|
Re:What is a law?
I dug up the transcript which I actually produced from the audio tape I purchased from the court from my traffic hearing regarding being in violation of RCW 46.16.010
The ignorance of this judge is astounding yet I think it will probably be found to be commonplace in almost any court in this country today.
Keep in mind... this was the first time EVER being in court for me and I had a lot of things on my plate to bring before this court and judge.& I kept thinking to myself the whole time through this ordeal "I cannot believe I am sitting here saying these things to this judge"... but thats what makes this country great... we can, they answer to us.& There were a lot of things I could have done/said but I set them up for failure properly with all of the notices I sent them and directly serving them with copies of all affidavits, motions to dismiss, and memorandums of law.& They had absolutely no reason not to have answered anything I submitted to them or the court BEFORE this hearing date.
The transcript follows:<FONT size=2>
JUDGE HARTL: Ok Mr AJ lets go down from # 1 and Officer Hollis, case # 39014. Is it AJ?
DEFENDANT AJ: AJ
JUDGE HARTL: AJ. Give me the ticket. Um, are there any motions Mr AJ before we begin?
DEFENDANT AJ: I beg your pardon?
JUDGE HARTL: Any motions?
DEFENDANT AJ: I have filed
JUDGE HARTL: You have 5 of them. Yes.
DEFENDANT AJ: 5 duly and timely filed motions with this court.
JUDGE HARTL: Right. Um, for the record if you could succinctly state the 1<SUP>st motion please.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Actually your honor just for the record I’ll state that this is citation I039014, uh, an allegation of expired vehicle license tabs on 6/6/03, Susan Mahoney appearing on behalf of the city of Des Moines.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok. Here’s the… Ok. First is the motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Is that correct Mr AJ?
DEFENDANT AJ: That is correct.
JUDGE HARTL: Um, that uh, you have provided uh, a detailed brief on that, I have reviewed that, uh based on that motioned however the court does find that the Des Moines municipal court has subject matter jurisdiction on this case. That motion will be noted for the record and denied.
DEFENDANT AJ: I would like to make a comment on that your honor.
JUDGE HARTL: Go ahead.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok, uh, these are sworn motions and they have not been answered either by the prosecutor, the officer or this court
JUDGE HARTL: I’m just answering it now.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok, but you have not provided any verifiable law facts to back up your answer and
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, I can do that briefly. Under the Des Moines Municipal code, Chapter 2.28, uh the city of Des Moines municipal court has jurisdiction over traffic infractions within the state of Washington and that’s RCW title 3.50
DEFENDANT AJ: I would like to ask this court which specific averment you’re answering when you answer with that
JUDGE HARTL: The 1st motion we’re talking about
DEFENDANT AJ: But which averment in that motion are you addressing?
JUDGE HARTL: Uh
DEFENDANT AJ: Each one has to be rebutted otherwise they stand as fact, the best facts before the court.
JUDGE HARTL: I’m sorry, say that again.
DEFENDANT AJ: Each one of these averments has to be addressed they are sworn averments and they have to be addressed otherwise they stand as the best case before this court.
JUDGE HARTL: What’s the 1st averment?
DEFENDANT AJ: They are numbered… 1, 2, 3… all the way through, in this particular motion 53.
JUDGE HARTL: There’s 3? There’s 3?
DEFENDANT AJ: There’s 53 averments.
JUDGE HARTL: There’s 53. Ok.
DEFENDANT AJ: While you’re looking at that…
JUDGE HARTL: What’s WUCD?
DEFENDANT AJ: Its on the infraction that I was given, Washington Uniform Court Docket
JUDGE HARTL: Alright
DEFENDANT AJ: … is what its called. That, actually, that abbreviation is addressed in there as well just so it’s clear.
JUDGE HARTL: Ms Mahoney do you have, uh, did you want to briefly say anything?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I’m sorry?
JUDGE HARTL: I thought you were going to say something.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: No.
JUDGE HARTL: You weren’t going to say something. Ok.
DEFENDANT AJ: May I, may I make a statement?
JUDGE HARTL: Well uh, you wanted me to answer some questions but go ahead
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. Um, because I think it might help clarify what you’re looking at there. Um, I promise not to waste your time with making this statement but I have something to say and I think it needs to be
JUDGE HARTL: Alright, go ahead
DEFENDANT AJ: on the record. Um, I bring to the court’s attention the following documents which I filed with the Clerk of the Court, filed with the prosecutor’s office, uh, served by signature confirmation mail on you and the accusing officer on the 5th of June 2003. Um, they are my 2 affidavits, um my suggestion to state actors in the instant case, the 5 sworn motions, uh and the 4 memorandums or briefs of law. All of these documents were filed timely. Um, I’d like to ask a question of the prosecutor, the officer, and yourself your honor if I may?
JUDGE HARTL: What is it?
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. Starting with the prosecutor, do you acknowledge receiving each of these motions and affidavits?
JUDGE HARTL: Did you, Ms Mahoney did you get a copy of the motions?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I did.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok and have you answered them?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I’m here today to respond to motions.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, she’s answered that question.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok.
JUDGE HARTL: Go ahead.
DEFENDANT AJ: Alright, Officer Hollis did you receive
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I did
DEFENDANT AJ: and have you rebutted anything that I made in those affidavits or motions?
OFFICER HOLLIS: I’m here today to respond to your motions.
DEFENDANT AJ: And your honor I filed, uh a copy
JUDGE HARTL: Yes you did
DEFENDANT AJ: with the court with you and do you acknowledge receiving it?
JUDGE HARTL: Yes I did.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. Inasmuch as I have received no answers from any of you, I bring to your attention that having received my notice, none of you can offer any reason now nor will you be able to make an affirmative defense later that you do no know the law facts which are raised in that notice.
DEFENDANT AJ: I will say, relevant and substantive issues challenging the presumptions of subject matter jurisdictional authority of this court, the prosecutor, and the accusing officer are squarely before the court and all said parties.
DEFENDANT AJ: Until each averment of each of these 5 motions is answered with express statements of relevant and verifiable law facts and material facts in some instances, this court, nor any of the parties who have received service of my documents has any capacity to even presume that they have subject matter jurisdiction.
DEFENDANT AJ: Once a challenge of subject matter jurisdiction is laid before the movant parties, the burden of proving they have authority in the instant case rests on them.
DEFENDANT AJ: By the way, there is no protection under a Doctrine of Absolute Judicial Immunity when a judge, magistrate or the like has no subject matter jurisdiction. The same point applies to a prosecutor, vis-*-vis immunity under a Doctrine of Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity. And, the same applies to officers of the law under a Doctrine of Qualified Immunity.
DEFENDANT AJ: Everything you may each do in moving forward with this case when you haven’t duly and timely answered my challenge are acts committed in your private capacities for want of any official authority to avoid by silence or evasion a full and complete traverse of the issues raised in my motions’ averments proving contrary to the points raised in each averment.
DEFENDANT AJ: Your respective acts of answering by silence and/or evasive answers because they are irrelevant and not verifiable law facts will each be instances of record falsification. They will be record falsifications because none of you have authority to proceed forward in an official capacity unless you have proven in the record contrary to my motions’ averments. And, therefore because you are moving forward nonetheless, then your silences and evasions in each occurrence become evidentiary law fact records falsely represented by you as law answers to my challenges deceitfully intended as proof of your authority.
DEFENDANT AJ: Since the records you are making by silence and evasion are not lawful answers they are falsifications that they are lawful answers.
DEFENDANT AJ: Therefore, because you are moving forward on false records, you are not only acting in your respective private capacities, but you are obstructing justice, more commonly described as misconduct in office when persons entrusted with the duties of a public office commit such acts, notwithstanding they can only commit them in their private capacities, because no public officer has authority to obstruct justice.
DEFENDANT AJ: When each of you issues any form of process in this matter, to include the original traffic citation, any rulings, or orders, whatever, you are simulating legal process because your process is based on the false records you are creating here. In the accusing officer’s case, he created a false record when he issued the citation and simulated legal process because of with the issuance of said citation, he had no subject matter jurisdiction to cite the accused with violation of a DOL administrative law provision in the first place – or atleast, upon being challenged, he could not prove the accused was subject to said law.
DEFENDANT AJ: The only authority this court has when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged and the challenge cannot be answered is to dismiss the case with prejudice.
DEFENDANT AJ: And not lastly, this court is on notice that should all parties here – all of whom upon the face of the proceedings are acting under color of law, color of office, in their private capacities continue to move forward, then I shall move this court for a continuance for a time to proceed in Discovery under the Washington Rules of Civil Procedure. And I shall use every means available to me under said rules, to include depositions, subpoenas, interrogatories, and admissions to get responses from each of you or from your superiors, or other state officials. I will get answers one each of my averments raised in each of my motions and other points related which were not in those averments. I will find the truth in all of this.
DEFENDANT AJ: And if I’m denied my fundamental right to Discovery when clearly no one here today is acting in an official capacity, then I shall as soon as possible file a civil action raising issues of criminal obstruction of justice to include falsification of the record, simulated legal process, criminal fraud, and criminal extortion.
DEFENDANT AJ: Thank you for letting me make that statement.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, no problem, you’re moving for a continuance?
DEFENDANT AJ: Uh
JUDGE HARTL: That was the last part by moving for a continuance you do not
DEFENDANT AJ: If, if, no one is going to provide me written answers to those averments then I’m going to move for Discovery so I can get those answers.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, so you’re moving for a continuance for Discovery?
DEFENDANT AJ: For Discovery, yes ma’am.
JUDGE HARTL: Uh, Ms Mahoney, did we, did you request Discovery sir?
DEFENDANT AJ: Uh, yes I did.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok do you have that document?
DEFENDANT AJ: Um
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I think he has it.
DEFENDANT AJ: I didn’t specifically ask for this. My motions asked, were filed to be answered. I do have this.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright. Ok. Do you, are you making a motion to continue to review the officer’s notes?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: He has a copy of those.
JUDGE HARTL: You have a copy of those?
DEFENDANT AJ: I do have that, yes.
JUDGE HARTL: Oh you do have that. Ok. Are you making a mo…, do you need more time for those, to review those notes?
DEFENDANT AJ: I’m asking the court to consider the fact that it has not proven to me that it has subject matter jurisdiction to even hear this case because it has not
JUDGE HARTL: Alright, I wanted to, because you asked for a motion to continue. Are you asking for a continuance? … or not… do you need more time to review those?
DEFENDANT AJ: Not those. I need… if I have to I will proceed with Discovery to get answers to the averments in my motions to dismiss. They have not been answered.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright you have the officer’s notes there. … very good, then that’s noted on the record. Ok, uh Mr AJ you’re uh, the motions, like I said before, have been noted, uh the averments are all in writing, they are filed with the court, uh at this time those motions noted. The juris… your uh motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction is also noted. Uh this court would make a finding that the Des Moines municipal court is established under the Des Moines municipal code chapter 2.28, uh which is, allows the city to establish a municipal court. Um, section 10.04.050 of the Des Moines municipal code adopts the uh model traffic, uh model traffic, what’s the title of it, Washington model traffic ordin…, uh ordinance which is adopted by reference compiled in 308-330 of the Washington Administrative Code, which allows this, which allows the court to hear uh, uh, in… traffic infractions. That’s going to be the finding court regarding subject matter juris…
DEFENDANT AJ: Would you repeat that section again please?
JUDGE HARTL: Of uh, which sect… the Washington Administrative Code?
DEFENDANT AJ: You said, uh, you mentioned Des Moines municipal code 2.28 section
JUDGE HARTL: Uh, 2.28 is the 1st one.
DEFENDANT AJ: uh huh
JUDGE HARTL: Oh wait a minute, I can get you the whole section. That establishes the court.
DEFENDANT AJ: Right, ok I got that one.
JUDGE HARTL: Oh you have that one?
DEFENDANT AJ: uh huh
JUDGE HARTL: Uh, that is, uh, section 10.04.050
DEFENDANT AJ: of the RCW
JUDGE HARTL: uh huh, adopts the Washington Des Moines municipal code adopts the Washington Model Traffic Ordinance.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok.
