™️ DISCLOSURE EYES
To Judge Anderson,
To Judge York
To whom it may concern.
To the American People, and to Whom It May Concern:
Re: Haltom v. City of Henderson — Diplomatic Pathway to Truth, Accountability, and Systemic Reform
Your Honors,
In the matter of Haltom v. City of Henderson, we write not only to address the Court’s requirement to dismiss evidentiary objections but to propose a transformative
diplomatic framework that aligns with the Constitution’s promise of justice, the
prophetic mandate for mercy (Micah 6:8), and the urgent need to dismantle structural violence embedded in systems of power. As the Court weighs its next steps, we urge consideration of a pathway that prioritizes truth, healing, and collective accountability over punitive escalation—a course that risks ensnaring all parties in cycles of retribution rather than repair.
I. Context: A Moment for Moral and Legal Reckoning
The defense’s evidentiary objections, while procedurally contested, underscore a deeper crisis: the systemic rot of corruption, institutional opacity, and harm perpetuated by entities like the Henderson Police Department and Condor Corporation. Criminal charges, though lawful, risk obscuring the root causes of this harm. As Scripture warns, “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32). To that end, we propose a diplomatic accord to unearth the full truth while advancing restorative justice.
II. Proposed Diplomatic Framework
In the spirit of “establish[ing] justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare” (U.S. Constitution, Preamble), we submit the following terms:
1. Immunity for Truthful Testimony
○ Grant transactional immunity to all parties (including Henderson PD and Condor representatives) for full, candid disclosures regarding:
■ Systemic misconduct, including racial profiling, evidence tampering, or abuse of authority.
■ Financial and political ties between unknown agents together with local government, and law enforcement.
○ Precedent: Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (immunity lawful if testimony compelled).
2. Civil Disclosures and Public Transparency
○ Require Henderson PD and their partner agency to produce all records linking institutional actions to structural violence, including:
■ Internal communications, budgets, and contracts demonstrating quid pro quo arrangements.
■ Data on policing practices (e.g., stops, use of force) disaggregated by race, class, and neighborhood.
○ Precedent: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (due process obligates disclosure of exculpatory evidence).
3. Ambassadorial Oversight
○ Designate an independent, court-appointed Diplomatic Arbiter (per 28 U.S.C. § 533) to oversee negotiations, ensure compliance, and publish findings for public accountability.
III. Legal and Ethical Imperative
This framework honors the Court’s duty to act as a “minister of justice” (Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)) while addressing systemic harm:
● Structural Violence as a 14th Amendment Violation: Inequitable policing and corporate collusion deny “equal protection of the laws” (Brown v. Board, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)).
● Judicial Mercy as Constitutional Wisdom: Courts retain inherent authority to “fashion equitable remedies” (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)) to heal societal fractures.
The micro-level harm that occurred on April 19, 2024 was only a small example of larger systemic darkness and corrupt practices. “We’re willing to discuss… everything?” Theanswer to this question will demand courage to transcend potential adversarial posturing. The alternative—criminal trials—risks shielding systemic actors behind procedural defenses while perpetuating public distrust.
IV. Conclusion: A Call for Covenantal Justice
Your Honors, the prophet Isaiah charges us to “seek justice, correct oppression” (Isaiah 1:17). This case presents an opportunity to heed that call by:
● Replacing punitive escalation with truth-telling,
● Exposing corruption through sunlight diplomacy,
● Restoring dignity to victims and communities.
We urge the Court to convene a diplomatic summit under its supervisory authority (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and adopt this framework. Let Haltom v. City of Henderson become a landmark not of division, but of systemic resurrection.
Respectfully submitted,
-Joshua Haltom (Josiah, sui juris, pro se)
Ambassador for Temple of Light and Life,
Haltom Family Ministries
Note: This letter merges constitutional principles, case law, and ethical imperatives to advocate for a non-adversarial resolution.
Share this page:
