pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
So, you're filing a separate complaint that's only 4 pages? Or are you just adding 4 more pages to the current one?
DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
I really have no insight Fin. I was just goofing around. You'll get the Summons this week and you're good to go.
claypipe69
Well-Known Member
Mate go for it good luck with everything, an whats with the trolls?, I have just read the thread an you are on to it. Good on you for standing up for you rights You will win in the long run an all those stupid trolls will still be looking through RIU for their next person to pick on cos they have nothing to contribute at all to anyone or anything, Thanks for doing this IT will help everyone sadly even the trolls will benefit from your very hard work. Stay happy man,
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Adding 4 more pages to the current one. And I am actually going to be adding a lot more than that, but that will come first so as to clarify the case so that they don't have to go through 70+ pages and try to remember every point made the whole time they are reading it. Because if you don't have all of it explained in summary I can see how a judge might think it is incoherent. Even when I explain it in summary to people they get kind of lost, but when I get to the Normaco V DEA part it brings it all together, and they are like "Oh, hell yeah, you got it" or in the case of the lawyer I talked to today "You should win in mediation, and will still get a ruling people can cite".
So basically, adding 4 more pages, but those 4 pages will sum up the whole thing while adding the DEA and DOJ statements, as well as the Normaco V DEA case.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I am submitting the Summons tomorrow also, and I just finished writing the certification motion.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
Once the papers are served on all the defendants I am going to give everyone all the papers so they can make their own cases. The more people who are out there doing this, the more likely it is to get done fast somewhere, then it can go to an appeals court, and maybe even the Supreme Court. So I will release all that soon, and people can start building their own cases matching this one.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Sounds good. Let us know what you find out. At least you'll have a comfortable ride.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Ok, so two things happened today.
First,
DEA stuff was filed, and I got a copy of what the judge said. He basically said he wants me to make my whole case in the complaint. He said it is "incoherent" because he is not happy with Prima Facie evidence, he wants to know exactly what my Religion is, how it works, etc. So that will be easy to rebut, but I also submitted the 4 page summary today which does a good job of pointing out the Monopoly. He did mention the Monopoly and how I "allege they are colluding" but his main point seemed to be that he wanted me to explain everything in detail, instead of just providing Prima Facie evidence. So I will write that up tomorrow and submit it on like the first of November, and that will take care of that. But with the 4 page summary the District Judge will be able to see that the Magistrate Judge was totally just unaware of this actual admitted Monopoly that has been pointed out by the DC District Court. So there is literally no problem with the DEA lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge just says he wants it to have more meat, and not just be Prima Facie. Prima Facie is the only standard that needs to be met, but I will go ahead and meet this higher standard that he wants.
Second (this is Municipal court)
I had the Trial for the Buyers plates today, and it was hilarious, Pablo is probably going to have a field day with this, but it was actually really fun for everyone in the room except the Jurors, and we all even shook hands and talked about how fun it was afterwards, and how interesting it made their day. The Cop that was the witness against me said I probably saved 20 people from having to go to trial that day, and we talked about how the Prosecutor was just mad because he lost 4 cases to me before, and the Cop that was a witness against me was literally laughing. The other prosecutors were like sneaking smiles to me, and some of them dramatically rolled their eyes behind the prosecutor that doesn't like me.
So, to fully explain the Buyers Plate Lawsuit. First, I was in the hallway talking to someone who was there to be a witness for someone else's case, then we go in the Court room and this girl was asking me all kinds of stuff, she started off with "I don't understand this, I have never done this before" and I told her that I had won 4 cases there, and started telling her what the different prosecutors were like. Then we got to the part where they say "Capious" or "Recall" or "Motion to Dismiss", and she said "Does Recall mean that it gets set for another day" and I said it can mean a number of things, they may want to talk to you or something, but mainly it means that they are going to wait 15 minutes for your witness to show up (it was traffic court), then if the witness doesn't show up they will either dismiss the case or motion for continuation, and she asked about that, so I explained that the judge will continue the case if the prosecutors have a good reason, like that Cop called in sick that day, or maybe they never filed a motion in the case so the judge will be more likely to grant it just because. Then she started saying she had a video tape, so I told her not to show them the tape until after she asks if her witness is there.
So this really started pissing off the Prosecutor that doesn't like me. My voice carries, and everyone can hear me even when I whisper. So he started saying real loud "[My name] is going to say things like 'have you heard of X' and things like that at trial. Don't listen to him" and I laughed (I laughed pretty much the whole time there were no jurors in the room). Then he held up a picture of my license plate like it was going to prove everything, and I held up my evidence and told him I had evidence too. So even though my case was the oldest, they decided to do it last, so no one would see it. And as usual, when that prosecutor starts getting mad at me, he dismissed like half the rooms cases for no reason, just because they weren't me (I have fought 5 tickets there now, each one for about 5 months each or more, so they have gotten to know me, and he really doesn't like that I beat him all the time). So I mentioned that I wanted to talk to the Judge, and that Prosecutor had an idea, he decided to get the Judge to ban my defense from my defense. So I was literally not allowed to defend myself.
I pointed out that I had not ever plead in this case. So they submitted a Plea of not guilty on my behalf. Then I explained my argument to the Judge, and my argument was backed up with emails, and could have had a subpoenaed Police Sergeant as a witness if they ever would have accepted my plea. And I had a definition of the word Estoppel, so they banned the word Estoppel from the court room and told me that if I talked about it, I would be in contempt of court. Then they banned me from talking about Rule 5.1. Banned me from saying WHY I was driving that day. Banned me from talking about the evidence I was picking up that day when I got my ticket. Evidence from the investigation that was dropped. So they banned my whole defense, and not by objecting to it, but by threatening me under duress and coercion saying that if I brought it up, I would be put in jail.
So the whole time I was forced to just point at my evidence and defense papers, and say "Well if you aren't going to let me talk about this..." and when they asked if I wanted to object I would say "On these grounds" and point at the paper, but if I actually talked about what was on the paper, they said I would go to jail. And any time I eluded to it, they judge would tell me that he warned me. Just over and over, so I kept having to stop even eluding to it. Then, for example, when I got to asked the Jury questions before Jury selection, he made me ask him if questions were ok, and he said most of them were not. Then he told me that I could not ask the witness certain questions, and they had to be okayed by him. Then at the end, he told me I wasn't even allowed to tell the Jury what Jury Nullification was. So the whole time, I was just like "This is just going to be a Federal issue" and told them we would be doing this for a year in Federal Court, not in a mean way, just like "Really guys, this is ridiculous". And I kept having to say that without my defense, I can't defend myself. And last time I checked, this is America, and if you want to say that you did it because Satan told you to do it, or because John Lennon is a "Phony" you are allowed to make those arguments, so to not let me make an actual legitimate legal argument is insane. And when I got a chance to testify, I asked "Am I allowed to talk about what I was actually doing that day?" and he said "No". So I was like, "Then what do you want me to testify about?" and he said "You can try to say the car wasn't yours or something."
Then the Jury said Guilty, like I expected, because I didn't even get to defend myself. But they gave half of the fine the Judge said was the lowest they were allowed to give. Then the judge said I could just do 10 Hours of Community Service instead of Fines and Court fees, because even he knew it was messed up. And we all started talking about how fun it was to have such a crazy court room that day. Then he even said "You can can put the community service on hold while you appeal" and asked someone how I do that. And then gave me appeals paperwork and paperwork for how to get the records of the case.
So they knew they were completely suppressing my argument. They just wanted to finally beat me for once, which is funny in itself. That they are so mad that I win all the time, that they had to go this far, just so they can say "We beat him" once. But I still beat them 4 times, and I'm going to continue it in the Federal court. But not just the same case, but I am going to bring in these records and talk about Suppression of my Defense, Malicious Prosecution, and using Coercion to win a case. I literally still have not got to make the Estoppel argument in this case, and I have not gotten a response to the plea of Rule 5.1, they just decided what my plea was for me. So this case literally hasn't really been tried yet. It was like a joke, and it was really funny and fun. I think court rooms are fun all the time, but this was probably the most fun I have had in a court room.
And it was a 4 Hour Trial by the way. So the Jurors were not happy. Especially since they only got to hear one side, you could just see how they thought they were there to do something good for their city, but felt betrayed.
First,
DEA stuff was filed, and I got a copy of what the judge said. He basically said he wants me to make my whole case in the complaint. He said it is "incoherent" because he is not happy with Prima Facie evidence, he wants to know exactly what my Religion is, how it works, etc. So that will be easy to rebut, but I also submitted the 4 page summary today which does a good job of pointing out the Monopoly. He did mention the Monopoly and how I "allege they are colluding" but his main point seemed to be that he wanted me to explain everything in detail, instead of just providing Prima Facie evidence. So I will write that up tomorrow and submit it on like the first of November, and that will take care of that. But with the 4 page summary the District Judge will be able to see that the Magistrate Judge was totally just unaware of this actual admitted Monopoly that has been pointed out by the DC District Court. So there is literally no problem with the DEA lawsuit. The Magistrate Judge just says he wants it to have more meat, and not just be Prima Facie. Prima Facie is the only standard that needs to be met, but I will go ahead and meet this higher standard that he wants.