JUDGE HARTL: Uh, that, under that, uh my, the court is finding that I do have subject matter jurisdiction on this offense. Ok, so that and everything else will be noted for the record uh and indicated so… anything else?
DEFENDANT AJ: Um, I object to those answers. You haven’t specifically…
JUDGE HARTL: Very good, there’s a motion that your objection in noted and is denied. Anything else?
DEFENDANT AJ: uh, on what grounds do you deny that... objection
JUDGE HARTL: Because of the finding that I have the jurisdiction under the state law and we’re going to move on from that question. You can appeal that decision if you like. Anything else?
DEFENDANT AJ: You’re not giving me a choice on that so..
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, very good, Ms Mahoney go ahead call your first witness.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: The city calls officer Hollis…
JUDGE HARTL: Would you raise your right hand please? Officer do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give this afternoon will be the truth?
OFFICER HOLLIS: (Inaudible)
JUDGE HARTL: Take a seat please.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Officer Hollis would you state your full name and occupation for the record?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Robert K(inaudible) Hollis, H-O-L-L-I-S, police officer for the city of Des Moines.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Alright and are you a commissioned police officer for the city of Des Moines?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I am.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And how long have you been commissioned?
OFFICER HOLLIS: I’ve been working for the city since 2001.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And how long have you been a commissioned officer in the state of Washington?
OFFICER HOLLIS: 3 years
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Uh, June 6th of 2003 were you on duty that day?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I was.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Were you working in uniform?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I was.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: What were your duties that day.
OFFICER HOLLIS: Uh, I was uh operating in a patrol function uh, on this particular day I was running some uh, doing some traffic enforcement on uh south 216th street.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And were you in a marked patrol car?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I was.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Did you have occasion to come into contact with Mr Robert AJ?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes I did.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And is he here today?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes he is.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Um, and how did you come into contact with him?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Um, I was on the side of the road and I saw his vehicle pass me, uh it wasn’t his vehicle, the vehicle that he was driving passed me had an expired, uh, license tabs. I ran the plate to verify via my uh, my DT to make sure the license tabs were indeed expired and when they came back that they were I pulled out and stopped him.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: When did the tabs expire?
OFFICER HOLLIS: I believe march of uh 2003.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And you verified that with the Department of Licensing records?
OFFICER HOLLIS: That’s correct.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And when you contacted him was Mr AJ driving the vehicle?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes he was.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: At the time you contacted him, did you also find out who owned the vehicle?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Uh yes I did, I believe he told me it was a roommate and that was also who the vehicle was registered to.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And did he make any comments to you with regards to the status of the tabs?
OFFICER HOLLIS: He was unaware that the tabs had been expired.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And this occurred in the city of Des Moines?
OFFICER HOLLIS: That’s correct.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: And did the stop occur in the city of Des Moines?
OFFICER HOLLIS: That’s correct.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I have no further questions.
JUDGE HARTL: Mr AJ any questions for the officer?
DEFENDANT AJ: Yes I do, um, Officer Hollis, um, once you approached the car, um do you recall me asking you any questions?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes, you asked if uh I had probable cause to stop you.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok, and I asked if, did I not ask you if you were detaining me?
OFFICER HOLLIS: That’s correct, yes.
DEFENDANT AJ: And your response was?
OFFICER HOLLIS: I said no. You repeated your question again and then I realized in my mind well yes, I am detaining you.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. At that point, did I give you some sort of document to take back to your patrol car…
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes you did.
DEFENDANT AJ: to look at before you issued the ticket?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Yes you did.
DEFENDANT AJ: Do you remember what it was?
OFFICER HOLLIS: Uh, I remember reading it and I remember that it was, you had, you were quoting a bunch of facts that basically stating what you had said a little bit earlier about my lack of authority to be stopping you under some of the state laws.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok, your honor…
OFFICER HOLLIS: Regardless of the WAC rules I believe.
DEFENDANT AJ: For the record, that document is included with um the affidavit that’s titled Affidavit by AJ of Undisputed Material and Jurisdictional Facts in the Instant case, its at the very back of that document.
DEFENDANT AJ: Uh, did you read that document before you issued that ticket?
OFFICER HOLLIS: I did not read it completely. I just read a portion of the 1st page and that was it.
DEFENDANT AJ: Um, ok, I don’t have any further questions of the officer.
JUDGE HARTL: Ms Mahoney any questions, other questions for the officer?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: No.
JUDGE HARTL: Thank you officer you can step down. Um, Mr AJ did you want to testify sir?
DEFENDANT AJ: Um, no, I do not.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, uh anything else from either party? Ms Mahoney?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: No your honor.
JUDGE HARTL: Mr AJ, anything else?
DEFENDANT AJ: Um, I would just like to re-emphasize to this court that I have put this court and each of the parties on notice that, um, it has failed to answer my challenge of its subject matter jurisdiction. Um…
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, that in, like I said Mr AJ, I understand, you’ve done, you know you’ve put a lot of work into that, I appreciate that, uh, I understand your position. I disagree with your position. You do have the right to appeal my decision. Um, at this time I am finding that the court does have juris… uh subject matter subject jurisdiction over this case.
DEFENDANT AJ: Based on the one citing that you listed there?
JUDGE HARTL: Uh, yeah, based on fact that the Des Moines municipal code, uh court, has uh well I guess the council has adopted uh the Washington model traffic ordinance by reference and uh this court can
DEFENDANT AJ: That addresses that one motion. Any answers on the other 4?
JUDGE HARTL: What other motions? Go ahead.
DEFENDANT AJ: Well there was also a motion to dismiss for failure of the state to establish a jurisdictional nexus connecting me to the DOL.
DEFENDANT AJ: There’s a motion to dismiss for lack of verified complaint in the instant case.
DEFENDANT AJ: There’s a motion to dismiss for failure of Washington statues to be duly enacted and promulgated in accordance with the Washington constitution.
DEFENDANT AJ: And finally, a sworn motion for failure to summon or complain by judicial process which I can’t even expl…. understand why I’m even here.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright, well one at a time. The failure of the state, this isn’t a state case, to establish jurisdictional nexus connecting accused to DOL. I have no jurisdiction to rule on the failure to…
DEFENDANT AJ: I’m accused of violating a state statute which is a, it’s a Des Moines municipal code statute but its adopted from the state statute.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok I see. Um, alright.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Still a jurisdictional issue I believe your honor.
JUDGE HARTL: Yes, according to (inaudible)…
JUDGE HARTL: Ok.
DEFENDANT AJ: I would like to re-emphasize, um, I can’t do it often enough…
JUDGE HARTL: You’re ticket was filed, that addresses the lack of verified complaint, filed in a timely manner.
DEFENDANT AJ: What, what are the court rules for a verified complaint your honor?
JUDGE HARTL: Verified compl…. Uh the rules for…
DEFENDANT AJ: What are the stipulations for a verified complaint?
JUDGE HARTL: Stipulations for a verified complaint? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
DEFENDANT AJ: That ticket or citation does not follow the court rules for a verified complaint.
JUDGE HARTL: How does it not? How does it not follow the court rules.
DEFENDANT AJ: I’ve stated that it hasn’t. The court has the burden of proof in proving that it does.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok. That’s fine. I’ll just uh restate….
DEFENDANT AJ: The reason that I say that and I’m saying it with sincerity, I’ve looked and I can’t find that it does.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright.
DEFENDANT AJ: I can’t prove a negative.
JUDGE HARTL: IRLJ… filing of a complaint
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I don’t think its even called a complaint in the IRLJ
JUDGE HARTL: What’s that?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: I don’t even know that it’s called a complaint in the IRLJ.
JUDGE HARTL: Notice of infraction. Uh Rule 2.1, initiation of (inaudible) and Rule 2.2 is the initiation of an infraction. Notice an infraction maybe issued upon certification of the issuer who has probable cause to believe and does believe that a person has committed an infraction contrary to law and that is by the same officer. Notice of infraction shall be filed with the court within 2 days of issuance excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. This was Friday June 6th and it was filed on Monday June 9th , within the rule.
DEFENDANT AJ: Again, I’ve got, 21 averments in that motion to dismiss. Which answer, which averment are you referring to with that answer?
JUDGE HARTL: That’s just…
DEFENDANT AJ: Each one, each one of these has to be rebutted.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright, that’s fine and they are noted on the record that the averments are contained in your motion again, I’m just going to state that I have subject matter jurisdiction on this case and that’s going to be the ruling. So you can appeal that if you want.
JUDGE HARTL: Ok. So anything else?
DEFENDANT AJ: Uh, there were 2 other motions that weren’t addressed.
JUDGE HARTL: What are they?
DEFENDANT AJ: Sworn motion to dismiss for failure of Washington statutes to be duly enacted and duly promulgated inaccordance with the Washington constitution.
JUDGE HARTL: Alright, that’s noted and that’s denied at this time.
DEFENDANT AJ: Uh, and based on what rule or…what, what is your reason for denying that?
JUDGE HARTL: That I uh, that I think they are duly enacted and duly promulgated. I have a difference of opinion than you… so.
DEFENDANT AJ: But we’re not here for opinion, we’re here for verified law facts…
JUDGE HARTL: No, that’s, you’re asking for, that, saying that they weren’t duly enacted and duly promulgated. I’m saying that they were.
DEFENDANT AJ: Can you show me how they were?
JUDGE HARTL: No, I don’t know.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. Uh, the sworn motion to dismiss for failure to summon or complain by judicial process. I was not issued a summons or a complaint so why am I here today?
JUDGE HARTL: (Directed to the Prosecutor) Do you have a copy of the ticket?
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: The following notice of infraction, at the time that it was issued, pursuant to…
JUDGE HARTL: Can you read into the record what it says there Ms Mahoney? The bottom where he signed…
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Yes, it says without admitting having committed each of the above offenses, I promise to respond as directed to this notice. And it uh, is says no consent to be detained and its signed Robert AJ. Um, and then he requested a, on the back of the green copy, which he requested a hearing pursuant to the notification on the back of the ticket. He requested that hearing on June 20th 2003. Today’s date is June 15th or July 15th so we are here within the 40 day time frame. Again, all inaccordance with the Rules of Infraction.
DEFENDANT AJ: I requested a hearing, not because I was thought I was guilty of anything but to clear my name, because without paying the ticket, which I’m not guilty of, or showing up here today, you would have issued a bench warrant for my arrest.
JUDGE HARTL: Nope, I wouldn’t do that. This is an infraction and I have no authority to issue a bench warrant on an infraction. That would not have occurred. Go ahead sir.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok. Um, there are…
JUDGE HARTL: This is not a criminal complaint.
DEFENDANT AJ: So this is a civil proceeding?
JUDGE HARTL: Correct.
PROSECUTOR MAHONEY: Civil Infraction your honor.
DEFENDANT AJ: Thank you. So we are following the civil rules of court for this procedure?
JUDGE HARTL: The infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
DEFENDANT AJ: There are 24 averments in that motion to dismiss and I haven’t got a verified law fact…
JUDGE HARTL: Ok, those are, you know, those are, those are noted for the record. Your motion is denied um based factually on what I have, um the officer has testified that on June 6th 2003 he came into contact with a vehicle in the city of Des Moines that showed expired tabs, expired March ’03. Uh, he has testified that uh you were driving the vehicle but you told him that your roommate owned the vehicle and you were not aware that those tabs had expired. This stop occurred in the city of Des Moines. The complaint was issued on June 6th, you signed for that on June 6th, uh the, uh the copy of the citation was uh filed with the court on, was received on June 9th within the rule and uh based on the uh evidence that I have, and you didn’t present any other testimony, based on the evidence that I have before me I do find that the city has met their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that this infraction was committed and that will be the finding of the court. It will be $171. Do you want to, like I said Mr AJ you can appeal that. You can appeal on any of the decisions…
DEFENDANT AJ: May I make one last statement…
JUDGE HARTL: The clerk will give you uh instructions on how to do so.
DEFENDANT AJ: May I make one last statement very briefly?
JUDGE HARTL: Yes.
DEFENDANT AJ: Ok, just, just for the record here, you have falsified the record and you have simulated judicial process and that is a criminal obstruction of justice charge.
JUDGE HARTL: Please see the clerk sir. Thank you officer, you can be excused.
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&</SUP></FONT>
|
></o
Linear Mode
