Home-Menu

Dave's State Case

In 1990 I was prosecuted for the 1988 murder of my ex-wife, Ann Jenkins, a case of multiple tragedies and systemic government corruption. It is a case of deliberate government suppression of fundamental evidence that would establish my innocence; I am 100% factually and morally innocent of the murder, which is readily observed by all who look into the case.

The overriding reason for my ongoing false imprisonment is that acknowledgment by the government of my innocence would severely damage the careers of those law enforcement agents who spearheaded the prosecution, and those who continue to work to keep me falsely convicted/imprisoned; the justice system would be exposed as grossly flawed; there would be lawsuits and monetary judgments; the world would know that those agents and others, as well as the justice system worked together in a corrupt way to convict an innocent person and allow the murderer(s) to remain free. Far from seeking truth and justice, those agents and others, as well as the justice system are rabid to maintain my false conviction/imprisonment, so as to protect their self-interests.

The details of the murder are gruesome. The evidence at trial suggested that Ann was strangled and then her throat was cut. Unrelated to the murder, her body was covered with bruises of various ages (recent beatings). Biological evidence (two human hairs) was discovered (one on Ann, and one immediately next to her body). I have NEVER set foot inside the residence where Ann was slain. On that fateful day, when one or more perpetrators entered Ann's residence in San Marcos, California, I was far away in Del Mar. Her philandering husband, however, was very near.

Gary Jenkins was supposed to be at work. He wasn't. In fact, Gary has never been able to establish where he was during those critical hours when it is believed Ann was murdered. While we may not know where he was, we do know why Ann was worth more to Gary dead than alive: he was engaged in a string of extramarital affairs; there was talk of a bitter divorce to come; he was drinking heavily and battered Ann regularly; there were rumors of his drug dealing; and he stood to inherit Ann's share of their jointly won lottery winnings of $750,000.00, as well as life insurance on Ann. Further, we know that Gary lied repeatedly to police about his whereabouts on the day of Ann's murder, that he and Ann fought the morning of her death, and Gary later secreted away (never to be found) the home-telephone answering machine tape (believed to contain evidence of Gary's call after leaving for work, wherein he raged against Ann, and his threats to return home to continue the fight).

Later on the day of the murder, when Gary was finally located hiding at his brother's house, and informed of something being wrong, i.e., that Ann had not picked up the children from school; Gary dawdled at his brother's for a long while! Gary dreaded returning home. Add to the above how Gary desperately pushed law enforcement at me, and it becomes clear that he was terrified of his darkest secret being exposed. In fact, when law enforcement established that I could not have left Del Mar, driven to the scene, committed the murder, and driven back to Del Mar in the narrow window of time I could not account for that day, it was Gary who took it upon himself to convince law enforcement otherwise. From the instant law enforcement arrived at the crime scene Gary was pointing his accusing finger at me. After all, he didn't want any of Ann's blood on his hands, so to speak. Although during my trial Gary testified that upon arriving home he didn't go near the body and absolutely did not touch Ann, it was proven that he, in fact, had Ann's blood on his fingers when he dialed 911. Gary and his then-latest flame attended the trial, until the prosecutor admonished Gary that such a brazen display was inappropriate. In a very short time Gary did squander all the lottery and insurance moneys, with nothing to show for it. There is another curious suspect.

David Johnson lived in southern-most Oregon, and was enamored with me. Johnson had a deeply disturbing hatred of Ann and Gary. Like Gary, Johnson was unable to account for his actions around the time of Ann's murder. Indeed, there were several days surrounding that critical time that Johnson could not account for; ample time in which he could have driven from Oregon to Ann's residence, commit the murder, and return to Oregon. He also held a twisted fascination with knives. Johnson testified at my preliminary hearing. Thereafter, however, Johnson told law enforcement agents that he would not testify at any trial. But the government forced him to testify. Upon hearing of my conviction of the murder, Johnson committed suicide. A suicide letter, left for law enforcement agents to discover, was forwarded to then-prosecutor, Larry A. Burns, who took it to the trial judge, David B. Moon, exhorting that it be sealed from my appellate lawyers. Moon issued a statement that a suicide letter had been received, was of no import, and was being sealed! Of no import; then why the need to seal it? That letter has never been disclosed to any defense attorney. Evidence of my innocence exists.

Prior to trial, Burns offered me a contract, offering that if I would agree to a polygraph test regarding the murder, and in the event I passed the test, no prosecution would occur. I jumped at the opportunity -- for the obvious reason that I am innocent! At the conclusion of the test, however, Burns had a sotto voce talk with his hand-picked examiner, and immediately took personal possession of the test evidence (all writings, notes, papers, questions, answers, graphs, everything). Burns has concealed that evidence to this day (none of that evidence was placed into any case file) and refuses to discuss the matter, other than to offer the self-serving suggestion that I failed the test. If I failed; then why the suppression of that evidence? There's more.

The two human hairs discovered from the crime scene (one from Ann's body, and one immediately next to her) remain tightly in the grip of San Diego District Attorney, Bonnis Dumanis, who has spent tens-of-thousands of taxpayer dollars to fight my efforts for deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") testing of the hairs. Dumanis and Burns do not want the hairs tested, because testing would prove the hairs are not mine (they have already been established as not from the victim), and would most probably prove the presence of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, hence proving my innocence. Dumanis and Burns know I have never set foot inside the residence where Ann was slain. At the time of trial, defense counsel, Alan May, informed me that Burns had stated his belief that I had some kind of knowledge about the murder, either before or after the crime. In fact, Burns told May that he (Burns) was "morally certain" I did not commit the murder, but "bet" he could "win" a conviction. It was a game to Burns. He really didn't care one way or the other; it wasn't about justice, anyway. I was convicted, not because of any guilt on my part, but because I was selected by a corrupt law enforcement agent for prosecution. It is of no surprise that Dumanis and Burns will do everything in their power to keep me falsely convicted/imprisoned.

Burns is corrupt. He is a criminal. He knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, thus knowingly secured the freedom of the real murderer(s). Moreover, to grease the prosecution, Burns allowed a parade of admitted criminals to go free in exchange for scripted assistance, protected from prosecution an individual who openly admitted to years of incestuous relations with his young daughters, suborned perjury by his witnesses, fabricated and concealed evidence, destroyed evidence, corrupted a defense investigator (and years later would use his position as a federal judge to gain the investigator's freedom from spousal batter (repeat offender) and arson (burned down her place of business) charges, threatened numerous witnesses favorable to me, ad nauseam. Burns should not only be subject to civil litigation for his constitutionally violative conduct, but he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Regrettably, Burns is now a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, at San Diego, and has been protected at every turn by his brethren.

Abundant evidence exists to prove my innocence, but for the corrupt law enforcement agents who keep that evidence suppressed. I remain falsely convicted and imprisoned.

  1. On 26 June, 1989, David Scott Harrison was charged by indictment with the murder of his former wife, Anne Jenkins. In addition to the charge of violating California Penal Code ("P.C.") § 187, it was further alleged that the accused personally used a knife, in violation of P.C. § 12022(d);
  2. On 26 February, 1990, in the Superior Court for the State of California, San Diego County, at Vista, Harrison waived trial by jury. A court trial commenced before judge David B. Moon on 27 February, 1990. Defense counsel was Alan May, and Special Prosecutor was Larry A. Burns;
  3. On 15 March, 1990, based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence (there was no direct evidence) and by altering testimony and facts, Moon found Harrison guilty of the charged offenses. Harrison was sentenced on 2 May, 1990, to a term of 25-years-to-life, consecutive to a one-year enhancement for use of a knife;
  4. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals for the State of California on 30 June, 1992;
  5. Writs of habeas corpus in both the state and federal arenas were denied;
  6. In time, Harrison became aware that two hairs recovered from off of and beside the victim existed, it was believed, in the possession of San Diego law enforcement authorities. Over the years Harrison sought information as to the existence of the hairs. Law enforcement repeatedly refused to provide any information, at one time even suggesting that the San Diego Sheriff's Department had no involvement in Harrison's cases, despite that Department having been the lead investigative agency of the homicide. Persistence eventually paid off. In answering a California Public Records Act request from Harrison, San Diego law enforcement begrudgingly conceded the two hairs did in fact remain in the possession and control of the Sheriff's Department;
  7. Harrison wrote dozens of letters to San Diego District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, urging her to DNA test the hairs. Dumanis refused every request. Having never set foot inside the murder-residence, thus believing the unidentified hairs to be from the perpetrator of the murder, Harrison prepared a CONTRACT offering terms you would think Dumanis, if she honestly believed Harrison to be guilty, could not refuse (in the event Dumanis would have the hairs DNA tested and if such tests should indicate the hairs as coming from Harrison, he would forever cease all efforts at vindication). The CONTRACT was presented to Dumanis at least a half-dozen times, but she rebuffed every presentation;
  8. At the same time, Dumanis and her staff were issuing statements and giving press interviews touting the creation of the District Attorney's Office's DNA Project. Ostensibly, the purpose of the DNA Project would be to review pre-DNA cases and determine which ones should receive DNA testing of biological evidence. For example, in the San Diego case of Highway Patrolman Graig Pryor, who had been telling everybody of his innocence of the murder of Cara Knott, the DNA Project offered testing. Pryor immediately declined, no doubt because he is guilty. Conversely, in Harrison's case, the factors of which far surpass the criteria set out by the DNA Project to warrant testing, Dumanis and then-staff of her Office and the DNA Project, George "Woody" Clarke, Lisa Weinreb and Daniel Lamborn, to this day, have refused every request Harrison has made for DNA testing, and refuse to provide any explanation for denying testing. In the Pryor case,. the inferences to be drawn are obvious; Dumanis and the DNA Project staff knew Pryor to be guilty, and Pryor refused' testing because he knew the results would have proven him guilty. In Harrison's case the inferences are just as obvious; Dumanis and the staff of her Office and the DNA Project, know Harrison to be innocent, as Harrison knows testing will ultimately prove his innocence. What Dumanis, et. al., including Larry A. Burns, greatly fear is the liability they face upon proof of Harrison's innocence and the years of false imprisonment he suffers as a direct result of their strenuous efforts to keep him falsely convicted and imprisoned;
  9. On 5 August, 2003, Harrison filed into the Superior Court a P.C. § 1405 motion seeking appointment of counsel. On 15 August, 2003, Harrison's P.C. § 1405 motion was granted. On 19 September, 2005, counsel filed into the Superior Court our Motion For DNA Testing, seeking an Order from that Court requiring the state to test the two hairs taken off of and from beside the victim's body. In a strategic misstep counsel argued to the court that testing of the hairs might establish them to be from suspect David Johnson. To that end, counsel asked the court to unseal a suicide letter left by David Johnson, arguing to the court that biological samples might be found therein and tested, and the results compared to testing results from the hairs. But P.C. § 1405 does not require the moving party to identify the murderer, only to persuade the court that test results (e.g., of an unidentified perpetrator) could have resulted in a more favorable outcome to the convicted person had such results been presented to the jury or trier of fact. Consistent with her ill-agenda, Dumanis opposed any search for the truth;
  10. Precisely as I had warned counsel might happen, the court used counsel's argument against us and refused to order the state to DNA test the hairs. In an Minute Order dated 1 December, 2005, the court opined that there was no reason to believe that any biological evidence would be found by unsealing the suicide letter, thus nothing to compare any testing results from the hairs to, and testing of the hairs alone would not establish them to be from David Johnson, or any other person. Counsel had given the court a way out and the court unscrupulously jumped at the opportunity;
  11. On 14 March, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed;
  12. Counsel next filed a Petition For Review. On 24 May, 2006, after having requested an answer from the state, the State Supreme Court denied our Petition For Review, letting stand the Superior Court's avoidance of testing the hairs;
  13. On 8 November, 2006, and authorized by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit's decision in OSBORNE v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT, 423 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2005), I filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suing Dumanis and Burns, seeking an Order from a federal judge requiring the state to provide me access to the hairs so that I could have them DNA tested at no cost to the state. As in all matters of my convictions, I immediately moved to recuse all judges of the San Diego District Court due to their absolute prejudice in favor of protecting fellow judge Burns and their blatantly illegal rulings against me in prior cases. The recusal was granted (judges acknowledging their prejudices and illegal rulings?). Not quite, San Diego transferred the case to a (handpicked) friendly and accommodating judge in Nevada. The Claim against Dumanis simply sought access to the hairs. In addition, I sued to force Burns to turn over my polygraph test results establishing my innocence (results which he secreted away, and have never been seen by any other person). I also sought access to the David Johnson suicide letter, which Burns showed to at least one of his, non-law enforcement associates before privately contacting the trial judge, Moon, and urging that the suicide letter be sealed from me. The district court judge dismissed the Claim against Burns and the Claim as to the suicide letter, but allowed the Claim against Dumanis to proceed;
  14. As expected, Dumanis' attorney opposed the lawsuit and any access by me to the hairs for DNA testing, regardless that the testing would be at no cost to the state;
  15. Soon after the judge ordered the case to proceed, I offered Dumanis a Joint Stipulation to settle the case, asking for access to the hairs. Dumanis, true to form, never responded to my offer, choosing instead that taxpayers bear the tens-of-thousands of dollars in costs to oppose the lawsuit;
  16. On or about 12 February, 2007, Dumanis filed a Motion To Dismiss the Complaint arguing that because the § 1405 motion had been denied, I should not be allowed any other opportunity to argue for testing of the hairs. But there is a distinction between the cases. For example, § 1405 requires the state to pay the costs of DNA testing, where OSBORNE authorizes access to the hairs so that they may be DNA tested at my costs;
  17. Discovery (Requests For Production, Interrogatories and Admissions) was served upon Dumanis. Her attorney sidestepped all discovery;
  18. On 7 March, 2007, I filed Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss;
  19. On or about 16 March, 2007, Dumanis filed a Reply to my Opposition;
  20. On 18 April, 2007, the Court Dismissed the Complaint;
  21. On 7 May, 2007, I filed my Motion For Reconsideration raising arguments of Due Process violations, miscarriage of justice, and abuse of discretion (court's decision based on erroneous interpretations of law and fact). Despite ever mounting costs to state taxpayers, on or abut 10 May, 2007; Dumanis filed an Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration. Although provided to the court on 17 May, 2007, my Reply To Defendant's Opposition was not filed until 11 June, 2007;
  22. Having not heard from the court at all since the court's last Order of 18 April, 2007, dismissing the Complaint nor since my Reply of 11 June, 2007, I sent off a STATUS REQUEST letter, dated 15 July, 2007, to the Clerk of the Court asking what, if anything, had happened since the filing of my Reply;
  23. On 24 July, 2007, I received from the Clerk a Civil Docket record showing that the court had denied my Motion For Reconsideration on 12 June, 2007. THAT ORDER WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO ME. WORSE YET, THE COURT HAD APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCKET RECORD, MADE A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF DENIAL IMMEDIATELY UPON THE FILING OF THE OPPOSITION BY DUMANIS, BEFORE MY REPLY HAD BEEN RECEIVED -- THAT ORDER WAS ALSO NEVER PROVIDED TO ME. THE CLERKS, AS WE KNOW JUDGE BURNS AND HIS COHORTS TO BE, ARE CORRUPT! THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION -- HAVING ACTED SIMILARLY ON OTHER OCCASIONS -- THAT THE CLERKS DELIBERATELY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING BURNS, WITHHELD THE ORDERS SO THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAL THE CASE! INDEED, BY THE TIME I RECEIVED THE DOCKET RECORD AND DISCOVERED THE ORDER DENYING MY RECONSIDERATION MOTION, THE THIRTY-DAY TIME PERIOD TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL HAD LAPSED. BY DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING BOTH ORDERS THE CLERKS SUCCEEDED IN DERAILING THE CASE;
  24. Having discovered the malfeasance of the Clerks, on 27 July, 2007, I sent to the court for filing my Motion For Leave To File Belated Notice Of Appeal, explaining in a supporting Declaration under the penalty of perjury that I had not received any Order and only discovered for the first time upon receipt of the Docket record that an Order had issued;
  25. As stated above, the Clerks of the San Diego District Court are as dishonest and corrupt as the judges they work for. Judge Burns is a criminal, prosecuting me for a murder he boasted to defense counsel his moral certainty I did not commit, and at every turn his brethren and the clerks of the courthouse work to protect Burns from the accountability and responsibility he will face when I am finally able to have my day in court -- a day Burns will have to reckon with sooner or later; THE REAL MURDERER(S) REMAIN(S) FREE. DUMANIS AND BURNS SINK EVER DEEPER INTO THE DEPTHS OF HYPOCRISY AND DUPLICITY.
  26. My Notice Of Appeal was eventually accepted as timely filed, and the Court Of Appeals issued a Scheduling Order on 24 August, 2007;
  27. On appeal the state continued to argue that despite my having access to the two hairs in 1990 when DNA testing did not exist, the state's withholding of the hairs -- now that DNA technology exists to test the hair and determine their donor(s) -- does not violate my Due Process right of access to evidence. In other words, it is the state's position that the United States Constitution, and well-established case law, only require that law enforcement turn over evidence that cannot be tested, but once testing exists to thoroughly test the evidence, the evidence can be withheld so that testing cannot be conducted. Of course, there is the equally significant fact that testing of the hairs could free me from a wrongful conviction and identify the real perpetrator(s) of the murder; matters that the state apparently wishes to avoid at any cost;
  28. On 5 March, 2008, my Appellant's Informal Reply Brief was filed, thus completing briefing. The Court Of Appeals will eventually issue its opinion whether the Due Process Clause of the Constitution entitles me to access to the hairs for DNA testing purposes (or whether the truth seeking process is just a sham);
  29. 25 April, 2009. While awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on whether I have a constitutional right of access to biological evidence being withheld from me by San Diego District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari (commonly known as "cert.") on a case out of Alaska on the same question. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments early last month, and a decision will be issued soon. The Ninth Circuit is no doubt waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the Alaska case, and will thereafter issue a ruling in my case along the lines of the Supreme Court's decision. Simply, if the Supreme Court decides that federal courts can order access to biological evidence for DNA testing, then we will most likely receive a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit. But if the Supreme Court decides that access to biological evidence is solely up to the discretion of the individual states, then we are sunk. Proving my innocence by DNA testing of the biological evidence probably comes down to the Supreme Court's impending decision. It is a shame that state law enforcement officials would even want to withhold biological evidence that could prove the innocence of a person convicted of a crime. Indeed, the argument was made to the Supreme Court on how the State of Alaska was opposing testing of evidence that would conclusively prove whether the convicted person was innocent or guilty (rape case). How could anyone not want to discover the absolute truth of the matter? Unfortunately, that is the problem I've had all along with Bonnie Dumanis, who has opposed my efforts to access the biological evidence, despite my repeated offers to pay for the testing. So now we wait for the Supreme Court's decision.
  30. Alas, on 18 June, 2009, the United States Supreme Court, true to its right wing conservative composition, decided in a 5-to-4 decision that prisoners, such as myself, have no constitutional right of access to biological evidence, post-conviction, for DNA testing. The decision of access was left to state law enforcement agents. Now, what sense does that make? The very law enforcement agents who secured the conviction are not about to provide access to evidence that could prove their own efforts and results wholly false. San Diego District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, no doubt breathed a huge sigh of relief, knowing that the Supreme Court's ruling effectively eliminates my chances of access to the evidence being suppressed by her -- evidence she knows would prove my innocence of the murder.
  31. On 4 July, 2009, appropriately, I sent to each of the nine justices of the Supreme Court a letter expressing in somewhat restrained (not offensive) terms my opinion of their decision, and asked that each of them provide me a reply explaining how they could so nonchalantly issue such a decision. Not surprisingly, no justice has bothered to explain themselves.
  32. Following the law of the Supreme Court, on 19 August, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals issued a short Order finding that I have no post-conviction constitutional right of access to the biological evidence being suppressed. The Court Of Appeals' Order became final on 18 September, 2009.
  33. The next step for us will be to begin again back at the Superior Court seeking an Order from the State that Dumanis provide me access to the biological evidence. A long shot, but is all that is left by judicial means after the Supreme Court's decision.

26 November, 2013 (8:50 a.m.)

David Scott Harrison
#E-62612
San Quentin State Prison @ 5-N-70
San Quentin, CA 94974

Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
County of San Diego
330 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

RE: THE PEOPLE v. DAVID SCOTT HARRISON, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. CRN.16848) DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID TESTING OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT #7009 3410 0000 9099 6928

Dear Ms. Dumanis: You have in your possession, custody and control biological evidence (two hairs) that were collected from the immediate crime scene. As you have previously and repeatedly been made aware, deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") testing would most certainly establish my innocence of the erroneous murder conviction I suffer.

The essential facts are:

  1. I have never set foot inside the residence wherein the murder occurred, hence the two hairs did not come from me;
  2. The state's forensic expert established that the two hairs did not come from the victim;
  3. My conviction resulted from 100% (weak) circumstantial evidence;
  4. Not only was there no evidence placing me at the crime scene, there was a witness to the victim arguing with a man that the witness testified was not me;
  5. Identity of the perpetrator/perpetrators was the fundamental issue of the trial;
  6. The two hairs were most certainly left at the crime scene by the perpetrator/perpetrators (the murder was very much intimate, physical and hands-on); and
  7. DNA testing of the two hairs (they are not from the victim or myself) would most certainly provide the (a) identity of the perpetrator/perpetrators, or (b) establish that an unknown perpetrator/perpetrators were present at the crime scene.

The above facts are unassailable.

Obviously, had DNA test results been available at the time of my prosecution identifying the perpetrator/perpetrators, or simply an unknown perpetrator/perpetrators -- I would not have suffered conviction for a murder I am innocent of. The legal standard for DNA testing is simply that:

"[t]he requested DNA testing results would raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence, the convicted person's verdict or sentence would have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of conviction."

See, e.g., California Penal Code, 1405 (f) (5). The facts of my case far surpass the legal standard for DNA testing.

DNA testing was not available at the time of my prosecution and conviction. Accordingly, I am requesting that you seek justice in this case by having the two hairs tested using the most advanced DNA testing now available, from any laboratory of your choosing. I ask that the DNA test results be run through State of California and federal databases to seek a match. Of course, I ask that the DNA results be compared to my DNA profile on record with the State of California. If you request, I am happy to provide new biological samples for comparison purposes. I request that all DNA test results, findings, reports, opinions, etc., as well as the outcome of the searches of the databases be provided to me.

Further, I offer to pay all costs of the DNA testing, searches of databases, comparisons, findings, reports, opinions, etc., at no cost to your office, the State of California or her taxpayers in the event the DNA testing results/comparisons show the hairs as originating from me. In other words, there'll be no cost to anyone but myself in the event the DNA test results match my DNA.

There can be no argument that you have in your possession, custody and control biological evidence (two hairs) that, subjected to DNA testing, would certainly cast doubt upon the correctness of the murder conviction I suffer, hence your ethical duty to seek justice in this case.

"[A]fter a conviction the prosecutor also is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of after-acquired or other information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction. Cf. ABA, Code of Professional Responsibility EC 7-13 (1969); ABA, Standards, supra, 3.11."

See, Imbler v. Pachtman, 404 U.S. 409, 427 n. 25, 96 S.Ct. 984, 993 n. 25, 47 L.Ed.2d 128, 141 (1976); Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 771-72 n. 6 (9th Cir.2012) (accord).

Accordingly, I ask that you agree to the requests and terms presented herein.

In advance, thank you for your consideration of this most important matter. Please advise.

I remain

Yours Sincerely, David S. Harrison

To Be Continued ...

If you have any questions or comments, or would like to correspond with Dave, please Contact Me. Home-Menu