judge will rule. Clearly, the Defense has been  
successful in demonstrating -- even in this extremely restricted  
extradition venue -- that the case prepared by the US is fraught  with 
inaccuracies, unreliability, and a lack of credibility. Whether  BC 
Supreme Court Justice Bennett deems she has the authority  to act on  this
information will be determined when court  reconvenes.

Home for the holidays

It is good news that John remains free for the holiday season to  join 
family from the Yukon to be with him. He will also join his  children and 
grandchildren who have attended the hearings daily,  with love and a 
belief in truth shining in their eyes.

We will continue to prepare the case for appeal, in the event the   judge
must issue an order to extradite. We are also planning a  new  letter
writing campaign, and a "Letters to your Editors"  campaign.

We wish you all the very best for the coming holiday season, and   thank
you most sincerely for your continued interest and support.

Matthew Lien
www.matthewlien.com
John Graham Defense Committee
www.grahamdefense.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/van-announce/attachments/20041217/f879de0a/attachment.html>