Going for the B***S, Part VIII - Suppression of Court Evidence

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

GOING FOR THE B***S, PART VII (The Upcoming Disbarment of Daily Maize)

http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/485783/

OMG KIDS!!!  the UNMITIGATED GALL OF THESE PEOPLE!!  DIDNT YOU PEOPLE IN THE COURT HEAR WHAT I SAID IN THE COURT STATEMENTS?  SENATOR GRASSLEY IS NOW INVOLVED, and, against your immunity and confidentially, is more than allowed to view ALL of these court documents....without being able to be stopped, WHILE YOUR RIDICULOUS CASE IS WIDE OPEN....You like apples?  How you like THOSE apples?

Here, I will state, that Dale Mays, the snakey lawyer, who works for Benzoni Law Firm (SNAKE PIT, EVIDENTLY), has asked to resign as my wife's attorney...but get this...remember that little move he pulled, in an attempt to cut off my ability to get court documents needed by these parents to defend themselves, and making Elizabeth pay for 2 state appointed attorneys on minimum wage + at $8.25, all while living at the homeless shelter...you would not BELIEVE WHAT THIS SNAKE just tried to pull over our eyes...  Well, believe it, because I'm pulling the wool off.  The sheep shall know it ALL, BELIEVE THAT, as will Senator Grassley's office.

Here, I will state (as a restated quote, so as not to IDENTICALLY reveal anything from a confidential juvenile case document) that Attorney Dale Mays, just tried to file a motion to withdraw as the wife's council, and stated in his third reason that after I threatened his Bar status for doing this to her against her better interests, that I gave, as a reason, that I was mad at him for making her file another affidavit, allowing the court to claim her as indigent and be able to help her with her attorney fees...like nobody would notice that he was COVERING HIS ASS FOR HIS STUPID MISTAKE, as well as "His Honor"'s ass for signing such an order.  Here then, was my soon to be efiled rebuttal to CORRECT the FACT STATED IN that motion...ENJOY!!

Comes now Christopher Bruce in his motion to modify reasons given to withdraw:

1.  It is stated, as reason to withdraw #3, in Attorney Dale Mays’ Motion to Withdraw that:



(this is the confidential part that I cannot repeat, for fear of imprisonment...good thing I paraphrased it above...because I couldn't copy it into this document)



The actual fact is, that this attorney received an email from the father, this date stated, what is claimed, but that my reason was NOT that council had requested (I would imagine this to also be at this Judge’s request that he do so) his client, Ms. Bruce, fill out a financial affidavit which would enable the court to make a finding of indigency and appoint her counsel...that had been done AT FIRST, back in July.

On September 5th, this counsel, against his client’s best interests, after this client had just started back to work at her part time job at $8.25, had his client, with her full trust, sign yet another financial affidavit, just five weeks after being claimed indigent and able to receive a state court appointed attorney, in order to have her state her income, with no expenses (because she WAS INDIGENT AT THIS TIME, staying at a homeless shelter, as ALL, including the trier-of-fact, and the county attorney, as well as DHS were duly aware, and in search of permanent housing with obvious expenses in order for us to effectively reunify with our child, since the courts have, throughout all of our hearings, claimed this as their primary reason for not doing so), in order for the Judge, William A Price to sign this affidavit to claim her NOT INDIGENT, to, effectively, force the mother to pay for all of this attorney’s services, as well as her baby’s attorney’s services...all on $700 gross a month.  This served the dual purpose of effectively eliminating any possibility that the father, whose rights to view confidential documents already had been cut off, could not, without fees, access the same documents, rendering the family as unable to defend itself.

It should also be brought before this court, that no more affidavits have been requested, even at another 6 weeks of passage.  This is because then, the court would have to find her indigent yet again, due to her now having apartment, bills and food expenses, and no better income.  This will be filed and corrected immediately for the courts records.  Nice try Dale and Judge.  This one’s going to be on the books as it happened, not stated incorrectly to disprove your bias.  If this statement of fact is not corrected immediately, I will file these emails, from and to the mother, as proof of your attempted deceit.  I’ll leave that decision in the Judges hands.

And Mr. Mays?  This obviously giant paragraph long typographical error goes on your record as well, as trying to cover up your grevous and disbarable error...to further prove your need for disbarment."

SEE?  I TOLD YOU NOVEMBER WAS GONNA BE FUN FOR ME!!  WAS I LYIN'?

The Dating Game - Day 3

The Eagle Rises Again - Part II, Court Statements (Going for the B***S, Part the Last)

Now kids?  If this doesn't prove the possibility of my leadership qualities?

Nothing will.

You are about to witness a court statement that will be immediately, following this post (we wouldn't want to publish confidential court documents again, now would we??  The time stamp on this blog post will more than prove that it wasn't even a confidential court document YET...hehe.) efiled with the court, filed with all attorneys in the case (that matter), and in a nice little package that will be delivered unto the offices of Mr. Chuck Grassley, with the address to this blog, and a release of information signed by me and Liz, along with all recordings of every....single...interaction...with EVERYBODY in our little party.  This blog post, and this Statement to the Court, listed below, that I will be efiling just a few minutes from now; I believe, will signal, very nearly the END of this case...

Please, if you will, read it....at your liesure  :D

For I am...and will always be...The MIGHTY SWORD.

...and they shall know my name.

STATEMENT TO THE COURT CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION HEARING

COMES NOW, Elizabeth Bruce and Christopher Bruce, in their statement to the court:

Concerning the disposition hearing, held and ruled October 21, 2014:

1.  I would first like to state that the father, out of fear for his freedom, after posting confidential court documents online, did not attend for this reason.

2.  In reference to the 4th statement, made by this court, stating reasons that the child should remain in out of home placement:  I have given his Honor more than enough reason to ascertain that the reasons in this fact are either unneeded (the mental evaluations), service ordered to the parents due to falsified results (the drug assessment/drug abuse TRAINING), INCORRECT ALTOGETHER (homelessness, change of address was efiled and signed on October 17th, 2014), and lastly, also falsified in reports by CFI (the ability to adequately care for an infant).  If his Honor would order, this mother will, on demand, change a diaper for his honor (Basic Cares 101, #1), feed the baby on demand (Basic Cares 101, #2), and strap into a carseat to the best of her training per Ashley Andrews (Basic Cares 101 #3), which will probably not be very well, considering Ms. Andrews’ elimination of that training several visits ago, as well as the fact that we have yet to get a car for ourselves, a carseat to put into that vehicle, as well as a substitute baby with which to practice on.  Until his Honor should see for himself the completion of these “Basic Cares”, this should not be found as fact, but remains, as such, “hearsay” from a fallible human being, Ms. Andrews, as to whether these cares are learned or not.  Let’s not forget, your honor, that this same visit supervisor recently tried to file charges against me for harassment using UNFOUNDED EVIDENCE, and probably isn’t happy about that plan being foiled by me, using recordings of her interactions with my wife and myself.  Also, lest we forget, that everyone associated with this case, especially those of DHS and CFI, are constantly reading the blog in order to glean even more evidence against this family to use in these hearings...and I’m certain that Ms. Andrews has noticed the blog post that I directed exactly at her as well.  Naturally, if I were in her shoes, I would probably be a bit miffed, prone to a bit of vindictiveness, and since I was not able to hurt this father directly, might be prone to make sure this mother didn’t get any training, in order for her to fail, as well.  This was the case with the reporter of this action; when she couldn’t get at me directly, she went for the easier target, the mother, utilizing DHS to get back at me, through her, so this attitude with us in general doesn’t surprise me at all.

Oh, and by the way, as long as we’re on the subject, I’m sure his Honor, D.A. Stephanie Brown, Katie Gosch, Caseworker for DHS and Stephanie Rhinehart, her Supervisor, have all noticed by now, I’m celebrating my win in the upcoming Permanency Hearing.  Actually, I’m celebrating my victory PRIOR to that hearing (you all remember that word, don’t you?  PRIOR?  Meaning:  BEFORE?)  There’s very good reason for this.  You see, this blog?  The one you folks are so fond of quoting, where the removal of this child is concerned, where DHS’s actions against me, the father, lately, are concerned, as well as the DHS Advocate; Ms. Brown and her office are concerned, Attorney Dale Mays’s dis-bar-able actions along with his honor’s ordering of the 2nd financial affidavit, a mere 5 weeks after appointing us council at the state’s expense, and while we were still INDIGENT; so that the father’s ability to defend himself, are concerned?  I can prove this court completely biased, and will do so immediately in a separate action.  When I’m finished with each and everyone, in this court, you will all be removed from office and publicly shamed.  That blog, the one that was used for reasons of the removal, as well as continuously as evidence against me, (oh, and isn’t funny that we don’t do drugs, but immediately following my statement that I MAY come up dirty for methamphetamines through environmental exposure?  Suddenly, not only am I dirty for this drug, but my wife, who almost died because she took a hit of marijuana, is TWICE as dirty as I am for it, after her and the baby BOTH came up clean for anything just nine days prior to that, upon our child’s birth); in this action is about to be your total undoing.  It is, and always will be, my first Amendment right to publish my opinion in this editorial blog, and to use it as evidence against me and my family is beyond all legal and civil reproach.  What’s most important here, is that DHS has used this blog as a means to punish this father, indirectly; yet, put in its proper light, this directly interferes with this father’s right to free speech; through intimidation, threats of imprisonment and fear.  You may all be immune to state prosecution, but you will be brought up on Federal charges in this matter, each one of you, IMMEDIATELY.  Because you peruse this blog so carefully, and because I’ve been known to threaten all of you (non-physically, only with your respective jobs) in it, and the fact that I have personally ridiculed all of you many times, your actions in response have damned all of you; you have biased yourself thoroughly, and anyone that sees anything about this case, the facts found, as well as the way it’s been ruled on, will believe this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And, for the record, this statement to the court is going to be filed, along with a release of information, to Senator Grassley’s office, with proof of it’s receipt to me.  With this statement will also be ALL recordings of ALL interactions we’ve had with EVERYONE in this court, INCLUDING recordings of ALL court hearings and their rulings, as well as any BILLED TO US court documents, thanks to the efforts of Mr. Dale Mays, Attorney at law, that he should request to see.  Sans the court documents, all I have promised to Senator Grassley’s office, will also be posted...Well, I don’t think I have to say where, now do I?

Oh, and in case you’re concerned that I might be breaking the law by doing so?  I will be making sure that each thing I post here has an earlier timestamp than when I efile it.  It’s not confidential, until I do so.  Besides, my efilings seem to be immune (as well as are things that make no difference to anyone, or that don’t help my defense at all, i.e., appearances, appointments, etc.), I can access THOSE confidential court documents...imagine that.  Just the ones that the prosecution files, and his honor’s facts (laid down in orders from these hearings)...imagine that too.

Your honor will be asked to recuse this case upon its proceeding.  If his Honor should AGAIN refuse to recuse, a writ of habeas corpus will be implemented, and your bias brought forth with little effort at all.  If you refuse to recuse the case, and rule against me in this hearing upcoming, your bias will be full and irrefutable, and will drag you down off of your bench, again with little effort.

You know, I was going to go further and refute the rest of these facts, but I think we all know how this is going to go, don’t we?  Let’s just stop here, and call it a day.

/S/Christopher Bruce

The Dating Game - Day 2 (Q.1)