Second (this is Municipal court)
I had the Trial for the Buyers plates today, and it was hilarious, Pablo is probably going to have a field day with this, but it was actually really fun for everyone in the room except the Jurors, and we all even shook hands and talked about how fun it was afterwards, and how interesting it made their day. The Cop that was the witness against me said I probably saved 20 people from having to go to trial that day, and we talked about how the Prosecutor was just mad because he lost 4 cases to me before, and the Cop that was a witness against me was literally laughing. The other prosecutors were like sneaking smiles to me, and some of them dramatically rolled their eyes behind the prosecutor that doesn't like me.
So, to fully explain the Buyers Plate Lawsuit. First, I was in the hallway talking to someone who was there to be a witness for someone else's case, then we go in the Court room and this girl was asking me all kinds of stuff, she started off with "I don't understand this, I have never done this before" and I told her that I had won 4 cases there, and started telling her what the different prosecutors were like. Then we got to the part where they say "Capious" or "Recall" or "Motion to Dismiss", and she said "Does Recall mean that it gets set for another day" and I said it can mean a number of things, they may want to talk to you or something, but mainly it means that they are going to wait 15 minutes for your witness to show up (it was traffic court), then if the witness doesn't show up they will either dismiss the case or motion for continuation, and she asked about that, so I explained that the judge will continue the case if the prosecutors have a good reason, like that Cop called in sick that day, or maybe they never filed a motion in the case so the judge will be more likely to grant it just because. Then she started saying she had a video tape, so I told her not to show them the tape until after she asks if her witness is there.
So this really started pissing off the Prosecutor that doesn't like me. My voice carries, and everyone can hear me even when I whisper. So he started saying real loud "[My name] is going to say things like 'have you heard of X' and things like that at trial. Don't listen to him" and I laughed (I laughed pretty much the whole time there were no jurors in the room). Then he held up a picture of my license plate like it was going to prove everything, and I held up my evidence and told him I had evidence too. So even though my case was the oldest, they decided to do it last, so no one would see it. And as usual, when that prosecutor starts getting mad at me, he dismissed like half the rooms cases for no reason, just because they weren't me (I have fought 5 tickets there now, each one for about 5 months each or more, so they have gotten to know me, and he really doesn't like that I beat him all the time). So I mentioned that I wanted to talk to the Judge, and that Prosecutor had an idea, he decided to get the Judge to ban my defense from my defense. So I was literally not allowed to defend myself.
I pointed out that I had not ever plead in this case. So they submitted a Plea of not guilty on my behalf. Then I explained my argument to the Judge, and my argument was backed up with emails, and could have had a subpoenaed Police Sergeant as a witness if they ever would have accepted my plea. And I had a definition of the word Estoppel, so they banned the word Estoppel from the court room and told me that if I talked about it, I would be in contempt of court. Then they banned me from talking about Rule 5.1. Banned me from saying WHY I was driving that day. Banned me from talking about the evidence I was picking up that day when I got my ticket. Evidence from the investigation that was dropped. So they banned my whole defense, and not by objecting to it, but by threatening me under duress and coercion saying that if I brought it up, I would be put in jail.
So the whole time I was forced to just point at my evidence and defense papers, and say "Well if you aren't going to let me talk about this..." and when they asked if I wanted to object I would say "On these grounds" and point at the paper, but if I actually talked about what was on the paper, they said I would go to jail. And any time I eluded to it, they judge would tell me that he warned me. Just over and over, so I kept having to stop even eluding to it. Then, for example, when I got to asked the Jury questions before Jury selection, he made me ask him if questions were ok, and he said most of them were not. Then he told me that I could not ask the witness certain questions, and they had to be okayed by him. Then at the end, he told me I wasn't even allowed to tell the Jury what Jury Nullification was. So the whole time, I was just like "This is just going to be a Federal issue" and told them we would be doing this for a year in Federal Court, not in a mean way, just like "Really guys, this is ridiculous". And I kept having to say that without my defense, I can't defend myself. And last time I checked, this is America, and if you want to say that you did it because Satan told you to do it, or because John Lennon is a "Phony" you are allowed to make those arguments, so to not let me make an actual legitimate legal argument is insane. And when I got a chance to testify, I asked "Am I allowed to talk about what I was actually doing that day?" and he said "No". So I was like, "Then what do you want me to testify about?" and he said "You can try to say the car wasn't yours or something."
