The State Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part X - The Brief (Insanity)

Hi America, welcome to my li'l corner of the universe...and that corner gets smaller and darker with each and every passing day, doesn't it seem like?

Thinking the incessant and quite late filings had ceased, I finally had time to work on my court stragety...or, at least, so I thunk.

POP...and what should my waking eyes observe, but a final, last and ditch-effort to the defense's case...a legal brief, filed yesterday, at the last minute.  Here is the meat and potato portion (thank GOD for my new and wunnerful HP Officejet, complete with docu-feeder scanner!):

Nice, eh?  Well, this is the soup I asked to be boiled in, isn't it?

Here, naturally, is my hastily typed response to this brief insanity.  There is, by the way, still no word on whether John P. will be allowed to testify in the case, as I predicted:

"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, an answer to the brief filed this date.

The Petitioner would first state that, in classic style for the County Attorney defense, Jesse Ramirez; the brief filed, this day 7/1/17, is last minute, giving the prosecution very little time to research and answer with his own.  Therefore, the purpose of this brief, sans proper research and case law, will be to answer it and put on the record of the court this same day, before trial.  The petitioner would like to apologize to the court for this late filing (due to the defense's late filing), and also that it is not in the correct format for a brief.

Concerning Section II, Statement of Facts and procedural history:

1.  In paragraph 1, Mr. Ramirez states bond is set at $60,000.  This is entirely false.  Bond was INITIALLY set, at arrest, with a bond of just $2,000, for the ONLY filed charge (At this time) of 1st degree harassment.  While en route to Des Moines, Iowa from Carroll, Iowa, the Altoona Police department was encouraged to file 2 more police reports for Stalking and Threats, and, as well, while the defendant was en route, the county attorney would, that same day, file documents approving those charges, and raised the 1st Degree Harassment from $2000 to $10000, and additionally tacked on 2 more unreasonable bonds of $10,000 for the charge of Stalking (an aggravated misdemeanor charge that should have been $2000 more), and a class D felony of Threats (that should have been $5,000, but was raised to $50,000), for a total bond of $70,000, $61,000 more than what it should have been.  The purpose for this unreasonably high bond was stated to be because of the Petitioner's "Extensive Criminal History."  This "Extensive Criminal History" consisted of 3 simple misdemeanors over a 33 year period between 1982 and 2015 (for possession, prostitution, and 5th degree theft), and also included the two plead to simple misdemeanors of harassment in 2015, and the charges (not yet convictions at the time of arrest) of 2 more simple misdeameanor harassment charges in 2016.  The petitioner had just bailed out for those two charges 3 days prior to his re-arrest for this case (it's very important for the court to note that the police report for harassment had been filed for 14 days by this time.  If the victim was so much in fear for her life, shouldn't these charges have been filed and prosecuted at the time of the petitioner's first arrest?)  This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute any sort of "Extensive criminal history"  Furthermore, such high bond would most certainly be warranted, should the Petitioner have been any sort of high risk for flight, but none is listed in his alleged "Extensive history."  The Petitioner has never skipped out on bail, has always shown up for every court appearance, and has never committed acts constituting the fear or the remote chance that he might, as a free man, be a danger to the public.  No contact orders, issued by these courts of late, have always been honored to the letter, by the petitioner.  Even after 2 were dismissed in 2017 (There were two-year NCO's, ordered in 2015), the petitioner has never again contacted the parties previously protected.

Thereby, the Petitioner states that these actions by the defense were nothing short of the crime of Malicious prosecution, conspiracy against his civil rights of freedom, and an attempt to shut him up about what Polk County was and had been doing to him and his family.  It is also important to mention here that, just prior to this arrest, the petitioner had just begun assisting a family in Carroll Iowa, who had their child taken, and had made mention of his cases in Polk County, and had taken some action against those responsible.

Also, concerning this paragraph, Mr. Ramirez discusses Mr. Bruce's right to defend himself, pro se, and that an order was issued denying this.  Again, this matter is at dispute in this case.  Just because there was an order denying him his rights, doesn't mean this denial is or was correct.

2.  Per paragraph 2, the applicant filed Application for council, because it was clear, per Judge Kelly's order denying him any right to defend himself while incarcerated, that the Petitioner had little choice left but to do so, if he were to be able to defend himself properly at all.  It's also mentioned that the Petitioner limited the reach of Mr. Taylor, the accepted standby council, and that, because he stated that Mr. Taylor was not to file or speak for the applicant unless he's specifically instructed to, does not mean that Mr. Taylor could not, nor should not suggest to the Petitioner the need for events that should take place, such as appearances for bond reduction, or depositions.  The appeal in this case, as well as a request for mistrial, were most CERTAINLY duties of Mr. Taylor near and after trial, since, at this time, Mr. Taylor was chosen by the petitioner to represent the Petitioner in a FULL capacity during the course of the trial.  Mr. Ramirez is, of course, covering for the non-action of Mr. Taylor in this case, by stating this.

3.  According to paragraph 3, Mr. Ramirez makes mention that the petitioner agrees to the quashing of some subpoenaed witnesses.  This is correct, but what Mr. Ramirez fails to note is that, not only did Judge Blink go out of his way to go over the list of witnesses several times, to insure that no one that might incriminate themselves who was of any importance should also be quashed, even though none of those witnesses, nor their attorneys were present, but also that there were only 2 or 3 stipulations to quash on the part of the petitioner, and only because it was 2 business days before trial, and it would seem that no one would be allowed to testify anyway, because they were elected officials, or important to the petitioner's defense.  The petitioner reasoned with himself that these matters would, at a later date, be brought forth in appeal, something he would be cheated out of by Mr. Taylor, during the course of his further incarceration for EXACTLY 60 days, the precise time allotted for appeal in the State of Iowa.

4.  In paragraph 4, Mr. Ramirez talks about an appeal for 'Unlawful Arrest".  This appeal was for the simple misdemeanor case the petitioner had been arrested for 3 days prior to this case, and did not concern this case at all.  In addition, the Iowa Supreme Court did not deny this appeal, this appeal was denied by none other than Judge William A. Price, a major co-conspirator against this petitioner, who just happened to be in charge of this case for appeal.  Judge Price was also the Supervising judge over Magistrate Hurn, the judge ruling on misdemeanor case SMAC359086; who, along with Carol S. Egly and the Clerk of Court, conspired to deny the Petitioner his right to a jury trial in this parallel case.  They altered his request, and changed the record of the court to reflect that he had specifically asked for a NON-Jury trial by substituting a document that the Petitioner did not design or submit.  Judge Price was, of course, the judge responsible for the Petitioner losing his parental rights, wrongfully and unlawfully  in cases JVJV237203 and JVJV238150.  Prior to the start of the trial for SMAC359086, Judge Price entered the room, lingered his gaze on the petitioner, smirked, then walked into the chambers, and was heard to state “Get him...he's a piece of cake." to Magistrate Hurn, prior to the petitioner being found guilty of harassment charges in that case.

4.  In paragraph 4, Mr. Ramirez again references decisions made by the district court, like he does in paragraph 2, stating the courts found sufficient cause to try, and charge the petitioner; like those decisions, because they were made, are, of course, correct.  The petitioner states again that, just because these decisions were decided and backed by the courts, doesn't automatically make them correct.  The petitioner would also like to state here that no grand jury indicted this defendant, or it is made clear that they did, if they did.  The Petitioner has a right, per the Constitution to have his case heard and decided by the Grand Jury.  Also, jurisdiction, because it is decided that it is correct, doesn't mean that it is, automatically.  The Petitioner, once again, makes it clear that jurisdiction was challenged on the very first day after his arrest, and has yet to be clearly stated or proven, even to this day.  The Petitioner has only been told there is jurisdiction.  This is, nor will it ever be, proof of the court's jurisdiction over this non-U.S. Citizen.  The petitioner, so named Christopher the Living Man, does not, did not, nor does he ever recognize the jurisdiction of anyone in the system of the Polk County Courts.  These courts are pirate ships on the land, and, as such (admiralty courts, for the purpose of upholding only the law of the sea) have no jurisdiction, especially over those of the United States Republic.  I have not been ex-patriated, nor do I recognize a "STATE" or "Subject-Matter" Juris.  Neither of these have rules of court that are explained to anyone in the United States Constitution.  The initial challenge of juris was made from day one, and wasn't ruled on until nearly 3 weeks after the Petitioner's initial appearance...and, was answered incorrectly, and never proven.

Also concerning the matter of Jurisdiction, Judge Blink would, later, trick the defendant into accepting his jurisdiction, by stating that, if I did not, he could not enforce the court-issued subpoenas for the petitioner's witnesses to testify...and then quashed or invalidated almost every one of them at a later date...anyway.

Finally, concerning this matter, in a hearing in front of Judge Kelly, the Petitioner stated that he was not a U.S. Citizen (and remains a non-citizen, even to this day.)  Prosecutor Linda Lane would belittle that fact on the record by stating that there is nothing on the record to show this, and yet, because he was incarcerated, and could not bail out at the unreasonable bail imposed, the Petitioner was not given opportunity to prove this to the court.  This fact, if nothing else, deprives these courts ENTIRELY of any and all jurisdiction claimed.

5.  Restitution, as claimed to be determined at a later date was never determined or ordered.  Also mentioned is that the defendant was told that he would have to report for probation in Room B40.  This fact was never related to the petitioner, either by the court, or through his standby council.  The Petitioner had to assess this by asking other inmates what to do, prior to his release.

It is also stated that a warrant was issued because the petitioner did not keep in contact with his probation officer.  This is also incorrect, and the correct events are clearly stated on the record of the court, not only in this case, but on the record for case SMAC343417, a case where the petitioner was arrested for probation violation, even though the Petitioner had stated and asked Judge Blink to be taken off of probation, to serve the remainder of his sentence.  At no time has the Petitioner ever met or taken on a probation officer of this or any other court, as a matter of fact, the petitioner never completely signed up for probation.  Judge Blink erred in issuing a warrant for the petitioner's arrest in this case; he had set a hearing to have the petitioner revoked by that time already.

6.  NO APPEAL WAS FILED, because Mr. Taylor did not honor his client's wishes, and did not file one.  By the time of his client's release, it was too late for the petitioner to file one, and Mr. Taylor had neither filed one for him at his request, nor had he polled the jury to find out if a new trial was needed, as he guaranteed that he would, due to the obvious probable taint of the jury by the libelous article printed by the Register one day before deliberations were to take place.

Also worth noting here, just because a jury is admonished or instructed to not view media broadcasts and articles, does not guarantee that they will not observe the media, nor read any articles that may taint their decisions.  That the judge told them to ignore the media does not mean they will.  It is utter foolishness to believe that they will, absolutely.

As to Section III, concerning applicable law, it should be obvious, on the record of this case, that usual events, such as depositions, hearing for a bond reduction, an appeal, and a jury poll should be standard, in the defense of any case such as this.  As the petitioner in this case, I feel it's most important, however, to mention that I do not hold Mr. Taylor at fault, absolutely, for not doing what should have been done.  I blame those in continuous conspiracy against the civil rights of this petitioner.  It is because of these conspirators, I'm sure, for instance, that Mr. Taylor did not appear at what was probably the most important hearing for the petitioner in the history of this case; concerning  the quashing of 29 subpoenas of elected officials and the dismissal of 200 pieces of evidence as irrelevant.  I'm also assured that the jury poll and the appeal did not happen either, at the behest of these conspirators.  I cannot prove this, of course, but due to past events, as well as past cases, and the fact that these charges and convictions should have never taken place the way they did, and in the order that they did, proves it to me plenty.  The alteration of the court record, the charges filed en route to Des Moines and the way they were filed, the dismissal of all relevant evidence and witnesses, the extent to which the Juvenile cases and all that happened in them were adamantly dismissed from being heard or seen is more than enough proof of unlawful behavior for this petitioner. 

Finally, the Petitioner, just prior to sentencing, attempted once again to reason with this court.  He once again challenged the court's jurisdiction by filing Coram non-judice, and, when that didn't get notice, the petitioner and a volunteer agent then POLITELY and LAWFULLY attempted to settle his debt to NO injured party that would come forward in the County Attorney's offices, via payment of his debt outright, in lieu of unneeded incarceration.  This was met by Judge Blink with threats of harassment charges against the petitioner and his agent, though no threat was made, either by the petitioner, or his agent; to the County Attorney or her offices, or to Judge Blink.

Lastly, there was a promise of a no-contact order between a witness for the prosecution, and the Petitioner.  The petitioner then presented the court with massive amounts of proof of malicious harassment and stalking of the petitioner by this witness over a period of months...the same being a PRIMARY witness for the prosecution, and was criminal with a history of stalking and harassment of others.  After this, Judge Blink would then not order the no-contact order, nor arrest the witness for the same exact thing that they claim I did to the victim in this case.

It is, of course, the job of the State to defend their criminal actions, as well as cover them up.  If they did not, they would not be in their respective positions for long, nor would they get away with the crimes they commit against Iowa's less fortunate citizens as well as they do.  I applaud the defense for their case-law ridden attempt to get away with murder....but it is a last ditch desperate attempt to justify their actions against the petitioner, and should be duly disregarded by this court in every way.

Respectfully submitted,

       /S/Christopher (Bruce) The Living Man"

The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part IX - The Ol' Quasharoo, Reprise

********************************************************************************************
UPDATE:  Sorry guys, there has, as yet, been no decision made concerning the subpoena served.  I will tell you that the defending county attorney that argued for the quash used the words "Oppressive" and "Burdensome" at least 500 times each.  That's all for now.  I'm sure we'll get the order AND the quash about...oh, 12 hours before trial, I'll venture
*******************************************************************************************

Welcome back, kids, to another episode of "Let's quash the subpoenas of everyone that might incriminate themselves in the process of testifying, before they get in real trouble".  There has been called, a hearing, this very morning at 11:00 to quash the only subpoena in this case that was able to be legally served, on one John P. Sarcone, Polk County Iowa Attorney.  Boooo, Hisssss....

Before we go on the air, why don't we post a statement that I intend to make, prior to Her honorable Jeannie Vaudt makes her ruling on the matter.  Please return after 12:00 p.m. Central time to see the results of this hearing, which I intend to post right at the top of this article.

"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, a statement concerning the quash of the suppoenas, both of John P. Sarcone on this date, and of the subpoenas of the 29 elected officials that were allowed to quash their subpoenas on the date of April 8th, 2016, in case FECR292312.

