Court Night oct 17 2007

So I went into court, and boy did I feel special. There was roughly 20 police officers there just to tackle me should I make one wrong step. 20... I believe thats a new personal record.The Motion to dismiss was denied. I argued that the motion was valid and pointed ot the case and the statuate and Justice Van Woert told me that she didnt see it in the motion. I then pointed out to her that it was located on page 2 of the motion but she told me to shut up in legal terms. In the Matter of the People v Bailey and the People v Deming the courts have held that the people must plead and prove the absence of the exceptions that permit travelling in the left hand lane. During the trial I brought up the exceptions but was told that I could not question or quote them as it was irrelevant to the case. and these negated exceptions must so be stated on the Information charging the defendant as out lined by CPL 100.15 people v Krathaus.
To start the ADA never furnished me, the defendant, with the requested documentation through a subpeona Duces Tecum for information that would lead to mitigation and extenuation, such as the accident report to IA. If you look at the Mitchell v the State case, you will note that it is police policy for the Officer to do certain things in pursuit. As all government agencies have Legal Departments, I would assume that since the ADA never presented me with this evidence she was in direct Violation of the Professional Standards set by the New York State Bar Association. DR7-103 which clearly states that a public prosecutor in litigation shall make timely disclosure to the defendant who has no counsel of the existence of evidence, known to the prosecutor or OTHER government lawyer, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate to the degree of the offense or reduce punishment.
The trial started with Officer Salatel's testimony. He said he had over 40 hours of V&T Law training and training for detecting speeds of vehicles and those were certified qualifications. After this he stated that he ran through the u-turn without any signs outwardly he was doing so and says he slowed down to let me pass him and then he pulled out. Originally he was after a speeder. He stated that he was stuck behind my vehicle traveling 65 yet he could not appraise my speed with all his training.Durring Cross by me, officer Salatel stated that he did not strike the car. He stated that the cattle guards on the police vehicle are made of rubber and described what kind of mark they would make on the metal of a car (which matches the pattern on the points of inpact on the car see photos). He stated that he was doing 65 behind me, right be hind me, but i was travelling slower than that. He stated that he was not acting in emergency operation at the time. He stated as well that he knowingly and intentionally made a false statement on the supporting deposition under penalty of perjury. He stated there is a sign at mile marker so and so for the slower traffic keep right but is not acurate according to the records of the thruway authority. The issue of perjury in regards to character was brought up numerous times to Justice Van Woert who said officer salatel is not on trial and his perjury is not an issue for the court where i disagree. Tried to question Officer Salatel about the two exemptions that are alotted in this case for driving in the left hand lane but was told that only 1120b could be discussed and not 1120 as a whole since that is the true title of the offense and b is a paragraph in it. I was told that I could not question the witness in regards to 1181 which is New York state law in regards to defining a slow moving vehicle and 1180 which notes the criteria for maximum speed limits in the state of New York. I was told all of these laws are irrelevant. I asked officer Salatel that since the original ticket and the secondary ticket are both basically the same charge isn't it a violation of my right against double jeapordy and was told to shut up by the judge again in legal terms. I felt this was unfair because as I pointed out to the judge the reason why the other ticket was dismissed was because the charge was never stated on it with a degree of certainty and never told to me by anyone with certainty as to keep me safe from double jeapordy and by his direct testimony in that court at that time admitted that he was charging me in violation of my right against double jeapordy. The judge and the ADA said that I should be a mind reader and had been able to ascertain with all degree of certainty the charges were similair and filed a pre trial motion based on a phone call to Ms. Dion Warrwick and her Psychic friends hotline...5 dollars for the first motion 2.99 for each additional motion there after. I went to submitt evidence of the damage to the car for mitigation and extenuation and was originally told that it would be allowed and then told that so evidence would not without some documentation. I told Justice Van Woert that I had the mechanics report for the damage to the police car as well as my car, that I had scrappings and photos that all reasonably lead to the conclusion that indeed the car was struck and that the officer was committing perjury. All of this was dismissed. I questioned the officer about his speed and stated that I had a conversation I recorded with officer salatel's supervisor where he stated I was doing 65 and officer salatel was speeding. The Judge said she wanted it as evidence but when I was leaving told me she didnt want any of my evidence at all.I then sat down and told the court that they are making a mockery of the law, the court, and me and that I refused to ask any more questions as it would be pointless.I then testified to the events truely and was cross examined by the ADA.Upon closing Statements I itterated that an 1120b is not all that much and to have fought it like i was was just unfathomable unless truely the officer did strike my vehicle. I stated that the court was treating the law as a buffet and they should not be.in any court of law, all laws are applicable, not just the ones that the ADA and the police chose are. New York State Law is the law of the State and every law in those books is reasonable in the use of a defense.
I want to point out that under the law a defendant has a right to provide a reasonable alternative as a defense and prove that alternative with evidence as to prove reasonable doubt.
I was not afforded this opportunity and to be perfectly honest I feel that the ADA and the Justice involved both used my inability to judge social circumstances as a normal rational thinking defendant against me in the matter before the court in an attempt to prjudice justice.
She has decided to take the time to decide and file it in the mail but I know with all certainty because of the innapropriate court behavior that happened that I will be found guilty. And so hopefully I will be able to appeal as high as I must.