The Growler has been present throughout the trial. This is what the Judge should hear and address..
After attending the first two days of the Radin Trial and having watched what was properly described by the defendant when she said that Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman was "acting like a jackass", I figure a closing argument would go something like this.
Lidya Radin, Defendant and for the defense:
The US Government by way of an information actually physically signed by former US Attorney Preet Bharara has charged me with violations of the Code of Federal Regulations on two separate days, January 28, 2016 and July 7, 2016.
The first oddity is that the incident on January 28, 2016 was the act of entering a public elevator as a second person to that elevator from a public elevator lobby.
The second oddity is that the second incident on July 7, 2016 was the act of ATTEMPTING to enter the clerk of court to do my business. And yes, up front and with full disclosure, I WAS ATTEMPTING TO FILE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE US GOVERNMENT for failure to respond to a classic pre-appearance action, a petition for abatement for misnomer, as is my one time right from before the US Constitution existed.
The third odditity is that I was blocked from entering the clerks office when I did say loud enoght for the half dozen FPS, Marshals and CSOs and Maxime vales who was blocking my entry into the Clerk of the Court that it was my right to enter the Clerk of the Court to do any business I chose, file papers, ask questions, pay fees or research public terminals.
Maxime Vales blocked my way and said my business was done for the day. HOW DARE HE!! He is not me. I can stay all day watching trials everywhere, conducting research, pying fees or eating food in the cafeteria. This courthouse is open to the public and I AM PUBLIC.
SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS:
For attempting to enter the clerk of court office I was charged under the CFR for firstly for failing to follow a lawful order and secondly for creating a disturbance.
As a threshold matter, the arresting officer who signed the violation , Samuels, has not appeared. Absent his appearance which the prosecution could have easily arranged, I have not had the opportunity to confront my accuser. These counts should be considered no further.
But to bury that hatchet a bit more... the date of the incident was July 7, 2016. But Samuels statement of probable cause was dated June 7, 2016. Just like a parking ticket without a signature or date or an incorrect date, it is facially fatallay flawed and should go no further.
To bury the hatchet even more.... lets get to what a "lawful order" can be and must be.
Maxime Vales, who physically blocked my access to the clerk of court on July 7, 2016 said under oath he was doing so based on a bench order at a hearing that date by Chief Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.
That is odd because no case was opened against me until at least August 3, 2016. In addition THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT HEARING ANYWHERE on that date, July 7, 2016.
There is, however, an order by Chief Magistrate Jduge Freeman dome 40 days later on that she informed me.... hmm, informed is not a ruling, that I "should not file papers" with the clerk of the court.
The court should note in whatever decision it issues that the word should is not the word shall.
Thus, according to the records of the Southern District of New York, there was no hearing on July 7, 2016 from which a bench order could arise.
If there is, then this court should, in the interests of justice, dismiss counts two and three because someone, somewhere at the Southern District of New York made a fair and impartial trial on a complete record impossible by violating:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States
Quite frankly, how can a lawful order come from a hearing that this court refuses to make part of the record and the record of which has never been produced?
But, lets revisit should versus shall.
One would surely not qualify to be a Deputy US Marshall if one did not know that shall indicates manditory and that should is optional but recommended.
That may explain why this court did not allow alleged Debuty US Marshall Vales to testify as to whether he had studied the United States Constitution as it is far more complicated and nuanced than knowing the difference between shall and should.
That would also explain why this court did not allow me to ask Vales whether he had even read the United Statees Constitution.
At least this court allowed me to ask Vales if he ever signed an oath to support uphold and defend that which he may never have read, the United States Constitution.
But, it should be noted that this court has not allowed me to have a copy of any such sworn oath by Vales or anyone else, for that matter.
Clearly the court should take the word of the Chief Magistate Judge's order over that of a lowly Deputy US Marshall. If not, what credence can we ever give the courts. That order says I should not, not I shall not. Thus there was never a basis for any order. The only logical conclusion is absent an imminent threat of death or bodily harm, absent the word SHALL NOT, no FPS, CSO or DUSM could issue any "lawful order" to impede my access to public areas of this courthouse.
In addition why did Samuels, Locke, Lee, Young, Doyle and Vales arrest only me as several people were demanding that same right? Why were they ejected? Why were they just ejected and not arrested? Why was I singled out? It seems because I had the US Government dead to rights on a default on a case to which there ws a hearing but a case that did not exist.
COUNT 2/3 CONCLUSION
There you have it. No accuser to confront as is my right. A facially insufficient and fatally flawed statement of probable cause. No record of any hearing for anyone to get nay bench order. The written order says should not and not shall not.
Counts two and three should be dismissed.
I am charged with not following a lawful order.
Again, as a threshold matter, I was initially charged with violating 18 ....., Simple Assault.
Before being charged I was grabbed, spun around, tackled, arm twisted, kneed in the back and kept from standing and then forced to sit cuffed on a bench for over an hour.
Seems like an arrest to me. And since this court has taken judicial notice that there was never an arrest warrant issued for me, it was an arrest without a warrant.
Simple long standing acts of Congress that implement strict rules the violations any of them become events barring prosecution.
First, if arrested without a warrant, one must be brought forthwith in front of a judge.
I have testified I was never taken before a judge.
Dean Loren has testified I was never taken before ajudge
US Marshall Jason Brasgalla has testified he decided to edit out the footage of the hour +/- that I was cuffed and forced to sit on the bench.
US Marshall Jason Brasgalla has testified that I never left the bench during that hour.
The remaning video show that Officer Sandrowski gave me a violation and that I then exited the building absent ever being taken before a judge.
So, Strike 1, I was arrested without a warrant and not taken in front of a judge.
Then, according to Congress, there was supposed to be a statement of probable cause issued within 48 hours. That was not done. Strike 2.
Then according to Congress, there was supposed to be a probable cause hearing within 21 days. That was not done. Strike 3.
Now we run out of the legitimate baseball anaogy.
Then, according to Congress, the Government had 30 days to seek indictment of file a complaint. Neither was done. Strike 4.
Once the four strikes were brought to the governments attention, an information was filed that alleged a punishment and not a crime and that information, personally signed by the US Attorney, Preet Bharara, alleged that the Southen District was under Special Maritime Jurisdiction.
Well that is crazy on a couple of fronts, charge me with a penalty. Go for it. Yay. I am guity of a penalty. Morons. Or criminals. Is Preet Bharara that stupid? Makes you wonder if that was his signature. Oh, yeah, the court did not allow me to get a summons to make Preet Bharara confirm it was actually his signture.
I then went to the FBI. Within days the Information was superseded.
So here I am, being prosecuted for failing to follow a "lawful order", quite a downgrade from assault.
We yet again get to delve into what a "lawful order" can be and must be.
CSO Frank Pena, a 15 year and 7 month veteran of the NYPD. Who quits the NYPD after 15 years and 7 months when a retirment is there at 20 years? I suspect no one who isn't either about to be fired or can't hack the day to day pressures of law enforcement.
You have seen the video. the tackling, the sitting on, the cuffing of, rhe hour on the bench. Looks like an arrest to me. Sure felt like one.
You have even seen the interview notes where Frank Pena says he told me i was being placed under arrest.
In fact, you even have Frank Pena's testimony to the same thing, he told me I was being placed under arrest.
But now it gets interesting, he waffles and says he meant to say I was being detained, not arrested. Coaching if I ever saw it. He then says that his exerience in the NYPD led him to say arrest, not detain. Wow, that must mean that the majority of NYPD actions are arrests and not detainments for it to be a knee jerk response. or maybe it is the reasion he left the NYPD a short stretch from a retirement.
The next thing is lawful order.
Pena testified that I was yelling and cursing out Attorney Robert Perry. This court has seen me yell and scream. Does that video look like me yelling and screaming? Nope. That is aconversation that Pena interrupts. Any discompfort of Attorney Robert Perriy idf from teh buull in a china shop actions of Frank Pena.
Pena testified that he told Robert Perry he could go down the elevator alone.
Why? If I was not yelling, why would he do that? Well, Pena also testified that the majority of his communications with command are on the radio but that some are done by phone if it is a crowded place.
Pena does a ton of texting while stalking me. Is two or three people waiting for an elevatior a crowded area? Seems that either Pena lied under oath or he was texting friends and family. If he lied, well, it goes without saying what the court should do. If he was texting friends and family while escorting someone he should be fired.
You have Dean Loren's admittedly rambling testimony that Pena never issued an order to me and that Pena jumped into the elevator to stop me. You see it on the video. The alert was to follow me, right? It could not have been to keep me from getting into a public elevator. That is absurd given that Robert Perry plus me plus Pena would be three people. Every time my regular guard in this court, Eric Richmond, accompanies me we get an escort of one, and maybe two CSOs/Marshals. That is three or four people in the elevator ALL THE TIME.
