Below, you will see that during my arraignment, that my public defender; (Dino "my name is legion" Inumerable) squandered my opportunity to assert my allegations that this officer had planted the drugs. Allowing the false charges to be "uncontested."
Not long after, when the prosecution illegally attached a "second strike" allegation to a non-violent charge, he remained silent. Even though he knew that ONLY a "third strike" allegation could be attached to ANY felony charge. As the law was enacted to remove the REPEAT violent offender from society long term. (In other words, they were treating second strike, as if it was a third strike.)
This was one, of four reasons that the strike attachment wasn't applicable. The second, third, and fourth reasons that the strike allegation wasn't applicable are these;
(2nd reason)
The second strike was being sought in conjunction with an offer of probation. If I would; "swear, and sign under penalty of perjury," that the prosecutions version was the truth.
When you are offered prop 36 probation, at your first hearing, and a strike is only sought months after you refuse probation, and insist on a jury trial, but the offer of probation isn't rescinded, then;
The only thing that this is indicitive of is an attempt by the prosecution to frighten a truthful man into abandoning his desire to have his testimony heard, and weighed by a jury, as to its veracity and import. To keep his testimony, and the juries assessment of it, from being entered into the public record.
(2nd reason)
The second strike was being sought in conjunction with an offer of probation. If I would; "swear, and sign under penalty of perjury," that the prosecutions version was the truth.
When you are offered prop 36 probation, at your first hearing, and a strike is only sought months after you refuse probation, and insist on a jury trial, but the offer of probation isn't rescinded, then;
The only thing that this is indicitive of is an attempt by the prosecution to frighten a truthful man into abandoning his desire to have his testimony heard, and weighed by a jury, as to its veracity and import. To keep his testimony, and the juries assessment of it, from being entered into the public record.
(3rd reason)
The 1970 conviction that the prosecution used as a vehicle to attach this strike allegation was beyond the "ten years past completion of sentence" stricture.
It was 19 years past that point.
The 1970 conviction that the prosecution used as a vehicle to attach this strike allegation was beyond the "ten years past completion of sentence" stricture.
It was 19 years past that point.
(4th reason) I wasn't a part of the "blooding."
My 1970, 32 year old manslaughter conviction was based upon my giving my friend money to leave town with, and lying to the police as to what I knew.
I wasn't involved in the planning, or commission of the crime, nor had I any knowledge as to what was going to occur. For a charge to be a valid legal vehicle for use as the platform for the attachment of a strike to a later charge. YOU MUST HAVE BEEN PART OF THE BLOODING.
*NOTE:
The prosecution knew this was an illegal, unwarranted strike attachment, for several reasons.
Yet they sought it none the less.
*My court appointed counsel knew this was an illegal, unwarranted strike attachment.
But refused to utter one word against its attachment to my charge.
*The judge most certainly knew that this was an illegal, unwarranted strike attachment.
*The judge most certainly knew that this was an illegal, unwarranted strike attachment.
Yet allowed the prosecution to greatly exceed their lawful reach.
*All these things taken together are indicitive of officers of the court, that are engaged in a conspiracy to deny someone their rights to due process, and equal protection under the law. "Under the color of law."
*All these things taken together are indicitive of officers of the court, that are engaged in a conspiracy to deny someone their rights to due process, and equal protection under the law. "Under the color of law."
These case hearing docket entries, in and of themselves provide compelling evidence that these officers of the V.C. Superior Court have shown themselves to be; the enemy of the very Laws that they swore a sacred oath to; "Protect, and Defend."
      Docket Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This Case has 1210 Docket Entries. 2001044311 Glen Wilson
Docket Entries
|
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment