california man accused of ongoing criminal activity, 8 counts of witness tampering, and obstructing...

8/11/2019 California man accused of Ongoing Criminal Activity, 8 counts of Witness Tampering, and Obstructing Prosecution.

1/51


2/51

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE

DOB: 01-03-1967,

Defendant.

TRIAL INFORMATION

COUNT 1

COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa, and in

the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN

MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT a

class B felony in violation of Iowa Code 706A.2(4), committed as follows: From on or

about September 11, 2012, through as recently as June 24, 2014, Defendant has

committed SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY as defined in section 706A.1, in that

Defendant committed the below-listed predicate offenses and the other counts listed in this

Trial Information, and other acts described in the Minutes of Testimony, including

preparatory or completed offenses, for financial gain on a continuing basis, that are

punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of the state in which the crimes occurredand under the laws of this state. I OWA CODE 706A.1 (2014) A person convicted of a class

B felony shall be confined for no more than twenty-five years. I OWA CODE 706A.2(4),

902.9 (2014)

A. PREVENTING OR DISSUADING PERSON FROM TESTIFYING OR

REPORTING CRIME Beginning on or around July 1, 2010, through February

2011, in the State of California, Defendant, on multiple occasions, attempted to

prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott Connelly, a person who had been the victim of a

crime or who was a witness to a crime, from causing a complaint, indictment,information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and

assisting in the prosecution thereof, by publishing on the harassing, defamatory

stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Also, in this same timeframe,

DARREN MEADE knowingly and maliciously attempted to prevent or dissuade

Dr. Scott Connelly, a witness and / or a victim from attending or giving testimony

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT


3/51

at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, by publishing harassing,

defamatory stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Said crime is

punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C.

136.1(b)(2), 136.1(a)(2)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa. [I OWA CODE

720.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.

B. EMBEZZLEMENT - From July 2010 through June 2010, in State of California,

Defendant fraudulently appropriated to any use or purpose not in the due and

lawful execution of Defendants trust, $500,000 from Progenex Inc., which was

under his control by virtue of that trust, or secreted the same with a fraudulent

intent to appropriate it to that use or purpose. Said crime is punishable as an

indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C. 503, 504] and under the

laws of the State of Iowa. [Iowa Code 714.1 (2014). DARREN MEADEcommitted this offense for financial gain.

C. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND

COMPUTER DATA On or around February 15, 2011, in the State of California,

Defendant knowingly accessed (without permission) altered, damaged, deleted,

destroyed, or otherwise used data [contained on the servers for the website

www.ripoffreport.com, which is a computer, a computer system, or computer

network in order to either devise or execute his scheme to remove RipOff Report

complaints about himself, as well as others for money, or artifice to defraud,deceive, deceive or extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or

data. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of

California [P.C. 502.1(c)(1)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [I OWA CODE

716A.4 (2014)]. DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.

D. EXTORTION On or around May 2, 2014, in the State of California, Defendant,

in effort to obtain money, threatened to unlawfully injure Xcentric Ventures LLC

(dba www.ripoffreport.com) and threatened to disclose information about

Xcentric Ventures, which he obtained while working for Xcentric Ventures, thatwould place their entire company and protections under the [Communications

and Decency Act] at risk. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense

under the laws of California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of

Iowa [IOWA CODE 711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for

financial gain.



4/51

E. EXTORTION On or around September 12, 2013, in the State of California,

DARREN MEADE threatened to unlawfully expose Daniel Danino to hatred

contempt, and ridicule, when he threatened to keep his RipOff Report complaints

about Daniel Danino and Daniel Daninos business, OC PC Computers, on

RipOff Reports website unless Daniel Danino gave DARREN MEADEs

computer, which Daniel Danino had performed work on, back to DARREN

MEADE. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of

California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [I OWA CODE

711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.

F. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT Beginning on or around July 1, 2010,

through around February 25, 2011, in the State of California, after felonies had

been committed by a number of individuals employed, or purporting to beemployed, by Progenex Inc., DARREN MEADE harbored, concealed, or aided

said individuals, all principals to one felony or another, with the intent that said

individuals avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having

knowledge that said individuals had committed such felonies or had been

charged with such felonies, or convicted thereof. Said crime is punishable as an

indictable offense under the laws of California [C AL. P.C. 32] and under the

laws of the State of Iowa [I OWA CODE 703.3] DARREN MEADE committed this

offense for financial gain.

G. ACCEPTING A BRIBE On or around August 15, 2014, DARREN MEADE,

who was or was about to be a witness in Small Justice LLC, v. Xcentric

Ventures , received, or offered to receive, a bribe, upon any understanding that

DARREN MEADEs testimony would be influenced thereby, or that DARREN

MEADE would absent himself from the trial or proceeding upon which his

testimony is required. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under

the laws of California [C AL. P.C. 138] and under the laws of the State of Iowa

[IOWA CODE 722.2] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.

COUNT 2

COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,

and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN

MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING , an aggravated



5/51

misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as

follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with

the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Raymond Friedman, a

States witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900.

Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Raymond Friedman,

without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Raymond Friedmans testimony

and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous

defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Raymond

Friedman. Said complaints accuse witness Raymond Friedman of committing perjury,

fraud, and other criminal acts, and associate him with child molestation, child pornography,

and pipe bombs. One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8

million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially

engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence,

such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Raymond

Friedman, his wife, Marie Friedman, and his business. Defendants acts produced

detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant

committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 3






the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Marie Friedman, a States

witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,

with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Marie Friedman, without any legitimate

reason, and in retaliation for witness Marie Friedmans testimony and lawful participation in

the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online

complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Marie Friedman. Said complaints

accuse witness Marie Friedman of committing perjury and other criminal acts, and associate

her with child molestation, child pornography, and pipe bombs. One of these complaints

has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last

two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to

enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign,



6/51

Google-type searches of and for Marie Friedman or her husband, Raymond Friedman.

Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an

indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 4






the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Mona Wehde, a States

witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Mona Wehde, without any legitimate

reason, and in retaliation for witness Mona Wehdes testimony and lawful participation in the

above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online

complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Mona Wehde. Said complaints accuse

witness Mona Wehde of committing perjury and other criminal acts. One of these

complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every

day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these

complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear

in benign, Google-type searches of and for Mona Wehde and her business. Defendants

acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.

Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 5



MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING , an aggravatedmisdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as


the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Michael Roberts, a States

witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,

with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Michael Roberts, without any legitimate



7/51


8/51




follows: Beginning on or around December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with

the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Sac County Sheriff, Ken

McClure, a States witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No.

FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Sheriff, Ken

McClure, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Sheriff, Ken McClures

testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published

numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning

Sheriff, Ken McClure. Said complaints accuse witness Sheriff, Ken McClure of corruption.

One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages

almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and

optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the

complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Sheriff, Ken McClure.

Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an

indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 8






the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Iowa DCI Special Agent (SA)

Trent Vileta, a States witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No.

FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness SA Trent

Vileta, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness SA Trent Viletas

testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published

numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning

SA Trent Vileta. Said complaints accuse witness SA Trent Vileta of corruption. One of

these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost

every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized

these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints



9/51

appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for SA Trent Vileta. Defendants acts

produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.

Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 9






the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Dr. John Pitman, a States

witness in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Dr. John Pitman, without any legitimate

reason, and in retaliation for witness Dr. John Pitmans testimony and lawful participation in

the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online

complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Dr. John Pitman. Said complaints

accuse witness Dr. John Pitman of murder, having sexually transmitted diseases, doing

shabby surgery work on his patients, and engaging on other conduct that would expose

him to hatred, contempt, and / or ridicule. One of these complaints has appeared on each

of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN

MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online

visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of

and for Dr. John Pitman, his family, and his business. Defendants acts produced

detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant

committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 10



MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of OBSTRUCTING PROSECUTION , an

aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 719.3, committed as follows:

beginning on or around April 13, 2012, through May 17, 2012, Defendant knowingly made

available false evidence or furnishes false information to law enforcement in Sac County,



10/51

Iowa, with the intent that the information be used in State v. Richter , Sac County District

Court, Case No. FECR011900, I OWA CODE 719.3 (2014) Obstructing Prosecution is an

indictable offense. Iowa Const. Art. 1 11; I OWA CODE 903.1(2) (2013); I OWA R. CRIM. P.

2.4(2) (2014) Defendant committed this crime for financial gain.



11/51

WITNESS LIST

KARIN E. GLAAB, Court Reporter

TERRIE C. BARKER, Court Reporter

TINA CHURCH, Private Investigator

DR. SCOTT CONNELLY, Witness

JUSTIN CROSSMAN, Employee, Xcentric Ventures

PAUL PORTELLI, Witness

MICHAEL ROBERTS, Witness

ADAM KUNZ, Employee, Xcentric Ventures

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Custodian of Records

ERNEST LUKE ADAMS, Progenex Employee

RYAN STEVEN PAGE, Progenex Employee

STEVE SHAMION, Progenex Employee

AARON THOMAS, Progenex Employee

JP MORGAN CHASE, Custodian of Records

WELLS FARGO BANK, Custodian of Records

BANK OF AMERICA, Custodian of Records

DR. JOHN PITMAN, Witness

RAYMOND FRIEDMAN, Witness

MONA WEHDE, Witness

KEN MCCLURE, SHERIFF, Sac County, Iowa

TERRY KLOOSTER, (former) Special Agent in Charge, Division of Criminal Investigation

CRAIG MACKAMAN, Special Agent, Division of Criminal Investigation

CLERK OF COURT, Sac County, Iowa

AMERICA ONLINE (AOL), Custodian of Records



12/51

GOOGLE, Custodian of Records

PRAIRIE INET, Custodian of Records

SHAWN RICHARDSON, Computer Technician

COX COMMUNICATIONS, Custodian of Records

METRO PCS, Custodian of Records

SPRINT, Custodian of Records

VERIZON WIRELESS, Custodian of Records

JULIA BOWMAN, Detective, Laguna Beach Police Department

WILLIAM BONDURANT, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

DANIEL DANINO, Computer Technician / Witness

FACEBOOK, Custodian of Records

SIAMACK YAGHOBI, Occupation Unknown



13/51

State of Iowa Courts

Type: Approval of Trial Information

Case Number Case TitleFECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE

On this date, I have reviewed the attached Trial Information and the accompanying Minutesof Testimony and find that they contain evidence which, if unexplained, is sufficient towarrant a conviction by a trial jury. Being satisfied from the showing made that the caseshould be prosecuted, I approve the Trial Information.

Release conditions are set by separate Order of the Court.

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:13 page 12 of 12



14/51

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTYSTATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,Defendant.

ORDER SETTING ARRAIGNMENTAND BOND

The TRIAL INFORMATION and the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE in this matter

have been examined and found to contain sufficient evidence, if unex lained, to !arranta conviction in a trial b" #ur", therefore, this matter shall be set for Arrai$nment.

IT IS ORDERED, the Defendant shall ersonall" a ear for Arraignmen at theSac %ount" %ourthouse, District %ourtroom, Sac %it", Io!a on the !! n" da" of Se# em$er !%&' at ()%% a.m..

The Defendant is advised that failure to a ear !ill result in the issuance of anarrest !arrant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Defendant&s bond and conditions for releasefrom custod" in this matter shall be'

Defendant is released on ersonal reco$ni(ance.)ond is set in the amount of *++++++++++++++++.)ond ma" be unsecured.)ond must be cash or secured in the amount of the )ond.

- cash ma" be osted.B*n" #revi*+ - e /a-- 0*n in+e.%ler/ of %ourt shall issue a summons for Defendant to A ear.%ler/ of %ourt shall issue an nation!ide arrest !arrant.O /er C*n"i i*n *1 Re-ea e)

De1en"an /a-- *$e a-- Fe"era-, S a e, an" L*0a- -a2 .The Defendant shall have no contact !ith the victim or an" !itness set

forth in the minutes of evidence in this matter.The Defendant shall be on re0trial su ervision to the Second 1udicialDistrict De artment of %orrectional Services.Other'

3 4 De1en"an i Or"ere" * imme"ia e- *$ ain a S+$ an0e A$+ eEva-+a i*n an" #r*vi"e i * /e C*+r . Fai-+re * "* * ma re +- in /erev*0a i*n *1 De1en"an 5 6re Tria- Re-ea e.



15/51


Type: ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT


So Ordered




16/51

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA, ) CASE NO: FECR012634

Plaintiff, ))v. ) APPEARANCE

)DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, )

Defendant )

COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his

Appearance on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the above

captioned matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ A. Zane Blessum

____________________________A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202West Des Moines, IA 50266Telephone: 515-221-1666Facsimile: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Original E-Filed.

Copy to:Sac County Attorney

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/51



18/51



19/51


STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff,

v.DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,

Defendant.

CASE No. FECR012634

MOTION TO QUASH ARREST WARRANT

COMES NOW the State of Iowa and for its Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant

states an attorney has filed an appearance and a written arraignment in this

matter.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests thatthe arrest warrant be quashed.

__________________________Benjamin John SmithSac County AttorneySac County Courthouse100 NW State St., Suite 9Sac City IA 50583Telephone: 712-662-4791Email: [email protected]



20/51


STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff,

v.DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,

Defendant.

CASE No. FECR !"#$%

ORDER &UASHIN' ARREST WARRANT

T(i) *atte+ a*e -efo+e t(e Co +t on t(e State/) *otion to 0 a)( t(e 1a++ant

fo+ Defendant/) a++e)t. T(e Co +t, 2on t(e +e o+d and -ein3 advi)ed in t(e

2+e*i)e), FINDS and ORDERS t(at fo+ t(e +ea)on) )et fo+t( in t(e State/)

+elated *otion, t(e a++e)t 1a++ant i)) ed (e+ein )(all -e and i) 0 a)(ed.



21/51


Type: OTHER ORDER


So Ordered




22/51

2RCR02


STATE OF IOWA,

PLAINTIFF,

vs. DARREN MITCHELL MEADE ,

DEFENDANT.

Case No. 02811 FECR012634

ORDER FOR TRIAL

1. Defendant filed a Written Arraignment and Plea of Not Guilty to all charges onSeptember 19, 2014.

2. The Defendant's name as charged in the Trial Information is true and correct.

3. Defendant waives the right to speedy trial.

4. Defendant is represented by A. Zane Blessum. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the jury trial of this case

shall commence on November 4, 2014, at 9 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pretrial Conference is scheduled on 10/20/2014at 9:00 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse, 100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa.

If the Defendant chooses to take depositions of minuted State's witnesses,depositions are ordered pursuant to I.R.Cr.P.2.13(1). If the Defendant takes depositionsof State witnesses, the Defendant shall comply with I.R.Cr.P.2.13(3) and the State maydepose Defendant's witnesses. If Defendant's counsel is appointed, the depositionsshall be at public expense. Upon Defendant's request, the State is ordered to discloseevidence pursuant to I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(2). If the Defendant requests discretionarydiscovery, the State is ordered to comply with the provisions of I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(b). If theDefendant opts to request discretionary discovery and the State requests reciprocaldiscovery, the Defendant shall comply with the disclosure required by I.R.Cr.P.2.14(3).Either party may object to the order for discretionary discovery and have the matter setfor hearing. The State shall disclose any exculpatory evidence, including any evidencerelating to the credibility of minuted witnesses.

1 of 3



23/51

CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:SAC COUNTY ATTORNEYANTHONY ZANE BLESSUMDISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR

2 of 3



24/51

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleFECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADEType: ORDER SETTING TRIAL

So Ordered

Electronically signed on 2014-09-22 10:54:47

3 of 3



25/51



26/51


STATE OF IOWA, ) CASE NO: FECR012634

Plaintiff, ))v. ) NOTICE OF COUNSEL

) WITHDRAW DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, )

Defendant )

COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his

Withdraw of Counsel on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the

above captioned matter. The Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE has obtained

and new counsel.


/s/ A. Zane Blessum

____________________________A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202West Des Moines, IA 50266Telephone: 515-221-1666Facsimile: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Original E-Filed.

Copy to:Sac County AttorneyGlen S. Downey Attorney for Defendant

E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 3:32 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT


27/51


28/51

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleFECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADEType: OTHER ORDER

So Ordered


2 of 2



29/51


STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634:

v. : MOTION FOR BILL OF

: PARTICULARSDARREN MITCHELL MEADE ::

Defendant ::

COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S.

Downey, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order requiring the county attorney to

furnish a Bill of Particulars setting forth the specific nature of the offenses charged in the Trial

Information and Minutes of Testimony. As presently constituted, the States charges fail to

adequately identify the specific acts upon which his charges are based. As grounds for this

Motion, it is stated:

1. The September 2, 2014 Trial Information lodged against Meade contains ten

counts of general conduct which do not provide Meade under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure

2.11(6) with the necessary information to prepare an adequate defense.2. In order for counsel to provide effective representation to Meade, and in order for

Meade to adequately prepare a defense by making clear the nature and boundary of the charges

against him, and in order to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, the following information is

required:

a. The dates on which Meade allegedly attempted to prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott

Connelly from causing a complaint, indictment, information or parole violation to be prosecuted;

b. The locations in which such attempts were made on Dr. Connelly;

c. The alleged defamatory or harassing statements Meade made about or to Dr.

Connelly in order to prevent or dissuade him from complaining;



30/51

[2]

d. The dates on which Meade allegedly prevented or dissuaded Dr. Connelly from

giving testimony at a trial or proceeding by publishing harassing or defamatory statements;

e. The locations of such attempts;

f. The alleged harassing or defamatory statements that were intended to prevent or

dissuade Dr. Connelly from testifying;

g. The exact Ripoff Report complaints that Meade allegedly removed about himself

and others without authorization on or about February 15, 2011;

h. The location at which Meade allegedly committed such unauthorized access in

(g);i. The information on or about May 2, 2014 that Meade allegedly threatened to

disclose about Xcentric Ventures that would put the company at risk;

j. The exact Ripoff Report complaints about Daniel Danio that on or about

September 13, 2013, Meade allegedly threatened to keep up that would unlawfully expose

Danio to hatred, contempt and ridicule;

k. The alleged actions that Meade took from July 1, 2010 through February 15, 2011

that harbored or concealed or aided the principals to one felony or another with the intent that

they avoid detection, prosecution or trial;

l. The alleged felonies and perpetrators of such felonies that Meade was purportedly

attempted to harbor or conceal;

m. The locations that such alleged felonies took place;

n. The amount of the bribe that Meade allegedly took on or about August 15, 2014

to influence his testimony in Small Justice, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures;

o. The person whom allegedly bribed Meade;



31/51

[3]

p. The location at which Meade allegedly accepted said bribe;

q. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Raymond Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Friedman for his

testimony in State v. Richter ;

r. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly

published about Marie Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Ms. Friedman for

her testimony in State v. Richter ;

s. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Mona Wehde in a purported attempted to retaliate against Wehde for her testimony inState v. Richter ;

t. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Michael Roberts in a purported attempted to retaliate against Roberts for his testimony in

State v. Richter ;

u. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Dr. Scott Connelly in a purported attempted to retaliate against Connelly for his lawful

participation in a California criminal investigation;

v. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Sac County Sherriff Ken McClure in a purported attempted to retaliate against McClure

for his testimony in State v. Richter ;

w. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Iowa DCI Special Agent Trent Vileta in a purported attempted to retaliate against Vileta

for his testimony in State v. Richter ;



32/51

[4]

x. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published

about Dr. John Pitman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Pitman for his testimony in

State v. Richter ; and

y. The exact statements and false information Meade allegedly provided to law

enforcement in Sac County, Iowa between April 13, 2012 and May 17, 2012.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) provides for a bill of particulars as follows:

When an indictment or information charges an offense in accordance with thisrule, but fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enablethe defendant to prepare a defense, the court may, on written motion of thedefendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of

particulars containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation ofthe defense. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made any time prior to orwithin ten days after arraignment unless the time be extended by the court forgood cause shown.

This rule codifies the due process protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment that require the

accused be advised of the crime charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to prepare his

defense. See Cole v. Arkansas , 222 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States , 161 U.S. 29,

40 (1896). Indeed, the purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of

the charges against him and to prevent or minimize the element of surprise at trial. United States

v. Garrett , 797 F.2d 656, 665 (8th Cir. 1986). A Defendants motion to for a bill of particulars

should be granted when the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony fail to apprise him of

the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable him to prepare his defense. State v.

Marti , 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa).



33/51

[5]

ARGUMENT

Witness Tampering:

Eight of the ten counts of the Trial Information against Meade charge him with Witness

Tampering in violation of Iowa Code section 720.4. Section 720.4 provides three methods of

committing this offense: (1) offering a bribe, (2) making threats or forcibly or fraudulently

detaining or restraining, or (3) harassing in retaliation. State v. LaPointe , 418 N.W.2d 49, 51

(Iowa 1988).

The first two methods are not at issue as County Attorney Smith only alleges that Meade published defamatory statements about witnesses in retaliation for their lawful participation and

testimony in State v. Richter , Sac County District Court, Case No, FECR011900. To establish

this method of witness tampering, Smith will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Meade (1) "in retaliation for anything lawfully done" by a "witness" in a "case," (2) "harassed

such witness." Iowa Code section 720.4; LaPointe , 418 N.W.2d at 52.

Apparently Smith s theory is that Meade s investigative journalism was conducted and

published with the intent to harass the states witnesses in the Richter case. Apart from the

obvious problem that such journalism is protected by the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution (which shall be asserted separately, along with other issues, in a distinct Motion to

Dismiss), Smith makes only conclusory assertions about which complaints or statements he

alleges were intended to harass the witness. Without specific reference to the exact complaints

or statements Smith is alleging Meade published to harass the witnesses, Meade has no ability to

prepare a defense to such charges.

Although Smith attached well over a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of



34/51

[6]

Testimony in this action, Smith s avalanche of almost entirely superfluous paperwork (that has

almost nothing to do with Darren Meade and even less to do with anything that Darren Meade

may or may not have done in Iowa) does not reveal the exact defamatory complaints or

statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses. At a bare minimum, Smith

and the State have an obligation to provide due process to Meade and inform him of the exact

statements that they intend to show were meant to harass the State s witnesses. Cole v. Arkansas ,

333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment

requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).

Count I

On-going Criminal Conduct:With respect to Count I of the Trial Information, County Attorney Smith is charging

Meade with alleged on-going criminal conduct including, preventing or dissuading a person from

testifying or reporting a crime, extortion, embezzlement, unauthorized access to computers,

accessory after the fact and accepting a bribe.

Accepting Smith s allegations as true, all of the alleged crimes occurred solely in

California and Smith makes no assertions in either the Trial Information or the Minutes of

Testimony how such conduct relates to Iowa or crimes that allegedly occurred in Iowa. Without

more specificity as to the information or theory Smith believes allows to charge a California

citizen in Iowa with crimes that occurred in California, Meade cannot adequately prepare a

defense to such charges and his due process rights will have been violated. Cole v. Arkansas ,

333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment

requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).

WHEREFORE, Defendant Meade moves the court to compel the State to plead the

witness tampering, on-going criminal conduct and obstructing prosecution with sufficient



35/51

[7]

particularity as to allow Meade to mount a constitutionally adequate defense.


THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN S. DOWNEY, LLC

/s Glen S. Downey__________________By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4Des Moines, IA 50309

Tel: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE

Original filed.Copy to:

Sac County Attorney

PROOF OF SERVICEThe undersigned hereby certifies that a true

copy of the foregoing instrument was served uponeach of the attorneys of record, or the partiesif unrepresented, at their respective addresses

disclosed on the pleadings.

By: _____ U.S. Mail _____ Fax _____ Courthouse Mail _____ Hand delivered _____Certified Mail _____ Other

Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________



36/51


STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634

:

v. :

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE : MOTION TO DISMISS 1

:

Defendant :

:

COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S.

Downey, and moves to dismiss Counts 1 through 10 of the Trial Information under Iowa R. Crim

Proc. 2.11(6)(a). In support of this motion, Defendant states the following:

1. The criminal charges against Darren Meade were filed without an assertion of probable

cause and without the specificity required to provide Meade with the due process necessary to

adequately defend himself.

2. Counsel has filed a separate Motion for Bill of Particulars asking that Court order the

state to supplement the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony. Those documents, while

voluminous, are devoid of specific criminal conduct which would allow the State to charge

Meade with one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of

Witness Tampering (Iowa Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing

Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).

3. This case is profoundly and substantially flawed and reeks of retaliation by the County

Attorney for Meade engaging in constitutionally protected speech that was critical of County

Attorney Smith and his performance as a prosecutor.

1 Undersigned counsel wants to alert this Honorable Court in addition to filing this Motion toDismiss; counsel will be filing a Motion to Disqualify County Attorney Ben Smith, a Motion toSuppress and a Motion to Change Venue. Counsel will be out of the country from October 3,2014 through October 8, 2014 and will file these Motions shortly after returning.

E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT


37/51

4. Furthermore, much of the criminal conduct the Trial Information alleges occurred was

conduct that obviously took place in California and is therefore beyond the territorial jurisdiction

of Iowa and County Attorney Smith, a fact so obvious that it only adds to the supposition that

County Attorney Smith is using his prosecutorial powers not to punish crime but to silence his

critics.

5. Never before has a journalist been charged in Iowa (or elsewhere) for merely reporting

about his belief that a criminal prosecution resulted in the incarceration of an innocent woman.

6. Not only does the attempted prosecution of Meade punish him for engaging in his

constitutional right to criticize public officials and report on controversies and accusations, this prosecution chills the rights of all journalists to report on matters of public concern, especially

when those matters are critical of someone with the power to criminally prosecute them if they

disagree with that reporting.

7. Mere disagreement with and mere inaccuracies in the reporting are not sufficient to

support a criminal conviction, let alone enough to support to initiation of a criminal prosecution.

Criminal charges are never appropriate if used to silence critical speech.

8. Bringing criminal charges against Meade impinges on one of the cornerstones of our

democracy the need for a robust and wide-open public debate and as such, justice demands

the charges against Meade be dismissed in their entirety.

9. The bases for this Motion to Dismiss are more fully discussed in the brief filed in

support.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court

dismiss the states charges as a matter of law.




38/51


/s Glen S. Downey__________________

By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4Des Moines, IA 50309Tel: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE


Sac County Attorney





Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________



39/51


STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634

:

v. : BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE : MOTION TO DISMISS

:

Defendant :

:

BACKGROUND

The State of Iowa has brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of

Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa

Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).

These charges against Meade must be dismissed as a matter of law for several reasons.

First, even if all of the States rather preposterous evidence and theories are taken at face

value, all of Meades conduct would have occurred in California and not within Iowa and

therefore, the State of Iowa has no territorial jurisdiction to pursue such charges against Meade.

Second, Meades conduct in writing and posting stories relating to the Tracy Richter murder

prosecution and his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Sac County Attorney Ben Smith

does not fall within the ambit of prohibited conduct under section 720.4 related to witness

tampering. Third, the witness tampering and obstructing prosecution charges attempt to

criminalize conduct that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

County Attorney Ben Smith can disagree with Meades assessment of his performance of as a

prosecutor and investigator and can disagree with Meades opinion that not all of the States

witnesses in the Richter case were truthful on the stand, but the First Amendment clearly protects

such criticisms, indeed, the First Amendment places such criticisms on the highest rung of

protected speech and therefore any attempt to criminalize such criticisms runs afoul of First



40/51

[2]

Amendment jurisprudence. And finally, the criminal charges brought against Meade reek of

prosecutorial vindictiveness for Meade s engagement is this constitutionally protected right to

criticize government officials namely County Attorney Smith and the officers who investigated

the Richter case and to report on the theories and accusations surrounding that murder case.

ARGUMENT

I. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TOCONFER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ON IOWA BECAUSE EVEN TAKEN

THE STATES EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE, ALL OF THE ALLEGED ACTSBY MEADE OCCURRED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA.

As an initial matter, Meade moves to dismiss all of the counts against him because even

accepting the wild facts alleged in Smith s minutes of evidence as true, all of the conduct alleged

to have been committed by Meade occurred within the state of California and therefore the state

of Iowa does not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Meade for these alleged offenses.

Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offense generally rests in the courts of the

state where the offense was committed. State v. Liggins , 524 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1994). It is

an essential element of every crime, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the United States Constitution requires the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Id . at

184-85 . Iowas criminal juris diction statute is found in Iowa Code section 803.1. This section

provides, in pertinent part:

1. A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which the person commitswithin or outside this state, by the person's own conduct or that of another for which the

person is legally accountable, if:a. The offense is committed either wholly or partly within this state.

b. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes an attempt to commit anoffense within this state.

c. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit anoffense within this state.

d. The offense is based upon a statute that specifically prohibits conduct whollyoutside of the state, and the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate



41/51

[3]

state interest, and the person knows or should know that the conduct is likely toaffect that interest.

e. Conduct of the person within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation orconspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which conduct is

punishable under the laws of both this state and such other jurisdiction.

Nothing in the Trial Information or Minutes of Testimony alleges that Meade ever set

foot in Iowa. Meade is and has been a resident of California during all of the times frames

outlined in the State s Trial Information and has never traveled to Iowa during any of the times

the State alleges he committed the alleged crimes detailed by the State. This fact is not in

dispute.

Count 1 (A-G) of the Trial Information related to on-going criminal conduct (Iowa Code

section 706A.2(4)) specifically states f or every alleged crime that in the State of California,

Defendant. Each sub -part then lists an alleged crime including extortion, embezzlement,

accepting a bribe, etc. There are zero allegations that any of these alleged crimes occurred in

Iowa, had any connection to people residing in or doing business in Iowa and absolutely no

allegations that any of the on-going criminal conduct outlined in Count 1 was part of a

conspiracy to commit any offense in the state of Iowa. In fact, all of the allegations in Count 1 of

the Trial Information related to a business dispute in California which was litigated in the

California courts between various nutrition companies and its various officers and agents. That

litigation resulted in a binding settlement agreement between the parties that was signed in

California in 2011. Again, all of this alleged conduct took place in California, involving

California parties or residents who had zero connection to Iowa. Therefore, none of the statutory

requirements outlined in Iowa Code Section 803.1 have been met conferring territorial

jurisdiction on the State of Iowa for prosecution of such crimes as alleged against Meade.



42/51

[4]

Similarly, the counts related to witness tampering and obstructing prosecution involve

conduct that occurred in California. County Attorney Smith makes no allegations that Meade

ever spoke with or communicated with any of the witnesses in the Richter murder case that

Meade was allegedly harassing in retaliation for their testimony. At most, Smith alleges that

Meade published articles that he claims defamed the witnesses and that he published these

articles in retaliation for these witnesses testimony on behalf of the State. Laying aside whether

Smith can criminally charge for defamatory statements or whether the statements can even be

considered defamatory (both of which are taken up later), Smith does not allege that Meade ever

did any of the harassment in Iowa or that he even attempted to make sure the Iowa witnesseswere aware of his publications. Since there in no tangible connection to Iowa in Meade s

publications, Iowa and County Attorney Smith lack the requisite territorial jurisdiction to

prosecute Meade for these publications.

II. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS THAT ARELEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE MEADE WITH THE CRIMES

OUTLINED IN THE TRIAL INFORMATIONAND MINUTESOF

TESTIMONY.

The witnesses tampering and obstructing prosecution charges against Meade are not

legally sufficient and therefore must be dismissed.

As stated above, County Attorney Smith does not allege that Meade attempted to make

sure the witnesses in question ever read or even knew about his publications or that he had the

intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm the witnesses and that he did so without a legitimate purpose.

