State of Alaska vs. a friend of mine

[scottinalaska]

My former student screwed up last year right before graduating highschool. He got drunk with some buddies and rammed a couple gates leading to the Alaska pipeline and took a stopsign. A few days later a cop sees the stopsign in the back of the truck along with some chains and a padlock belonging to the the Pipeline company. He impounds the truck when he discovers "Wyatt" is in Hawaii on his "senior vacation" with a friend.
Just last week, he was called to come get his truck back - no charge.
He was assigned a public defender but hasn't had his calls returned for Thursday's arraignment coming up. Wyatt appeared once last month but was not allowed to plead anything.
I am thinking about going at least for education, but perhaps as "counsel." If his Public Defender doesn't show, Wyatt will be glad at least he has a friend.
Can I be a friendly advisor?
The formal complaintant is the cop who found the truck. He is the guy supposedly "representing" the State of Alaska by signing that blank on the charging instrument.
I would rather try out my questions in a less volatile charging situation, but perhaps this is a great time with no risk to me to a certain extent.
It will be criminal and I believe the Constitution only allows for Common and Admiralty or Military Tribunal, yes?
Of course if I ask questions, I will likely be thrown out too.
Any thoughts...even if they are thoughts like, "Scott, don't practice on someone else and have the whole court and cop station hate you when you don't have thing to gain."
scottinalaska

Greetings scottinalaska,

As always, I would suggest, especially due to your location, going to http//:www.jusbelli.com.

However, if you wanted to "have at it" in their system of things, how's about a proper arraignment with firsthand knowledge from a competent fact witness? Does the cop own the chain and the sign? Is there an affidavit and presence in court by the true owner as the allegedly injured party? Trap the gangster on the witness stand and then move for dismissal??? Just a thought, as per your request.

Sincerely,
truth

[scottinalaska]

Thanks Truth,

I am thinking that simply questioning the cop, thus "impeaching" his testimony, much as Marc Stevens advocates may be my easiest route. I sure would like some good script to practice with.
Such as when he answers "no" to my barrage of questions, do I say, "Your honor, I move for dismissal because there is no competent witness or sworn complaintant present."
Then magistrate says, "No, you're stupid, sit down. You're not an attorney anyways. I don't want to hear your questions...."
THAT is what I fear...which is why I will announce that I would like to record this hearing.
scott
Oh, Should I be asking for evidence of the magistrate's oath before then?

Good Day scottinalaska,

In this scenario, it might be wise to focus more on impeaching the cop. Perhaps, you could inquire as to HIS bond and oath on the witness stand, to ensure that he's not impersonating a peace officer. But, first things first. I believe you are going to have a problem in speaking for your friend in the first place. This is how they get away with so much abuse. Because, those of us who dare to challenge them are stifled. And many people who are called into court, learn too late what they are up to and hope that we, the more knowledgeable ones, will come in and "assist" them. So, again, respectfully, I would suggest that YOUR FRIEND go to http://www.jusbelli.com and research the section on "effective assistance of counsel". There is paperwork there that can be served on the necessary parties, if they try to stick him with an attorney, and this would also support his decision to have you standing as his choice as "effective assistance of counsel". And as far as an abusive judge, you know their big threat is contempt: Excuse me, would that be civil or criminal? And so on, there are posts on this site that do have a script of sorts, that you were inquiring about. But, again, your friend must be wise to these questions and responses, as well.

Sincerely,
truth

[scottinalaska]

Truth,

Thanks for the jusbelli link. I have downloaded the counsel contracts and have two more hard parts in this case:
1) How does one ask for a Trooper's Bond or Oath? What is he going to give me? Is this something he will have verbal reference to? If he cannot provide, then move to strike for a man "is up there impersonating an Alaska State Trooper(Police Officer)?
2) We DO have damaged property here. Wyatt(stupid when you're drunk) broke a gate leading to the pipeline and THEN tossed the chains and lock into his truck. No one was hurt and he didn't damage or terrorize the oil pipeline. Heck we live with it in our back yard and really it is only a barrier to get places sometimes. But we usually go through the many other locally known access places. Aside from the local lore here, we have damage and we have theft. Does this criminal mischief totalling more than 500 bucks then allow a viable complaint...but from ONLY the injured party?
The officer will be "representing" the State Of Alaska, I know. But he himself incurred no loss. Yes, Wyatt should repay damages, but they have threatened him with jailtime and fines I believe. I wish this was a speeding ticket!
I will give him a list of questions just to observe responses if I am not allowed to speak on Thursday morning.
thoughts?
scott