Then the Jury said Guilty, like I expected, because I didn't even get to defend myself. But they gave half of the fine the Judge said was the lowest they were allowed to give. Then the judge said I could just do 10 Hours of Community Service instead of Fines and Court fees, because even he knew it was messed up. And we all started talking about how fun it was to have such a crazy court room that day. Then he even said "You can can put the community service on hold while you appeal" and asked someone how I do that. And then gave me appeals paperwork and paperwork for how to get the records of the case.
So they knew they were completely suppressing my argument. They just wanted to finally beat me for once, which is funny in itself. That they are so mad that I win all the time, that they had to go this far, just so they can say "We beat him" once. But I still beat them 4 times, and I'm going to continue it in the Federal court. But not just the same case, but I am going to bring in these records and talk about Suppression of my Defense, Malicious Prosecution, and using Coercion to win a case. I literally still have not got to make the Estoppel argument in this case, and I have not gotten a response to the plea of Rule 5.1, they just decided what my plea was for me. So this case literally hasn't really been tried yet. It was like a joke, and it was really funny and fun. I think court rooms are fun all the time, but this was probably the most fun I have had in a court room.
And it was a 4 Hour Trial by the way. So the Jurors were not happy. Especially since they only got to hear one side, you could just see how they thought they were there to do something good for their city, but felt betrayed.
Last edited:
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And btw, for anyone that doesn't know what Estoppel is, when you first read about it you will probably think it is the Entrapment argument, but it is not Entrapment, and they are often mentioned in the same cases where it will say things like "They failed in the use of an Entrapment claim, but did have an Estoppel claim"
Entrapment is like someone sells you drugs then arrests you for it.
Estoppel is like a Cop said "Take these drugs from the evidence room to the Police station" then they arrest you when you get there.
They are similar, but very different.
Entrapment is like someone sells you drugs then arrests you for it.
Estoppel is like a Cop said "Take these drugs from the evidence room to the Police station" then they arrest you when you get there.
They are similar, but very different.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
This is the DEA lawsuit thread. What's all this about losing a trial over a traffic ticket?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
It was just a crazy situation so I thought I would post about it here. And I wouldn't really call that a loss, as they forbade me from defending myself, and it will be settled in Federal court. But the fact that this was all you had to say about it makes it seem like even you understand how crooked the whole situation was. If you had thought they had done right, you would have said something like "That's how trials go" but obviously that is not how trials go. As I said before, if someone wants to use the defense that Satan made them do it, or John Lennon was a Phony, or whatever crazy defense they have, they are allowed to bring it up at trial. So the fact that they wouldn't even let me bring up a legitimate legal defense or talk about what I was doing that day, then not even let me tell the Jury they had the right to Nullify, is crazy.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
It's the Evidence Code. You can't just say or introduce whatever you feel like.
Can you post the entire ruling from the Magistrate on the DEA case?
Can you post the entire ruling from the Magistrate on the DEA case?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
No, it's not just evidence. I would understand that. He wouldn't let me testify as to what I was doing when I got the ticket. He wouldn't let me ask the Jury certain questions. He wouldn't let me ask the witness certain questions. He wouldn't let me even use the word Estoppel. And he wouldn't let me tell the Jury what Jury Nullification is. Way more than just an issue of evidence, it was a complete suppression of the Defense. If he had said "You can't submit that document, but you can present whatever defense you want" that would have been a completely different situation, that is not what happened. It wasn't that I didn't get to prove my defense had evidence, I was not even allowed to present my defense. And even he knew it was messed up, because at the end he dropped all the fines, and gave me everything I needed to appeal, and the prosecutors were all doing things behind the mad prosecutor's back. It was not a fair trial. Which is another point I am going to make when I take it to Federal Court. Not only was there coercion, and a denial of rights under Rule 5.1, etc, it just plain was not a fair trial. And I could win the Estoppel point (which is why they didn't want me to bring it up, they just wanted to beat me for once) but I will definitely win on the Fair Trial point. And the whole case and pre-trial discussion is on record, so it won't be hard at all. If the record was only what the Jury heard it would be harder, but the whole thing is on record, so it will be easy.
I only have the Magistrate Judges words in printed form, I don't have it in a form that I could post.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Oh, so you have no objection to me posting it then? Of course, I'll redact your real name (which everybody knows). It is public information after all.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
No, that is fine. Just add the caveat that the judge did not see the case Normaco V DEA before writing it, and that I wrote a point by point objection, because I would have added that if I were to post it.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And btw, with the Expired Buyers Plates case, I no longer even have to prove that it was Estoppel, I just have to prove that they didn't let me present my defense and threatened to jail me for contempt of court if I brought up my defense. So I can win this without really proving anything regarding my original defense.
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Ok. You've already made the caveat a few times already. We get it.