Hey Shane,
I was wondering what happened. I didn't get an email back. I just searched through everything and couldn't find anything under Shane or Maxfield as the sender. Did it come from your work address? I do appreciate your reply, and if you can send it again, I would be interested in reading.
To answer your question. Yes there were right answers under your laws. I think James and Raymond (the judges) knew that providing those answers meant they would have to dismiss my case, and being right is too important. To be fair, James did answer some questions, but basically gave the same response when it came time to answer the big ones that contradict the earlier obvious questions like: "Am I entitled to a fair and meaningful trial free of conflicts of interest?" and "Am I entitled to responsive answers to my questions?" I had submitted the tougher questions to the court in the film, so he knew right were I was going, and was determined shut me up with threats, intimidation, and forced proceedings.
Now, had I broken into someone's car, then the questions could also have a right answer that would end in the state continuing the complaint against me:
Yes, Sam, the car belonging to ____ was parked on ________ at ____ time. You were seen by ____ using a screwdriver to break the window, you were then observed you taking ____ from the vehicle belonging to _____. The property was later found ____. The screwdriver found at the scene had your fingerprints on it, and your blood matches blood found at the scene, and is consistent with the cut on your arm.
That's a case with a Corpus Delecti, and the complainant could lay out the facts connecting me as the cause of the loss. That would still leave the conflict of interest inherent in the process, and I asked to move the dispute to 3rd party arbitration, which was ignored in one case and denied in the other two.
Kevin - There's lots more you haven't seen. I was attacked 3 times in the last 2 weeks doing this. I'm working on the footage, and figuring out how to present it. One guy tried to rip the camera from my hand, I was pushed one time, and my movements blocked with a gentle push another time. Not a big deal compared to some cops beating people with handcuffs for refusing to come over granted, but I was within my rights in each case.
The thing I find most intriguing is when they called the 4 police out at the second pretrial. They sent the new guy away, as he was actually communicating and making progress with me. Then the supervisor (sergeant I think) showing up the next day as the bailiff. . . I think he was looking to crack some heads. His initial comments to me were filled with anger and tension.
Of course I brought front and center the fact that everything he told himself about protecting and serving, upholding the constitution, bill of rights, the rule of law, etc. was nothing more than lip service , and when it came down to it, he folded like a cheap suit to uphold his own power, authority, and career in the department. I think he wanted revenge because I showed that to him. I saw his cheek twitch which is a micro facial expression for rage. I commend him for not acting on it, beating the crap out of me, and I think the camera, location, and off-site recording via cellphone protected me.
There's a 50th anniversary celebration for the city's police department coming up, and I'm thinking about attending with my camera. I could probably get some great undercover footage, by simply interviewing them.
I'm also planning to go Monday to play the video to the city council. I want to know that I have tried everything, given them every opportunity. . .
SamIam
