Hiding The Truth
- MANUMIT ME
- Nov 22, 2025
- 3 min read
Hello everyone,
For those who don’t know, we’ve been working to expose an ongoing attack against the people, an attack carried out by our own government.
And now, it looks like the courts are covering up the truth as well.
Recently, we presented an issue before the court:
"The government had to prove that [the defendant] knew that the mixture or substance contained a detectable amount of the controlled substance, cocaine."
The court labeled this as a mens rea claim (having knowledge claim).
Before we could even get the court to address this, we had to find a way around the time limit for filing a motion. We did use:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c); Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Rule 15(c) allowed us to amend our original, timely motion so that the court could hear our claim. This process is called "relation back."
So, everything should be good, right?
Nope. Wrong.
After acknowledging that our claim related back, meaning it should not be time-barred, the court still said it was untimely.
The Contradiction
"A defendant’s failure to raise a challenge to his conviction or sentence on direct appeal results in that claim being procedurally defaulted."
[and]
After analyzing defendant's mens rea claim as if it related back to the defendant's initial section 2255 motion, the court fines that such claim is untimely."
[See Order 1094.pdf on pg. 8]
Did you catch that? They admitted the claim relates back but still ruled it untimely.
I know most of you aren’t lawyers; neither am I, but this is a deliberate cover-up. A judge knowingly ignored the law just to avoid addressing the reality:
The government has been locking people up for drugs without proving they knew the substance was illegal. And here she is:
You don’t have to take my word for it. Read it for yourself. The Supreme court and the
appeals court said:
"An otherwise untimely pleading that satisfies this [relation back] test will be considered to have been filed on the date of the original pleading for timeliness purposes."
See: Mayle v. Felix (545 U.S. 644, 654, 2005), United States v. King (2022), United States v. Martin (2022), Hicks (283 F.3d at 387, D.C. Cir. 2002)
Twisting the Argument to Avoid Accountability
But the cover-up doesn’t stop there. The judge intentionally distorted our argument to avoid addressing the truth.
She claimed:
"The Defendant’s mens rea claim (...is separate from the ineffective assistance claims.)"
[See Order 1094.pdf on pg. 6]
FALSE!
That is a lie! We did argue that our lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise the mens rea claim. If we hadn’t, the court could dismiss it as "procedurally defaulted", As a result, the court could sidestep our argument, and that’s precisely what she stated.
"A defendant’s failure to raise a challenge to his conviction or sentence on direct appeal results in that claim being procedurally defaulted."
[See Order 1094.pdf on pg. 6]
It’s obvious why she lied, claiming that our mens rea argument was separate from the ineffective assistance claim, she knows that one way to bypass procedural default is by arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. She did this to shut the argument down.
But here’s the kicker, the court itself ruled in 2010 that:
"Ineffective assistance of counsel may provide cause for procedural default." See: Casseday v. United States (723 F. Supp. 2d 137, 2010)
Here’s what we actually argued:
"Ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel can serve as 'cause' to overcome procedural default."
[See Order 1094.pdf on pg. 6]
"Both trial and direct appeal counsel were incompetent for not challenging the defective indictment [mens rea claim]."
Petitioner was actually and substantially placed at a disadvantage as a result of the failure to raise his McFadden [mens rea] claim at an earlier stage, which prejudiced him. Counsel knew, or should have known, that a defendant in a criminal case should move to dismiss an indictment before trial for "failure to state an offense."
[See Order 1094.pdf on pg. 8]
So, Ask Yourself: What’s Really Going On?
We just showed you:
✔ The judge ignored Supreme Court rulings.
✔ She falsely claimed our argument wasn’t related to ineffective assistance.
✔ She twisted our argument to justify dismissing it.
Why? Because they don’t want to admit the truth.
The government is locking people up for drugs without proving they knew the substance was illegal and the courts are helping them cover it up.
This has to end. And we need your help.
Comments