Each of these people whose subpoenas both Judge Blink quashed, and whom Jesse Ramirez now moves to quash all claim these subpoenas to be burdensome, mainly based on the fact that the called witnesses simply state they have no knowledge of the cases, and because they would have to take time out of their busy lives to come all the way down to the courthouse, where most of them work quite near or in anyway, to testify on a case they merely SAY they know nothing about.  The petitioner in this case, or, the defendant in the case we’re deliberating, was, in fact, never given an opportunity to prove to the court that these witnesses most certainly did or did not know anything about the case.  Wouldn’t and shouldn’t the burden of proof of whether they do or do not know anything about the case on the petitioner/defendant or his/her council to prove to the court or the jury, one way or the other?  How can any judge just up and decide that witnesses have no knowledge about a case, or take their word for that fact?  Why couldn’t every witness called claim this then, and get out of testifying, including the defendants themselves in every criminal case?  Isn’t dismissing called witnesses for the defense essentially denying the defense due process of law, by essentially denying him or her the right to defend themselves by dismissing the very witnesses that could, feasibly, prove their innocence, just because they’re friends or co-workers of the court?

John P. Sarcone, and those in official capacity in their respective offices do not want to testify, on the record of this case, the case it concerns, or any other case that they were involved in, because they would then have to admit that they most assuredly DID know about them, as well as what they did in them.  Most importantly, their testimony would indeed show that this was a conspiracy against the rights of the Petitioner.  The court is here to make sure that undue harassment and embarrassment does not happen, not because the witnesses are not present, or on the stand, but while they’re on the stand, that is what Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.611 is about, therefore this rule cannot be used to excuse this or any other elected official from testifying.I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, a statement concerning the quash of the suppoenas, both of John P. Sarcone on this date, and of the subpoenas of the 29 elected officials that were allowed to quash their subpoenas on the date of April 8th, 2016, in case FECR292312.

It amazes me that the court so easily dismisses witnesses based simply on the fact that they work for the system in some capacity, but forces all others to comply with the orders of the court, even to the point of holding them in contempt or jailing them.  The very fact that the same sort of witnesses were excused in the last case is at issue in this case, because there was evidence and testimony concerning the part each of those witnesses played that was excused, at the last moment no less.  Those subpoenas were served lawfully by a licensed private detective, properly, to each and every one of those witnesses, and yet all of them, if they had any importance at all, were all quashed, and allowed to not testify on the behalf of the defendant, causing him to lose his case.

Lastly, I’ll state again that an affidavit has been filed, showing obvious deception and unprofessional behavior on the part of the agent who accepted the service of this subpoena, in an effort to get out of her acceptance of his subpoena.  Moreover, someone immediately called and harassed my server following the filing of this affidavit, using her number listed at the bottom of it.  This sort of behavior is most unbecoming of an official, in any capacity.

The petitioner has submitted more than enough evidence to show why the petitioner needs these people to testify, and why.  The petitioner requests that the court uphold the service of this subpoena, like you would any common witness.  I guarantee, if her honor allows me to put him on the stand, and let me ask him a few questions, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knows something about every case I’ve been in, and more.  Thank you."

The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part VIII - As Usual, Desperation Sets In

Well kids, some interesting developments after a tiring day of trying to get subpoenas served on those defending themselves in a truly unwinnable case.  To start with, there was only one subpoena served lawfully...and then thrown back at the server, once the person who accepted it realized that it was a subpoena, and that she had messed up by accepting it...on none other than the criminal Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone.  'Magine that.

To start with, let us post the story of the serve in the words of the very person that served it.  The name has been blotted out to protect the innocent.

I, Blankety-Blank, who represents the Petitioner in the capacity of process server, do
hereby swear that the following is true, concerning witness John P. Sarcone:

"That I did enter the Polk County Justice Center, for the purpose of serving John P.
Sarcone with a subpoena for this case, on June 26th, 2017, at approximately 12:30 p.m.
I spoke with one Jenny Diaz, who, after agreeing to take the papers for John Sarcone,
then accepted them. After reading that the papers were a subpoena, Ms. Diaz then
threw them back at me, and stated loudly that she would not accept them, and that it
wasn’t a legal service, because it was a civil matter concerning a criminal case, and that
I would have to serve them at 111 Court Avenue (The Polk County Treasurer’s office). I
took the papers and left the Justice Center, not knowing if this was the truth or not, to
serve them at 111 Court Avenue.

Upon my arrival at 111 Court Avenue, I was told that John Sarcone had no office at the
Treasurer’s building, and that if I wanted to serve these papers, I would need to serve
them to him at the Polk County Justice Center.

It is my personal belief that, after seeing that a subpoena was being served on John
Sarcone, his agent, Jenny Diaz, who accepted the papers like she does it all the time,
was merely trying to avoid getting in trouble for accepting a subpoena for her boss, John
Sarcone. This entire interaction between me and Ms. Diaz was recorded on their
security cameras, including her taking the papers, reading them and throwing them back
at me."

In case you didn't quite get what happened there, let me put it in layman's terms, for your better understanding:

She served the subpoena to the guy LEGALLY, in the correct place, to the right person.  John P. only comes out of his well-guarded castle around once a year...probably on the day of the blood moon to make a sacrifice to the Devil, or something...to tell Polk County the yearly arrest numbers.  The rest of the time, the guy sits behind 2" of bulletproof glass, with security cameras everywhere (a classic criminal's set up), locked in his office behind thousands of assistants, paralegals, and secretaries.

How do we know that it was served legally?

Not even an hour after this affidavit was filed, the server's phone began to ring...and ring...and ring.  No message was left.  Finally, she calls it back...and the voice on the other end?  The caller's name was Tom.  No last name.  We assume this was Tom Miller, the Attorney General.  Who else would have such quick access to the affidavit, complete with the server's phone number? There are no other Toms even associated with the case.  This person began questioning whether she served the criminal John...she hung up on the guy....whoever he was (the author gives a chuckle here).

IMMEDIATELY following this, the next morning, a motion to quash is filed.  Of course you can see it, I insist:

"COMES NOW the Polk County Attorney John P. Sarcone, pursuant to Iowa Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.1701(4),1 and moves to quash a subpoena purportedly served upon Polk
County Attorney John P. Sarcone. In support therefore:

1. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff through process server Tanya Meyers filed an
Affidavit of Service, which purported to serve a subpoena upon Polk County Attorney John P.
Sarcone.

2. Mr. Sarcone is not in possession of the subpoena2 and a copy of said subpoena
was not attached to the Affidavit of Service. It is presumed the subpoena sought to compel Mr.
Sarcone’s testimony at the trial on Plaintiff’s Petition for Postconviction Relief scheduled for
July 5 and 6, 2017.

3. Mr. Sarcone was not given prior notice as to what testimony Plaintiff seeks to
elicit.

4. Mr. Sarcone has had no contact with Defendant except to be on the receiving end
of numerous communications and prior attempts to solicit his testimony.

5. Most importantly, Mr. Sarcone has not had any contact with the Plaintiff
concerning the facts of the underlying charges in this case. He has no personal knowledge of any
fact or legal matter admissible or relevant in this proceeding.

6. Based upon Plaintiff’s Statement to the Court filed on June 26, 2017, it can be
assumed Plaintiff seeks to compel Mr. Sacrone’s testimony as part of his baseless, wholly
unsubstantiated claim of a massive conspiracy between the witness, the county, the Department
of Human Services, numerous members of the Iowa judiciary, journalists at CityView and the
Des Register, and the victim in the underlying criminal case. See Statement to the Court.

7. It would be unreasonable or oppressive for Mr. Sarcone to attend this trial when
he has no connection to the case outside of his supervisory role over all criminal prosecutions in
Polk County.

8. This is not Plaintiff’s first abuse of the subpoena power. In the underlying
criminal case, Plaintiff subpoenaed Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, Attorney General
Thomas Miller, Judge William Price, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director Charles
Palmer, several DHS employees, Assistant Attorney General Grant Dugdale, numerous assistant
Polk County attorneys, several private attorneys, and police officers. All of Plaintiff’s subpoenas
were quashed. See Exhibit 1—Ruling.

For these reasons Polk County Attorney John Sarcone respectfully requests the district
court to quash the subpoena as unreasonable or oppressive under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure
1.701(4).

1 Alternatively, the witness requests the subpoena be quashed under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.611 as
harassing.

2 Because the undersigned is not in possession of the subpoena, the witness cannot verify whether the
subpoena was issued in compliance with Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1701(1), (2).

Respectfully Submitted, Jesse Ramirez, Asst. Polk County Attorney."

That rule, by the way, Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.611, goes like this...at least the portion they're trying to get it quashed with:

"Rule 5.611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. a. Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment."

Oh God no, we wouldn't want this poor guy to get harassed, and, most importantly, would want him to be embarrassed....not when he's the only one that can legally harass and embarrass the defendant, huh?  Harassed....keep in mind, this Petitioner has only served the poor man twice...ever.  He hasn't appeared either time...keep that in mind as well.

I would like to, as a preamble here, bring up this point:  If this was an illegal serve....then why are we motioning to quash the subpoena?  Oh, and another thing...how are we "purportedly" serving a subpoena?  And if it is purportedly, again, why are they motioning to quash a subpoena we "purportedly" served??  I thought we'd just get that one out of the way, toot de suite.

Let's go over the details, quickly.  First, notice that John P. Sarcone is "coming", as himself, to quash his own subpoena.  Is this legal??

Note, also, that, supposedly, I am supposed to give the guy prior notice about what he might be testifying about??  I never had to do that in the first case...why do I have to do that now?  When did this start becoming a norm, or become the law of the land?

Note also some more, that in the pursuit of my innocence, I am, by serving anyone in elected office, ABUSING the power of the Subpoena...and that the subpoenas, in the first case that we're disputing, are PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE (see "The Post-Conviction Case, Part IV, found here:

http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-post-conviction-relief-case-part-iv.html

to be clear about what we're talking about)

Let's follow this up with my very quickly put together "Motion to resist the Quash"

"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby submit this motion to
resist the defense’s motion to quash the subpoena for John P. Sarcone:

1. According to the affidavit of service filed in this case, it is obvious that the office of the
county attorney misled the server, Tanya Myers, to believe that she had made an illegal
serve at the rightful offices of the county attorney, and to someone who claimed to be his
agent and accepted the service. So how can a subpoena be quashed that wasn’t
legally served? The County Attorney WAS legally served. It was because of this
UNLAWFUL misdirection that the County Attorney does not have a copy of the
Subpoena.

2. Moreover, the county attorney has full access to the record of the court in this case,
I’m sure, if not himself, through his lackey, Mr. Ramirez. There is a copy of the
Petitioner’s “Minutes of Testimony” on the record of this case; should he need to see
why the Petitioner needs him to testify, he can find that information on the record.

3. As to the subpoena being “Harassing”, the county attorney has only been served a
subpoena from this Petitioner twice. Moreover, he was able to get the subpoena in
FECR292312 (the proceeding from which this case springs) quashed as well. This
subpoena is not, by any legal definition of the word, “harassing.”

The petitioner, hereby, asks the court that another copy of the subpoena be picked up by
Mr. Sarcone, (which should be easy, since he is RIGHT NEXT DOOR) and that he be
compelled to testify in this matter.

Mr. Sarcone himself, along with Linda Lane, at that time, an assistant Polk County
Attorney, fed a libel-filled article to the Des Moines Register, and the Petitioner fully
intends to compel Mr. Sarcone, who opted to officially comment on the case that he
supposedly knows NOTHING ABOUT, FECR292312, in that article. This is why the
plaintiff needs him to testify (see Petitioner’s Exhibit, J, “Christopher Bruce, Domestic
Terrorist”, Exhibit filed in this case on 2/9/2017, and the Amended Minutes of Testimony,
filed 2/20/2017)"

Of course, I await, with the usual baited breath, the order to quash the only subpoena I was able to get served.  Details will come when I know more.

The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part VII - The Pre-Trial Blues

Here I stand, head in hand, turn my face to the wall,

If she's gone I can't go on, feeling two-foot small

Everywhere, people stare, each and every day,

I can see them laugh at me, and I hear them say,

Hey, you've got to hide your love away.

Hey, you've got to hide your love away

How can I even try, I can never win,

Hearing them, seeing them, in the state I'm in

How could she say to me, love will find a way,

Gather round all you clowns, let me hear you say:

Hey, you've got to hide your love away,

Hey, you've got to hide your love away.

- The Beatles

Well America, once again, it looks as though this writer may be royally screwed again by those of the Polk County courts.  I'm afraid nothing looks good, where getting justice due is concerned...about the only hope I have left is that the Judge, Jeannie Vaudt, may be an honest and good judge.  I would be surprised, if I didn't know better.  I've thought the judge might be fair in a case before (i.e., Judge Blink, the man primarily responsible for the filing of this case), and have been let down; so for however this judge may be, I am, of course, prepared by expecting the worst.

We'll begin by stating that none that I had hoped to have served to testify on my behalf have been served.  This is, of course, due to the main fact that I did not use either a private investigator or the Polk County Iowa Sheriff's office (who I obviously have no intention to fund in any manner...including paying their ridiculous request for over $8,000 in "Room and Board" for the year I spent in jail, let alone pay them to do their job that I already, with my taxes, pay them to do anyway.)  This is also due to how well those involved have hidden themselves in their respective ivory towers, behind 2" thick bulletproof glass and behind an army of assistants, secretaries, pages and scribes.  Others have retired, disappeared and are nowhere to be found or seen.  Gee...I wonder why.  The only one that will be there will be my "Stand-By Attorney", Lucas Taylor, already called as the ONLY witness...for the prosecution.  You had best believe that I intend to grill this man for all he's worth, in his cross-examination by me...about 7 other witnesses worth, the others that will never see the courtroom in this case, just like it was in the other cases I subpoenaed them to show up for, including the one this case is about.  I am quite certain that, even if I had paid some private investigator to find and serve these criminals, that they would have found a way to not be there anyway, and there would have been $500 down the drain.  I can't say that I'm disappointed that the $75 that I shelled out to have a friend do it for me (they were to get another $75 upon the job's completion...which of course, it couldn't be completed, due to the trouble each person was to find, let alone serve) was all that I had to pay out.  Anything more would have just been more of a waste of what little money I have/make.

So, as a final post, pre-trial, I plan to make the usual prediction as to the outcome of this little party...there will be no justice...there will be no news crews, there will be no witnesses for the defense, and the PUBLIC record, describing the events of the case in question, as well as the case itself, will reflect the court's perfect execution of both trials, with the Petitioner in the usual place...the loser's box.

That said, there has been a final "pre-trail" statement made to the "court" of Polk County, and those who represent their brand and breed of "Justice."  America has to get her copy as well....of course.

"I, Christopher (Bruce), the Living Man, do hereby make this final pre-trial statement to the court of Polk County, Iowa, Judge Jeanie Vaudt, and those who seek to deprive this Petitioner of his rightful remedy, those of the Polk County Attorney’s offices.

Three years ago, the Department of Human Services, in a conspiracy with the courts of Polk County, Iowa, overseen by the criminal Judge William A. Price, and prosecuted by another conspirator, John P. Sarcone, without good cause, removed my wife’s daughter from her loving parents.  Since that day, the petitioner chose to expose what the criminals in these courts had done, and continued to do, online.  Because of this, the parents had their rights terminated...also without cause.  2 months later, the agency that removed her admitted they did wrong, removed the parents from the abuse registry, cleared them of the Department’s allegations, and expunged their records of any wrong-doing.  That decision was backed up by the director of that agency...and still the crooked courts of Polk County and the State of Iowa Supreme Court refused to acknowledge that wrong-doing, even in the face of that decision, and would not restore our rights or return our daughter; because to find in our favor would have garnered too much of the wrong kind of attention on the myriad of judges, county attorneys and Supreme Court judges involved, and would have endangered a very lucrative and successful industry in the State of Iowa, by causing a very unwanted light on the activities of the corrupted officials who profit greatly by these wrongful actions, both through income and jobs related to the industry of child removal.

In order to complete their success against us in our juvenile cases, the county attorney of Polk County conspired with the Des Moines Police Department’s detective Jake Lancaster to cause the father and mother (who had, by this time, secretly moved away from Des Moines) to miss their termination hearing.  As any person involved in these cases know, parents in Iowa who miss their termination hearings have, by statute, no standing to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court.  Because they could not find the parents, they enlisted the help of the United States Secret Service to have the father arrested for the first time in 12 years.  Since then, the father has been arrested for the same crimes (harassment being the easiest crime to charge and prove against someone in the State of Iowa) three additional times; the last costing him a year of his life in the Polk County Jail; even though he had no record to speak of prior to this time, save for 3 simple misdemeanors over a 30 year span, with NO violence, NO drug related offences, and, most importantly, NO record of harassment. stalking, or any other aggravated or related behavior.

In order to successfully lock the father away, the courts of Polk County conspired with John P. Sarcone’s offices, Darren Tromblay of CityView magazine, Jeanne Munson, and Mark Worthington to file charges of harassment and stalking against the petitioner, and find him guilty of the same.  Prior to the arrests made in cases SMAC359086 and FECR292312, the petitioner had been in constant contact with all three of these people for over 2 years, and had no issues with any of them.  In a one week period, all 3 would file charges against the petitioner, at the behest of John Sarcone’s offices.  “The Rest of the Story” you can find on the record of the Polk County courts.

Since this petitioner’s incarceration, the Petitioner has noted no real change in the way he has been treated in the courts of Iowa in the past.  Those who choose to represent themselves without legal council (this has and will continue to be the case, since it is obvious that those that are appointed to represent those of perceived lesser value have no care or concern of those they represent, and work with the courts to deprive these citizens of their defenses...as is the case in THIS action) are not only discriminated against, they are told that they cannot do so without consequence and punishment if the rules of criminal, court and civil procedures of the State of Iowa are not known fully and followed to the letter.  These same rules of Civil Procedure obviously do not apply to those who work in the system, and the system makes it as difficult as humanly possible for someone who tries to have those wrongs righted.

I say, enough is enough.  Even though no one has been able to be served to testify on the events of this case for the side of the Petitioner, the Petitioner will still show up to fight the State on this matter, regardless.  Randy Osborn has retired.  Grant Rogers does not have an office at the Register, and cannot be reached, either by phone or email.  Judges in Polk County are never NOT in court, and none have a listed home address anywhere on file (for many self-conceived reasons, I can only imagine).  The Assistant Polk County attorney formerly in charge of the case in question has resigned her position, and conveniently cannot be located or found as working in any official capacity anywhere else at this time.  The Polk County Attorney himself works in a well-guarded castle, and does not appear in person or answer the phone for anyone...for such as myself anyway.  This, if nothing else, should be an obvious enough testament to the wrongs done against this Petitioner in these cases, as well as speaks loudly to the wrongs done to countless other residents of the county, in a concerted and unified effort that keeps those in power in their jobs, and make the county and the state money, utilizing the taxes off of the backs of those who cannot afford to fight their own cases, even though it is those very people who work hardest to produce these same taxes for the state, that go to pay these same state and county officials their salaries, so that they can then prosecute them incessantly, until they ultimately win out against those who seek justice for themselves, due to their lack of money, connections, constitution and endurance, honest attorneys to choose from, and actual time to devote to their efforts.

The Petitioner has endured the constant persecution (as well as prosecution, obviously) by the criminals involved in the wrongful removal of his daughter for 3 long years, as of the date of July 21st, 2017.  When is enough to be enough?

Unless the record of the court in the case in question has been doctored (as it has been proven to have been in the past, even as recently as the case in question), the court record itself SHOULD stand as enough evidence on its own of the wrongs done the Petitioner in the case in question.  The witnesses the Petitioner had intended to have testify should not even be needed; the record should speak volumes on its own.

This petitioner sincerely hopes that there is just one remaining judge in all of Polk County/The State of Iowa that remains true to the meaning of justice, and that the same judge is the one assigned to this case.  If not, and should the Petitioner once again be denied his due, the Petitioner reiterates that this case will by no means be the end of the fight for true justice for the Petitioner and his now destroyed and separated family, and the Petitioner’s ruined good name and reputation, thanks to the continuing criminal actions of those in office in Polk County, who supposedly represent those wronged citizens of Iowa...most who know nothing of the character, nor anything of the events that led to this conspiracy and violations against the civil rights and due process of the Petitioner during the course of the case in question.  These events were blotted from the eyes of the jury deciding this case (using the tired excuse of confidentiality.) In its place was put an obvious attempt to sway the jury from making an un-biased decision concerning the Petitioner, a libelous article fed to Iowa’s premier newspaper, The Des Moines Register, redefining the Petitioner as a lawless, possibly dangerous and murderous “Domestic Terrorist”, which was printed one day before the jury was to go into deliberations.  This article not only succeeded and did its job well, it also cost the petitioner his home in Carroll Iowa, where he had lived for over a year without issue.

During the course of this case, the Petitioner’s right to defend himself in his own person was denied him (while incarcerated,) his ability to bail himself out reasonably was deprived him, lowering of the same was never addressed or suggested by stand-by council, depositions were also never suggested or done, the Petitioner’s right to appeal was ignored, all of his important witnesses were dismissed from testifying (the Friday before the Monday of trial), all pertinent evidence filed by the petitioner was ruled irrelevant (the Friday before the Monday trial) and no promised “poll of the jury” to determine whether a new trial was needed was ever done, following the verdict of the jury.  Every due process and civil right of the Petitioner has been violated in the process of these proceedings; and the State of Iowa still stands in their pulpit with innocent puppy eyes and blatantly denies a single wrong-doing.  This petitioner will, without question, continue to show that Polk County does not believe in true justice, for what could very well be the rest of his days, should this judge prove no better than her peers, by deciding against the Petitioner in this case.  The Petitioner, in conclusion, hopes to be surprised by the decision, in opposition to the expected one.

Respectfully,
Christopher (Bruce) The Living Man"

Stay tuned for the results of this fiasco, following my return to my new home, on July 7th or 8th.  Quite possibly, this will only be a one day trial, considering the fact that I, once again, have no real witnesses that need to testify.  Kind of reminds me of the last case, where they dismissed all of the witnesses that could hurt their case, leaving me with only 11 character witnesses....who they then asked to go home for the first two days, since the prosecution was still parading THEIR list of witnesses...on the 3rd day...as they and I both expected, these remaining 11 witnesses just...didn't show up again.  Gee, I can't understand why not??

Anyway, don't bother crossing your fingers.  I don't expect any real miracles, nor do I expect justice.  I just expect that this will be no different that any other trial....except that, as the loser, I'll end up having to owe them more than I already owe them for it.  :D

Concerning Iowa Child Support...(Child Support Enforcement, Part II)

Below is a letter contributed to me by a good friend from Iowa who has chosen to be anonymous.  I've already written a rather comprehensive article concerning child support and child support collection, "Child Support Enforcement" which can be found  here:

http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/im-sorry-america.html

Now, before we print the letter, let's quickly go over some facts that you may as yet not know.

First, a lot of people are not aware of the fact that child support and their collections are done by none other than?  The Department of Human Services...or social services....or whatever...the very people responsible for the business of child removal.  Imagine that.  In the article linked above, this had been something I had not been aware of.  Once I made it down the rabbit hole, a lot of things I had considered to be a mystery about this rather mysterious collections industry became a lot more clear.  For instance, how they had the power they had to do pretty much whatever they wanted to do to get those collections of our money, and the fact that they could, at any time, suspend your licence or get you arrested for not paying.  Needless to say, all of those mysteries are now abated, since I now know who's responsible for them.

Now, before you folks get the idea that I'm some sort of bum or useless deadbeat dad who's sore about having to pay to support his kids, keep these three things in mind:

1.  The child I supported was a product of rape....yes, my psychotic ex-wife raped me while I slept, then took off when she was sure she was pregnant.  I didn't see her again until my divorce hearing, after she had the baby.  Naturally, I avoided paying her child support for as long as was humanly possible.  When I was officially arrested for non-payment, I drew out the money to pay all of the back child support in one...huge...chunk, so it wouldn't happen again. So, did arrest actually help then, as I like to claim that it doesn't, in 99% of cases?  Well....yeah, in my case.  What the child support laws DON'T tell you is that you can only be arrested for non-payment three times.  After that, they have to dismiss the entire payment...present and past.  How long, do you believe, will it take deadbeat dads to figure that out?  I happen to know several who already have.  Once you've served time for all 3 arrests, they have to let you out of the entire obligation.

2.  Once your name has been assigned on the birth certificate?  If you were to find out later that the child was not yours, there's no way to get it changed, after the deed is done, if the child is more than a year old.  Even before, you have to have court intervention and pay fees to get it done, if before a year has passed.

3.  If, by chance. the child was never yours, and you paid support for what could be up to 22 years?  You may as well pretty much write off all that money, because you'll never in life get it back.  In addition to this, if, halfway through paying, you do find out who the father is (and of course, clear your name in the process) social services a.k.a. child support recovery may not, at their discretion, change who pays the support.  And, if by some miracle, you do get them to go after the right father, this is a rather timely process that may, for all intents and purposes, take almost as long as it took to find out who the real father really was.

This letter considers the musings of one of our U.S. armed services veterans, where this often criminal organization is concerned, so therefore needed some light shed, in this writer's opine.

"Dear Congressman,

I have a question regarding child support in Iowa.  I will keep it very simple and brief.

Currently, Iowa law allows that if the payor of child support receives social security disability, then their child support will be reduced upon request, however, there are many payors of child support who are disable, but they only receive disability from the VA.   These Veterans are struggling with employment and unable to pay the amount of child support that they are ordered to pay and they are finding themselves facing license sanctions and even jail time.  What is wrong with this picture?  Why can a person receiving SSDI have their child support reduced, but a veteran, who has served his or her country in a combat zone and became disabled due to a war, cannot share this same right?  Is there anything you can do to change this immediately?  Would it help if I wrote a proposed bill to address this issue?

This is not doing right by our veterans who have sacrificed so much.

Thank you,

It is not okay to send me solicitations, flyers, pamphlets etc. by mail or by e-mail for the purpose of elections, or for the purpose of advertisement of any political party or candidate."

I think it needs said...didn't you?

Cops (The Show AND the real deal)

Update:  Since I wrote this article, I had to hitchhike to Des Moines, Iowa, from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for a two day trial on July 5th and 6th..  In Cherokee, Iowa, at 9:30 at night on the 6th of July, I was on my way home, and an Iowa State Trooper decided to "check up on me" while I was resting in a ditch on the side of the road.  Actually, truth be known, my phone was dead, and I was secretly charging it in an outlet that belonged to the local Shopco...and resting.  I had a great view of the phone from that spot, which is why I ended up exactly there.

The State trooper asked me for ID, which of course, I provided.  He asked me if I would sit in the back of his vehicle while he checked me out...and I, essentially, told him that I would remain right where I was, and asked if I was suspected of some crime.  He digested that unwanted clump of info, and left me where I was.  Upon clearing me with dispatch, he chose to inform me (because I had already told him what I was doing) that hitchhiking was illegal in Iowa.

Now, ignorance of the law, where the police are concerned, is probably my most favorite thing about assholes like this guy.  I've been picked up by sheriffs while hitchhiking for years in Iowa, and taken to the county line, and never once been told I couldn't hitchhike.  Funny enough, I've even been told that it's illegal to hitchhike on the interstate here...and it isn't.  It is stupid (since no one has time to even notice me, let alone will they come to a complete stop from going 100 mph), and I rarely get picked up on the interstate, and, I simply prefer the side highways.

So, to this idiot?  I hereby dedicate this article...oh, and provide him with plenty of law showing him that, technically, it's not illegal in ANY fashion to hitchhike in Iowa....oh, and of course, send his station a personal copy of this article.  By the way, another quick note, I politely inquired of the Cherokee State Patrol station for a general email to send it to them, and she very nicely gave me the lieutenant's personal email.  Sweeeeeeeet...:D

(Another quick) Update:  For those of you who want to see that law, here it is, already researched for us by the great folks at www.hitchwiki.org:

Law

Iowa's state law is very friendly towards hitchhikers. The state of Iowa appears to be aware of police constantly abusing the uniform vehicle code's wording of "roadway" to intimidate hitchhikers into thinking hitchhiking is illegal. The law now expressly notes that it is completely legal to hitchhike off the traveled portion of a road:

321.331 Pedestrians soliciting rides.

1. No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of any private vehicle.

2. Nothing in this section or this chapter shall be construed so as to prevent any pedestrian from standing on that portion of the highway or roadway, not ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of any vehicle.

This means that if you stay on the shoulder, you'll be fine. Police will still occasionally stop you to check your ID, keep in mind that you do not have to show ID if you're not in breach of any laws (but better be sure about it because insisting on your rights, while a good thing, will likely piss the cop off).

***********************************************************************************************

Hey America...Yes, I'm still alive.  Else, I wouldn't be here, writing this article, one I've been thinking of writing for a long time.

Whaddya say we talk about this show first.  "Cops" has several distinct records that a lot of you are too young to know.  For one, this was THE ORIGINAL reality show...the daddy of all stupid TV.  It also has the distinction of being the longest running reality show.  You ready for this?  30 years.  Who knew?  Funnier still, Jerry Springer is running a hot 2nd, with 26 years under his belt.  If this doesn't say something for ratings and what people spend their time watching, nothing does.  I shake my head for America, nearly every day.

The reason I would like to pick on this show should be obvious.  I don't really much care for cops - the show, OR the real thing.  Most are morons, most are lawbreakers, and most literally get away with murder, because we Americans allow them to.  I'd like to, now, go into all the things that I just know the majority of us, even briefly, allow to cross our minds as we watch this idiotic show; as well as go over what USED to be our rights (and still are) in dealing with these lawless butt-heads.

The very first thing that entered my mind when I watched this show was multi-pronged in its brilliance:  Here's a great idea...put a show on the air that puts the fear of God into evil-doers everywhere, by showing them what'll happen to them if they continue to break the law; with a rather dark side benefit...at the same time, why don't we show the criminals and would-be criminals of our country what to do in order to commit crimes, and give them more to work with; like showing them how to avoid cops, how to break into places, what tools to use, keep everyone up on the latest drugs, how to lie to the police, and how to get on TV, even if you do get arrested.  America loves her 15 seconds of fame, I'm certain that, upon hearing the show was coming to town, the criminals were probably lining up to get arrested, just so they could be on TV.  According to the show's stats, 95% of the arrested criminals sign releases offered to them to be shown on TV, prior to being hauled off for whatever reason.  Nothing like instant fame, rather than anonymity.  What stupid people.

Another thing you might notice, is that, when speaking candidly to the camera before an interaction with their perps, the boys in blue, khaki and black are prim, proper, and can do no wrong.  The thing I love is that almost every one of them fits a narcissistic profile; and if they don't seem so while they're talking to the camera before a bust, by the time they're finished putting on the handcuffs, they fill those shoes to overflowing.  I can't even count how many times I say the words "Bastard" and "Bitch" during the course of a half\-hour show.  I know I often feel very sorry for their unwitting bustees.

Now, let's move right along to my favorite part, what it is that cops can and can't do, and what they know, and, quite obviously, don't know.  What they do do is break the law and infringe upon our rights, nearly every single minute of just about every single shift they work.  As to what they know, they obviously know how to mess with people, how to hassle citizens, how to discriminate, how to act outside of their boundaries, and how to arrest people.

What they don't know is the law.  What do I mean by that?  That, as well, should be obvious.  They do not learn the law...and therefore, do not actually know what the laws are.  What they know is what keeps them in their jobs, and not much else.  They know how to entrap speeders, they know all the latest drugs, they know that girls can't sell their bodies on the street, and they know that people can't steal things that don't belong to them, or that they can't hurt or murder others.  They know how to chase people at high speeds that don't want anything to do with them, and they know how to sick dogs on people, often for no good reason.  They sure as hell know how to shoot those who run from them...even, sometimes, those who don't.  Most of all, they know how to harass Joe Public, using any excuse, and any lie they can use.  They know how to look the other way when a Mercedes Benz drives 70 miles an hour in a 35 mile per hour zone, and stop a black man for any reason he can think of.  This is about the extent of a cop's legal training.  Ask any cop the law behnd whatever it is that he's arresting you for, besides the obvious, and you're likely to get your head slammed into his car for being a smart-ass.  The truth is, for most of what you're arrested for, they have no idea.  They do know what brings in the bucks for the city, county and state, and they know what keeps them in their jobs and collecting their paychecks.  Most of all, they know how to make their expected arrest and ticket quotas, by slacking in the middle of the month, then running up the numbers massively at the end of it.

For good examples, all day long, all you have to do is watch an hour of "Cops", and pay only slight attention.  Make it a point to write down the things you see that you feel aren't quite right, and look up your local laws - statutes, codes and the like, before you actually decide that those punks got what they deserved.  Imagine yourself if the same position, and what you see will actually start to look pretty crazy.  Don't think about what you're seeing the criminals doing, think about what should \be their rights.  Then compare what you're seeing to our Constitution, and its FEDERALLY MANDATED over-bearance over State Law.

But, since a lot of you don't have that kind of time, let me help you out, as I often do.  Let's begin with the reasons that a lot of these people are pulled over for.  Where the show is concerned, you have to take a moment to realize that the show is often very selective of the situations that air.  Often, the people you see are, indeed, lawbreakers, usually of the especially nasty variety.  I guarantee that none that are obviously NOT guilty are rarely aired.  We couldn't have that, it would defeat the purpose; of the show, as well as a cop's actual job.  I can most certainly guarantee that there will never be any confrontation or arrest that ended in a serious shooting injury or death, whether right or wrong.

That said, the police on this show almost always verbalize their purpose of pulling these people over, and almost every one of those reasons sounds ludicrous.  Fortunately for the show, and the cops involved, by the time they've got their men/women pushed into their waiting black and white limos, you've all but forgotten those reasons, due to the fact that the people they've arrested have made it quite apparent that jail is the best place for them.  The real story is, if you took a moment to consider how they're being treated, then put yourself in their shoes, you wouldn't feel the a single right provided you by the Constitution was being considered - mostly because they aren't...being considered.

While writing this article, a show just happened to be airing, reminding me that it had been quite some time since I've written anything.  The reason for this is tri-fold; first, I'm working good long hours, more than I have in years, thanks to the great jobs with high pay they have here.  2nd, is that I'm hard at work at my case, the trial for which you have seen the flyer for already.  Third, I don't have a steady or reliable internet connection where I live.  All of these things will either change or settle down as things continue to get better for me (as they ALWAYS DO the minute I leave Iowa).  Anyway, I usually don't have to wait long before rights are oh so obviously avoided or trampled on, so many in fact that, from this point on, we're just going to tell you about these violations in sections that describe the way to handle your every day stops, organized into their appropriate catagories.  This section applies to both those actually committing crimes, or those that are just simply minding their own business, and are just being harassed, or aren't really committing an actual crime.

If you're being told to stop walking and confront an officer:  and this is very important to remember - unless you are committing a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime (they will use this against you if they feel that's what it takes to win out against your rights by the way...there'll be some sort of story about a guy who looked just like you that committed a crime in the neighborhood, or something similar), you do NOT have to stop, interact, show ID to, or answer any cop's questions.  This is the one that drives me the craziest when watching the show...if these people would just simply tell the officer to buzz off, or just shut their mouths, this show would be a real flop.  There would be almost no arrests either.  But because we are of the firm belief that, because we are being hailed or stopped by someone looking to serve and protect the general public, we must do so, then give up all of our information and confess our crimes, or things will not go well for us.  This is, of course, pretty much the truth; but what you don't get is, if you stick up for yourself, and know what these pretender keepers of the law can actually do, aside from you stupidly giving them permission to do so, you'd beat every case you incur, including traffic offenses.  Cops are NOT allowed to detain you...unless you are in the commission of, or are suspected of committing an actual crime.  What's more, another thing you'll notice about this show is that almost all offenses these days are jailable, or able to be made so; thanks to the absolute ridiculousness of our State and local codes and statutes, that almost all seem to favor and protect the cop, rather than the rights of the citizen.  Hardly ever, unless it's a traffic related offense, do you ever see only a ticket or citation given out anymore...and even that's not entirely true.  Do it right, you can almost bet on going to jail for a good portion of driving offenses as well, these days.

All I can say is this:  Almost every question a cop asks you can be answered quite simply - "None of your business"...mostly because most of what they ask you really isn't their business.  If they ask for your ID when all you're doing is walking along the sidewalk, tell them to quote the state law that requires you to show it to them.  This will, of course, piss them off; but let's be honest...is there some state law that requires that you show these nosy people your ID?  I bet not.  If there is, I suggest you get moving on getting it changed...because it is most certainly unconstitutional.

Now it's important that we move on to moving around, whether on a motorized or non-motorized vehicle that belongs to you or not, matters not; mostly because these things apply to everyone now, pedestrians and drivers alike.

If you are being stopped, it is unconstitutional that you are being forced to pull over and stop anyway.  Unfortunately, we Americans allow these guys to get away with this behavior, so it's a given that, if you don't stop, the cops will do anything and everything to make sure that you do, including killing you.  So I wouldn't tell you, even a little, not to stop, because your life depends on you stopping, whether it's truly unconstitutional or not...which it is.  What I will tell you is, once you have stopped, that's where it ends.  You've stopped.  And, this is, regardless, all you have to do, BY LAW.  You do not have to talk, you do not have to show your driver's license.  If you want to, go ahead...but for God's sake, end it there.  Insurance, registration, all that other stuff, does not have to be shown.  Neither do you have to say a word.  Most of all, cops do NOT have a right to pull you out, or make you get out of your vehicle, search you or your vehicle, or any of that stuff...unless of course, you give them permission to...which of course, almost everyone does, whether they're doing something wrong or not.  Watch the show, and notice that, at almost no time, does a cop say that you are required to get out of your vehicle so that they can search it or you.  Most of the time, you'll hear them ask if they can search the car...as to searching you, they don't usually do that unless you are in cuffs.  Nowadays, you'll notice that, quite often, the cops put the people that have vacated their cars in cuffs, saying at the same time that this is for THEIR protection.  This is really for the purpose of having you in cuffs before they find the things they wouldn't have the right to search for or find, when they do search your car.  In court, just the fact that you got out of the car would be enough for a judge to find that your rights were not violated, because you contracted with the offending cop by voluntarily exiting your car...because now you've essentially given them permission to search it by vacating it.  Searches of you or your car are deemed illegal if you say "NO, I'd rather you didn't search my car, thank you". instead of "Sure", and  "No problem officer.", then get out.  I often laugh to myself as I watch these offenders then get upset, either by crying or getting angry when they realize that they actually found the pound of weed under the seat, or, funnier still, then act like they have no idea it was there, then deny ownership or knowledge of the offending substance.  If they had only known what I'm telling you, the cop would have never gotten past the front window.

Anyway, back to the reasons these people pull you over, especially while you're driving, I cannot believe that a majority of you believe that these are valid reasons for telling these bastards your whole life story, then inviting them to search you and your vehicle; but that, as a viewer, you aren't completely insulted when you hear these cops verbalize the same reasons.  I hate to tell you folks this, but I don't care if your headlight is out, this is not a valid reason to pull you out of your vehicle and search you.  Not having a license to drive is not a reason to tow (and, of course, search your car...they do this, because they state that, because you have been arrested, you can't abandon your vehicle, so they have the right to tow it, since there's no one to drive your vehicle back to where it belongs...and, since it's about to be in possession of law enforcement and in inpound, for their protection, they now have, conveniently, a right to search it, since it's going to be held on their property), this has, in the past, at best, been only reason for a ticket.  That's it.  Turn signal is out, changing lanes without signaling, these are citation offenses.  Same with license being suspended, or no insurance.  There is no reason for arrest here, nor is this permission to search your person or your life.  If you forgot your license at home you aren't arrested, you're only supposed to be given a ticket...the court will later decide your ability to drive in the state, and will fine you if they find that you don't or didn't.  But because they ask....and you say or believe that you have to if they do ask you, or order you to, you do it...then get arrested for what is and what should have been an illegal search of you and your property.

I'll say it again:  just like drugs...just say NO.  It is none of that cop's business why you're driving at night in only your underwear, no you can't search me, no you can't search my car...and, by the way, it is unconstitutional to make you give a breath test...unless of course, you agree to it.  Yes, there are now STATUTES that say, if you refuse a breathalyzer, you are arrested and, and automatically guilty of drunk driving...but guys, you can beat this in court!  This is illegal as Hell, and you know it.  Unless you are killing someone with your two drink breath, you are not breaking a law...not a REAL law, anyway. Only an un-Constitutional one.  Speed traps, drunk stops....the only way these people get away with this is because you allow them to.  This used to be a little crime called ENTRAPMENT...but we the people have allowed cops to bend the rules, probably a little at first, then, just like everything else that has to do with what these people call "the LAW", has gotten way out of focus, context, and has gotten absolutely UN-lawful in its execution.

I get as angry as is humanly possible when I see people get pulled over for having no license plate light, or for some other idiotic citation offense, then getting arrested for nothing that was being done, until, of course, they told the cop to go ahead and search his car and himself while in possession of an ounce of crack and a gun in his waistband.  I don't care if you just shot up an ounce of coke, and feel guilty as Hell...if you tell the police NO to a personal and vehicle search, and they do it anyway, you have already beat your case, due to illegal search and seizure.  I know it doesn't appear like they know this...but they do.  Oh, they're slick as shit.  Every once so often, I marvel at their ingeniousness at getting permission to search these people or their vehicles...but even though it might seem like it's an order...I don't care how well they mask it, it's almost always as close to asking as it can be, because it has to be asked, and you must, in any fashion, agree, or contractually agree, in legal terms.  Ordering you to comply to a search violates your most valuable right, per the 4th Amendment, though it's obvious that most don't know it.  Now you do, if you didn't before.

Oh, oh...but my very MOST favorite part of this show is when a cop asks the perp why he/she/they ran.  This is where I almost always stop to shout at the screen "Look at how you treat the majority of us...and you wonder why I'd rather try to escape??  Or, I guess it's preferable that I allow you to humiliate me, violate my person, my rights and my property, then throw me in the back of your police car, or better yet, pound my head into the cement first...then take me to jail, no matter what I say or do, no matter whether I'm guilty or innocent.  Hmm....I think I'll choose RUNNING Alex!"

You folks watch this show flippantly...and do not stop to think about what's really going on out there, or how you'd act if these law-keepers were to ever confront you.  You would think, after watching this icing on a non-existant cake, that cops are great people who keep you safe...and you'd be right...at least, until you are pulled over in your car on the basis that you are in a "High Crime Area"...a new and quite ridiculously unconstitutional "probable cause" for detaining you while these cops violate your person and your property these days.  Until it happens to you, cops are great, and the show is great, in your opinion...and it always is, isn't it?  What it really is, America, is a blatant and insidious violation of just about everything the Constitution grants you rights for.  It doesn't apply to you, as you never get in trouble with the police...yeah, I've heard it before, literally thousands of times...but there will be a day...and when it peeks over the horizon, don't cry to me.  All you'll get out of me is an "I told you so" and a token shrug of my shoulders.