Here, we will show two suppression motions, to be efiled immediately. Please, if you will, take note of it, all the while taking further note to observe the smug look of an over-confident and giddy defendant...:D
MOTION TO SUPPRESS:
1. COMES NOW, Christopher Bruce: In his motion to suppress, as evidence presented throughout this case, proceeding and open; in first, the removal hearing, held July 29th, 2014, second, the adjudication hearing, held September 12th, 2014, and, in the order and petition; causing the legal removal of the designated child in these proceedings, Trilynn Brueggeman, as legal reasons that have been presented as evidence in this case, also given to have this child removed, legally; I now state, in defiance of the use of this blog as evidence and reported evidence; against these defendants; as unconstitutional; for the court’s records, I now give these reasons:
2. Because this blog; an editorial piece, presented by this author, Christopher Bruce, as such, and also as his given opinion; concerning any subject, up to and including this case, its facts, as well as his wont to declare his decided opinion concerning all entities involved; is intended to be only a way for this author in which to candidly present, to his audience, feelings and fleeting thoughts concerning whichever subject he should be considering on any given day at any particular time. These time frames may only take up as many seconds as it takes for a thought to be processed; and should not be framed otherwise by anyone else, who is not the author; who might choose to peruse this blog; as a set time frame for factual statements or to be used in an evidentiary manner. Hereby, it is the finding of this defendant and author: that any idea, opinion or thought; expressed in the body of any of these stated editorials, as they are presented; should never be able to be legally brought against any person, who might also be involved in this case; in a legal manner, up to and including the author; or be used as evidence against this or any defendant.
3. Regardless of this court’s argument, as well may be refuted against this motion, that Iowa Law provides this court, as well as this proceeding, confidentiality for all involved in this case, as well as its content, the author and defendant in this case, Christopher Bruce, has a God-given Constitutional right, per the first Amendment to its Constitution of the United States; to be able to; per this Federally-mandated right; be able to publish this author’s continued opinion of the facts presented here in this case, the entities who prosecute and rule over this case, as well as the instigators of this case, presented as themselves, and hereby named, as belonging to The Department of Human Services/Child Protective Unit; regardless of its confidentiality; as long as the author refrains from stating these facts as stated, word for word, by its participants; without fear of it being used in an evidentiary or a reported evidentiary manner against the aforementioned author and defendant in this case.
3. That ALL evidence, presented as fact; as used as evidence or reported evidentiary; in the Order for Removal, the CINA petition, the Removal Hearing, The Adjudication Hearing, as well as any subsequent documents or hearings in which this editorial blog is or will be used as evidence or reported to be such, should be hereby suppressed and no longer used as such evidence, and should also be stricken from all court records as such evidence. Using editorial opinion as evidence of fact should not be allowed in any court-related legal proceeding, as this action, on the part of the prosecution, presents itself in such a manner as to indirectly or directly, inhibit, prevent or, through threat of intimidation or deprivation of freedom, would serve to deprive this author, as well as any given defendant; of their wont to express said opinion, thereby becoming direct in its attempt to suppress this author’s wont to express the afore-mentioned ideal, thought, or opinion; defining these actions; as taken by any court in any such legal action; to mean they desire, through whatever indirect means, to cease any effort made by the author and/or defendant, to express his opinion, a right given freely by the afore-mentioned Amendment.
I now hereby move that all evidence, presented in the form of evidence, or reported as such, and used by the prosecution against this author, the defendant, and his wife, be hereby stricken from all court documents or reports; and in the hearings, stated as fact, also involved in this case, as well as from all court records which might describe the proceedings of this case. Any further use or mention of this blog in an evidentiary manner in this case will subsequently involve a United States Supreme Court action and ruling to be brought against the prosecuting and trier-of-fact entities involved in this case.
/S/ Christopher Bruce and Elizabeth Bruce
CHRISTOPHER BRUCE AND ELIZABETH BRUCE
1169 9th Street #5
Des Moines, Iowa 50314
MOTION TO SUPPRESS:
COMES NOW, Christopher Bruce, in his motion to suppress, as evidence entered, exhibits 2 and 3 from the Adjudication Hearing, held September 12, 2014, at the Polk County Courthouse.
1. These exhibits, presented and named as Hair test Elizabeth Bruce, and Hair test Christopher Bruce, are false, as well as beyond the scope of Iowa Code, section 232.73 as required in a CINA action, where drug allegations are involved. I hereby request this court to suppress this evidence, until proof is provided by this facility, that the samples were not or able to be tampered with, as well as witnessed by another employee working for Family Services of Iowa, a DHS choice (as well as an obvious benefactor from this entity) for its drug testing of defendants in their actions against them. This is proved as such, because assessments, done by EFR, another such DHS choice (as well as another obvious benefactor from this entity), following drug testing, is obviously ordered, by DHS and by the trier-of-fact involved in this action (as found as fact in a statement made by the trier-of-fact, Judge William A. Price, stated as a certainty as to the results of an assessment against ANY defendant involved in such an action, that drug abuse training will be found to be required of the defendants, AFTER such an assessment, proving to be fact, as well as leaving no possibility that any other assessment result will be considered, i.e., these defendants do NOT use drugs, and need no drug abuse training).
2. I also bring, in an effort to back up the reason for this suppression, that we already know there were no witnesses available at the time of our testing that will willingly attest to the safety of these samples, or that would be able to guarantee them tamper-proof, since the responsible participating party who administered the test was operating the facility by themselves, this fact being personally and obviously witnessed by the defendants being tested in this interaction.
3. That the mother, during her birth at Methodist, came up clean in her cord stat test, done at the hospital following the child’s birth. Had the mother been using at any time, during or before the birth, the results of the hair stat test would have proven their existence to include that time as well. It did NOT.
4. There is clear and convincing evidence that will be provided to this court at a later date, that will show this mother as having severe asthma, severe enough that a single hit of Marijuana, used by this defendant 5 years ago, produced an emergency situation in the mother that could very well have included her death. To allege this mother as using meth internally is ludicrous at best, per this evidence.
5. There is clear and convincing evidence that shows the amount that the defendants showed in these results could only be determined as environmentally acquired, if the results were indeed factual at all. Users of this drug have come to show results closer to 2000-3000 pg/mg. The father, who claimed in his blog, which will be suppressed as evidence soon enough, claimed to POSSIBLY be dirty for this drug, only in environmental conditions, and only produced a showing of 558, barely over the cutoff result, showing his as the ONLY possibly factual result in this instance, but only because of his blog and the statements made therein. The mother’s results, as aforementioned, are physically impossible, as this mother has neither used, nor been around other users of this drug in her entire life; as she is aware of, yet showed a result almost twice as large as the father’s result, at 852 pg/mg, also not a number of an average user’s much larger proportions, so, should also be ruled as environmentally acquired, again, even if the evidence is indeed factual.
6. I hereby move to suppress this evidence, used as fact in the adjudication hearing, held and ruled September 12, 2014.
/S/Christopher Bruce
Christopher Bruce 1196 9th Street, Apt. 5
Des Moines, Iowa 50314
