Maryland Kangaroo Courts
The
Charges
I will relate the events in the following
manner: first I will present the charging documents and then my sworn statement
made three weeks after they occurred.
Some days
later a new document was drafted:
STATEMENT
OF CHARGES
IT IS FORMALLY
CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANT
1 Stoll,
C, did make a false complaint to
Emergency Communication Center (ECC) knowing the same to be false, with
the intent to deceive and with the
intent to cause an investigation or other action to be taken.
2
Stoll, C, did
assault Tyler-Morris, S, in the second
degree in violation of CR 3-203, contrary to the form of the act of the
assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace, government and
dignity of the state.
3
Stoll, C, did
assault Doye, J, in the second degree in
violation of CR 3-203, contrary to bla bla bla bla bla
Signature
of Feminazi thug Murphy, S, on the mendacious document
As we see, by the time the police got
around to filing formal charges, the whole camcorder issue mentioned in the
statement of probable cause had been quietly laid to rest and the charges were
now completely different, namely lying to the
police and committing two acts of assault.
In this we see a very flexible (or perhaps
“insidious” would be a more fitting term) approach on the part of the police.
They went to arrest me for committing one act (which it seems was perfectly
legal anyway), then they arrested me for something else that would never have
happened if I hadn't been falsely accused and pursued by an enraged mob as a
result of the original (false) charges.
C
Stoll’s version of events[1]
21
July 2007
First of all:
1) I didn't do any of the things that the
charging document says I did; and
2) I didn't say any of the things the
charging document says I said.
What really happened on 26 June 2007, about
10 h, in Rockville , Maryland
I was checking my purchases out at the
Giant Food supermarket at 625
Hungerford Drive
I gathered my groceries and left at a
moderate pace. Fearing that she was stirring up trouble for me, once I was
outside the store I walked straight to the property line. I knew that my legal
position was more secure on public land if any confrontation ensued, than if I
was subject to some landowner’s authority over my activities & possessions.
I encountered nobody before crossing the property line.
Soon afterwards, while I was walking along,
a female Giant employee overtook me & in a heavy Spanish accent tried to
persuade me to go back. I smilingly refused. At this point I had switched on
the camcorder again just in case I needed any evidence. And I did. A few
seconds later I heard a guttural shout and a huge darky[3]
approached from behind. I believe I filmed his approach. Soon there were about
8 people surrounding me & jostling me. I heard a vindictive yelp behind me
and a woman’s voice said something to the effect of “There it is!” while at the
same time I felt somebody grabbing at the strap on my camcorder from behind.
Since my left arm was carrying groceries and the camcorder was slung over my
right shoulder, it would have been very awkward indeed to try to fend off this
attack using my right arm, so I merely made a little kick backwards and struck
something that felt like a leg. The attack ceased. Then the giant loomed up
ahead & demanded to see my supermarket receipt, while standing in my way
and making grabbing motions. I ignored him, since we were on public land and
his only remedy if he thought I had stolen something was to call the cops. I
forged ahead. He crashed into me from the front, and then withdrew, and was
getting ready to crash into me again when I whipped out my pepper spray
canister and sprayed him with it, or tried to because the damn thing jammed and
the only effect was to wet my hand in pepper spray than later got on my neck
and stung. In reply to my spraying defense the giant went off to one side to a
flower bed we were passing on the left and picked up some pebbles & flung
some at me but didn't dare aim at me and of course missed. I warned him I was
filming him, as indeed I was, and he threw the remaining pebbles in his hand
away. I believe I got a good shot of the flower bed, completely covered with
pebbles.
I turned left onto Hungerford Drive 500 N
Washington St
I note that the Murphy female claimed I was
extremely agitated and hostile to the police. I was nothing of the sort. I was
rather puzzled at all the hullabaloo, but not particularly apprehensive or
possessed by any strong emotion, since I felt I'd done nothing wrong. This is
proven by my calm & composed 911 call, which ended shortly after she began
peering through the PO window, less than 1
minute before my arrest.
While being patted down I reported to her
that one person had brandished a box cutter and she derided me, on the lines of
“What kind of man are you who's afraid of a little box cutter?” I felt tempted
to retort that the New York World Trade center had been destroyed with the aid
of box cutters, but held my tongue. Despite her mockery, in her summary of my
911 call she wrote that I’d said “knives” (plural) where actually I had
mentioned a single box cutter both in my 911 call and in my report directly to
her on arrest.
She made a series of such inaccurate
reproductions of my claims, all calculated to sound exaggerated and absurd:
My words in my 911 call:[4]
|
Her report of my words:
|
one
box cutter
|
the
mob had knives (plural)
|
one
person tried to snatch something from me
|
I
was being robbed
|
one
person threw rocks[5]
|
the
mob was throwing rocks
|
I think this systematic distortion of my
words is a clear indication of her hostility toward me from the very beginning.
The only word she writes in quotation marks, “mob”, though, is an accurate
report of my words. Thus she pretends to be making an accurate record while
actually distorting my words beyond recognition.
No doubt this grotesque deformation of my
statements later inspired Ms Henry, the pretrial female, to keep plugging away
at me until she’d elicited something that would warrant a commitment for a
mental examination. A contributing factor was no doubt the fact that the
so-called “victim” was a fellow female. Avenging the sisterhood.
Murphy scolded me for filming in public
until I told her it was perfectly legal to do so. That shut her up. Then she
pulled the latest issue of Foreign Affairs from my satchel and called it
a “book” then scolded me for reading about “him”. I wondered whom she meant,
then looked at the table of contents on the cover where 2 names were in thick
type: those of one Democratic & one Repugnican presidential
candidate, both men. Which one did she mean? Who knows? She was very snappish
& fault-finding. She threatened me with woeful consequences if I had filmed
any children. In any event she was the one who was agitated and hostile, not
me.
She made a big show of examining my
supermarket receipt, so I suspect that I had also been accused of shoplifting.
Evidence situation:
One of the many misstatements in the
charging document is that my escape route was directly from the supermarket to
the PO across the avenue. However my original
tactic to get off Giant land ASAP led me northward into a short alley that
debouches on Hungerford next to a gas station, I believe. This circuitous route
to the PO led us past the flower bed where the
pebbles lay.
The charges that I was filming women’s
buttocks in the supermarket and that I kicked the woman likewise in the
supermarket are utterly false and no surveillance camera footage will confirm
either claim. The giant’s claim that he tackled me in front of the supermarket
is likewise false and no film will prove otherwise.
There was no confrontation until we were on
public land, as I had intended from the beginning.
The video I made while all this was going
on was pretty haphazard, but it must have recorded all the sounds and certainly
the giant’s attempt to block my path and his pebble throwing or at least
handling. Likewise it shows that I was surrounded by a jostling, yelping mob.
The cops seized it. [I never got it back.]
I have submitted discovery motions for the
video, witness’ statements, etc. Not yet for Giant surveillance tapes. I must
subpoena the store manager. Likewise subpoena the cops so they can contradict
her perjured statement that I was agitated & hostile.
I want to bring charges against the cop for
perjury. It would be easy to prove that she perjured herself, simply by
comparing the recording of my 911 call with the words she attributes to me in
the statement of charges.
End
of C Stoll’s statement under oath of July 2007
The so-called victims lied through their teeth, claiming that the coercive measures (i.e. “assaults”) that I
had actually applied to them had occurred at the Giant Food supermarket,
whereas they actually took place on a public thoroughfare. In other words I
really did kick Tyler-Morris (although in retrospect much too gently) and did
try to spray the giant Jeromy Doye with an “unknown substance” (namely pepper
spray), but at a completely different location and time from those they
claimed. And in both cases they were justified acts of self-defense, because Tyler-Morris
was trying to snatch my camcorder from me and the giant darky was purposely
colliding with me.
This brings up the issue of the Giant Food
surveillance tapes. Both acts of assault allegedly took place in the Giant Food
supermarket. Consequently the accusations could be easily disproved by
examining the supermarket’s surveillance tapes. I insisted to my lawyer that he
have them subpoenaed. He didn't. I tried phoning Giant Food myself and left a
message with their “inventory control” (namely security) unit explaining the
situation and asking how to go about securing tapes to use as evidence in my
case. Giant Food never bothered to reply.
When I was eventually allowed to inspect my
case file, at a rather late stage of the case, I found not a single document or
photo referring to any physical injuries allegedly sustained by Tyler-Morris,
or by anyone else, for that matter.[6]
The systematic and malicious lies recounted
by the Murphy female, most of them under oath, would warrant her dismissal from
the police and conviction for perjury.
I must conclude that the Maryland
Lockup
I was driven by the police to a lockup called “Seven Locks" (I
didn't count them) where I was held for most of the day. The Murphy broad came
and gave me some papers that I was unable to read because she had purloined my
reading glasses, and which I promptly mislaid.
Shortly thereafter I was summoned into the
presence of the commissioner. “Commissioner” is the name given in Maryland
She was sitting behind a window like the
place where you buy a ticket at the bus station, and I did not immediately
recognize her august status.
She asked me if I was known by any name
other than Carl Stoll, and I replied in the affirmative, saying I occasionally
identified myself as “Carlos Dougall” (which are both legal names of mine that
appear on various IDs of mine). She wrote down “Carlos Rodríguez”. That gives you an idea of how much attention
she was paying to the proceedings.
Then she set bail at $5,000. I was aghast.
I was uncertain of the charges, but they certainly didn't add up to 5 thousand
dollars’ bail! When I protested, she
replied that I had been charged with second-degree assault, that can carry a
penalty of up to 25 years in prison. I laughed so hard the tears rolled down my
cheeks. Twenty-five years in the slammer
for the opera buffo episode of that morning was laying it on a bit
thick, I thought.[7]
Later I was told that she should have handed me my charging papers, but for
some reason she failed to do so. As a result I was kept in the dark about the
precise nature of the charges until several weeks later.[8]
I was told of the possibility of phoning a
bail bondsman to post bail for me. I was shown a list of such establishments.
When I explained that I was unable to
read it because the police had confiscated my glasses, it was whisked away without another word.
Later I was told that that had been the opportunity the law affords suspects to
obtain bail.
The guards at the lockup were
French-speaking Africans. Their demeanour was brusque and uncompromising. More
or less the way cowboys treat cows, I suppose. I cursed at them in French. They told me that if I did that in France France
After languishing for a few hours in a
cell, I and the other prisoners were lined up and taken in a bus to the county
jail. Although I didn't know it at the time, there I was going to spend the
better part of a fortnight.
The
Feminazi Bucket Brigade[9]
The way I was processed after my arrest was
characterized by a snowball effect: hysterical broad no. 1 made up some story
about me. Then hysterical broad no. 2 (a cop, namely the Murphy broad) comes
along, listens to the account of HB no. 1 and indignantly adds some of her own
venom to her report, perjuring herself, by the way. Then HBs nos. 3 & 4
(commissioner broad & pre-trial broad) each see what HB nos. 1 & 2 have said about me and decide I'm a tough
cookie and a woman-kicker to boot, so they interpret everything I say in the
worst possible light and actually use their ingenuity in trying to find ways to
screw me even worse than I was already. Especially HB no. 4, seeing that I am
charged with an offense that seems to indicate I'm bonkers, tries to reach the
conclusion that I'm incompetent come hell or high water. When she sees that her
notes aren’t sufficient to pronounce me incompetent she comes after me to where
I'm talking with some other official and pumps me some more until I say
something that can be construed as “irrational” (according to her definition),
then scurries back to her desk and writes the desired conclusion.
All this leads to an accumulation of layer
upon layer of prejudice that ultimately could wind up sinking me. The
prosecutor is certain to sign on to the received notions. She likely won't even
bother to scan the evidence critically[10]. All
I need is some Feminazi judge who’ll add the final touch in the form of a
guilty verdict. Although that is a bit harder to believe. I think a judge, even
a female one, will try to apply her reason to the case.
Magistrate’s Court
After my first night in jail, I was
summoned to a room with a TV set that I was told showed a magistrate’s
courtroom. It was a black and white image, and rather small and indistinct. I
introduced myself in the routine manner, saying “Good morning, your Honor. Carl Stoll, defendant pro
se.” Everyone in the TV set giggled, because the magistrate hadn't even
arrived at the bench! In other words the TV picture was so extraordinarily bad
I couldn't tell if the judge was present or not!
Eventually the magistrate arrived. I was
asked my occupation and I replied I was a translator. When I was asked what
languages I translated, I made a decisive error: I answered, as I usually do, "all the
major languages of western Europe”[11],
because it's shorter to say that than
reciting the whole list. I presume that this was immediately construed as a
symptom of delusions of grandeur and the magistrate ordered me held without
bail pending a mental examination.[12]
In retrospect it would have saved a lot of
time if he had merely asked me if I was able to substantiate my assertion
about the languages. I would have simply referred him
to my website http://www.proz.com/profile/76326
and everything would have been cleared up at once.
Instead, I was incarcerated until a mental
examination could be held.
I lost my notes describing
my 2-week sojourn in jail.
Mental
Examination
Commitment
Order For Mental Examination:
I would
be curious to know exactly what the PTSU (Pre-trial Services Unit)
recommendations were, and the grounds adduced therefor.
Unfortunately Dr. Poirie, the court shrink, was on vacation, so I spent another ten days or so in the slammer awaiting the mental examination. Eventually he showed up and started arguing with me, reproaching me with using a camcorder in public and generally giving me a hard time, trying to catch me in contradictions. I became annoyed and stated my case forcefully. I didn't realize that such provocative remarks are designed to test a defendant’s logical powers.
Unfortunately Dr. Poirie, the court shrink, was on vacation, so I spent another ten days or so in the slammer awaiting the mental examination. Eventually he showed up and started arguing with me, reproaching me with using a camcorder in public and generally giving me a hard time, trying to catch me in contradictions. I became annoyed and stated my case forcefully. I didn't realize that such provocative remarks are designed to test a defendant’s logical powers.
Then the
language issue surfaced. He asked me what languages I translated, and I replied
as usual "all the major languages of western Europe”. The good doctor
immediately whipped out a little notebook and prepared to write. Then he asked
me which languages those might be. I rattled off my list of languages, and
since they all really turned out to be western European languages (in other words I didn't include Swahili or
Pig Latin), he became more relaxed.
However he made a dubious little
grimace. So I reassured him “You seem skeptical. I assure you that I
speak all those languages fluently.” It seems this was part of the test.
Eventually he pronounced me competent to stand trial.
Then bail
was set at $500, which my Guatemalan landlady Doña Maria paid for me, and I was
promptly released.
However
my odyssey through the marsupial Maryland
Police
Investigation
Card left behind in my dwelling by police search party 26
June 2007
I phoned Clutter on 11 July & he said
his colleague Mueller (?) wants to talk to me about my video efforts. It seems
in addition to vice they do homeland security. He said M will phone me.
I have decided to refuse to go to their
office or anywhere else in this connection. Furthermore I will refuse to talk
about my reasons for filming, on the grounds that it is a legal activity and
it's none of their business.
My Brief and
Disastrous Attempt to Act Pro Se
My original intention had been to act as my
own attorney. It was a really simple case, and I was obviously going to be
acquitted because the charges were nonsense. My years as a court interpreter
had provided me with some basic concepts of lawyering.
However I soon discovered that as a pro
se defendant I was an unperson. Nobody bothered to inform me about anything
going on in my case. I had no access to the case file. I wrote several motions
to the court and they were ignored.
When I enquired why there was no response
to my motions, I was told: all pre-trial motions are merely stacked up and then
on the day of the trial the judge would open, read & rule on them all in
one go. I was dumbfounded. How could I get “timely discovery” of evidence if my
request for such discovery was not read until my trial was about to begin?
This bizarre turn of events convinced me
that I would have to hire a lawyer, because only an insider would be able to
accomplish anything in this surreal system.
Here are some motions I filed pro se (and some I decided
not to file because the situation had changed). They give ample evidence of the
hurdles faced by pro se defendants in Maryland
DISCOVERY MOTION
Comes
defendant pro se and humbly states:
The
defense hereby requests that the Court order the prosecution to make timely
discovery of all relevant exhibits it intends to produce at trial and most
especially the HI 8-format video tape that was in defendant’s camcorder at the
time of his arrest on June 26, 2007, or a faithful copy thereof.