[seeker]

Jumping in here ... dealt with something somewhat similar -- IF Wyatt goes to the company and offers restitution (make sure it is a written as well as verbal offer -- paper trail) and he does that, or they refuse, you have another component -- Victoria Joy quotes "go first to thy brother" Goes back to the basis for the law, if you take something from someone, give it back or replace it.
Without admitting guilt, offer to repair,replace, reimburse for the damage and as part of the agreement, ask that all charges be dropped as settled "privately" between the parties. If it goes to court, you may be able to use the "I conditionally accept the court's offer to have me _____(whatever___, upon proof that I did not offer/(or provide) restitution for the damages claimed and that this is not a private matter." Something to that effect -- just of the top of my head on that one.
Just some thoughts for you to consider.

Seeker

[scottinalaska]

Wow, how simple! I guess that's how common law and human beings are supposed to work. How did we get into this mess? Thanks Seeker. That is good wisdom.

scott

[scottinalaska]

I will now try to pursue this in the private before we enter the public. The beef should have been with the pipeline company and pay the restitution, but for some reason, the cops are involved and charging him with Criminal Trespass in the First Degree, Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree, and Theft in the Third Degree.

We are making rapid contacts to realize that the company's insurance company paid the 1300 dollars in damage. I am advising Wyatt to contact both the insurance and pipeline company to offer a written restitutution offer and receive a written response stating all is settled and there is no argument or inequity existing or something like that.(better words here somewhere that I could request in the letter?)

It is 45 below zero and dropping right now so I am hoping to get an extenuating circumstances extension for Thursday so we can get that magic paper.

Right track?

It is VERY obvious that the complainant canNOT be a police officer since he is not injured and neither is the State of Alaska! BUT, I'd like to have the paper in hand showing no argument or beef with the REAL injured party.

scott

[seeker]

Scott;
Seems like you need to be very clear about what has happened, if financial renumeration has already been received, WHO the injured party truly is, if there is a need for 'prosecution' (this could be construed as malicious prosecution if no actual harm was done that cannot be undone -- did the company loose anything other than the damage? Was there a 'consequence' of the damage? did someone come behind him and steal/damage etc?)
There is a nugget that suggests that if the two parties have no disagreement, there is nothing for the courts to adjudicate. You may want to research and understand this -- I'll do a little more digging into the materials I have here, if it is of interest to you -- ?

Seeker

[scottinalaska]

Most excellent news. The court at first denied an extension this morning and said even though it is 50 below zero, the Public Defender would phone in from Anchorage, the judge would phone Wyatt at home, and the cop(complainant) would be present with the judge and all would be rendered from there!
Then after Wyatt spoke with the Public Defender for the FIRST time right before the "hearing" the Public Defender convinced the judge that we should reschedule. Here are the lines I had Wyatt tell his Defender he would say when it was his turn:
Am I entitled to a fairt trial?
Am I entitled to a meaningful trial?
Am I entitled to counsel?

I have not spoken with the public defender until five minutes ago. I have called numerous times in the past two weeks. I written down each time I have called and left a message. Mr. ___________ has never returned any of my calls.
Do you believe that without counsel this trial could be fair or meaningful for me?
Your honor, I have a desire to be present in person with my accuser and today's cirucumstances do not allow this. I have a desire to be informed by my counsel and he has neglected in his duty to do that.
I cannot enter any plea if that is so desired today because I have not had the opportunity to consult with my court assigned counsel. I went as far as calling the Caribou Hotel(local hotel in our area) last night in hopes of speaking with him and found out he had left the day before.
I would like to move that until this is taken care of, we postpone this hearing.

Mr. Public Defender apparently did not think it necessary to have this on the record, so in his magical ways, got it all postponed until early March! Oh, he told Wyatt, "Sorry I didn't call you back, you didn't leave your phone number each time."
Seeker, I agree, the nugget lies in the fact that if we are settled on the private side, no adjudication is necessary. Thanks for looking into your resources on this one. Wyatt mentioned to him that he was pursuing that and the PD said that was smart because it could be reduced to a misdemeanor now. If I am correct in my/our thinking, I don't think a misdemeanor has a chance either.
scott