The State Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part II

Yup, yup, it's that time again...time for yet ANOTHER fun document filed in the post-conviction relief case, due to air April 27th, in none other than good ol' IOWAY...right where I wish I was 1000 miles away.  AND I WILL be...well, to start, anyway...then it's weave back over time, so I can kick some ass.  Better yet, I really hope I lose...more fuel for my fed case, that way.  So go ahead ya crooks...cream me.  Ram it up me kiester...I DARE YOU...Wouldn't I just love to amend that defendant's list...AGAIN.

Annnnnnnyways...here's legal doc #...oh, I've lost count.  THE MINUTES OF TESTIMONY...filed today by who else?  Yours truly...should be a wing-dingy!  So enjoy Linda Lane...enjoy Judgees.  Enjoy John P.  Can't weasel off the stand EVERY case...I'll catch yer little Italian behind somewhere, sometime, m'friend.  :D

WITNESS LIST

1. Judge Robert Blink, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

2. Judge William Kelly, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

3. Judge Carol S. Egly, District 5C Judge, Polk County, Iowa

4. Clerk of Court, Randy Osborn, Polk County, Iowa

5. Linda Lane, Asst. Polk Cty. Atty., Polk County Attorney’s Office, Polk County, Iowa

6. John P. Sarcone, Polk County Attorney’s Office, Polk County, Iowa

7. Grant Rogers, Reporter, The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa

8. Lucas Taylor, Mark R. Hinshaw Law Firm, West Des Moines, Iowa

If called by the plaintiff at trial, each witness listed above will testify as follows:  On or around January 26th, a warrant was issued for the plaintiff, christopher (bruce) the living man for the charge of Harassment in the 1st Degree, an aggravated misdemeanor, based on police reports taken by the Altoona Police Department on September 8th, 2015, and another on January 14th, 2014, and the charge of 1st Degree Harassment was then approved 12 days later by the Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone on January 26th, 2016.  On the same date, while the plaintiff was en route to the Polk County Jail, two more police reports were filed against the plaintiff at the Altoona Police Department, and immediately approved on the same date for Stalking, an aggravated misdemeanor, and for Threats, a class D felony.

On the date of January 26th, 2016, plaintiff Bruce was arrested by the Carroll City Police Department and held for transport.  By the time plaintiff Bruce arrived at the Polk County Jail, two more charges, Stalking and Threats had been added.  Plaintiff Bruce was held in the Polk County Jail from January 26th, 2016, until April 11th, when a trial by jury was held to determine his guilt or innocence.  Plaintiff Bruce was found guilty of the charges of Harassment in the 1st Degree, and Stalking by a jury of his peers.  The charge of Threats, a Class D felony, was discharged.  The Plaintiff, Bruce, was then allowed to bond out, pre-sentence, on a $4,000 bond ($2,000 for each of two aggravated misdemeanors).  Plaintiff Bruce then re-appeared on May 4th for sentencing.  He was given a 1 year suspended sentence, to serve two concurrent 30 day sentences for a total of 60 days, then was to report for probation for a period of two years.

Upon his release, plaintiff Bruce, before signing up for probation, decided on serving the remainder of his sentence instead, and immediately asked Judge Blink for a reconsideration.  Judge Blink then set a court date, a few days later, for the date of August 18th, to reconsider, revoke his probation, and allow plaintiff Bruce to serve the rest of his time.  Later, on or around July 25th, 2016, Judge Blink would then order a warrant be issued for plaintiff Bruce for probation violation, and plaintiff Bruce, as a result, wrote to Judge Blink, reminding him that he had not signed up for probation, and had asked to be reconsidered, and to not issue the warrant.  Judge Blink still issued the warrant, and the plaintiff, Bruce, was then arrested on that warrant and 3 more simple misdemeanors 2 days before the reconsideration hearing would take place, on August 16th, 2016.  Plaintiff Bruce did then serve the rest of his sentence, and was released on December 30th, 2016.

The witnesses noticed herein will testify to all matters contained in or referred to in the resulting criminal cases, FECR292141 and FECR292312.

Each witness will describe their relevant personal or professional background including their
education, training, experience and responsibilities. In general terms, each will testify about the
events of January 26th, 2016, throughout to the date of August 18th, 2016, including their
observations of the people, places and things relevant to the crime charged, and all events that occurred thereafter.  Each witness will testify about their impressions, conclusions and opinions reached as a result of their observations. They will explain the pertinent relationships among the people, places and things at issue. To the extent they encountered the plaintiff, each witness will describe the plaintiff’s actions, the plaintiff's statements and the plaintiff's filed paperwork. To the extent each witness recognizes the plaintiff, they will identify the plaintiff. Each witness will testify about their own actions and the reasons for those actions. They will testify about the relevant statements and actions of others. The witnesses will testify about any matters relevant to authentication, chain of custody and venue (that the events they observed took place in Polk County, Iowa).

The witnesses noticed herein will testify to all matters contained in or referred to in the resulting criminal cases, FECR292141 and FECR292312.

On or around January 26th, a warrant was issued for the plaintiff, christopher (bruce) the living man
for the charge of Harassment in the 1st Degree, an aggravated misdemeanor, based on police reports taken by the Altoona Police Department on September 8th, 2015, and another on January 14th, 2014, and the charge of 1st Degree Harassment was then approved 12 days later by the Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone on January 26th, 2016; even though the life of the alleged victim, Jeanne Munson, had been threatened by the plaintiff 12 days earlier.  Plaintiff Bruce called his bondsman that afternoon, and gathered that the price of the bond was $2,000 ($200 bail, as it should have been).  After the date of this alleged "crime", the plaintiff, Bruce, had no more contact with the alleged victim.  On the same date of his arrest, while the plaintiff was en route to the Polk County Jail, two more police reports were filed against the plaintiff at the Altoona Police Department, and immediately approved on the same date for Stalking, an aggravated misdemeanor, and for Threats, a class D felony.  After his arrival in Polk County, and after another call to his bondsman, Plaintiff Bruce then found that his bond was $70,000, when it should have been around $9000.

In the first month of Plaintiff Bruce’s incarceration, he opted to not have a court appointed attorney, and immediately challenged the jurisdiction of the court.  Judge Carol S. Egly will testify that plaintiff Bruce did so on the very first day of his incarceration, but denied plaintiff Bruce his right to do so on the day of his initial appearance by not answering the challenge, even after being prompted by the associate judge to do so.  Judge Egly will also be asked to testify that several cases for plaintiff Bruce were open at this time, and that later, at the request of Asst. Polk County Attorney Linda Lane, these cases were all closed and consolidated, and that a request for a jury trial in the case SMAC359086 was discarded, and that a new motion, typed up by the courts, was substituted, and that the cases that had been listed were then consolidated into just 2 cases, FECR292312, and FECR292141.  Judge Egly will then be asked to testify that this motion was NOT the defendant’s motion, but that this was substituted by the courts to show that he had NOT asked for a jury trial in the SMAC case, then altered the record of the court to show that Plaintiff Bruce has specifically asked for a NON-jury trial in that case.  Judge Carol Egly will also be asked to testify as to why she denied an initial challenge of jurisdiction, and did not address that challenge until nearly 3 weeks later.  Judge Egly will also be asked to testify as to why she ruled that the jurisdiction of the court was a “State” jurisdiction, when later Judge Blink would belie that ruling, stating the jurisdiction held over the defendant was a “Subject Matter” jurisdiction.

Witness Randy Osborn, Clerk of Polk County court, will be asked to testify concerning the motion that was designed by the court, and filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and the change in the record of the court, showing that plaintiff Bruce had “specifically asked for a NON-jury trial,”, even though the recorded record of the court will prove that defendant Bruce asked for a jury trial SEVERAL TIMES.

Later, on or around February 4th, 2016, Plaintiff Bruce submitted a demand for Pro Se rights in case FECR292312.  On or around February 29th, 2016, Judge William Kelly would issue an order denying Plaintiff Bruce his right to defend himself in his own person, and stated that he would need to obtain, at state expense, a “Stand-By Attorney,” if he wanted to file documents and do everything that he should have had a right to do on his own, such as depose witnesses, investigate his online/computer related crime, listen to prosecution’s DVD testimony, and properly prepare his defense.  Judge Kelly will be asked to testify as to why he chose to violate the plaintiff’s Constitutional right to defend himself in his own person while incarcerated.

On or around February 29th, 2016, Plaintiff Bruce was then assigned Lucas Taylor, to be a “Stand-by attorney.”  Mr. Taylor will be asked to testify as to why he did not file an appeal in case 292312, why he did not ask for a new trial due to an obvious tainting of the jury just prior to a conviction (reason for a mistrial),  and why he chose to not show up for a hearing involving the dismissal of 199 pieces of filed evidence of plaintiff Bruce’s in this case, and the quashing of the subpoenas of 29 elected officials, all asked to testify on the behalf of plaintiff Bruce, just 3 days before trial began.

On the date of April 11th, Monday, trial for the defendant, Bruce, commenced.  In attendance in the trial was Des Moines Register reporter Grant Rogers, who sat through one day of the trial, the first day.  Mr. Rogers will be asked to testify as to why he chose to only speak to the prosecution about the trial and plaintiff Bruce, and will be asked to testify as to why he never approached either the plaintiff, Bruce, or the plaintiff’s stand-by council for their part of the story.  Mr. Rogers will also be asked to testify as to the story fed him by John P. Sarcone, the County Attorney, and by Linda Lane, the Asst. County Attorney, and the FBI.

John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Linda Lane, Assistant County attorney, will be asked to testify as to why he fed a libelous story, with no factual basis, to Grant Rogers, two days before the jury was to deliberate, that lumped Plaintiff Bruce in with an alleged group of possibly murderous, lawless domestic terrorists, knowing that the story was likely to run the next day, before jury deliberations.

Linda Lane, Assistant County Attorney, will be asked as to testify as to why she has personally prosecuted against plaintiff Bruce in 3 subsequent criminal cases, assisted in denying the plaintiff, Bruce his right to defend himself in his own person while incarcerated, and as to why she ignored all attempts by plaintiff Bruce to settle his “Debt to Society”, prior to sentencing, and why she refused to answer several attempts at communication concerning this matter.  Witness Lane will also be asked to testify to why she motioned, in limine, that the defendant not use his rightful name, that he not testify to any matters concerning his juvenile cases (all relevant to the case), or refused to investigate whether he was a U.S. Citizen as he continuously claimed, a fact that has not been addressed by the district court, but has been avoided at all turns.

Also prior to conviction, the witnesses that remained from plaintiff Bruce's witness list (around 11 out of 40) all showed up to testify on the first day of trial, and were asked to leave by Lucas Taylor and by Linda Lane, because it would be another day before they could testify.  The next day, they re-appeared again, and once more, were asked to leave.  Wednesday, when the turn for the defense finally came, no witnesses for the defense returned.  The defendant, plaintiff Bruce, with little choice, rested his defense, since there was little evidence to prove his innocence remaining, and no witnesses to testify on his behalf.

Witness Judge Robert Blink will be asked to testify as to why he deemed 199 pieces of filed evidence by the plaintiff, Bruce, to be irrelevant to this case.  Plaintiff Bruce submitted a notice of why the evidence was relevant, and why the witnesses (29 elected officials) were being called to testify, but no discussion of that motion was addressed or considered.  Reasons given by plaintiff Bruce in the hearing on the relevance of 199 pieces of evidence was over-ruled, without discussion.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he went out of his way to ensure that even MORE prominent elected/civil servant witnesses subpoenas were quashed, even though neither them nor their attorneys were present.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he threatened plaintiff Bruce and his friend, Brent Swallers, with harassment of Linda Lane, the Assistant County Attorney prosecuting the case, because they attempted to politely contact and communicate to Linda Lane, the settlement of plaintiff Bruce's offer to pay off his “Debt to society" without unneeded incarceration.  Mostly, Judge Blink will be asked to testify as to why he allowed the quashing of the subpoenas of 29 elected officials, the Friday before the Monday of trial,  and why he chose not to address the matter a lot sooner, in order to give Plaintiff Bruce time to recover his position, and properly defend himself.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he issued a warrant for the plaintiff’s arrest for probation violation, even though the plaintiff had clearly asked to be revoked, for probation he never completely signed up for, and had, later, asked him, in a timely manner following the request of him NOT to issue a warrant with sufficient cause, since he was scheduled to appear in court on that matter.  Witness Blink will also be asked to testify as to why he chose not to give a new trial to plaintiff Bruce, because of the obvious taint of the jury by the Des Moines Register’s libelous article, printed 1 day before the jury’s deliberation.  Judge Blink will also be asked to testify as to why the plaintiff’s bail was set so high, in an un-Consitutional manner, and was never reduced, prior to conviction.

The plaintiff hereby gives notice and reserves the right to call and/or present any testimony or information provided to the defense throughout the course of these proceedings.


/S/christopher (Bruce) the living man
christopher (Bruce) the living man
Sui Juris, All Rights Reserved
UCC1-308, formerly UCC1-207
Without Prejudice