Public notice to Officers Anne Holland and Christopher O'Sullivan et al, re: intent to file charges for false arrest, groundless, ex post facto no-trespass order, and denial of right to face accuser. These charges are not all-inclusive.
The above named parties leave me no choice but to pursue these, the only means of any hope for justice, and which, because the words that follow are truth and I, (John Doe), do hereby swear, solemnly and publically, to that effect, are protected by my First Amendment right under the United States Constitution.
Be it also noted that the details that follow are not complete, but even presented as such do provide for a reasonable conclusion that my Sixth Amendment rights have been violated, not least because, even as an executive action by a local law enforcement officer, the ambiguous and ex post facto No Trespass Order, and any finding or consequence of any defacto status or outcome (including "continued without a finding", which has resulted in a subsequent dismissal) should be held 'Void for Vagueness' and my record, although not damning or incriminating of me in the slightest, should nonetheless cease to have any traces of this offensive miscarriage of justice remaining.
Further: I profess that the very presumption of innocence, and, upon factual and legal confirmation of same, my co-requisite presumption of the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness - which includes the retainment of all liberties and personal property (including monies illegally coerced and thus far unrefunded), and access to all public resources and property enjoyed by other law-abiding citizens.
The above-named parties are publically ordered to restore proper justice, and to surrender themselves to be held accountable for violating these laws, and the rightful liberties of (John Doe).
This should be done forthwith.
-
The following begins my editorial:
Don't we find ourselves sometimes stuck between two ill-desired courses of... ... I refuse to acknowledge and therefore overtly dismiss "fate", so how about "courses of... action"?
In this note, I am thinking out loud about two lousy choices: one is to continue to rant and write about this issue until people are sick of hearing about it. As a result of my public expositional accounting of this situation thus far, "Officer Christopher O'Sullivan" gets some 519 hits from a Google search. I Googled my own full name (oh, come on - who hasn't done this by now?), and it yields some 26,300! Granted, it probably has more to do with all the online writing I do, and no, it's not mostly about this dumbassery - not even close, but damned if that isn't higher than "Mike Fine" or "Bleeding Gums Murphy"! Hell, it's only 2,000 less than "George 'the animal' Steel", and almost ten thousand more than the phrase "calculating pi"!
What? It was fun! Gotta give myself SOME comic relief from all this ridiculous nonsense, don't I?
So, back to my choices, then. Obviously I could have seen what was behind door number 2 and tried my old standby - STANDING BY and waiting for justice to find ME!
I guess that makes Chris O'Sullivan, Anne Holland, and even Timothy Cruz's courtroom grunt my de facto teachers, as well as my (collective) judge, jury and executioner? Hell, they presumed as much authority by denying me my access to due process.
Yeah - this 37 year old career-paraprofessional, part-time piano teacher and wanna-be writer, who makes a gross annual income south of 30k, and bills that eat absolutely all of that up, and who has no savings whatsoever beyond his MTA/a.f.t./NEA retirement plan, is too well off for court-appointed counsel to help him fight this.
Oh, I tried to find representation on my own. Yeah - that wasn't TOO humiliating. When I was told by one attorney Elliot Savitz that I was "funny" when I replied to his first quote of a price for just the first court appearance - to plead not guilty or whatever - at something like $1,300 - "maybe less depending on the circumstances" - I told him that once you get into four-figures, it's all the same to me. It seems his exasperation with me grew exponentially after that, telling me "if (I) get out of" this thing, that I should be grateful. That's not a direct quote, but the message was the same - I was too nervous and legally inept to explain my situation to this man's satisfaction, and too poor for him to give me the time of day.
You wanna try it? See how small you feel as you click off your phone to lick your wounds because you were made to feel stupid for even getting into this situation, and like a loser for being of lesser-than-middle-class means.
It sucks. And it shouldn't be. I should have access to the means to find the truth and pound it into the heads of those who seem to want to just cover their ears and yell "La la la! I can't HEAR you!".
Well, like I said, cowering before my so-called fate has been my modus operandi for WAY too long, and I am DONE when it reaches the point of legal consequence. It seems a lousy choice to have to make in America. I know that sounds melodramtic or grandiose, that can't be helped. You try using any reference to our country without inflating the import of your words, artificially or not.
But, I am talking about lessons about which I thought I had an above-average understanding. Ha. I never thought myself some Clarence Darrow in lay clothes, but I surely thought that what I now understand to be pathologically literal thinking, would hold me in good stead to at LEAST be able to comply with the letter of the law!
It appears that we are not merely responsible for extra-normal command of the laws as is the necessary competence to avoid the wrath of "ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law is no excuse", we are also expected to INFER how members of the executive branch will interpret it!
That in itself is daunting enough - and I dare say unconstitutional - given the absence of ANY curricular resources devoted to this mastery in k-12 education. What is worse, what is absolutely *scandalous*, is that no due diligence to any efforts of compulsory legal competence will EVER adequately prepare one to know how to combat a corrupt, spiteful, or just plain grumpy law enforcement officer (or the "system" or culture of his precinct, nor the "thin blue line") who, once he has made up his mind, has the power to usurp ANY guarentees of due process, or the so-called sacro-sanct "innocent until proven guilty" boast of American jurisprudence.
It is time for the "system" to keep that promise. I'm not talking about a hand-out or any impotent whines that I'm a soft-on-crime liberal. I'm talking about a system that must have as much respect for the law as it demands of the citizenry and we demand of ourselves and each other.
Otherwise, it's "just words". I think it's about time that lady liberty put up - 'cause I'm not about to shut up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment