Finally! Last but certainly NOT least, the sentencing transcripts, not unlike the other 4 sets...are IN. I'm just gonna HAVE to comment on these, since these transcripts are the ones that were most doctored. Too bad, really, that we couldn't have had the transcripts to the reconsideration hearing as well, where they screwed up my release date to be 2 months later (imagine that, will ya?), and it had to be put right. That's also the hearing where the judge refused to arrest Mark Worthington (paid DHS agent and conspirator with Jeanne Munson) for EXACTLY the same thing that they were trying to put me away for; because I had solid proof that they had been harassing me for months, up and unto the date they set me up to get arrested. I'm sorry...what am I talking about?? All the way up to this sentencing date, and BEYOND. Matter of fact, it just stopped what, two months ago, when the idiot FINALLY got it through his thick skull that I wasn't reading or publishing his comments? It's OK, though, if you folks can't see what really happened by now, then I have no real hope that you'll get it anytime soon, and I've wasted my...."breath" on you.
Should you really just not know what the Heck this is really all about, then please, by all means, see this and only this post, so you can at least have an inkling:
https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-im-going-to-go-to-jail-for.html
That article was written just before my sentencing...to whit, these are THOSE sentencing transcripts.
Forward and upwards then!! Here you go.
NOTE: The Story you're about to read is true. The names have NOT been changed to protect the innocent, because the innocent went to jail, and the real criminals got away with murder*
...Bond, which, at this point, was set where it should have been from day one...at $4000 of the $9000 that the bond, for the crimes that I allegedly committed, should have been at, at my arrest. Bond, at my arrest, was set unconstitutionally high at $70,000, and was never reduced, or asked to be reduced by anyone. As to the matter of juris, this court NEVER had jurisdiction; and when it was challenged, NUMEROUS times, it was never proven, merely stated to be had...twice, wrongly at that. First, it was a STATE juris, then it was later claimed, by Blink, to be a Subject Matter jurisdiction. Note also that, in the page to follow, they claim that I agreed to their jurisdiction, in order to have the judge uphold my subpoenas. This was, essentially, his way of tricking me into accepting that jurisdiction, and then he would allow every single important subpoena to be quashed, following that acceptance.
Now, this is the first place that the transcripts were doctored. This is where the state is about to complain that I have posted a confidential impact statement made by the victim in the case on this blog. Remember, I have already made it quite clear that I have no intention to take the statement down (in a conversation with my "Stand-by attorney" earlier that week), for a number of reasons. First, and quite obviously, nothing in this world is "Confidential." Even case files concerning juvenile cases are CALLED confidential, for whatever reason, these are not either. Nothing is, America...only when a court says so...and, usually, when they're trying to cover things up. You have a right to free speech, and no court can legally stop you from saying or posting ANYTHING without infringing upon this. Later, in this proceeding, I started to state this, and the judge ANGRILY stated that he was NOT going to order me to take it down...mostly because he knew that he couldn't...and that interaction never appeared in these transcripts.
Note, in the page to follow, that they are going to ask for a NCO for Mark Worthington as well, the guy who set me up, and someone I have no desire to talk to, or contact in any way. They also state, later, that he is ALSO being harassed...but he's not a victim? So...Jeanne is being harassed...and she IS a victim, and Mark is too, but he's not? I love how this works...
Yes, this is where they ask me to take down the victim impact statement. Also note that this is where they go over my extensive "criminal history", which, over the last 2 years, also includes just 2...yes, 2 simple misdemeanor harassment charges of 2 social workers...who, by the way, were still involved with our family as our CASEWORKERS at that time...how do I harass them, and how can they charge me when they are supposed to be handing my case? Then, there are the two other simple misdemeanor harassment charges against me, filed by Darren Tromblay, the managing editor of CityView, who sent me a signed email that said, essentially, we will do your story, and then, when nothing happened, I called him two months later to ask why....and he filed harassment charges on me. They had arrested me for that just 2 days before they arrested me for this case...'magine that. Funnier still, since they had already supposedly received reports for this case by that time, why hadn't they filed charges for it then?
This is where I tell the prosecutor that the judge cannot order me to take anything down off of my blog...
Oh sure, I know what you're thinking....you're thinking the judge was more than fair here right? ...and I can indeed understand that. You have to remember though, that this was a set up, and that the judge and prosecutor were both in on it. I should have never been in jail for this to begin with...and wouldn't have been, had I not started in on a case in my, at that time, home area of Carroll Iowa, where they had removed a newborn from a mother there. I had. also, just hours before, emailed 4,000 some social workers in L.A. to let them know how I felt about Theo Booker's troubles, and had told them that I had posted all their business online. I don't think that anyone cared a whole lot for that either. They had, just hours before they came for me, arrested Theo in California, and held him indefinitely with no charges for well over 30 days.
The idea, the ENTIRE idea here was to put me away, especially using the felony...which they had to drop for obvious reasons...but also, to ultimately get me on probation, where, at the drop of a hat, they could just violate me when things got too rough on them, and/or they didn't like something I was doing; and, if you'll notice, they wanted to limit me on the internet as a term of that probation...gee, I wonder why??
They even stated, you'll notice, that the first violation of that probation would net me more than the sentence of 60 days (90 days for the first violation), and would increase exponentially for EACH violation. You think I was going to go for that? Do I look stupid?? Surely not. Here....look again....
Right. So, in conclusion:
They didn't get anything close to what they wanted, by the by. What they got was one very smart inmate, who, after seeing what it was that they wanted, decided instead to serve the remainder of his sentence, and to hell with their probationary terms.
