AN AMERICAN TRAVESTY
By Ira Einhorn

“WHERE LAW ENDS, TYRANNY BEGINS”
John Locke

SUMMARY

I did not kill Holly Maddux, on September 12th of 1977 as four people, including two Philadelphia police detectives, saw her alive, six months after her alleged death in September.  The attempted suppression of this information by Assistant DA Barbara Christie, set the tone for my treatment by the entire Pennsylvania police and judicial system.
The total thrust of the prosecution’s case has been focused on the September 12th date for over thirty years.  Thus the failed attempt to suppress eyewitness data, that obviously contradicted their case, forced the judicial system into a series of lies in order to maintain my guilt.
Below you will find a detailed, but not inclusive presentation of the constitutional violations committed to obtain a guilty verdict and make it stick, by refusing to look at what has been done in the name of ‘justice’.
I will also mention a few other issues.
The on-going violation of my basic constitutional rights began on Day 2 of my confrontation with the Commonwealth when the present DA of Philadelphia, Lynne Abraham, then a magistrate, signed a poisonous second warrant, based on an illegal general search allowing the police to seize over ten thousand (10,000) pages of personal diaries – material protected by the blood spilled in our American Revolution and the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.
They also took, for no apparent legal reason, every other piece of paper in my apartment.
This treasonous process of abrogating the law has been reinforced by a continuing attempt to defame my character and erase my history, aided by behavior, described below, that is unique in American judicial history.
To take 10,000 pages of personal diaries, under the bond of a warrant, then to hand them over to a journalist who uses them for hiss own monetary gain, paying off the DA who released them, Edward Rendell, now the Governor of Pennsylvania, by his jaundiced use of such material, has no parallel in American judicial history.  While this process was underway, Ronald Castille, the present Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, took over responsibility in the DA’s office.
I was convicted by media opinion manufactured by the illegal seizure and release of my journals. A created opinion that a court just rubber stamped.

THE ISSUES

1.  Assistant D.A. Barbara Christie withheld exculpatory evidence and treated the forensics in the case – the heart of any murder case – as if she had written the law.
2.  The Pennsylvania legislature ignored the very basis of our constitutional structure to pass the unconstitutional Einhorn Law.
3.  Ex-Assistant DA Joel Rosen tried to insure conviction by having his assistant hold up a “bullshit bag” while I was testifying; suborned perjury and used material (my journals) in the courtroom, contrary to all of our legal history.
4.  The judge did away with our defense with one aside to the jury, part of a series of actions that no honest judge would ever permit himself.
5.  The smell of a decaying body is unmistakable and impossible to bear as both Drs. Fillinger and Arden made clear in their testimony at the trial.  The body could not have decayed in the apartment as will be made clear.
The smell is part of the media fostered myth that has grown up around the case mixed with an entire farrago of precedent setting behavior that is a shame of American law.
6.  The Superior Court acted as if the Constitution and their own legal precedents were non-existent when they made their decision on my appeal.
7.  The billion dollar civil suit was farcical in many ways.
8.  In April of 2009, I was told that my entire file was missing.

PREFACE

“Judges are umpires.  Umpires don’t make the rules.  They apply them. 
The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. 
They make sure that everybody plays by the rules.  But it is a limited role. 
Nobody ever went to a ball-park to see the umpire.”
Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts

Those who know the law say that my case contains the most egregious violation of judicial norms they have ever encountered.

BUT

The tendency to bend the law and rupture due process has now become integral to the Pennsylvania Judicial system.  What two judges in Lucerne County did: send juveniles to a facility that kicked back some of the profits to the judges.  This is, alas, not that far from the norm of irrational and capricious behavior that is now characteristic of the entire criminal justice system presided over by Chief Justice Ronald Castile.
He cannot defend what is presented below, thus he ignores it; an act of total abrogation of responsibility, for he , like so many others in high judicial and legislative authority in Pennsylvania, has his finger in the pie.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

The law is slow, arcane and very formal as it is the cumulative accretion of many 1000s of years of human history.  This is done as a protection of heat and emotion, very real to all of us.  It leads to lynching, vigilante activity and a court room that is poison to deliberative rational activity, as the innocence project has demonstrated in hundreds of cases.
The jury is to be convinced not incited.
The judge must maintain fairness at any cost.
Judge Mazzola, the Roger Clemens of Philadelphia jurisprudence – a victory at any cost – made a mockery of these supposed standards.  He wanted a conviction at any cost.
The descriptions found below mainly concern legal errors.  Most errors of the type described below lead to a retrial, but some scream for the case to be dismissed.
All one needs is one major error.
I have chosen from a slew of such errors, those that are most comprehensible.  I have given some of the wider context when it is necessary for understanding.
Documentation can be found by clicking on the blue references

THE ISSUES

“Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  It ever has been and ever will be pressured until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
Federalist Paper No. 51

1.  The Einhorn Law

The law should apply to me.  It should apply not due to the fact that I’m a good guy or a bad guy.  It is applied to me as a citizen who lives under the aegis of a written constitution.  To violate the Constitution in the way described in this article is to destroy the covenant that exists between those who are elected or hired to serve, for our benefit, and the people as a whole.  It threatens the very fabric of our lives and it demeans the union of the people, by the people and for the people that so many have bleed to preserve.
It is Tyranny.
When the American political system was formulated in the Constitution, one of the strongest enabling principles was the separation of powers.
It is a principle reinforced in an early Supreme Court decision: Marbury v. Madison.  It has been held as the LAW of the land since that time.
Ira Einhorn was tried in absentia in 1993.
His decision became final in 1995.
Only a court can open a final decision.
A legislative act can’t tamper with a final decision as it violates the separation of powers and makes nonsense of judicial finality.
The Einhorn Law is a travesty of American Justice.
In addition it violates the jurisdictional nature of a PCRA (Pennsylvania Court Reporters Association). Thus any decision it makes is without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The arguments put forward in response to these facts by the judge and the DA’s office have been puerile.
The Superior Court wrote a decision on the Einhorn Law that was based upon an outright lie, and so twisted a judicial principle that everyone who has looked closely at the reasoning has said: “It isn’t law.”
The Superior Court avoided a decision on the merits of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Einhorn Law by claiming that they could not grant the remedy, therefore they would not rule on the merits.
A first year law student would say: “Duh”.
One only looks at a remedy after one has made a decision on the merits.
This is how the law functions 100% of the time.
For a court to refuse to rule on the merits of an issue declares that due process does not exist for Ira Einhorn.
Pariahs need not apply.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the final arbiter of law in Pennsylvania, has twice refused to rule on a controversial issue of outstanding public interest.
The case has received more publicity than any case in modern Pennsylvania history.  It is sheer avoidance, Chief Justice Castille must be vociferously reminded that there are sins of omission as well as commission – to avoid ruling on the Einhorn Law is to diminish the meaning of law in Pennsylvania and to spatter mud upon his recent pledge that justice will be done in Pennsylvania courtrooms.

2.  Barbara Christie

Barbara Christie left the DA’s office in disgrace after tormenting defendants with her own version of the law, for too many years. She left behind a large murder case that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out due to her misconduct.  That she was able to act in such a manner for so long casts a shadow on the Pennsylvania judicial system as a whole.
If justice is to return to our criminal justice system, the court must adhere to its own rules and punish those who don’t.  The playing field has tilted totally against defendants.  Only judges who genuinely believe in Justice can reassert the fundamental rights that are now in tatters.
Ms. Christie withheld exculpatory evidence through the use of subterfuge.  A criminal trial is an adversarial proceeding, but it is a public open process that requires the DA to turn over all important information.  To the defense, in particular: exculpatory information.
Not to do is a so is a Brady violation which can require a new trial or a quashing of the charge.
The DA has always claimed that Holly Maddux was killed on September 12th of 1977, but four people, one twice, claimed to have seen Ms. Maddux alive, six months after this date.  These four people related their sightings to 2 ex-FBI agents who were paid by the Maddux family to investigate her disappearance.
The information concerning these sightings was placed in a report due to the defense under discovery – a pre-trial procedure in which information is shared.
In spite of this normal procedure which would have destroyed the DA’s case, Ms. Christie took a paginated report, blew it down in a copy machine thus removing the pagination and then she conveniently trashed a umber of the pages:
1. All of the sightings
2. A statement by the 2 ex-FBI agents which began: “If we are going to pin this on Einhorn…”
3.  A third item (a picture I think) that the defense has never obtained.
After 5 court hearings, the defense got item ‘2’ above and some of the sightings.
The defense did not get two of the sightings until 2002.  They were sighting made by Philadelphia police detectives. Sightings of great significance as the defendant and his girl friend were known to these trained police officers.
By 2002, one officer had died, thus introducing a Brady violation into the second trial.  N.B.: The entire logic of the DA’s case depends upon the September 12th date – this is why Ms. Christie withheld this information; this is also why judge Mazzola, after hearing testimony about the multiple sightings, told the jury to disregard the time of death, destroying in one sentence the very basis of the defense.

FORENSICS

Ms. Christie did not follow formal procedure with the forensics.  Instead of allowing the local man Dr. Tumosa to do the work, she sent it to the FBI.
She got a goose egg.
She withheld this result from the defense.
Then she tried another nationally respected lab.
She got another goose egg.
She again withheld the results
It took a court order for my defense to get these very negative results.  Results due to US under normal discovery procedure.
The forensics are the heart and soul of a murder case.
Ms. Christie had no forensics that supported her case.
The defense later learned that she also had other information, damning to her case, that she should have but didn’t pursue.
She had a series of fingerprints from a locked back closet that only Ms. Maddux and Mr. Einhorn had access to; fingerprints that were not those of either Mr. Einhorn or Ms. Maddux.
She didn’t ask the FBI to identify them.
These fingerprints, that could have identified other suspects in the case, were left unidentified.
It was typical of the way the case was handled: do not bother me with the facts.
The clothes that Ms. Maddux was presumably wearing when she was killed, should have been covered in blood as her wounds bled profusely and would have been spattered all over the apartment in which she was supposedly killed.

THERE IS NO BLOOD IN THE CASE

These forensic results should have caused the DA’s office to deeply question their conclusion about the case.  It didn’t.
Going back for a third dip, Ms. Christie now gave the material to the man passed over twice: Dr. Tumosa.  He invented a new test that produced a ‘maybe’ not confirmed by further testing, but his former boss, Dr. Cordova, made it clear at the trial that the ‘maybe’ was invalid as his results were not valid and did not belong in the court room as they were brought about by undocumented tests that had never been submitted for publication and hence not peer reviewed.
They should have been challenged under the case law standards established by Frye/Daubert. 
The clothes and the fingerprints went missing, so we could not retest them and bring the evidence into the courtroom: A travesty of Justice as both facts point to an incorrect theory of the case and exoneration.

3.  Joel Rosen

“And what has happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to cite any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a defendant.
Joel Rosen, N.O.T, 9/10/2002 P.37

Mr. Rosen, who also left the DA’s office in disgrace, won an easy in absentia trial at which he demeaned Ira Einhorn by calling him, among other things: “A bum who Zeroxed things.”
This demeaning of the defendant was a constant theme in Mr. Rosen’s conduct of the case.  A theme that Judge Mazzola (see below) reinforced and has been continued in a recent attempt of Ira Einhorn to regain private prosperity (his journals) that never should have been taken.
Mr. Rosen attempted to seize the defendant’s journals, that were created after his arrest, by putting extreme pressure on a friend who was attempting to provide Ira Einhorn with an adequate defense (surely a preserved right even in a very changed judicial climate); lambasted, in granted private encounters, witnesses with a barrage of demeaning statements about their daring to testify for Mr. Einhorn; suborned perjury from a rebuttal witness – Dr. Nathanson – whose testimony was 100% falsehood; had a “bullshit bag” at the defense table that his assistant, Carman Lineberger, allegedly held up while Mr. Einhorn was testifying.  A Remmer violation (Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954)) that the judge – contrary to all case law – ignored when brought to his attention.
There are a number of other serious instances of prosecutorial misconduct, but I wish to elaborate on just two instances:

Joyce Brodsky

At my first trial, Mr. Rosen suborned perjury from Joyce Brodsky by having her describe her going into my apartment on 9/12/77 and seeing the body of Holly Maddux.
This was a blatant lie as her girlfriend Cindy made clear in her various statements and testimony at my second trial.
Pause and reflect for a moment: If you had an eyewitness who could substantiate your case, would you not have her testify?
It is obvious that her failure to testify, casts a shadow on the veracity of the rest of the testimony that Mr. Rosen presented, but there is more to the lie.
Soon after I won my first extradition battle, Joyce Brodsky called me: shortly before Christmas in 1997.
I had read her lying testimony in July of that year; I was disgusted by it.
I hung up on her twice.
My wife, Annika, insisted that I take the third call.
Joyce was hysterical and apologetic about her lying, suggesting that she had been coerced into lying by Mr. Rosen’s talk about Holly.
She also said that Senator Specter had called her.
She called me around 3:30 in the morning.
She sobbed out her apologies for over an hour as my wife sat beside me and listened in our bed.
We both made contemporary journal entries about the incident [see the documentation for this article]
Joyce could lie when I was not in court.
She could not repeat her lies while I was in court
When our investigator went to see her, she cursed him out, refusing to talk to him.
She did not testify.
After my second trial, she attempted to clear her name by talking to a reporter about the call.
She said she had called Annika Flodin – my wife – whom she thought was living separately from me and in danger from me.
She said she got Annika’s number from information and called her.
Annika of course lived with me.  Our telephone was listed under the name of Eugene Mallon.
Her blatant lie has no basis: it is symbolic of much of the case against me. 
Guilt plagued her, so high or drunk one night, she called me to expiate that guilt.
Then sober, she wished to erase what she did, but two people recorded the event, telephones others and pursued the truth. 
Her explanation to the Philadelphia Inquirer was based on a lie.

BULLSHIT BAG

The guilt of Ira Einhorn constantly reiterated by a leading acting media, is belied by Ms. Christie’s withholding of exculpatory information or Judge Mazzola’s behavior (described below), but the use of a bullshit bag in a court of law while a defendant is testifying, forces any honest individual to question how secure a case can be when a DA resorts to such a ploy.  Compare such an action to Mr. Rosen’s quote (above).
The Judge’s failure to investigate the incident only reinforces the questions posed by such behavior in a courtroom free of adequate counsel or the supportive wife or Ira Einhorn [she was kept away by the refusal to grant her immunity from arrest.]

4.  Judge Mazzola

“But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of the judges.  They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main questions to the decision of the court.  Who would be willing to stake his life and estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt.”
Federalist Paper, No. 65

Judge Mazzola wanted a conviction very badly and then wanted to protect it at all costs: the law be damned.
He also joined in the personal attack on the defendant that the Rosen quote above refers to.
At the end of the trial the judge demeaned Mr. Einhorn by calling him an ‘intellectual dilettante’ who reads the first and last chapter of books, ‘a pseudo classicist’ [whatever that means] and said that the defendant used the word ‘psychotronic’ in his testimony.
He said the word wasn’t in his dictionary – there truth ended, for he then went on to say that the word didn’t exist and should have been ‘psychotropic’.
The DA uses the word ‘psychotronics’ in his letter brief, and it indeed does exist.  In fact, at the time of the trial, google.com would have returned over 4,000 hits, 3 of which were long articles about Ira Einhorn (all 3 in the top 20) which dealt with his activities and interaction with a now deceased friend, Phillip K. Dick, a world famous writer whose work is the basis for Blade Runner, Minority Report and a number of other movies.
The judge’s words of derision were pure projection.  They are not based upon evidence – miming a good deal of the trial. 
Moments after insulting Mr. Einhorn, Judge Mazzola reseated the jury in the box and invited TV cameras and the rest of the media into the courtroom for extensive celebration and interviews.
My lawyers looked on in amazement for TV is forbidden in the court room without expressed consent: we were not asked.
The function of the judge is to serve as a referee, to keep the playing field level as Chief Justice Roberts made clear in the quote above.
The bias becomes even more evident when one considers what Ira Einhorn was doing during these years in question.
In the documentation for this article, you will find such a description from a very hostile book, followed by a small list of some of the activities that were integral to Ira Einhorn’s life during the 70s.
That is the partial record.
There is nothing in the court record to support the judge’s outburst.
It was pure projection.
It continues to this day, as the following quote from a recent submission of the DA’s office indicated – it concerns my illegally taken journals:
Reproduced below is Asst. DA Beth C. Grossman’s argument in Section C of her motion”
Text:  “C.  Petitioner presents no evidence demonstrating any emergency warranting the expeditious return of these petitions. 
Finally petitioner sets forth no evidence or support demonstrating any emergency warranting the expeditious return of these journals other than his overblown, egotistical statement that he has had inquires from writers who are researching his life.  Frankly it has been almost six years since petitioner was convicted a second time of first degree murder.  The legitimate question can be asked – is anyone really interested in him at this point?” 
Pure insult and again 100% inaccurate as the ten letters I submitted to the court, as part of my answer to Ms. Grossman’s brief, made clear.
Law?  Our forefathers would weep, if they read such ad hominem arguments masquerading as law.
During the trial, judge Mazzola heard the testimony about Ms. Maddux being sighted at least five times, 5 months or longer after her alleged murder on September 12th, 1977.
And let us not forget that Ms. Christie lied and created prosecutorial misconduct in attempting to disappear these sightings.
Unasked by either side, he gave the following instruction:
“As an aside, I would advise that you are not necessarily bound by the date alleged in the indictment in this case.  The date of death is not an essential element of the crime.”
There are no asides in the law.
The entire focus of the trial, when alleged prior acts did not occupy the stage, was based upon the alleged date of death as stated in the indictment.
The prosecution focused upon it; the defense focused upon rebutting it.
When Judge Mazzola issued his aside, he made nonsense of the trial.
This is how he defends against such behavior on 1 of page 143 of his 1925(a) statement:
“Any variance I the charged date of the crime, from indictment through conviction and final sentencing, could hardly be characterized as fatal.  Any variance here could only have been a few hours before the actual day and time of the murder, or a day or two after the completed crime.”
Compare the two statements: the two statements have nothing to do with each other.

Judge Mazzola refused to hold a Remmer hearing – a hearing which would have forced the DA to explain what they were doing with a ‘bullshit bag” as part of their case.
He permitted fifth amendment protected material to dominate the trial.
He referred to the impact that the verdict would have on the Maddux family (“the family of the deceased.”). Emotion not fact: improper for the consideration of the jury, tilling even further the imbalance in the court room, filled with the Maddux family; Mr. Einhorn’s wife not there as the judge would do nothing to grant her immunity from the threat of arrest.
His 218(!) page Rule 1925(a) statement is even more troubling, as it producing an ice cold record, a lawyer who forgot to file and a 48 month wait, en toto, for a superior court decision.
A Rule 1925 (a) statement is due forthwith.
It should have been about 10 pages long.

More bizarre and even more indicative of bias is some of the content in the 1925(a) statement.  Three times the judge Mr. Einhorn’s lawyers:
(1) “Counsel arduously labored and assiduously prepared.” (p. 5)
(2) “It is apparent from the record in this case that the defendant’s trial was impeccably prepared and presented by all counsel, both for the Commonwealth and on behalf of the defendant himself.” (p. 173)
(3) “Clearly, the defendant failed to do this, as there is no indication on the record that a Frye hearing was ever requested, let alone even considered, except here as an untimely afterthought on appeal.  Still, defense counsel cannot be said to be ineffective in that not requesting a Frye hearing was sound strategy, especially where, as here, the defendant is notorious for trying to manipulate a legal system for which we clearly has nothing but contempt.”
Defending the actions of defense counsel is not the function of a Rule 1925(a) statement.
Ascribing an egregious error to the alleged character of the client is absurd.
The Frye issue was waived as was the issue of prosecutorial misconduct.
A number of other major outcome determinative issues were not even raised, including the bullshit bag issue.
“Impeccably prepared’, ‘arduously labored,’ ‘assiduously prepared’ – me thinks the judge doth protest too much.

AND last but not least are pages 173 (last paragraph) to page 178, of the judge’s Magnum Opus.
In these five pages the superior court is asked to rule on something not before it which would abrogate the petitioner’s basic right to be heard by closing out all appeals.

5.  The Smell

So much of the enormous media noise around the instant case has to do with the smell of a decaying body which both the prosecution and the defense agreed in court was impossible to sustain for any period in time, let along months and months.
Yet the closet in which the body was supposedly decaying was about 4 feet away from the room in which all the activity (reading, sleeping, love making and desk work) took place in the apartment.
Two women testified to having spent extensive time in the apartment during the time when others reported a smell outside and in other parts of the building.
They were not restricted in their movements in any way.  They smelled nothing.
Many other men and women, including a police detective, were in the apartment subsequent to the time that the Commonwealth has always insisted that the death took place.
They were not called to testify, by the defense as the time of death was fixed in stone by the indictment and their testimony would not have added anything to the situation.
There was no smell in the apartment itself.
Impossible, if a body had decayed there.
Also not a drop of blood was found in the apartment or on Holly’s clothes.
Add all this to five sightings of a dead woman 6 months after her death;
The withholding of these sightings:
A judge who says ignore the time of death.
Also, during the trial, a long discussion about a fire escape next to the door – a red herring – as the actual fire escape door, in the kitchen, was left off the drawing of the apartment, by the man who spent eighteen hours in the apartment.
And the real kicker: Holly was found with keys to the apartment in her pocket.
There was no problem about bringing a body into the apartment as the deceased had keys to the apartment on her person.
The smell, as with so many other aspects of the case, does not point to the defendant, but into other directions that the neglected and now lost fingerprints reinforce.

6. The Superior Court

The Superior Court was the first line of defense against the defendant having an honest appeal.
The proceedings were delayed by Judge Mazzola for so long that the record was so cold that Mr. Strutin (one of my lawyers) forgot to file.
Then the Superior Court made a travesty of the appeal by refusing to rule on the Einhorn Law, first lying about what the defense said, then saying they could not rule on the issue as they could not grant the remedy.
The absurdity of such a position has been called many names by those who look at it and know the law.
The situation is simple:
An issue has two parts: The merits and the remedy.
The remedy comes into play only if an issue has merit.
You can’t speak about the remedy until you rule on the issue.
Not to rule on the merits of an issue is to abrogate the very nature of the existence of a court.  Court’s exist to rule on the merits of an issue.
Travesty is a mild word for what the Superior Court did.
To use a remedy to avoid ruling on an issue is unique, and has nothing to do with LAW.
For the Supreme Court not to correct such a misuse of the law is to make a hypocrite out of Chief Justice Ronald Castille.
The entire court system has continually twisted the law to avoid dealing fairly with one case.
The case screams for honest exposure.
SUNLIGHT

7.  Civil Suit

In 1999, years beyond the allowable time limit, a civil action went to trial, against the defendant Ira Einhorn, again in absentia.
A judgment was returned against the defendant for a sum that now, with interest, is well over $1,000,000,000.

8.  File

Then in April of 2009, after waiting eighteen months to have a lawyer appointed, a PCRA Action began.  At that time Mr. Einhorn was told that his entire file had been lost – 100’s of pages just vanished –

Again Unique

An accident – HA!  You decide.
Just another indication of a judicial system gone to an extreme to avoid facing up to its own mistakes.

August 2, 2009

Ira Einhorn is still innocent.

He did not kill Holly Maddux.

Ask the author of the single bullet theory what he thinks happened.

I'm talking about Arlen Specter who shortly before he became senator, was Ira's attorney.

The Disappearance Of Due Process

Due process in legal matters is what separates barbarity from civility. It along with the concept of Habeas Corpus form cornerstones upon which our law used to be built.

Then along came W. Nero Bush who has destroyed the American constitution, with much complicity from our elected representatives, during the last 5 years.

What has happened at the national level is echoed in Pennsylvania wherein many innocent men and women are doing hard time for crimes they did not commit and suffering egregious violations of due process as the basic foundations of our law disappear in a concerted effort to strip protection from those fighting for their freedom.

I can illustrate this process from my own case, for it is the one I know best.

My original prosecutor, Barbara Christie, withheld Brady (exculpatory) material from us under discovery, employing a subterfuge to do so.

She took a private report (paid for by the Maddux Family), generated by 2 ex-FBI agents, reduced the size of the pages, thus allowing her to disappear the page numbers and remove 5 sightings of my supposed victim, made six months to a year after the prosecution claimed Holly Maddux was killed. A claim that they maintained for 23 years thus fixing the date in stone.
It took many court hearings to uncover the exculpatory material due to us, BUT, two of the reported sightings (made by two Philadelphia police detectives) were withheld until 2002.

