Dana Nessel Must Go!

Google: FreeMe Podcast for all listening platforms.www.cominghomecoalition.com A 501c NONPROFITAny thumbnails you like or would like to have on any type of merchandise, reach out to me or search for your favorite thumbnail here.. Please support at  www.cominghomecoalition.comOn 12/23/19 Temujin Kensu was accepted in Michigan's CIU (Conviction Integrity Unit) for processing of his innocence. For nearly the next 3 years Temujin, his family, his supporters and his attorneys were under the understanding and impression that everyone realized this man's innocence and was working to get him out.   A clemency application with Governor Gretchen Whitmer was pending and denied by the Governor in December 2020 for the reason that the parole board didn't support the clemency.  The parole board admittedly does not consider innocence in its review, so if remorse for the crime is not demonstrated, they will never support clemency.   By this time, the State CIU team led by Michigan's AG Dana Nessel was assigning different people to investigate this case. While a case is with the CIU, the inmate is prevented from seeking any other type of relief (no appeals can be filed). The supposed "investigation" was initially stalled due to a "conflict" in the AG's office, and later Val Newman was assigned as Special Assistant AG to spearhead an investigation.   Ultimately on May 17th, 2022, Temujin's family woke up to find out that Temujin's case had been closed without rhyme or reason.  Temujin's family then went to Michigan's website for the CIU and found that its criteria had been changed back in April of 2020 to a very narrow standard (very similar to the appellate court standard) which severely limits what can be considered for review.  AG Dana Nessel created the unit with the promise of reviewing cases to determine if the convictions had integrity.  In doing so, she set the criteria upon establishing the unit and her office made multiple verbal statements in addition to statements followed up in writing about what would be considered "new evidence" in its review.