See State v. Fratzke , 446 N.W. 781, 783 (Iowa 1989) (To prove harassment in retaliation for

something lawfully done, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant (1)

intended to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person (2) by a communication in writing or by



43/51

[5]

telephone (3) without legitimate purpose and (4) in a manner likely to cause the other person

annoyance or alarm).

Meade s publications and articles while critical of County Attorney Smith and critical of

the veracity and backgrounds of some of the State s witnesses, were all publications designed to

expose or right what Meade saw as an injustice. His purpose was to provide information and

documents to support what he believed was an unjust prosecution and as such, even if Amith

could make out some allegations that Meade had the intent to harass the witnesses in question,

Meade clearly had a legitimate purpose in publishing the articles and therefore there is no legally

sufficiency for the charges against him. Fratzke , 446 N.W. at 785 (holding that an individual svitriolic and obscenity-filled letter to a state trooper criticizing his handling of a traffic stop could

not be considering harassment because to hold that writing such a letter had no legitimate

purpose would be the equivalent to finding that the First Amendment s promises are not worth

the paper they are written on ).1

III. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT IS CLEARLYPROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CANNOT BE

CRIMINALIZED MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS

ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY MEADE MAY TURN OUT TO BE

UNTRUE AT A LATER DATE.

Meade has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to publish stories critical of

County Attorney Smiths handling of the Tracey Richter murder prosecution and Smith s use of

1 Because Count 10 of the Trial Information related to obstructing prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3) is without any factual basis to allow Meade to determine what false information heallegedly provided to law enforcement officials and on what purported dates he allegedly

provided such information, it is impossible to Meade to cogently argue whether such informationis legally sufficient to charge him. As stated in Meade s separate Motion for Bill of Particulars,this lack of factual specificity violates Meade s due process rights. See Cole v. Arkansas , 222U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States , 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896). As written and charged,the obstructing prosecution lacks legally sufficiency because the charging documents do not notewhat false information was provided to law enforcement officials that obstructed a prosecution.



44/51

[6]

witnesses with questionable backgrounds and motives. County Attorney Smith s attempted use

of Iowa s Witness Tampering statute (Iowa Code 720.4) and Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa

Code 719.3) against Meade is nothing less than an attempt to silence a critical engaged in

constitutionally protected speech.

As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has NO power to

restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content. Ashcroft v.

America Civil Liberties Union , 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002) (emphasis added). Any attempt by

Smith to claim that he is only punishing Meade and his publications because they were false and

therefore harassing of the state s witnesses in the State v. Richter, Sac County District Court,Case No. FECR011900 case is an argument that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The

U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such arguments saying [t]he First Amendment s guarantee of

free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of

relative social costs and benefits. United States v. Stevens , 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1585 (2010). Even

knowingly false statements do not lay outside First Amendment protection because the very

purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that each person could be his own watchman

for truth, because the forefathers did not trust government to separate the true from the false for

us. Thomas v. Collins , 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945); see also Meyer v. Grant , 486 U.S. 414, 419

(1988) ( The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not dependent on

the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered. (citations

omitted) ( quoting NAACP v. Button , 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963)); N.Y. Times Co. , 376 U.S. at 271

(Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to

recognize and exception for any test of truth. ).



45/51

[7]

In fact, when confronted with the issue directly a few years ago, the Supreme Court

decided that false statements were indeed protected by the First Amendment and were not

subject to prosecution merely because they were knowingly false when uttered or published. See

United States v. Alvarez , 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012). Indeed, as the Court made clear in Alvarez, the

constitutionally permissible response by the government or others to false speech is speech that

is true and not statutory or criminal prohibitions on such speech. Id . at 2550.

To the extent that County Attorney Smith will argue that Meade s article s and published

statements about the state s witnesses are being criminally punished because they are

defamatory, County Attorney Smith fails to take into account decades of jurisprudencesurrounding the neutral reporting privilege and its constitutional protection of publishers and

writers who are critical of public officials, including those persons, in this case witnesses, who

are involved in an event of public or general interest. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323

(1974); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. , 403

U.S. 29 (1971). Reporters such as Meade must have the leeway to report accusations and

counteraccusations, theories and counter theories when writing about controversies and such

reportage is given full First Amendment protection. Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc. , 881 F.2d

1426, 1444 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, in looking at how reporters cover and report on

controversies, the Court must not look at the whether the statements were, in fact false or even

damaging, and must not inquire into the author s state of mind when writing or publishing the

statements, but must instead focus on whether the author is merely reporting other sources (even

theories that turn out to be false) in giving a full picture of the controversy. Id. at 1445-46. In

other words, the First Amendment provides protection to actual depictions of accusations and

controversies without regard to their falsity and truth and the actual malice standard of



46/51

[8]

defamation (that is knowledge that the statements were false or reckless disregard of whether it

was false or not) becomes relevant only if the author or publisher fabricates an accusation instead

of simply reporting the accusations and statements of others even if untrue. 2 Id . at 1434; see also

Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc.,: The Neutral Reporting Privilege and Robust, Wide Open Debate ,

75 Minn. L.Rev. 157, 182-85 (1990).

IV. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROHIBITS COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITHFROM USING HIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS TO PUNISH MEADE FOR

HIS COMMENTS CRITICAL OF SMITH AND SMITH S WITNESSES INTHE RICHTER MURDER TRIAL.

