This 5-1-99 complaint results from Indictment No. K1/93-0598A Case State v Brown. Danny L. Brown was charged, tried before Judge Sheehan in 1994 and convicted on three counts of first degree sexual assault and three counts of first degree child molestation. Mr. Brown was sentenced on 2-14-95 to 20 years to serve and 20 years suspended with 20 years probation after Judge Sheehan denied Mr. Brown a new trial on 12-15-94. When denying Mr. Brown a new trial, Judge Sheehan stated that he did not believe Mr. Brown testified truthfully at trial.
Mr. Brown's first appeal on 4 Constitutional issues resulted in a split decision handed down on 3-5-97. On 3-13-98 Mr. Brown lost his second appeal with Justices Shea and Weisberger writing the dissent. During a 3-9-99 motion to reduce sentence, Justice Sheehan increased Mr. Brown's sentence to serve by five years because Judge Sheehan thought Mr. Brown should "admit guilt and take responsibility." The prosecution did NOT move for this increase. Mr. Brown asserts this violated the US and State Constitutions and double jeopardy clauses.
During trial Mr. Brown was denied school and medical records, denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him regarding police reports, DCYF contact and prevented from exposing two civil actions against the State's witness, Pastor Elizabeth Janiak. [Note: Ms. Janiak's name was misspelled in some court decisions.] The only pre-trial discovery that was granted in this case was withheld by Prosecutor John McMahon. Prosecutor McMahon withheld names and addresses of all Psychiatrists, Psychologists, therapists and counselors. After sentencing, Mr. Brown learned from his attorney, John Brown, that Prosecutor McMahon also withheld a rape crisis center report from the alleged victim in this case.
Mr. Brown's attorney John Brown, Prosecutor McMahon and Judge Sheehan all knew about this prosecutorial misconduct and refused to address it, correct it, move for a mistrial or sanction the prosecutor. Also:
Judith Ann Perras, Mr. Brown's ex-wife, committed perjury at trial on numerous occasions. Prosecutor McMahon knew of this perjury and willfully perpetuated the perjury by continuing the lies in front of the jury during closing arguments. Police reports and other documents that could have been used to impeach Ms. Perras were not used and no objection was raised during Prosecutor McMahon's deliberate deception during closing arguments. Ms. Perras stated on the police report the same day the allegations were filed on 4-30-92, "I found out Danny [Brown] is cheating on me with my best friend, and now I am waiting for the DIVORCE." During questioning when Ms. Perras was about to admit she lied in front of the jury, Judge Sheehan stated on the record, "No, no, no" and allowed the perjury to remain. In the pre-sentencing report Ms. Perras, forgetting Judge Sheehan's instructions, went back to her original story.
When dealing with witness Pastor Janiak Prosecutors allowed several incidents of perjury, obstructed justice and suborned perjury. Justice Sheehan led Mr. Brown to believe no clergy confidentiality existed and allowed Pastor Janiak to testify against Mr. Brown violating RIGL 9-17-23 [Clergy Confidentiality] and RI Rule of Evidence 501. [Note: this was no "mistake" since Judge Sheehan knew the law. He was one of the lead attorneys in the Claus Von Bulow case in which privileged communications, both Attorney and Clergy, were extensively litigated.] Additionally, Judge Sheehan created confusion by asking Mr. Brown several times to waive clergy confidentiality. At one point during questioning of Pastor Janiak, Judge Sheehan whispers in Pastor Janiak's ear and trial transcript page 32 shows Pastor Janiak responding to Judge Sheehan saying, "You want me to say what?"
Supreme Court Justice Bourcier, who rejected Mr. Brown's appeal, refused to recuse himself from Mr. Brown's appeal. Judge Bourcier had heard a case where it was alleged Pastor Janiak had breached a contract with two contractors building Janiak's church in Smithfield. One of these contractors was a relative of Mr. Brown's and Mr. Brown was subpoenaed by the two contractors on 8-10-93 to testify against Pastor Janiak in hearings before Judge Bourcier. Pastor Janiak's only witness in this case was Judith Perras, Mr. Brown's ex-wife. Judge Bourcier had ordered a 40 day arbitration. Yet, to this day, these two contractors complaints have not been heard and no money has been paid. Judge Sheehan would not allow the intertwining of issues resulting from this case to be raised in Mr. Brown's case and the RI Supreme Court called this "harmless error." Mr. Brown was the only person that could testify resulting in Pastor Janiak having to pay the two contractors. These contracts were in the $90,000 [ninety thousand dollar] range. During trial Pastor Janiak willfully and adamantly lied regarding Mr. Brown's relative's involvement in building the church despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. On 11-29-94, the same day Pastor Janiak took the stand at trial she was on Channel 10 news for creating a miracle by having a crippled women walk. It is believed the jury saw and was influenced by this report.
In April of 1996, the alleged victim in this case filed with the RI Victim's Relief Fund seeking $25,000 [twenty five thousand dollars]. Justice Keough heard this case. Mr. Brown filed several papers to be heard at this hearing because the alleged victim's lawyer, Atty. Matthew Smith, claimed the alleged victim had hospital records, loss of earnings, counseling and other claims which the prosecutors had failed to produce during Mr. Brown's pre-trial discovery and trial! Mr. Brown was not allowed at this hearing and Judge Keough dismissed the case with prejudice [meaning she couldn't bring it back]. Mr. Brown asserts this case was dismissed because it was impossible to hear this case and rule in her favor without exposing the corruption that occurred in the State v Brown trial. The courts have refused Mr. Brown's requests for records on this Victim's Relief Fund hearing.
Cover up of Assistant Attorney General John J. McMahon by the Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel David P. Curtin. The complaint dated May 18, 1999 starts off by stating the very dismal fact that the Rhode Island judicial system is defective by design to protect each other. The complaint letter reads:
Dear Mr. Curtin: As I have absolutely no faith in your so-called judicial system, I am not going to waste time with a full detailed complaint against the lawyers that have violated their oath of office and Supreme Court Rules Article V in a wholesale manner.
I have enclosed a copy of the complaint I put on the Web site "Caught" and a broader overview of the gross injustice, and unethical conduct by John McMahon. His withholding evidence and procuring perjury, or at least not correcting what it knows is false seems to be the status quo in Rhode Island, and your office habitually looks the other way.
Finally if you are not going to cover this up like the State usually does, I will forward you all the unequivocally documented criminal activity of Mr. McMahon. I am only going through the motions to prove that the system does not work by design. In closing thank you for doing what ever you are going to do quickly so I can proceed to further my quest for justice elsewhere.
David Curtin in the status quo of the "insider" system responds on May 21, 1999. Indeed, he did his dirty work with dispatch. He of course avoids the issues of Professional misconduct and procuring perjury by John J. McMahon to secure this conviction, and solely relies on the two Supreme Court decisions. Note he never requested all the evidence!
Aside in the first decision State v. Danny Brown, 690 A2d 1136 (R.I. 1997) the court was evenly split on four separate legal issues. Retired Supreme Court Justice Shea come in to break the deadlock, but one judge actually changed horses in the middle of the stream. Weisberger and Shea joined in a lengthy dissenting opinion of the injustice in this case. It is believed by most that Lederberg was the judge to jump ship though that information is not available! See State v. Brown 709 A2d 465 (R.I. 1998) another first for R.I. Jurisprudence.
David Curtin, apparently to do his quick cover up, relies on reading the two above cases and I guess thinks all non- lawyers are mentally retarded. In his complete ignorance and arrogance he states in his 5/21/00 letter:
" The discovery issues you raised in your complaint were decided against you by a majority decision of the Supreme Court. This office can not bring a disciplinary action against a prosecutor [apparently ever] for allegedly not providing you materials which the Court has ruled you were not entitled to receive."
The public should be absolutely clear, David P. Curtin knows full well the discovery issue never came before the R.I. Supreme Court in the above two cases and David P. Curtin deliberately made false findings of facts to cover up governmental corruption and serious civil rights violations by John J. McMahon. This fact was seen when records, granted by the court were accidentally mentioned in the pre-sentence report. But to make sure this is really an uncontroverted Curtin cover-up, on May 25, 1999 he was sent another letter with evidence that reads:
Dear Mr. Curtin:
I realize that no action or investigation will take place. No one here in Rhode Island wants to here the truth. I have enough evidence to prove what I am saying in the complaint that I sent to you last week. The Prosecutor, John McMahon withheld the names and addresses of any counselors that was granted in a pre-trial motion that was heard on Nov.8, 1993 in front of Justice Goldberg. A copy is enclosed. These issues that I have brought to your attention have NOT been addressed in the R.I. Supreme Court yet.
I also realize that NO R.I. Attorney will ever get involved when it comes to showing that another Attorney had in fact violated a persons civil rights and even joined in a conspiracy. Why does everyone keep covering up the truth? I will get the truth out in the open. I have enclosed just one piece of evidence that was not turned over to me before the trial. And not even raised on my appeal even though I have documented evidence in which I tried to have may STATE APPOINTED ATTORNEY TO INCLUDE THIS ON MY APPEAL.
Due to lack of action by David Curtin, it’s clear this is a deliberate and calculated cover-up, refusing to perform the function you the tax payers pay him, $70,000? Or more a year to do. Please mail letters to the Governor and Chief Justice Weisberger demanding his resignation.
If Curtin does not resign this site will be updated with the Ethics Complaint against Mr. Curtin. You the public can also sign the Ethics Complaint to be published on this site if necessary. Finally, please help support this web-site even with small donations so innocent citizens like myself can have a real advocate for "liberty and justice for all". You could be next and where will you turn for justice? David Curtin?
On May 18, 1999 a complaint was filed with the commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline against Judge John F. Sheehan, for his egregious, and outrageous conduct seen in complaint one: like telling Pastor Elizabeth Janiak what to say on the stand, when her being on the stand violated RIGL 9-17-23.
"After careful review of the complaint, the Commission found no evidence of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Canons of Judicial Ethics and has therefore closed its files in this matter." (Also see traffic court case)
On June 28, 1999 a letter was sent to Alice Gibney stating she appears to have once again violated her duty to Rhode Island citizens and we requested a finding of facts and conclusions of law. That and another letter sent to each and every member of the commission (14 total) was never answered contrary to RI Constitution Art.111 Sec. 7:
" respect the public trust and the rights of all persons, be open, accountable, and responsive, avoid the appearance of impropriety…"
It appears the CJTD is covering up judicial corruption again. I guess we will have to seek redress from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. This site will be updated with the filing date of the Ethics Commission complaints.
Note: See State v. Brown, 755 A.2d 124 (RI 2000). On 6-19-2000, the RI Supreme Court ruled that Justice John F. Sheehan was vindictive when he increased Mr. Brown's sentence by 5 years. The entire court concurred. They took the 5 year increase off the sentence and ruled that Justice Sheehan can no longer sit on Mr. Brown's case. Recall, Judge Gibney of the Judicial Commission found "No evidence of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Canons of Judicial Ethics."
Mr. Danny Brown filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the RI Supreme Court, August 2, 1999, setting forth the above allegations and countless more, with full documentation to his continued unconstitutional incarceration. Mr. Brown also filed a Writ of Mandamus on November 3, 1999 to order the Attorney General to turn over the evidence withheld. He also filed a Motion for Bail. Arron Weisman from the Attorney General's Office was now fully cognizant of his "brother-in-law" illegal conduct resembling the misconduct in the Ronald L’Heureux Case, but refused to abide by the law and right this egregious injustice.
The Supreme Court declined also to address the issues as the United States Constitution mandates, nor did they address the motion to give bail to an obviously innocent man now jailed for about 6 years. They also did not order the Attorney General to turn over the court ordered evidence, even though the order was signed/ordered by the now Supreme Justice Goldberg!
On November 18, 1999, the Supreme Court denied the petition without prejudice to address as a post-conviction petition. Mr. Brown had already filled an expanded Habeas Corpus petition in the Superior Court on December 1999, but the clerk of the Superior Court refused to assign his petition a case number. The State failed to respond in 20 days as required by law; probably because there was no case number!
Even when a Motion for a New Trial, a Writ of Mandamus and all other proper papers for a hearing to be held on May 3, 2000 were filed, Mr. Brown still cannot get before the Superior Court, or get a case number on his Habeas Petition to proceed and prove everything the world has known from this site for over a year. Is justice ever found in RI? RARELY! So far only once for David Heath after serving almost all the actual sentence. When Mr. Brown can get into court, we will update his progress or lack thereof.
Mr. Brown re-filed for a Habeas Corpus and a Post Conviction on 4-12-2000. Justice Pfeiffer issued a case number to Mr. Brown on 5-5-2000 KM/00-323.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court heard the oral argument on 5-9-2000. On 4-21-2000, Mr. Brown sent a letter to the Supreme Court Justice John Bourcier asking him to recuse himself from hearing Mr. Brown's appeal that he filed on the increased sentence. The letter stated:
On May 10, 2000, the above captioned appeal is scheduled for argument before this court. As you may remember, I asked my appellate attorney Paula Rosin to bring the matter of 2 civil suits in which you were the Superior Court Justice.
I was introduced to you through Pastor Elizabeth Janiak after a church service while I was cleaning the hall at the Johnston Post American Legion before Mr. Janiak built her new church in Smithfield. Her daughter also works for the Johnston Police Department. As you may remember, my ex-wife, Judith Ann (Perras) Brown, was Janiak's witness on 8-31-1993.
The above referenced civil cases were and continue to be intertwined with my criminal case. As a result, Janiak called her friend Johnston Police Chief Tacco. After Janiak spoke with Tacco, Tacco called the West Warwick Police Department at which time the investigation began. West Warwick Police Detective Sergeant David R. Petrarca who, in fact attended West Warwick High School with my ex-wife, was the officer who conducted the investigation.
I'm bringing this matter to your attention in the event that you deem it appropriate to recuse yourself from consideration of any involvement in any appeals I have pending before this honorable court.
After reading this letter at the beginning of the hearing before everyone in the court, Judge Bourcier stated that he felt that there was no conflict of interest by sitting in on Mr. Brown's appeal and admitted knowing Pastor Elizabeth Janiak. Recall that Justice Bourcier sat on the 2 civil suits against Janiak yet never informed the 2 contractors that he know Pastor Janiak.
Justice John P. Bourcier let another Justice write the opinion in the appeal that Mr. Brown lost and he never corrected what he knew or should have known which was the truth about the 2 civil suits. See State v. Brown, 709 A.2d 465, on Page 473:
Our review of defendant's proposed line of bias inquiry and his subsequent offer of proof at trial reveals that the trial justice did not clearly abuse his discretion in restricting defendant's cross-examination on Janiak on this point. First, there was no showing whatsoever that the Pastor knew that defendant was related to a contractor named Al Brown or that defendant "was instrumental in putting the people together to build that church." Indeed, according to Janiak's testimony, she did not even know that a man named Brown had been a contractor who helped to build the church"
Transcripts showed Defense Counsel tried to impeach Janiak's testimony by showing that Janiak did know Al Brown since there was litigation between them and citing State v. Privitera, 1 Conn.App. 709, 476 A.2d 605, RI 1984. The same lawyer in Mr. Brown's criminal case was the same lawyer who filed the 2 civil suits against Janiak. Supreme Court Justice Bourcier know or should have known that Danny Brown was the person who introduced Al Brown, his cousin, to Pastor Janiak. Bourcier was also asked at the first appeal to recuse himself for sitting on Brown's appeal. Bourcier allowed Janiak to commit perjury at the trial and covered up her misconduct.
Brown's attorney had all the evidence with him that is part of the record in the 2 civil suits that Bourcier sat on. Bourcier saw evidence that Brown was instrumental in putting the people together to build Janiak's church. Yet Bourcier holds that Janiak didn't remember Al Brown when Janiak called Judith Ann Perras [Brown's ex-wife] as her witness to testify against Al Brown before Bourcier on 8-31-93.
On 6-19-2000, the RI Supreme Court ruled that Justice John F. Sheehan was vindictive when he increased Mr. Brown's sentence by 5 years. The entire court concurred. This was after Justice Bourcier admitted to knowing Janiak. They took the 5 year increase off of the sentence and ruled that Justice Sheehan can no longer sit on Mr. Brown's case.