Ms. Christie also refused to allow forensic results to stand on their own merits as twice (the FBI and Toxicon Associates) failed to produce results that supported her contentions. The man skipped over, Dr. Tumosa, to allow the more prestigious outside labs to have their say, did the 3rd round of testing. He achieved some partial results, BUT, the results came from a procedure (a new test he invented) that no honest court of law could accept as the procedure was never published or peer reviewed, which violates both standards that rule in our courts: Frye and Daubert.

I did not kill Holly Maddux, but the continuing due process violations made me aware that I would not receive a fair trial, so I left.

While I was away, the DA handed over 60 volumes of my journals to a writer, Steven Levy, who used stolen material for his own profit while writing a damning one-sided book about me. Of course such tainted evidence should have been excluded from the trial.

The journals had been seized under warrant as evidence; the act of their being given to a journalist for publication is unique in American case law as is the unconstitutional Einhorn Law which DA Lynn Abraham caused to be passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in order to trick the French into sending me back to the USA.

My appointed closet prosecutors, Strutin and Cannon, were loathe to challenge Judge William Mazzola in any way, so they placidly allowed him to forego pre-trial testimony on the Journal Issue as he knew how explosive it was, then failed to challenge the use of the journals on two other very solid grounds: chain of custody and the DA’s allowing pre trial publication of evidence seized under warrant, thus tainting the evidence and exposing the defendant to unprecedented pre-trial publicity generated by the prosecution.

“And what has happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to site any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a defendant.”

NOTES OF TESTIMONY 9/10/2002, Joel Rosen, prosecutor

My closet prosecutors also failed to challenge Dr. Tumosa’s obviously bogus test.
If they had done correct legal work, most of the prosecution evidenced would have been excluded from the courtroom.

Judge Mazzola also functioned as a prosecutor: while I was testifying Asst. DA Carmen Lineberger held up a 12X4 inch bag with the letters “Bullshit Bag” inscribed on it. That is what my counsel was told. When they complained about this and asked her to be questioned under oath, the judge refused as it was obvious grounds for dismissal.

In my defense, we presented 3 of the people who saw Holly, alive, long after her supposed death. One had died. Then we presented women who had spent nights and weekends with me while the body of the deceased supposedly lay within 10 feet of us, producing a smell that the medical examiner, Halbert Fillinger, described to the jury as being impossible to sustain for 10 minutes. No one smelled anything.

It had to be obvious to the jury that Holly was not killed on the date that the prosecution insisted on, but all of their case upon and that all of our defense was predicted upon. It was also obvious to Judge Mazzola, so in his charge to the jury, changing the indictment, he told them that the date of death was not an essential element of the crime.

This destroyed my defense.

After my conviction, he broke all law and precedent by reseating the jury in its box and invited microphones and TV cameras into the courtroom. Cannon and Strutin were shocked, but I’m a pariah and thus fair game. There is no law that applied to me in Pennsylvania. Anything can be done.

By statute Judge Mazzola was supposed to file his 1925(a) statement “forthwith”. He took 29 months. He assumed the role of a second prosecutor. Strutin and Cannon were silent, so I filed 9 motions. The judge was six months is contempt of court re: 2 court orders to file, when his untimely brief was finally filed it should not have been considered by the Superior Court. In the history of the case both Judge Mazzola and my closet prosecutors lied about the 9 docketed motions I filed.

The superior court decision was politics not law, based upon a tissue of lies and fallacious reasoning. I will parse it in another article.

My case is an emblem of what American behavior has become both inside and outside of court. The following quote from the New York Review Of Books, January 11, 2007 describes rendition in action, rendering American justice oxymoronic. It is what Good Americans are allowing their government to do.

“One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming...They must have done this 20 or 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over.”

Ira Einhorn
January, 2007

When judicial figures come together under the color of law to lie about it, they demean the very forms that their ritual is supposed to uphold and reinforce.

It would be an honest act to admit what my wife said at the end of my 2002 trial: “There is no justice for Ira Einhorn in Philadelphia.”

By lie and subterfuge, by twisting words and refusing to rule upon an obvious unconstitutional law (The Einhorn Law), the superior Court of Pennsylvania extended the statement that my wife made to Pennsylvania.

The denigration of law, the destruction of our constitution (one of the great documents in human history) under the aegis of executive order has brought international shame to our countries’ name.

Such behavior is now being echoed in local jurisdictions throughout the land.

When judges make a travesty of the law they are tearing apart the fabric of our society, they are making a mockery of those whose blood was shed in the process of creating our precious freedoms and invoking forces of social dissolution that will eventually lead to future bloodshed.

12/9/06

Ira Einhorn

Nayer here.

The body of Holly Maddux was found in a trunk on Ira Einhorn's back porch (pictured above).

The photo shows there is ample access to the second floor back porch from outside. Check the fire escape on the left and the first floor back porch below.

Based on results, it's very dangerous to speak truth to power in a state of greed. One could end up executed like the Rosenbergs or in jail until the truth comes out like Ira Einhorn, in jail for a murder there is no evidence he committed.

I have an open letter to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania to make the evidence public, especially since the court just rejected Einhorn's reply brief. If you care about justice, please contact the Penn. Atty. General and ask him to make the evidence against Ira Einhorn public. Ask them to publish the blood, DNA, hair, fiber, fingerprints, etc. evidence.

There was no evidence found in Ira Einhorn's apartment that Holly Maddux was murdered there. No evidence of a struggle in his apartment where the violent murder was reported to have taken place.

Either could have been used to upload the body by folks with the skills and motivation to silence this environmental hero.

This photo is from the book The Unicorn's Secret by Steven Levy, who in one section says the body was found in the trunk, and on the next page (photographic section - end) says it was found in the apartment. This type of disinformation is part of the smoke and mirrors used to convict a man whose only crime was to stand up to big oil and nuclear energy in favor of the environment, free energy, and power to the people.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM CORBETT

Environmental and free energy activist Ira Einhorn's reply brief was recently rejected by the court.Having studied this case for over a year, I can find no scientific evidence he killed Holly Maddux; no blood, DNA, witnesses, hair, fiber, nothing that is public. Since the courts don't want to see the evidence, can We The People see it? Do you have any scientific evidence that Ira Einhorn killed Holly Maddux or is he just another political prisoner in America serving time in jail for a crime there is no evidence he committed?

J. Nayer Hardin
Computer Underground Railroad Ent.

A LETTER TO MY LAWYERS


William T. Cannon 100 S. Broad Street Suite 1910 Philadelphia, PA 19110

M.S. Strutin suite 936 One Penn Center 1617 J.F.K. Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103

December 1, 2006

Dear Bill and Mitch:

After much consideration, I have decided not to allow you to go any further with my case.

DO NOT FILE A SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

To have three major issues waved on a case of this import is indicative of how ineffective you have been. Consciously or unconsciously you have provided the court with a way to avoid ruling on two golden issues:

1. The Einhorn Law.

2. The handing over of my journals (taken and held under warrant) to a journalist.

Your advocacy is a joke in legal circles. You have not listened. You have not communicated. Mitch has returned hundreds of hours of legal research unopened.

To repeat: DO NOT FILE A SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

You have wasted enough of the taxpayer’s money. Do not waste any more.

This letter will be given wide circulation.

A victim of your in competency,

Ira Einhorn P.O. Box 1000 Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

CLICK BELOW TO VIEW THE VIDEO

STRESS

Reading From The Book

Prelude To Intimacy

By

Ira Einhorn

An American Hero

In Jail For A Murder

There Is No Evidence He Committed

Free The Unicorn

Prelude To Intimacy by Ira Einhorn is in part an account of Einhorn's activities and the people he met while living in London, Ireland, the Arran Islands, Formentera, the Canaries (La Gomera) and St. Ives (North Cornwall), but also a reflection on his life and role in the exploration of altered states of consciousness and social transformation in the 1960s and 1970s. It includes many observations about the direction American and European culture has taken since those decades and a marvelously sensuous account of the many women he loved while on the run.

Introduction By James Sorrells, PhD.

Ira Einhorn's Reply Brief

After years in jail for a murder there is no evidence he committed, Einhorn finally got a transcript of his kangaroo court trial. The following is the reply brief he filed. Click here for an edition of this document in .pdf

Since it is illegal for Ira to be on the web, he can be reached by postal mail at:

Ira Einhorn
ES6859, P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

---

The Reply Brief was written over a weekend for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania due to the failure of my attorneys Bill Cannon and M. S. Strutin to file one, in spite of my insistence that they do so.

They then failed to enter it into the records as an addition to the brief they filed on my behalf, in spite of my writing Mr. Cannon four times to do so.

It is part of the record, but will not be part of the Superior Court’s consideration, due to their failure to enter it.

A typical action of ineffectiveness of counsel on their part. I have asked them to leave a number of times and have filed nine other motions, to protect myself and the record, due to their ineffectiveness.

There has been no adequate communication for over two years, though this is the biggest case that either of them will ever have.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPELLEE

VS.

IRA EINHORN APPELLANT


DOCKET # 3666 EDA – 2002

TRIAL COURT # 7904-1296-1297

REPLY BRIEF

NOW comes the above captioned appellant, Ira Einhorn, pro se, to file an answer to the DA’s Letter Brief, and avers:

HISTORY

1. In previous motions filed with this court I have raised ineffectiveness of counsel issues which were not treated as the court itself stipulated most recently in Com v. Battle, 879 A. 2d 266 (PA. Super 2005)

2. I then asked the court to follow its own procedure.

3. In the meantime the DA filed his Letter Brief on my appeal.

4. As there is a time limit re: response to the Letter Brief and my lawyers are not communicating adequately, I must protect my interests, as I am effectively without counsel and my sixth amendment rights are being violated.

5. I am relying on Com. V. Blystone 617 A. 2d 788 and Battle (as cited above) as I have no assurance that my counsel will file an answer to the Letter Brief, so must do so myself.

6. If I do not do so, the opportunity will be lost.

7. If my counsel, as asked, does not file a reply, I would ask the court to accept my pro se brief as a reply.

“We will accept for filing pro se appellate briefs, but will not review a pro se brief if counseled brief has been filed, either before, simultaneously with or after the pro se....” (Blystone, as above, Page 7)

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

The theme and underlying tone of the picture of the Defendant Ira Einhorn painted by Joel Rosen in two trials and in brief after brief filed by the DA’s office can be encapsulated by regarding the opening paragraph of the Letter Brief wherein Mr. Einhorn is called “an ersatz intellectual” and a statement from his youth about violence is misinterpreted.

Mr. Rosen and Ms. Christie, who is infamous in Philadelphia legal circles for her acts of judicial misconduct, both left the DA’s office in disgrace.

Mr. Rosen who called the Defendant “a bum who xeroxed things” in the in absentia trial and attempted to demean the Defendant in other ways, was joined in this activity by Judge Mazzola who in spite of his ‘public face’ of fairness often acted as a second prosecutor during both the trial and post trial proceedings. His 218 page(!) 1925(a) statement just dotted the ‘i’.

To set the record straight about all of these matters would require a book, so please bear with the condensed form used below to treat of the question of the Defendant’s intellectual stature, Judge Mazzola’s actions, and most important of all the perjury of the witness who ended the testimony at the trial and whose purpose, successful according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, was to destroy the veracity of the Defendant.

The entire trial was predicated on an attempted conflating of the gropings of a youthful mind full of its enormous still unintegrated reading with its later more mature accomplishments as presented below. Close to 15% of the trial testimony dwelt on alleged unreported prior acts. The defense prepared to defend against the Maddux killing and found itself up against two more very different charges.

The person depicted in the testimony of Michael Hoffman was not the same person who discussed for months in 1977 the process of separation with Holly Maddux.

Mr. Hoffman supposedly remembers conversations from over 40 years ago, but totally ‘forgot’ two major instances that indicated his total trust in the Defendant:

1. Leaving his two infant children with the Defendant overnight, while he and his wife attended a Broadway show;

2. Nominating the Defendant to be a professor in residence hired by the students at his college, University of California at Davis. A process that involved flying the Defendant to California and putting him up for five days while he gave lectures and was interviewed for the proposed position.

All of which would have been clearly described in the Defendant’s journals, mainly unavailable to the defense, as noted in the Defendant’s brief to the court, but made freely available to Steven Levy, author of The Unicorn’s Secret, so that he could write a damning book about the Defendant, which formed the basis for all the media to follow.

A basis which the following quote addresses.

An unprecedented act of prosecutorial misconduct: To take over 60 volumes of diaries from a Defendant, under warrant, and then hand them over to a writer. The Defendant’s address book, also seized under warrant, was handed over to Mr. Levy so that he could easily contact the Defendant’s world wide network of friends and associates.

“And what happened in this case – and I challenge defense counsel or anybody else to cite any case ever – and I really do mean that – ever in the state of Pennsylvania – possibly the whole country – that has so personalized and so sensationalized not just the case but a Defendant.”

Prosecutor Joel Rosen, Notes of Testimony.

The years between 1962 or 1965 and 1977 produced large changes in the Defendant and the culture in which the Defendant emerged as a leader, lecturing in venues all over the United States and Canada, spending time in residence at many colleges, doing numerous print interviews and radio and TV shows, organizing major demonstrations including Earth Day which will be discussed below as it involves a witness who perjured himself. The Defendant spent a good deal of his time with the intellectual and business elite not just in Philadelphia, but all over the planet.

Experience changes an individual, especially experience of the type described below. He was a callow youth from 1958-1965. He slowly emerged as a leader.

To call the Defendant an “ersatz intellectual” is to deny the facts of the Defendant’s actual life: To substitute insult for the actual truth. A process that culminated in the perjury described below.

INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND

The quotes below are taken from Steven Levy, The Unicorn’s Secret (New York, 1990)

“I learned to rely on him absolutely. If he said he’d do something, he’d do it.....

“What is his reputation in the community?

“The finest, as far as I’m aware.

“The economist was followed by the dermatologist consultant, who was followed by the businessman, who was followed by the playwright, who was followed by the restaurateur, who was followed by the minister – a daisy chain that seemed to have no end. So many prominent people were ready to bestow equally vigorous sworn honorifics that the lawyer had them stand up at their seats and acknowledge that their experiences of the Defendant, Ira Einhorn, were congruent with the testimony thus far.

“There simply was not enough time for all their praises.”

From the Prologue, X.

The lawyer was, now U. S. Senator Arlen Specter.

The description was the Defendant’s bail hearing quotes from which continue below.

“It apparently began to dawn on Marutani that the telephone company actually took Einhorn seriously. It had an arrangement with him. It learned from him. ‘And Bell Telephone,’ the judge asked, ‘with all its wealth, never gave him a dime?” (page 37)

Judge William M. Marutani a respected jurist was totally puzzled by the Defendant’s relationship to a branch of what was then the world’s largest corporation. He kept questioning the Bell Telephone Vice President.

“What would be in it for people such as Ira to go to all this trouble?” (page 37)

Ed Mahler, the Bell Telephone V.P. didn’t have an easy answer to that question: “No, it was not money or any such motive that led Ira to set up his unique operation. Ira operated on a different kind of value system. He worked, without pay, for Planet Earth..” (page 37)

Pages 144-146 of the book describe parts of the Defendant’s relationship to the Bell Telephone Company and the rest of the business community, summed up by two quotes:

1. ‘Beard or no beard, the Unicorn became a valuable resource for the phone company.” (page 144)

2. ‘I don’t think in his way Ira was any more of a con man than I am.” Says Thatcher Longstretch, now a City Councilman. ‘I’m a con man, as president of the Chamber of Commerce, I tried to get my members to do things that I thought were good for them. Likewise, Ira’s interest really seemed to be the betterment of the world at large. If that was a con, it was one a person could support wholeheartedly (page 147).

The next quote has to do with a book editor friend at Doubleday Anchor, Bill Whitehead: “In the wake of this was a hunger for knowledge about human consciousness, self-realization and global thought that acknowledged both the Bucky Fuller Systems sensibility and the strange worlds unlocked by psychedelic drugs. Perhaps no one in the United States of America was more in touch with this mode of thought in 1970 than Ira Einhorn, and the two developed not only a warm friendship but a mutual respect that led to a highly unconventional arrangement, as far as the publishing world went.” (page 154)

“Ira became a de facto consulting editor to Anchor Books.” (Page 154)

The next paragraph describes the slew of books I had published in this prestigious series and the lack of any concern for compensation. I will not quote it.

The following paragraph describes the network called by some “the Internet before the Internet existed.’ It was serviced by the Bell Telephone Company.

“By the mid-1970s Ira Einhorn’s network was a certified phenomenon in and of itself. Names appearing on the cover letters of recipients of a given piece might include economist Hazel Henderson, Lehmann Brothers Managing Director Shel Gordon; Seagram Heir Charles Bronfman; futurist Alvin Toffler; Science Adviser to the British Commonwealth Christian De Lait; Corporate Presidents John Haas and George Bartol: Whole Earth catalog publisher Stewart Brand; Physicist Freeman Dyson, David Bohm, Frijtof Capra and Heinz Pagels; Esalen co-founder Mike Murphey; Journalist Alex Cockburn and Jack Anderson, authors Colin Wilson, Robert Theobold and Thomas Kuhn. ‘Adam Smith’ (himself a recipient of certain network mailings under his real name Gerry Goodman) wrote a column about it in New York Magazine, calling it ‘the far-out physics underground’; Smith described an afternoon discussing various mailings with fellow network recipient Arthur Kosetler.

“Einhorn’s network came under study in a 1978 Diebold Corporation study entitled “The Emergence Of Personal Communications Networks Among People Sharing The New Values And Their Possible Use In Sensitizing Operating Management.” It compared the network to the communities of correspondence during the American revolution, and to the invisible colleges of science in Britain that thrived before scientific discussion was legalized in 1663. It claimed that ‘much of our future’ resides in networks like Ira Einhorn’s.” (Page 186)

I’ll close this section of quotes about my ‘ersatz intellectual’ activities with a comment Levy made about a future study: Probes For A Time Of Crisis that I did for George Bartol, Chairman of the Board of Hunt Manufacturing Company:

“Read over a decade later, Einhorn’s observations seem prescient in predicting the business struggles of the 80’s: the report was a blueprint for redefining a corporation, making use of Japanese-style management, in-house entrepreneurial efforts, and a sensitivity toward workers that looked beyond standard management – worker conflicts.” (Pages 200-201)

In addition to the above consider the following list drawn at random from a much larger list compiled for the Defendant’s autobiography:

1. Nominated for a Harvard Junior Fellowship by Thomas S. Kuhn, the most cited intellectual of the 20th Century.

2. Nominated by John Cage for a Guggenheim Fellowship.

3. Appointed as a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard.

4. Paid $1,000 by the Diebold Corporation to lecture on networker. A lecture that produced a number of corporate offers at the same fee.

5. Appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to serve on the year 2000 Commission for the Delaware Valley area.

6. A member of the National Commission, created by the O. T. A. to study the influence of telecommunication upon transportation.

EARTH WEEK

The need to demean, to lie about the Defendant’s past to call the Defendant an ‘ersatz intellectual’ or ‘ a bum who xeroxed things’ is typical of those who have a weak argument. It is an old rhetorical gambit called ad hominem. You don’t have the facts, attack the man.

There is another more straight forward technique: get someone to lie. That is what Joel Rosen managed to do re: the Defendant’s Earth Week activities.

It is what was done throughout the trial. The truth was bent, as the enormous publicity loosed by the prosecutorial misconduct in giving Steven Levy the Defendant’s journals and address book had its inevitable effect: People more than happy to comply with seeing this ‘bum’ get his just due.

In his rebuttal testimony (Vol. 13, Pages 157-168) Dr. Nathan claimed that the Defendant had nothing to do with Earth Week, attended no meetings, was not the emcee of the event and wanted to turn the event into an attack on corporations and a number of other ludicrous statements in light of the actual truth.

I will first present some background, then some quotes from the principles involved. Note that the source for two of the quotes; Ed Furia and Austan Librach are the first two names Doctor Nathanson mentions on Page 163, Vol. 13 of the Notes of Testimony.

The shift of movement energy towards ecology was done consciously. The riots in Chicago in 1968 disturbed a number of counter cultural leaders including the Defendant, so they began to shift energy towards what became Earth Day: The first ecological movement publication was created, Earth Read Out, to which the Defendant contributed; the Defendant began to read all the ecological literature then available, he also began meeting with Professor Ian McHarg.

When the idea for a mass ecological demonstration emerged the Defendant was contacted by a number of people and asked to help create the event as by then he was known nationally as a good organizer. One of these people was Austan Librach. Ian McHarg sent him to me.

“An agreement was forged: Ira would deliver what constituency he had, and work with the Earth Week Committee behind the scenes. On the main celebration, Earth Day itself, he would act as the public Master of Ceremonies.” (Librach in Levy, Page 138.)

Then the business community was dealt with as they were planning to attack Earth Week efforts with a Sunday Supplement insert that the Defendant convinced Thatcher Longstreth was suicidal.

“And there was a feeling that Earth Week was another sort of preparation by students and radicals to create a ferment in the community.” (139)

“Among them was Ira Einhorn, who was turning out to be quite an asset for Earth Week in terms of winning establishment support. ‘He was somebody whom I’d known and regarded as a slightly eccentric wacko, but as I got to see more of him, I learned that he was highly intelligent and had a very valuable thrust on this whole action,’ says Longstreth. ‘He was quite good fun – a personable, entertaining person to have around. And we got to be friends.’

Longstreth argued the Earth Week case to the Chamber, and got them to listen to the organizers, Austan Librach made a strong pitch for business support, but the more memorable presentation was made by Ira Einhorn. “He made a personal request for cooperation before a fairly large group, and he did a perfectly beautiful job,’ Longstreth recalls ‘the major thing about Ira was that in areas of disagreement between the establishment and the flower children, Ira was a pretty good bridge. He wasn’t anti-business at all. He was quite business-oriented himself, and had he chosen to go in that direction, he would have probably been a very successful businessman’.” (page 139)

$s in hand, Ed Furia, with my participation, was hired to be the front man and handle the office. His therapist at the time, Dr. Nathanson, came along for the ride and did not organize or originate anything.

Here is Ed Furia on the Defendant: “ ‘ Ira got on the phone and started calling gurus and famous people in the community , all of whom he knew.’ Ira got commitments from Allen Ginsberg, Alan Watts, Dune author Frank Herbert and Nobel Laureate George Wald .”

The Defendant structured and organized both large events. He was also the emcee for both events. The actual Earth Day event held on Belmont Plateau electrified the city. It was one of the largest gatherings, up to that time, in Philadelphia history.

It was that event, which Philadelphia took the lead in, propagated by TV which lead to the formation of the EPA.

If I can manage to reproduce the picture from the book of the Defendant at Earth Day, it will appear as Exhibit One. The summation captures the gist of the quotes above:

“Ira Einhorn in his glory, hosting the huge Earth Day celebration in April, 1970. Ira was the most visible figure in the massive, nationally televised festival. In the process of working with the Chamber of Commerce to present the event, Einhorn developed contacts that led to his becoming a guru of the business community; eventually Bell Telephone financed his networking efforts.”

(Caption to Earth Week Picture in Levy Book)

Compare the two reports of my Earth Week Activities: one highly researched account done a few years after the event; the other a tissue of lies, perjury in short, that totally skewed the trial for it destroyed the veracity of the Defendant in the eyes f the jury.

THE JUDGE

The third prong of this attack was made by Judge Mazzola.

His closing attack on me is indicative (Vol. 17, Pages 9-11).

The Defendant is an ‘intellectual dilettante’, reads the first and last chapters of books, a ‘pseudo-classicist etc. An entire condensed litany that the pages above expose as bias.

Then to cap the attack he says (Vol. 17, Page 10) that a word I used in the trial psychotronics doesn’t exist, and that the correct word is psychotropic.

The DA uses the word psychotronics in his Letter Brief and it indeed does exist. In fact, at the time of the trial, google.com would have returned over 4,000 hits, 3 of which are long articles about the Defendant (all in the top 20) which deal with the Defendant’s activities and interaction with Phillip K. Dick, a world famous sci-fi writer whose work lies behind Minority Report, Blade Runner and a number of other movies.

His words of derision are pure projection, not based on any evidence – miming a good deal of the trial.

Moments after insulting the Defendant, Judge Mazzola invited the jury back into the box and invited TV cameras and the rest of the media into the court room for extensive celebrations and interviews.

My lawyers looked on in amazement for TV is forbidden in the court room without expressed consent.

The function of a judge is to serve as a referee, to keep the playing field level. Judge Roberts made this clear during his Supreme Court Confirmation hearings.

Judge Mazzola failed to do this in many instances.

A few are part of the issues complained of. Others are noted below.

1. His outright refusal to allow us to put our prosecutorial misconduct claims on record. A clear violation of my due process rights.

2. A bag of dimension 4” by 8” with the printed words: ‘Bullshit Bag’ was on the prosecution table while the Defendant was testifying (Vol. 13, Pages 3-6). The jury may have seen it; it may have been held up during the Defendant’s testimony. Certainly grounds for a mistrial, but Judge Mazzola refused (William Cannon made a motion to that effect) to put Ms. Lineberger under oath so she could be questioned about behavior so detrimental to a fair trial.

3. The judge failed to rule on a mistrial motion, made by the defense, due to a statement made by Mr. Rosen to the press. He took it under advisement and said he would rule later, but never did.

4. His 218 page 1925(a) statement that totally ignored all standard procedures. The DA attempts to apologize (page 12, FN. 2) for the judge’s outburst, but the excuse is feeble. The appeal was delayed for 29 months, producing an ice cold record and greatly harming the defense. I would say, directly that a 218 page 1925(a) statement goes to ‘state of mind’ and that calling it indicative of bias is mild.

5. When the judge finally filed he had been in contempt of court for six months.

Consider Burkett v. Fulcomer, 951 F. 2d 1413: Delay of 18 months between notice of appeal and Affirmation Of Judgment violated due process.

Delay was directly caused by trial Judge’s failure to file opinion for one year.

The Defendant waited 29 months. Almost 40 months ago his 1925(b) statement was filed.

6. In his history of the case, he acts as if my four docketed motions about his untimely actions are non-existent. A lie.

7. In his overblown statement, he praises the Defendant’s lawyers in three instances (pp 5, 173 & 215), hardly the function of a 1925(b) statement. An obvious attempt to protect them against an ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

8. He also asks the court to close out all further appeals and rule negatively on an ineffectiveness claim that had not yet been raised. Bizarre.

“Disqualification of the trial judge is mandated whenever a significant minority of the lay community could reasonable question the court’s impartiality.”

Code of judicial conduct, canon 3, subdivision C.

Or Dunn V. Board of Property, 877 A. 2d 504: “in general, recusal is required whenever there is substantial doubt as to a jurist’s ability to preside over a matter impartially.”

9. The Frye issue was raised by counsel three times (Vol. 3, Page 12; Vol. 3 Page 91, and in a long sidebar, Vol. 7, Pages 89-95) but it is what the judge says on pages 215-216 that must be read to be believed: “...as there is no indication on this record that a Frye hearing was ever requested, let alone considered, except here as an untimely afterthought on appeal. Still, defense counsel cannot be said to be ineffective in that not requesting a Frye hearing was a sound strategy, especially where, as here the Defendant is notorious for trying to manipulate a legal system for which he clearly has nothing but contempt.” (pages 215-216).

This is so blatantly ridiculous that I have to keep rubbing my eyes. Constitutional issues are not dependent on the attitude of the Defendant.

If Frye is waived, counsel is decidedly ineffective, as the allowance of Tumosa’s Testimony, which does not qualify as adequate under any standard and seriously prejudices the defense, claims about cumulative weight of the evidence notwithstanding.

There is much more, but the above ought to indicate that the judge functioned as a second prosecutor. Then not satisfied with that dual role, he now wants to tell the appeals court what to do.

The overview just provided above along with the Rosen quote (page 5) is indicative of the thoroughly one-sided context in which the Defendant was tried. The attempt to rewrite the Defendant’s history, by allowing blatantly outdated alleged prior acts into testimony, overwhelmed the jury by attempting to rewrite history. 1977 became 1965, so that he could be fitted into a category that excluded his growth and development. That which doesn’t fit is erased or twisted. He is a homicidal maniac. End of story.

Let me take one example: “violence always marks the end of a relationship.” To insist that means that every relationship ends in violence is patent nonsense and obviously false.

What the statement refers to is a simple fact: Once violence enters a relationship it indicates a deep communication failure, creates an impassible barrier and indicates the end of a relationship.

A simple statement twisted into a cult of violence, as with the idea we must confront our inner violence. ‘Confront” means regard, observe, not act out.

The Defendant learned much from the egregious incident with Ms. Sabot. He became a public figure who often soothed public hysteria.

If the Defendant had hit Holly Maddux, he would have recorded such incidents, as he hid nothing from his diary. There is only one recorded incident wherein Holly hit Ira with a bunch of keys and he slapped her back.

Holly had skin that would show marks for months, but her closest friends, Barbara Kubiak and Ruth Fink and her two therapists: Bea Klegg and Marion Coopersmith saw nothing. She saw Barbara and Ruth regularly. They saw no marks of violence, as there was none. Holly would not have put up with any violence. If there had been any, she would have left immediately and never returned.

But woodcutters see lumber not trees and prosecutors in the USA in 2006 see only guilt.

Thus the three pronged attack on the Defendant described above re:

Einhorn as ‘ersatz intellectual’, ‘a bum who xeroxed things’, a homicidal maniac.

A non participant in Earth Day though he helped organize it, convinced the business community to fund it and structured and emceed the two main events’

What Judge Mazzola has done under color of law; all flow out of percepts that do not bear up under scrutiny.

The above observations backed up by years of research that went into the Levy book indicate serious procedural violations in the case in front of this court they form the context for a few brief comments on the issues before the court.

ISSUE NO. 1:

ALLEGED INFORMATION FROM PRIOR ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED:

1. Ms. Resnick and Mr. Einhorn were the same age. Thus the contention that the Defendant was substantially older is nonsense.

2. Powelton Village in 1962 was not on a college campus, so the location of this alleged attack is not part of a pattern.

3. Neither Ms. Resnick nor Ms. Sabot reported the incidents.

4. Neither Ms. Resnick nor Mr. Einhorn were certain about what had actually happened.

5. Neither woman was hurt badly, so to equate what allegedly happened with Ms. Resnick (incident unclear), and Ms. Resnick did not testify, and what the Defendant admits happened with Ms. Sabot with the murder of Holly Maddux is to compare apples and oranges.

6. Ms. Resnick and Mr. Einhorn did not break up over the alleged incident but continued to see each other.

7. The idea of a common scheme, plan or design is a nonsense.

8. Holly Maddux had left a number of times before, often disappearing for months at a time.

9. The couple had agreed to separate. They discussed the terms of the separation for the entire spring of 1977. Ms. Maddux was not moving to Alaska, but across the street. They had agreed to continue seeing each other. She had insisted on going to Europe with Mr. Einhorn. There was no reason to kill her. All this is fully documented in parts of my testimony, my journals and the Levy book.

The introduction of prior acts, 11 or 12 and 15 years old (the DA’s math in attempting to reduce these figures doesn’t work) which as the above demonstrates, do not conform to the idea of any common scheme, were prejudicial rather than probative. The effect through 100’s of pages of the DA’s opening and closing statements the testimonies of Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Sabot and Mr. Einhorn could not help but make an injurious impression of the jury. A few words from Judge Mazzola could not even begin to balance the effect produced by 15% of the record. The introduction of such evidence dominated the trial.

Any objective observer would have thought that the Defendant was being tried for the alleged attacks upon Ms. Resnick and Ms. Sabot. A poem, words dealing with violence surrounding these distant situations were brought up again and again in a succession of hammer blows that had to make a deep impression upon anyone, let alone a jury who had been subjected to a previous barrage of negative publicity. A few words from a judge could not cure such an effect. Supreme Court Justice Jackson made this clear in a number of opinions as does Comm v. Satzberg, 358 PA. Super 39, 516 A 2d 758 (1986) (“Believing the jury could ignore the illegal evidence because of the judge’s instructions is not realistic.”). The overall effect was extremely prejudicial not probative. A judicial error was made. A new trial should be granted.

ISSUE NO 2:

42 PA C. S. A. #9543(C) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

The rhetoric employed in attempting to turn away the challenge to the ‘Ira Einhorn Law’ (how it was described in a recent law book) should not be allowed to obscure the basic issue.

1. Circumstances around the creation of the law demonstrate that the law was created for Mr. Einhorn and Mr. Einhorn alone. Legislative discussion said this quite plainly.

2. Mr. Einhorn had a final decision.

3. Only a court can overturn a final decision.

4. A legislative act can’t overturn a final decision, for to do so is to violate the separation of powers and to trample upon the prerogatives of this court and others.

5. Comm v. Sutley, 378 A. 2d 780 (PA. 1977) and an unbroken line of cases on both the federal and state levels support the simple propositions stated in 2-4 above.
6. There is no contending case and the DA does not cite any. The law is unconstitutional and should be voided.

The aftermath of such an action is governed by very settled law. See U.S. v. Khan, 993 F. 2d 1368 (C. A. 9 (Nev.) 1993) which uses this authority which governs such cases and has for over 100 years U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 419-421, FS. Ct. 234, 240-241, 30 L. Ed 425 (1886) (FN 4). This court should void the trial as the law was unconstitutional. The aftermath of such a decision will have to be settled by the Supreme Court of PA or in Federal Court.

Let such an order be made.

ISSUE NO 3.

RE-TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED

1. The hysteria generated around the Defendant (see Rosen quote, page 5) is a direct outgrowth of Ms. Christie’s behavior. She turned over or allowed access to 10,000 pages of the Defendant’s journal which was seized under warrant when the Defendant was arrested. She also turned over his address book to facilitate access to persons mentioned in the journal.

Sheppard V. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 6, 865. Ct. 1507 (1966) covers Judge Mazzola’s responsibility to deal with such corrosive actions.

The book that resulted from such behavior, The Unicorn’s Secret, cited above, is littered with quotes from the Defendant’s journals. There is no similar egregious action in the case law.

To turn over evidence to a journalist, pre-trial, so that it can be known publicly, poisons any possibility of a fair trial.

The Levy book, republished a number of times, most recently in 2000, poisoned public opinion against the Defendant. It formed the basis for a scurrilous TV mini-series, now on video in many languages all over the planet and at last count 13 TV specials that played again and again, pre-trial, and still play to this date late in February, 2006.

To say that Ms. Christie did not do this with intent to harm is ludicrous. She knew exactly what she was doing, and did similar things in a number of other cases (Com v. Raymond Martoranto and Albert Daidone Nos. 0002 and 0003 E. D. appeal Docket 1998 – knows as the roofer’s case) among others.

Judge Mazzola was also fully aware of what he was doing when he did not allow the record to be developed on this unprecedented issue of prosecutorial misconduct, as mentioned above (page 15, point 1). It is a direct violation of the Defendant’s right to be heard and raises due process issues and the constitutional right to defend oneself.

When a prosecutor’s actions lead to such hysteria (again read the Rosen quote) discussed minimally (see Vol. 1, PP. 37-44) on the basis of 565(!) newspaper articles, the judge can’t just bar the actions which produced such behavior from the court room. To do so is to prejudice the defense gravely.

To grant waiver would be to sanction both Ms. Christie’s egregious actions and the judge’s protection of such actions.

Just for the record; the Defendant’s journals are mentioned on pages: 159, 162, 165, 166, 187, 188, 194, 201, 203, 204, 215, 221, 226, 227, 228, 229, 310, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 322, 323-5, 326-327, 332-34, 336, 338, 339, 340-1, 345-6, 351-2, 360.

2. Ms. Christie did not just send the materials to the FBI. When she did not get the results desired she sent the materials to Toxicon Associates. They too, ‘failed’ her. So, she then turned to the man she had skipped over twice who invented a new untested, un peer reviewed procedure to save her case. She shopped around as testimony made clear (see Vo. 7, pages 60-69).

Once again Judge Mazzola did not permit the matter to be discussed in the pre-trial hearing on the matter.

3. Ms. Christie took the ‘Pearce Report’, the original basis of all the prosecution’s evidence, blew it down in size which in the process removed the page numbers. She then removed a number of things (some of which the defense has never seen as far as I can tell.) She removed five exculpatory sightings, two of which, in spite of five court hearings about the matter, testified to by Mr. Gelman, were not given to the defense until 2002. These Brady violations cast a shadow on the in absentia trial and prevented the defense from using one of them in 2002 as the man had died. Both sightings held back until 2002 were made by Philadelphia police detectives.

The Letter Brief’s discussion of these matters is both evasive and disingenuous. It states that this matter relating to discovery was completed by November 7, 1979. That is not true as the exculpatory statements (Brady Material) of both detective Draper and his partner were withheld in spite of five court hearings. As said above, they were withheld during the in absentia trial.

Other things were withheld: that ‘but‘ (October 11, 2002, Vol. 11, page 59) that Norris Gelman was not allowed to finish.

To prevent such obvious violations of due process from being brought to light and discussed, is to make a mockery of the right to defend oneself.

The court should satisfy itself by holding a hearing on these matters as rubber stamping such prosecutorial and judicial behavior is in flagrant disregard of our judicial principles. One can’t create a record when one is not allowed to be heard.

Failing to grant the above, the court has no choice but to declare a mistrial.

ISSUE NO VII:

DR. TUMOSA’S TESTIMONY WAS INADMISSIBLE

The forensics are key to any murder investigation. When Ms. Christie came up empty twice in farmed out testing, she turned to the man, Dr. Tumosa, who had been spurned twice. He then used a novel test which had never been published or peer reviewed. This made his test inadmissible as the Defendant demonstrated in his appeal brief.

Dr. Cordova who was Dr. Tumosa’s former boss made it clear in his testimony (Vol. 10, Pages 137-140) that what Dr. Tumosa did would never pass muster in the forensic community. The four pages are a lesson in admissibility. Dr. Tumosa flunked. He then added (Vol. 10, page 159): “...it’s got to be a validated technique, a technique that has been tested by other people. That’s the bottom line. Either you do it right or you don’t do it at all.”

Strong words, but a life was at stake.

Dr. Arden made it clear (Vol. 12, Pages 63-68) that if Holly Maddux had been killed in the apartment she shared with Mr. Einhorn, blood would have splattered everywhere. No blood was found. He also made it clear (Vol. 12, page 47) that the smell of a decaying animal does not differ from the smell of decaying human remains and that the odor of a human body decaying would remain for a long period of time. (Vol. 12, page 44).

Yet, Einhorn had visitor after visitor (Vol. 12, page 144), some who stayed overnight, one who spent a weekend. They smelled nothing, yet the prosecution insists a body was decaying in a trunk less than ten feet from where the visitors slept.

Holly was also sighted at least five times, months after she was supposedly dead. Could all these people have been wrong?

Thus the ‘mountainous’ weight of the evidence becomes rather shaky. Dr Tumosa’s improper testing took away from the Defendant’s assertion that Ms. Maddux was not killed in the apartment as the testimony of the five sightings, his many guests, the FBI agents, Dr. Cordova and Dr. Arden suggest.

One does not order a third forensic test when the two previous tests give you what you want. The DA needed some forensic good news. What it got was an inadmissible test that never should have been allowed in the court room.

The Defendant deserves a new trial.

ISSUE X:

THE VARIANCE HAS NO JUSTIFICATION

The variance in the date of the murder is not a question of a few days as Ms. Maddux was seen alive by a number of people months after her supposed death. She was seen in two separate banks, once in down town Philadelphia and in the Powelton Neighborhood by two Philadelphia police detectives. All of these sightings were initially withheld by Ms. Christie, as described above (Page 25).

The Defendant also had a number of visitors, one spending the weekend, others sleeping overnight. No one smelled anything, though the prosecutor claims a corpse was decaying under their noses.

The date itself was set in stone by the American promise to the French re: the death penalty.

The evidence re: screams, thumps, smells and leaks would also disappear, as would the faulty common scheme rational.

The prosecution focused on the September 11, 1977 date for twenty-one years.

The defense was totally focused on that date.

For the judge to suddenly declare that the date is not essential was to both undermine the defense and to give an advantage to the prosecution that destroys the concept of a fair trial.

To give an unrequested instruction stating that “the date of the death is not an essential element of the crime” destroyed the defense and turned the trial into a nullity. The date of death was the keystone upon which both the prosecution and the defense built their case. To remove it is to reduce the trial to rubble. The Defendant should be granted a new trial.

Murder is a heinous act. If I were guilty, I would deserve the severe sentence I received, but I AM NOT GUILTY, I DID NOT KILL HOLLY MADDUX. The real murder in this case has been truth and respect for the law and justice.

Respectfully submitted, Ira Einhorn