County Attorney Smith, it seems, has taken umbrage with Meade s depictions of his

handling of the Richter investigation and prosecution and has brought to bear his resources and

power as the County Attorney to retaliate against Meade for such depictions. The due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, prohibits Smith from punishing Meade in

retaliation for Meade s decision to investigate and publish critical comments on Smiths conduct

as Sac County Attorney. Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 (1974).

2 Furthermore, it should be noted that all of the cases delineating the actual malice defamationstandard are civil cases and not criminal cases. Public officials who seek redress for unfaircriticisms of their public or private actions are able to seek that redress in civil courts where theymust not only prove that the statement in question was false but that the defendant knew thestatement was false or was reckless in caring whether the statement was false. The case againstMeade is manifestly different in that the government official being criticized is seeking to use his

prosecutorial powers to punish and silence that criticism. In essence, this criminal prosecution isan action for criminal defamation. County Attorney Smith is trying to resurrect the Sedition Actof 1798 which criminalized the publication of seditious writings or those writings that werefalse, scandalous, and malicious against the government and government officials with intentto defame, or bring into contempt or disrepute the government. The Sedition Act of 1798 (Anact for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States ), Approved July 14, 1798.Although the Sedition Act was never tested in the courts, N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan makes itclear the Act could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, Although the Sedition Act was nevertested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. 376U.S. 254, 276 (1964); Watts v. United States , 394 U.S. 705 (1969) ( The Alien and SeditionLaws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done withforever Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed byour Constitution ).



47/51

[9]

A bad faith or vindictive prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without

a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing

prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage

the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 743 F.Supp. 15

(D.C.D.C. 1990). Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not unfettered. Selectivity in

the enforcement of criminal laws or prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional

rights is subject to constitutional constraints. U.S. v. Batchelder , 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979). The

First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of people to petition the

government for redress of grievances. U.S. Const., Amendment 1. While it is true that false statements may seem have little value in and of themselves, they

are nonetheless constitutionally protected and the real issue is whether that freedom of speech

which all agree is constitutionally protected can be safeguarded by a rule allowing the imposition

of liability upon a courts determination that a statement is false and maliciously motivated.

New York Times Co. v Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 300 (1964); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ,

418 U.S. 323, 418 (1974) (The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood i n

order to protect speech that matters.). A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials

and which implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assert made about

public officials and prosecutors for fear of potential criminal liability can result in self-

censorship and discourage public debate because the truth or falsity of some claims cannot be

easily determined and may chill the First Amendment rights of some by causing some potential

complainants to be persuaded not to file a complaint for fear of prosecution under the statute.

New Hampshire v. Allard , 813 A.2d 506, 510 (N.H. 2002). This concern is particularly acute in

the context of allegations of police and government misconductsuch allegations will o ften pit



48/51

[10]

the word of a civilian eyewitness against the testimony of several police officers [or other

government officials]. Id .

Moreover, and even more troubling, these cases create a situation wherein the accused

persons are members of the body responsible for investigating the complaint and filing charges.

Id . Needless to say, debate on public issues and criticism of police officers and prosecutors, just

as with other public officials, is speech at the very center of the constitutionally protected area

of free discussion. Rosenblatt v. Baer , 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). Official reprisal for protected

speech offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit the exercise of a lawful right,

Crawford-El v. Britton , 523 U.S. 574, 588, n 10 (1998), and the law is well settled that as ageneral matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual

to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Perry v. Sindermann ,

408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).

To put it more succinctly, to punish Meade because he did what the law plainly allows

him to do complain of potential prosecutorial misconduct and questionable witness

testimony is a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Goodwin , 457 U.S. 368, 372

(1982); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes , 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) A claim of prosecutorial

vindictiveness addresses itself to a constitutional defect in the institution of the prosecution and

is a question of law to be determined by the Court and not a question of fact to be presented to a

jury. Butler , 601 A.2d at 270.

A prosecutorial vindictiveness claim is unrelated to the determination of guilt or

innocence. Id . Claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness address themselves to the concern that the

retaliation against the exercise of a constitutional right should prevent the institution or

prosecution of criminal charges against the defendant. Id . at 271, citing with approval U.S. v.



49/51

[11]

Krezdorn , 718 F.2d 1360 (5 th Cir. 1983), cert denied , Krezdorn v. U.S . 465 U.S. 1066 (1984).

Retaliatory prosecution cases often include a situation in which the chain of causation is complex

and where a non-prosecuting official influenced the prosecutorial decision but did not himself

make it. Hartman v. Moore , 547 U.S. 250, 262 (2006). It is often the non-prosecuting official

who acted in retaliation and who induces the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have

been initiated without his urging. Id .

If Meade s facts which demonstrate the probability that an adverse action by the

prosecution or the court has been motivated by vindictiveness in retaliation for the successful

exercise of the defendants legal rights rather than for some other legitimate cause , then a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises which the Commonwealth must rebut with

evidence of legitimate explanation for the challenged conduct. Commonwealth v. Rocco , 544

A.2d 496, 499 (Pa. Super. 1988) (emphasis in original).



/s Glen S. Downey__________________By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4Des Moines, IA 50309Tel: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE


Sac County Attorney





Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________



50/51


51/51

State of Iowa CourtsCase Number Case TitleFECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADEType: ORDER SETTING HEARING

So Ordered



california man accused of ongoing criminal activity, 8 counts of witness tampering, and obstructing...

Documents