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."