qUEST FOR JUSTICE

 Just for a moment, picture yourself being falsely accused of something you didn’t do.  Next, picture everything that you have & own (your savings, your checking, your retirement nest-egg, your personal possessions, your investments, everything) illegally being taken from you in order to prevent you from defending yourself against that false accusation which was made.  Top all of this off with a superficial, sensationalized media campaign that distances even you closest of friends & allies, and you begin to understand for a moment exactly what Mr. Larsen has experienced and been unjustly forced to live firsthand for years.

David Larsen has been falsely imprisoned without a trial while being denied even the most basic of constitutional right, including being prevented from retaining Counsel of Choice (with one’s own rightful & legitimate monies and assets) for a criminal prosecution.  This campaign seeks to raise funds to obtain competent appellate legal counsel for Mr. Larsen, since he has illegally been denied of obtaining such himself.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and Larsen has been denied for far, far too long already.  Any and all assistance is actively and enthusiastically welcomed.  Attorneys, paralegals, other legal professionals, and anybody actively wishing to become involved on Larsen’s behalf can contact him directly at his current address (listed below).  The creation of a stand-alone website providing far greater detail than what can be accommodated here (concerning Larsen’s situation & circumstance) is in the works, and will eventually be linked to this site/link pending it’s completion.  What is detailed below is merely the tip of the iceberg as it pertains to the false imprisonment of David Larsen, but is intended to give you enough of a glimpse into this egregious ongoing injustice to want to contribute to this campaign immediately, and in the process, help to reverse that injustice accordingly.

*To begin with, Larsen was accused & convicted of a crime that he did not commit (attempted homicide & kidnapping of his ex-wife).  Even evidentiary transcripts suggest the staging of a crime scene, and as such, it should be noted that the “alleged victim” (Larsen’s ex-wife) has a long, and well-documented history of not only attempting to fake her own abduction, but also of staging multiple other attention-seeking faked occurrences.

*Larsen had a seven-figure net worth, but was allowed access to absolutely nothing that was rightfully & legitimately his for purpose of obtaining ANY counsel whatsoever. 

*All of Larsen’s assets (personal, business, and retirement) were illegally seized (WITHOUT ANY HEARING) despite having absolutely nothing to do with any charge, and no nexus to any crime whatsoever.  They were taken solely for purposes of preventing Larsen from obtaining “Counsel of Choice,” and comments in the court record directly point to such.  There was NO pre-deprivation hearing, as is required by law.  There was NO post-deprivation hearing either. 

*To add insult to injury, this illegal wholesale seizure of all assets (WITHOUT A HEARING!) was facilitated by a person with the most serious of conflicts of interest.  The judge who illegally seized all of Larsen’s assets and accounts was the wife of the District Attorney  prosecuting Larsen in the same County Circuit Court.  Wisconsin Statute 757.19(2) specifically required her to disqualify herself, but this did NOT occur!  Instead, she illegally seized all of Larsen’s personal accounts and assets, business accounts and assets, rental accounts and assets, 401K retirement funds, IRA accounts, a sovereign irrevocable Trust account, assets and funds from a sovereign Limited Liability Company, and assets and funds from a sovereign Family Limited Partnership.  This all occurred without warrant, without notice, without cause, and without any type of pre-deprivation hearing, as is required by law.  No post-deprivation, or forfeiture hearing occurred either.  Everything Larsen had ever owned or had an interest in, was just illegally taken, and by a person with the most serious of conflicts of interest as was possible!
*Seizure of retirement assets alone (several hundred thousand dollars) blatantly violated the anti-forfeiture and anti-alienation clauses of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 
*U.S. Supreme Court has recently stated, in Luis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016), literally word-for-word, what Larsen has been stating to anyone who would listen for years (government cannot purposefully prevent somebody from obtaining Counsel of Choice when they have the means & ability to do so!)  If not for the illegal seizure, Larsen could have hired an entire firm and/or legal team, as opposed to just a single attorney, but instead, he was not allowed to retain ANYBODY at all. 

Two statements from the U.S. Supreme Court are worth noting here, before continuing:

*The United States Supreme Court stated in 2016 that the government cannot improperly freeze assets of a defendant when those assets have no connection to the charged crimes, thereby depriving the defendant of those untainted assets intended to pay for counsel, because doing so deprives the defendant of his fundamental right to the assistance of counsel of the defendant’s choice  at the defendant’s expense.  The court further stated that the government’s non-constitutional  interest in preserving the assets to provide for payment of potential criminal forfeitures or restitution if the defendant was convicted is not the equivalent of the defendant’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel of the defendant’s choice.  Luis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016).

*The United States Supreme Court stated in 2006 that, “Where the right to be assisted by counsel of one’s choice is wrongly denied, therefore, it is unnecessary to conduct an ineffectiveness or prejudice inquiry to establish a Sixth amendment violation.  Deprivation of the right is ‘complete’ when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received.  To argue otherwise is to confuse the right to counsel of choice--which is the right to a particular lawyer regardless of comparative effectiveness--with the right to effective counsel--which imposes a baseline requirement of competence on whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed.”  United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148 (2006). 

*Larsen was not “Mirandized.” (Document in federal transcripts.)

*Larsen was initially denied BOTH an attorney and a phone call for days, despite his repeated requests for both (when initially detained). 

*Larsen was interrogated by officers outside of their jurisdiction.

*Those same officers also collected evidence outside of their jurisdiction.

*Larsen was denied a hearing in the district of arrest, and even an extradition hearing, yet was transported from Illinois to Wisconsin after being held in Illinois for 3 days.

*There were 3 warrantless searches of Larsen’s home made hours apart with no attempt ever made to obtain a warrant.  One search alone lasted OVER 7 hours, and there was never any probable cause to begin with to enter on the first one.  Also, in between those searches, Larsen’s home was left unsecured & unattended FOR HOURS before they then decided to later post an officer there. 

*Investigators obtained their approval to search from prosecutors, rather than a judge, as is required by law. 

*Police were tracking both Larsen’s cell phone and the cell phone of Larsen’s ex-wife (the alleged victim).  According to cell phone company records, those two cell phones were never in the same place at the same time.  Yet she claimed to be making cell phone calls from the back of Larsen’s truck.  Not only were these two cell phones not “pinging” off of the same cell phone tower at any given point in time, but they were also in vastly different areas as extreme as one being in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the other being in Chicago, Illinois.

*DNA evidence alone exonerates Larsen, but was never presented by appointed counsel.

*Demand for Speedy Trial was ignored for over 563 days.

*No compliance with Government’s own “Petit Policy.”

*Not one single eye-witness as to the events claimed by alleged victim.

* Hospital records & medical records completely contradict the allegations of supposed victim. 

Again, the above is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the multiple injustices which have led to the false imprisonment of David Larsen.  Please help us to raise the funds necessary to reverse this egregious injustice.

If the injustice surrounding the flat-out illegal seizure of every single non-forfeitable asset that a person possesses and has worked all of their life for, coupled with thereafter being completely  prevented from hiring counsel of one’s own choosing (for purposes of defending one’s self against an unfounded criminal accusation) does not rise to the level of compelling you to become involved for the sake of helping to overturn this blatant injustice, then what ever would?