[CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TEMPORARILY DECLASSIFIED - CIA - INTERPOL]

Date of Publication: 05/23/2024

Sole Author: Shawn Dexter John

Note of Relation: My Works have been documented, paragraph by paragraph and page by
page, by Letitia James and contractors in their attempt to steal my work, alter parts, and then
falsely claim the ideas and content as respectively unique in, clearly a falsehood, being of their
invention. I, Shawn Dexter John, will be happy instead of Attorney General of New York Letitia
James as she is irreconcilable in the face of utter and earned loss, promised victory, and
kindness alike, too vicious in predisposition and conduct to have any pathological consideration
for right, liberty, security, protection, justice, or nominal authority. She has defended a convicted
and confessed murderer (Lebron James) into perceived immunity and/or perpetual sealment of
related charges and shall suffer seeing him the un-happiness man she has ever known for the
rest of her life. Her actions have proven our case that she is wickedly subjective, egregiously
flawed, and squarely incompetent due to arrogance, a belief in her wisdom as an American-born
individual and, per her perspective, in being of no immigrant background recognizable by
historical documents, absurdly. My Works are authentic and only provide the truth, but they are
complementary to the prosecutorial work I have conducted and led. Governor Cuomo and all
others, except myself (Shawn Dexter John), shall receive no commendation, credit, or
qualification as being in association with the sketching, drafting, and authoring of any intellectual
work deduced and/or authored by Shawn Dexter John.

Legal and Political Tenets of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

—---------------------------------------------------------

Legal and Political Tenets of relation are as follows:

(1) Juries are not to serve as the Judge of any particular case judicial in its variation or as a
dictator or endorser of social activity serviceable as a mandating force,
(2) Juries shall not suppose that the people are to articulate or render the procedural
judgment of the respective Court at issue or any public debate, meaning outside
rendering its verdicts in public courts and tribunals as designated by standard or in its
 articulation of commentary toward such when no obstruction is employed or directly
mechanized,
(3) There shall be no design of jury or its competent semblance which shall be denied under
emergency or obscure orders of government or the general public however conceivable;
(4) Any and all jury members shall be motivated by the same standard spectrum of causes
and shall refrain from having unequal powers, that which prohibit the effectiveness,
fairness, and/or just predisposition of the public court system opwrated under
constitutional design,
(5) All purposes of Government and Civil Society shall support the doctrine that juries are
admissible at all times for standard appropriation with respect to qualifying cases but
shall not serve to breach the sanity of petty cases not requiring the related rigidity of
related assessment, review, and procedural articulation,
(6) Defendants are not allowed to be barred from standard protection and scrutiny not
submitting to any unequal or any overbearing power or imposition supposed by any
prosecution or Judge (panel or singular),
(7) Legal counsel shall not suppose or negotiate any settlement, plea deal, or any other
concept of legal condition or imposition (or benefit) not consulting the defendant and his
or her endorsement in representing a criminal defendant,
(8) There shall be no freedom, right, priority, or competence (or incompetence) which aims
to dissolve the effects of any sanctioned law or shall effect this condition or outcome and
there shall be no policy which supposes that the commendation or majority (or even
consensus of) the American people may alter the clear or ethical definition of any statute
or constitutional provision, and
(9) There shall be no articulation or communication of words or itemized documents
attempting to convey that any evolution in the argument or strength of an argument of
the prosecutorial agent or the defendant shall serve to arbitrarily argue that disqualifying
inconsistencies are assumed or are of illegitimate evidence of his/her/their discreditation.

———————-----------------------------------When juries are incorporated, they are to be

impartial and made acutely aware of the [pertinent] fundamental rights of defendants.

Juries are to be constructed without bias or discrimination. Not all criminal trials require

a jury, importantly – trials for petty offenses tend not to require this feature. Federal

court criminal defendants are to be heard (by a jury when statutorily/juridically

confirmed) in courts which are within the immediate state at issue and the

corresponding district in relation to the alleged criminal act’s location. The proper
jurisdictional district need to have been predetermined, legislatively, by the federal

government (i.e. Congress).

Defendants are to be notified of their charges and the presented accusations. They

may procedurally confront their accusers and adversarial witnesses and, supplementary

federally (at least), are to be notified of [pertinent] contrasting or favorable evidence

[held], upon their request at worst. They have the right to obtain and call witnesses in

their favor. Importantly, defendants may have attorneys assist and represent them in

their defense invariably. (Typically, upon request, the corresponding state or federal

government provides adequate defense counsel to a defendant who is unable to afford

a private attorney.)

General notes:

1. Though witnesses’ information is typically revealed at trial, there are common

practices in law enforcement which circumstantially protect the identity of
confidential informants from defenses and/or thoroughly protect the identity of
certain complainants from public disclosure.
2. A defendant’s pertinent fundamental rights, as they pertain to case
proceedings, differ from criminal to civil proceedings, naturally.
3. The Sixth Amendment is partially incorporated concerning the Incorporation
Doctrine.
4. Read Commentary Twenty-nine’s note to grasp fundamental rights of criminal
defendants in the United States.
 5. The United States Supreme Court generally crafts the rules within the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure; however, Congress’ action may amend or
supersede the related decision(s) of the Supreme Court. (Congress
subcontracted to the Court this duty.)
6. My transcription of “confirmed” here concerns the interpretation of the Sixth
Amendment by the United States Supreme Court, specifically on the matter of
federal juries, which has led to the exception barring juries in [federal] petty
offense cases. Federal juries are not confirmed as applicable to federal cases
concerning petty offenses. (The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure reflects
the interpretation. The FRCrimP confirms applicability.)
7. Contemporary state discovery rules tend to be similarly liberal when
measured against federal rules.
8. Though the right to unlimited [criminal] discovery isn’t deemed a constitutional
right by the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure allows for liberal discovery in protecting the balance of forces
within a case/trial. The right to reciprocal disclosure and investigation ought to
be enjoyed by defenses. (Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 [1977]).

Special note:

1. The priorities of our judicial system communicate that no individual defendant

should be impeded from proving his or her defense/fact assertion due to an
unreasonable burden of proof.

Reference:

1. Legal Information Institute (Cornell law school website). United States

Constitution, http://www.law.cornell.edu.
2. Legal Information Institute (Cornell law school website). Incorporation
Doctrine, http://www.law.cornell.edu.
3. Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 (1934)

CIA-INTERPOL Partnership File Number: TYBO173274YIWTY