The disturbance. Pena says I created a disturbance by raising my hand in court. The mere act of raising my hand might signal something very important. Something as simple as someone might have information as to the whereabouts of a witness or defendant.
It is idiotic to state that I created a disturbance.
What is more idiotic is that I created a disturbance and no one disturbed has testified. Where is Judge Pauley? All you have is the testimony of a madly texting officer.
And, finally, wherefore art thou Robert Perry? You know the person that Pena was trying to protect from me. Stephanie Lake's interview notes show that she interviewed him three times. Why did they not call him? Because the whole thing is stupid. That's why.
THE FOUR STRIKES RULE
It is beyond the pale for this court to allow or even contemplate, after an arrest without a warrant, that the government could ignore failure to take me before a judge, failure to file a statement of probable cause within 48 hours, failure to hold a probable cause within 21 days and failure to file a complaint or seek indictment within 30 days and then prosecute me for the very same actions under another statute.
At that point the actions I was arrested for are over and done forever. They cannot be resurrected under a different statute for the same crime.
STEPHANIE LAKE LIES TO THIS COURT
This court hs skirted a very relevant issue that this court must address or I will be unethically damaged by Ms. Lake's misrepresentations to this court.
I filed a motion sayning I was arrested and that this court should note that there has been no warrant for my arrest issued.
Ms. Lake, despite having the video of the takedown in her possession when I filed the motion and despite having interview notes that show CSO Frank Pena said he told me I was being placed under arrest, had the malice of forethought to state in her opposition to my motion that at no time was I ever placed under arrest.
That is a lie and misrepresentation to this court.
To top that off, CSO Frank Pena has testified to that very fact, that he told me I was being placed under arrest.
Even if Stephanie Lake had inadvertantly forgot the video and her own interview notes, the failure to move the court to revisit its decision that stated that there is no evidence that Stephae Lake lied is inexcusable and has harmed me.
OWNERSHIP OF THE SDNY:
I have challenged the ownership of the SDNY building as not being under the ownership of the federal government as there is no deed filed despite it being built only thirty years ago.
I have challenged that there is no documentation of New York state ceding jurisdiction.
I have challenged that there is no documentation by the US Government accepting jurisdiction.
I have argued that under 40 USC 3112 that absent these things, there is no presumption of jursidiction.
I have argued that absent jursidiction, the violations are void and of no effect and that this proceeding has been and continues to be Coram non judice.
This court has made the ridiculous statement that testimony of people opinion on who owns the SDNY building is unimpeachable evidence of ownership. That is ridiculous.
The prosecution has not shown ownership of this building or jurisdiction.
The court failed all four requirements of due process after an arrest without a warrant.
The prosecution should not be allowed, once those four strikes have occurred, to charge under another statute for the very same acts.
Frank Pena's statement that he gave me a direct lawful order is disproven by both hsi testimony, my testimony and the testimony of Dean Lorn.
Frank Pena's testimony that I created a disturbance is ridiculous. If I created a distrubance in Judge Pauley's courtroom BY RAISING MY HAND, the procedure is to remove me on the spot or arrest me for creating a disturbance upon exit. Neither was done. The answer is not to interrupt my conversation with someone and jump in front of me precluding my entry to an uncrowded elevator that I called for.
Under those circumstances, any alleged order to not enter the elevator was a deprivation of my rights and not lawful.
I was never allowed the opportunity to confront my accuser, Officer Sanuels, which was under the direct control of the prosecution.
That makes the second and third counts void.
The statement of probable cause is dated some 30 days prior to the July 7, 2016 incident. It is facially insufficient and fatally flawed. The prosecution has had a year to correct that.
There is no order anywher directing that I SHALL not go to the clerk of the court. Just SHOULD not. Thus any testimony that Vales heard something else is ridiculous unless the written words by a judge are trumped by an alleged Deputy US Marshall who has not provided a sworn oath to support uphold and defend the United States Constitution.
The court should dismiss counts one two and three for the reasons stated in this closing ; or, in the alternative, acquit for reasonable doubt or lack of jursitction based on the failures of the prosecution on several fronts.
Science Feeds we appreciate
Investigative Journalism Options
Old(er) Guard Media that is still breathing