Constitutionalist Arrested, Federal Charges in Question
By Kimberly Keith Feliciano
On Feb 2nd, federal agents forced their way into the home of senior citizen Darlene Early (a/k/a Bliss Alexandra) with an alleged “Warrant for Arrest” directed to “Alexandra Bliss a/k/a Bliss Alexandra”. Early would not allow them in, protesting the warrant was invalid. The agents broke in through a window, seized her, and took her to the federal courthouse on 445 Broadway in Albany.
On Jan 10, about three weeks prior to the arrest, the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) hand delivered a letter which they said “serves as a summons”, requesting “Alexandra Bliss or Bliss Alexandra” to call and schedule a time to be “arraigned” on “various criminal offenses” as investigated by the IRS.
|
Darlene Early
(a/k/a Bliss Alexandra), arrested in Albany, NY
with alleged indictment of "fraudulent filings" with the IRS. |
According to the alleged indictment attached to their letter, “Alexandra Bliss a/k/a Bliss Alexandra” signed “fraudulent IRS forms 8300” in Dec 1999, more than five years ago.
“Besides invalid on their face, both the warrant and indictment have incorrectly named the accused [her name is not Alexandra Bliss] and are therefore directed to the wrong person,” Early said, protesting her arrest.
On Jan 15, she responded in writing, “I have not been formally charged… I will proceed no further in this matter absent a valid complaint issued against me.” At court, Judge Randolph Treece told Early, “The indictment is the charging document.” However, is the indictment a valid charging document?
According to Albrecht v. United States (273 U.S. 1), the oath of the U.S. Attorney serves as the verification. It seems there is no record of this oath appearing in the Docket Text entries, nor is it attached to the indictment. Early has been adamant about not waiving her right to having a valid, formal indictment presented to her. In the same case, Albrect v. United States, “A Person may not be punished for a crime without a formal [verified] and sufficient accusation even if he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court.”
In American Jurisprudence (2nd ed.) under ‘Arrests’, warrants incorrectly naming a person, in any part of the name designation, are invalid. However, according to Advice and Counsel, Inc. (FindLaw.com) “When a police officer has a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, the officer may arrest that person”. But, at the same time, police cannot come into your home without your consent and without a warrant to arrest you, unless there are “exigent circumstances”—a situation requiring urgent action.
As for the indictment, “A review of the Docket Text shows no minute entry of a grand jury having returned an indictment to Judge Treece in open court,” said Early. The U.S. Supreme Court decision so requires Glasser v. United States (315 U.S. 60,65) listing the elements of the formal return. The filing of an indictment is not a “return” in open court until the grand jury acts and it’s officially recorded. “…no court can acquire jurisdiction to try. Waiver is not permitted…” according to New York Court of Appeals, People Ex Rel. Battista v. Christian (249 N.Y. 314).
But, West's Encyclopedia of American Law (1998), explains that federal grand juries have broad powers to accomplish goals, and they meet in secret. Critics say this combination leaves room for abuse by prosecutors.
Grand juries do not determine guilt or innocence, but determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the accused has committed a crime, and can thus return an indictment (a formal charge against the accused).
Early was remanded to the Albany County Correctional Facility (jail) on Feb 2nd and returned to court on Feb 6th, when “Alexandra Bliss” was offered “Conditions of Release”. The document allowed visits by a probation officer “at anytime, at home or elsewhere”, required submission to a mental health evaluation (“and/or treatment”), and regularly reporting to Pretrial Services. If not followed as written, she would be sent to jail again, so Early “mistakenly” signed the document directed to “Alexandra Bliss”, but she did so “under protest” and “all rights reserved”, fearful she would lose her physical health in “severe conditions” of jail.
On Feb 23rd, law enforcement forced their way into Early’s home a second time, smashing in the front door when she refused again to accept another “invalid” warrant—this time directed to “Bliss Alexandra a/k/a Alexandra Bliss”. “The names were switched,” Early said.
Early said once appealed, the case is out of the jurisdiction of the trial of District Court, according to Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. (459 U.S. 58), which states that the filing of a notice of appeal “…confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals…” Early’s appeal falls within the small number of cases guided by the “collateral order rule” outlined in U.S. Supreme Court cases Flanagan et al v. United States (465 U.S. 259,266). Flanagan’s holding is that a prosecution of Early as Alexandra Bliss would be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgement” after trial. In other words, if Early continues to trial and is convicted of the alleged crime, she would not be allowed to appeal because she would have entered a plea and continued the process under the incorrect name.
A successful appeal would take the case to a higher court, but “Appeals courts generally [emphasis added] review only cases that have reached final judgment in the trial courts,” according to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. Again, though, Early’s case seems to fall in a select category of cases as outlined in the Flanagan case.
In court on Feb 27th Judge Treece said: “You do not have a right to appeal at this point.” Judge Treece later explained to FBA, “A notice of Appeal has no consequence until there is a dispositive determination of the case. All challenges to jurisdiction and the authority of the court are deferred until such time the case is dispositively resolved with the trial court…At that point she can appeal all of her issues.”
Colin Donnaruma, Attorney at Law (an expert in Constitutional law and due process, and who considers himself to be a “civil libertarian”), told The Informed Constituent that a citizen cannot appeal until there is a conviction or some finality, unless there is a constitutional issue in question.”
“I understand that she wants to question the legitimacy of the process, and I think there’s a lot that needs to be changed in the system, but it might be best to do so politically, not legally.” Donnaruma is a volunteer attorney on the FBA team (see his advertisement at bottom of page)
Ms. Early said she has never been in trouble or jail except for civil protests. She has a Masters in Public Administration, concentration in Law. She worked in the Governor's Office and is author of the book Divorce: A New-Yorker's Guide to Doing It Yourself. Early is working on practical constitutional study materials for the public. “I would like to hear from anyone concerning illegal arrests, and will work with a team to determine the level of irregularities.”
Early is an FBA member and has requested help to follow the case and advocate for people’s Constitutional rights.
The case, U.S.A. v. Bliss 05-CR-541, is available for public view at the Clerk's office, 4th floor of 445 Broadway in Albany. For more info, go online to www.nynd.uscourts.gov
| 
