By Ewing Redmond Samuels III
Founder, Samuels Enterprises, LLC

---

Executive Notice and Purpose of Record

This public statement, issued in 2026, serves as a formal factual record, legal notice, and due diligence dossier regarding unlawful conduct committed by agents and authorities of the State of Arizona in the matter styled State of Arizona vs. Ewing Redmond Samuels.

Its purpose is threefold:

1. To provide verified factual documentation for investors, institutions, partners, and any party conducting due diligence regarding my legal history, professional standing, and character.
2. To establish a clear record of State accountability, liability, and constitutional violations, supported by identifiable court records, transcripts, discovery materials, and witness histories that can be independently verified.
3. To formally place State and Federal authorities on public notice that their conduct is being documented, preserved, and examined under applicable constitutional, civil rights, and international legal frameworks.

This statement is not issued from a position of victimhood. It is issued from a position of legal clarity, factual certainty, and institutional accountability.

I am not presenting a defense. I am presenting an indictment of unlawful conduct.

“The State of Arizona has a legal framework that wins by fraud and technicalities, as it does not address merits.”

---

Legal Framework: Binding Constitutional and International Protections

The conduct described herein implicates violations of established United States Supreme Court precedent, including but not limited to:

• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
  Establishes the prosecution’s affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
• Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
  Requires disclosure of impeachment evidence affecting credibility of State witnesses.
• Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)
  Prohibits the State from presenting or allowing false testimony to stand uncorrected.
• Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)
  Establishes that deliberate deception by the State violates due process.
• Equal Protection Clause, Fourteenth Amendment
  Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
• Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution
  Guarantees the right to confront witnesses and receive a fair trial.

Additionally, these actions implicate violations of internationally recognized human rights law, including:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 7, 9, 10, and 11
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 14 and 26

These legal protections are not discretionary. They are binding.

---

Prosecutorial Conduct: Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis

Deputy County Attorney Lori Eidemanis, acting under color of State authority, engaged in conduct that demonstrates knowing, willful, and deliberate concealment of material evidence.

This includes, but is not limited to:

Concealment of Impeachment Evidence: State Witness Jamil Trevon Curd

Jamil Trevon Curd formed the foundation of the State’s case. However, material impeachment evidence was withheld, including:

• Criminal history
• Arrest record history
• Outstanding warrants active during trial proceedings
• Ongoing criminal exposure and investigation status

This information was known to the State and suppressed from the defense and jury.

Such suppression constitutes a textbook Brady and Giglio violation.

Further, during trial proceedings, law enforcement officers appeared to arrest Curd pursuant to active warrants. Judicial intervention prevented the arrest in the presence of the jury, and the jury was not informed of these material facts affecting credibility.

This concealment directly deprived the jury of essential information required to evaluate witness reliability.

---

Concealment and Coordination with State Investigative Authorities

The lead investigative authority, Detective Marchele Miller of the Phoenix Police Department, acted as the State’s case manager and investigative agent.

Material impeachment information concerning the integrity, investigative conduct, and credibility of State investigative authorities was likewise withheld.

The coordination between prosecutorial and investigative authorities reflects conduct executed under color of State authority, for which the State of Arizona bears full institutional responsibility.

Under established law, misconduct by State agents is legally attributable to the State itself.

---

Material Omission of Exculpatory Context Regarding Lawful Residence

At the time of the incident forming the basis of prosecution:

• I was present inside my legally leased residence.
• I was the sole lawful occupant.
• The residence was under my legal control.

Material facts regarding unlawful entry and presence by the State’s primary witness were not presented accurately or fully to the jury.

The State advanced narratives unsupported by corroborating testimony from individuals whose statements were referenced but never subjected to cross-examination.

This conduct deprived the defense of constitutionally guaranteed confrontation rights.

---

Judicial Authority and Institutional Responsibility

The presiding court, under Judge George H. Foster, Jr., maintained supervisory authority over trial integrity.

Judicial authority carries a constitutional duty to ensure:

• Fair trial standards
• Proper disclosure compliance
• Integrity of proceedings

The court’s actions, rulings, and procedural allowances contributed to the conditions under which constitutional violations occurred.

This establishes institutional responsibility beyond individual actors.

It implicates the judicial system itself as an accountable authority.

---

Equal Protection and Pattern-Based Constitutional Exposure

The conduct in this matter reflects characteristics consistent with selective enforcement, discriminatory exposure, and unequal application of legal protections.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits State actors from engaging in enforcement practices influenced by:

• Race
• Color
• National origin

The record demonstrates circumstances that warrant scrutiny under these constitutional protections.

This is not an abstract principle. It is enforceable law.

---

State Liability Under Color of Law

All actions described were conducted under color of law, meaning:

• By agents of the State
• Using authority granted by the State
• Within official institutional capacity

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related civil rights statutes, State actors and institutions may be held accountable for constitutional violations.

The State bears liability for actions performed by its agents.

This liability does not disappear with time.

It remains actionable.

---

Notice to Investors, Institutions, and Due Diligence Authorities

This record exists to ensure clarity, transparency, and factual certainty for any entity evaluating my professional standing, credibility, or legal history.

Every statement contained herein corresponds to verifiable records, including:

• Court transcripts
• Trial records
• Witness histories
• Discovery records
• Official filings

These materials can be verified directly through official court systems or through documentation in my possession.

This is not speculation.

It is documented fact.

---

Affirmation of Presence, Record Integrity, and Institutional Accountability

I make the following declaration without hesitation or ambiguity:

I have never hidden from truth. I do not run from facts. I do not evade scrutiny. I do not disappear when examined.

I stand fully visible, fully accountable, and fully present.

My life, work, and record have existed in the open, documented across decades of professional activity in technology, music, and business. The notion that I would suddenly abandon a lawful life and transform into a criminal actor at 38 years of age, inside my own legally leased residence, where my five-year-old child resided, is not only unsupported by factual evidence, it is logically and evidentially inconsistent.

Such a narrative does not withstand scrutiny when examined against objective facts, timelines, character history, and documented evidence.

It is a constructed narrative.

The State presented allegations. I present the record.

The distinction is critical.

Allegations are assertions.
The record is proof.

The record includes:

• Court transcripts
• Witness histories
• Suppressed impeachment evidence
• Discovery omissions
• Official filings
• Documented procedural conduct
• Verifiable timelines
• Institutional actions under color of law

These records exist independently of opinion, narrative, or interpretation. They remain permanent, verifiable, and accessible.

Truth does not depend on who speaks louder. Truth depends on what can be proven.

I have preserved that proof.

I remain fully accessible to any lawful authority, investor, institutional partner, or independent reviewer seeking verification. I have never concealed my identity, my location, or my professional activities. I have continued to operate openly and lawfully.

This is not the conduct of an individual attempting to evade accountability.

This is the conduct of an individual documenting institutional misconduct.

The State, through its agents and authorities, possessed constitutional obligations. Those obligations were not discretionary. They were mandatory. Where the State failed to meet those obligations, it bears responsibility under the law.

The existence of these records ensures that accountability is not theoretical. It is evidentiary.

This dossier exists to ensure that all parties reviewing my professional standing understand the distinction between narrative and record, between allegation and proof, and between institutional authority and lawful conduct.

I do not rely on belief.
I rely on documentation.

The record stands on its own authority.

And the record does not disappear.

Truthfully,

Ewing R. Samuels III

---