MOTION
COMES defendant pro se and humbly prays:
That the Court order the government to provide discovery of all
statements by witnesses and aggrieved parties, as well as transcripts of 911
calls related to this case.
MOTION
COMES defendant pro se and humbly prays:
A member of the Clerk’s staff apprised the defense this
afternoon that a motion to continue has been submitted. Since the only hearing
scheduled is the trial on July 27, this means that the government wishes to
postpone the trial.
Although the defense has not been officially informed of
the motion and hence does not know the grounds alleged for it, the defense
opposes the motion most vehemently on the following grounds:
The facts of the case, although disputed, are extremely
simple. There is no need for expert opinions, laboratory tests, depositions,
etc. Consequently the effort involved in preparing for the trial is minimal.
The magnitude of the government’s task in prosecuting the case can in no wise
serve as a justification for any continuance.
Hence the true reason for the requested continuance must be
the convenience of the government so it can devote its efforts to more
important matters. An alternative hypothesis is that the government, having
finally gotten around to reviewing the evidence, now realizes that the case
won't hold water but cannot bring itself to drop the charges.
Both these scenarios lead to the same conclusion: as far as
the government is concerned, this is a case of no importance whatever. It is
merely a waste of time.
Whereas for the government this case is assigned the lowest
priority and barely attains the government’s threshold of perception, for the
defendant it represents a substantial burden in terms of time and money devoted
to his defense and implies irksome restrictions on his freedom resulting from
his pretrial status. These restrictions are merely the latest burden in an
unbroken series of adverse decisions and unfortunate errors by police and court
staff by virtue of which the defendant was deprived of his liberty for two
weeks merely in order to undergo a mental examination.
Firstly a pretrial staff member reached a tentative
conclusion of incompetence based on a three-minute interview that took place
after the defendant had been deprived of his antidepressant medication for 40
hours. The damning evidence was defendant’s erroneous statement -- the result
of momentary confusion in a strange environment -- implying that the judiciary
is a part of the executive branch of government.
Defendant was held without bail until a mental examination
could be conducted. However court staff neglected to note that the forensic
psychiatrist was on vacation and no replacement had been provided. Consequently
a new five-day continuance was decided on. During all this time defendant had
no access to counsel and was completely in the dark about the pertinent
procedural rules.
Continuance of the trial would imply further extension of
defendant’s current supervision by pretrial officials and restrictions on his
travel, which together with the penalties already inflicted represent a burden out
of all proportion to the alleged offense. He faces a constant threat of
immediate imprisonment if he is arrested again. This may seem a frivolous
complaint, but in view of the flimsy grounds for his original arrest, he feels
that the slightest misstep might bring about further incarceration with even
more disastrous effects on his financial position than the spell in jail from
which he has recently emerged.
In a nutshell, the penalties already inflicted on defendant
are grossly disproportionate to the alleged offense. To extend this deleterious
situation merely to resolve the government’s scheduling conflict or its fit of
procrastination would be unconscionable.
Consequently the defense moves that the charges be quashed
for want of prosecution. Failing that, the defense moves that the government’s
motion for a continuance be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl
Stoll
Defendant
pro se
Telephone
& fax 301 838 3039
MOTION
COMES defendant pro se and humbly prays:
It would appear that this case is being dealt with as an ex
parte matter from which the defense is systematically excluded. The defense
reaches this conclusion from the following observations:
- A motion for continuance was
submitted but the defendant was not officially informed of it, thus
depriving him of the opportunity to
oppose it -- he learnt of the motion by accident;
- Today the defendant was
unable to examine the case file in the Clerk’s Office because it was said
to be in the judge’s chambers;
- However, when defendant asked
the name of the judge hearing the case, the information was not
forthcoming.
This troubling situation does nothing but prolong the conditions
of defendant’s incarceration, during which he was completely cut off from the
outside world and could do nothing to defend himself or attain his freedom.
Therefore defendant respectfully requests:
- That all activity in the case
be communicated to him forthwith by telephone and also in writing;
- Knowledge of the judge’s name
and the telephone number of his or her chambers; and
- Whatever other measure the
Court may deem proper in order to assure defendant of a fair trial.
MOTION
COMES defendant pro se and humbly prays:
Every time the defendant goes to the Clerk’s Office he is
prevented from examining the case file, which is said to be in the judge’s
chambers. This judge appears to have no name. A little more than one week
before the trial date defendant still does not know what the allegations
against him are. At the time of his
arraignment the commissioner neglected to give him a copy of the charging
papers. He has never held a single official document related to his case, with
the exception of his own motions and the writing partially reproduced beneath:
It is impossible for defendant to mount a defense against
allegations he has never read. This Kafkaesque situation must be remedied at
once. Therefore defendant respectfully requests:
- That he be allowed access to
the case file;
- That all activity in the case
be communicated to him forthwith;
- Whatever other measure the
Court may deem proper in order to assure defendant of a fair trial.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Stoll
Defendant pro
se
Telephone &
fax 301 838 3039
Motion
opposing continuance
MOTION
COMES defendant pro se and humbly prays:
WHEREAS the government has moved for a continuance on the ground
that one of its witnesses, Shannon Murphy, will be away on the day scheduled
for trial.
WHEREAS the defense would like to point out that Ms Murphy was not
a witness to any of the events that allegedly occurred. Hence her testimony
would be worthless for purposes of establishing innocence or guilt.
WHEREAS since the events allegedly took place in a supermarket,
submitting the store’s surveillance tapes would be ample evidence to convict or
acquit.
WHEREAS on the other hand it represents an unreasonable burden for
defendant to wait an additional month or so at the beck and call of the
pre-trial officials and subject to irksome restrictions on his personal
freedom.
WHEREAS the defense is of the opinion that defendant’s rights to
freedom outweigh any interest the government may have in presenting the
redundant testimony of Ms Murphy.
THEREFORE the defense moves that the motion for continuance be
denied and the trial take place as scheduled without the presence of Ms Murphy.
Carl Stoll
Defendant pro
se
Telephone &
fax 301 838 3039
I do not
know the fate of the motions I filed.
My
Lawyer
Since I was bewildered by the Byzantine
procedures at the District Court and apprehensive about the grossly irregular
handling of my case there, I was eventually forced to hire an attorney.
The attorney I wound up hiring was called
David Schiller. In German the adjective schillernd means „ambivalent” or
“ambiguous“. This was a perfect description of my attorney. I could never tell
whose side he was on, mine or the prosecution’s.
When I hired Schiller he told me in no
uncertain terms that the only job he would undertake to do for me was getting
me acquitted of the charges. He would provide no additional services concerning
probation, appeal, civil suits, etc.
It seems he didn't feel obligated to defend
my interests in general. All he would do would be to prevent me being
convicted. As far as anything else was concerned, he not only refused to act on
my behalf (which I find fair), but he also felt entitled to betray my secrets to
third parties (which I find reprehensible). I'm sure his handling of the case
earned him much gratitude on the part of the prosecution. This will presumably
be useful in his future career.
Expropriation
This is the list of items taken from me that I was given.
Only one item, and I can't even make out the handwriting.
When I signed it I was unable to read
because the Murphy broad had stolen my glasses.
Bob Cornwell, the case manager (that's a
prison bureaucrat who supposedly deals with the
concerns of the inmates), was described to me by another inmate as a
“petty sadist”. Since I only met him once (he kept ignoring my requests to
speak to him) I am unable to judge whether he really is a sadist or not.
In any case his instruction to seek out the
“property officer” proved to be useless. That is because the Murphy broad had
cunningly neglected to hand over any of my belongings to the prison officials.
In any case I didn't understand everything
he'd written because it was so full of unknown acronyms. I was puzzled by the
final remark “Also authorize (your friend) [who the hell is that? I wondered]
to get your cell phone #s from the phone.” Firstly, for the first week of my
incarceration I was unable to make any contact at all with the outside world. For all anyone else knew, I
might have been abducted by aliens! Hence the “your friend” bit was a bit odd.
Secondly, assuming I was able to get in touch with the outside world, I didn't
know where my cell phone was, so I couldn't tell him to “get” it.
As a result of this I had no money to buy
anything from the commissary (Murphy withheld the $30 in cash in my wallet that according
to rules she was supposed to hand over
to the prison officials to cover any
purchases of mine).
She likewise failed to hand over my reading
glasses. Consequently I was unable to read for my first 4 or 5 days in prison,
until through adroit questioning I
discovered that the prison provides reading glasses and I managed to secure a
pair, after going through the proper procedures.
Cornwell made no remark on the fact that
the police were disregarding the orders of the court. Nobody else seemed to
mind, either.
Vain
Efforts to Recover My Possessions Seized by the Feminazi Cop
As soon as I was released I immediately went about trying
to retrieve my belongings. It was an arduous and frustrating task. At one point
the District Court prosecutor M. Schweitzer informed me that if I wanted to get
my things back I would have to sue the county (by replevin, I believe). I was
forced to buy new reading glasses, new medicines, a new mobile phone and sundry
other items to replace the ones that had been seized from me.
MOTION
COMES defendant pro
se and humbly prays:
WHEREAS on defendant’s
arrest numerous belongings were taken from him by the police;
WHEREAS these items
remain in the possession of the Montgomery County Police two weeks after the
arrest despite defendant’s many entreaties that they be returned;
WHEREAS among these
belongings are items that defendant urgently needs to conduct day-to-day
business, among them:
his cell phone;
the medication on which he relies in part to combat his
severe clinical depression;
his reading spectacles;
the satchel in which he customarily carries his personal
belongings when out of the house;
his camcorder; and
other necessary items;
THEREFORE defendant
respectfully requests that the police be ordered to hand over to him all
objects that are not necessary as evidence in the forthcoming trial.
Carl Stoll
Defendant pro se
Telephone & fax 301 838 3039
Comment:
This motion was ignored by the Court (like all my other motions).
Record
of my Fruitless Telephone Calls Trying to Recover My Belongings
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
Appointed by County Executive
approval:
J. Thomas Manger, Chief
(240) 773-5000
e-mail:
thomas.manger@montgomerycountymd.gov
web:
www.montgomerycountymd.gov/poltmpl.asp?
url=/content/pol/index.asp
PHONED 10 JULY 1440H
>>[13]
PROPERTY OFFICE
240 773 5256 BILL BICKLE IN CHARGE OF
EVIDENCE
LEFT MSG. 1443H
240 773 6070
Ofcr. Murphy ID 2260 ARRESTED ME
240 773 6070
I phoned 10 July 0527 h and was told Ofcr
Murphy will phone me about returning my belongings. Later I rephoned and also
left message for chief.
1409h phoned again. Murphy isn’t in today.
Ask to speak to sergeant. Then I hear those familiar words that indicate
I've been cut off:[14]
“If you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again. “
COUNTY CRISIS CENTRE >>
301 315 4000
"SUPPLEMENTAL LEARNING CENTRE"
11 July 1120h phoned (240) 773-5000 &
talked to Lt. Waring. He said he'd phone the station and ask for my stuff. Each
station has its own property office.
The US
1223H
I have received no call abt my belongings.
PHONED LT WARING & LEFT SARDONIC
MESSAGE.
PHONED 11 JULY 1307H TOLD REGULAR PERSON
ISN’T IN
TODAY. AFTER 14H MR FUJIKURA IS IN CHARGE
OF THE PROPERTY OFFICE;
CALL THEN.
1425h
1425h rephoned 240 773 6070 & talked to Fujikura. He asked me if any
of my belongings are going to be used as evidence[15] (!).
he says he must talk to Murphy. He's not sure if my things are where he is. I
ask where they would otherwise be and he mumbles something. He’ll go see later
on when he has time. I should call again later.
1640h I phone. I speak with Fujikura. He
says he hasn't had time to go & check. Tomorrow the female who handles the
evidence will come and he will give her my phone number & name. She’s there
from 8 to 4. Does this mean my things are now evidence? Clutter said I’d get my things back except for the tape that
was in the camcorder when I was arrested.
2043h I have written a motion requesting
return of my belongings. If tomorrow I fail to recover my stuff, I will deliver
the motion to the court on Friday.
12 July 1321h I rephone 240 773 6070 and
spoke to a Ms Young, who told me she does not have the stuff. It is in the
hands of the special investigative unit,
phone number:
301 840 2500. I phone this number. I am
told that the stuff is in the hands of the
arresting officer, to wit Murphy. She has my stuff because she's the
arresting officer, I should call her at 240 773 6070. Murphy is “out of” the
Rockville Station, not “out of” this office. I rephone and am told I am not
getting my things back “because I was arrested” [sic]. Perhaps Murphy
has my things, perhaps not, but in any case I'm not getting them back. Murphy
will be at the station next Sat., not before.
I phoned the Montgomery County Office of Human
Rights at 240 777 8450. I was told: “This office has no jurisdiction
over the police.”[16] I was told to call: 301
279 1591 -- Rockville District of the County Police
Then I phoned the Chief Administrative Officer at 240 777
2500. I talked to Mary Beth 1433h. She says she'll send Murphy an e-mail.
She says there's no
one high-ranking in [here the note breaks off.]
End
of phone call records
Eventually, one day (I failed to write down
the date) I received a phone call from the county police telling me that I
could pick up my satchel at the police station. Two weeks later I went there
and was promptly scolded for not having come sooner to retrieve it.
Most of my things were inside, except for
the items that had been held as evidence and are listed in the yellow sheet
below. The only thing I know for certain that the police stole was my
Guatemalan morral [17].
Since it was made of a coarse material and discolored by years of use, they probably
classified it as garbage and just threw it away together with the groceries it
contained.
STUFF
THE COPS EVENTUALLY RELUCTANTLY RETURNED TO ME AFTER THE CHARGES HAD BEEN
PROVEN FALSE:
Transcription of list:
black notebook
jihadist book (a book about Mohammedan
fanatics written by a professor in New
Jersey
green canvas bag (that contained and
concealed my camcorder)
Sony camera (meaning camcorder)
silver container with DVDs inside
Circuit
Court Proceedings
Finally the day of my trial dawned.
Right before the trial was about to begin,
Schiller told me he was finally about to view the incriminating tape (which I
had been telling to do him for months) in the
company of the state’s attorney. He then questioned me about what was on
the tape. I gave a vague reply. Since it was my habit to just switch the
camcorder on whenever I was in a public place, I didn't know for sure what was
on it. He apparently found my reply
evasive and possibly indicative of guilt, and thereupon questioned me more
closely.[19]
Evidently he thought I was involved in some kind of monkey business. I stuck to
my story, so he went off to join the prosecutor to view my tape in his company.
When my lawyer got back from viewing the
incriminating tape and told me there was no evidence of any offense by me (as I
had been telling him for months), I expected the trial would then take place
and I would be acquitted. But Schiller warned against it. He warned of unknown
risks I might encounter during trial and recommended that I make a deal with
the prosecution to postpone the trial for 3 years. Once those 3 years had
elapsed, the charges would be dropped.
However as a condition for the
postponement, I was supposed to promise certain things, namely that I would not
sue the cops for false arrest and a couple of other things. I was reluctant to
make these concessions, because in fact it was not necessarily in my interest
to postpone the trial at all. Only Schiller’s murky warnings of possible dire
consequences of a trial (even if I was acquitted) persuaded me to agree to the
conditions.
In retrospect I think now that he was just
bluffing so I would make concessions benefiting the prosecution, Giant Food,
the police and other members of his in-group, all of them far more powerful and
influential than I, and that would be able to reward him accordingly. After
all, the $2,500 I had paid him in fees is just chicken-feed to people like
him.
I told him on that occasion, in private,
that I intended to sue Giant Food for encouraging its employees to pursue me
through the streets and for employing Tyler-Morris, whose evident lunacy
triggered the whole episode. He tried to dissuade me, stating something about
Giant Food bearing no liability for the antics of its staff.
But half an hour later, in court, the
prosecutor insisted that I waive any claims against Giant Food! So I suppose my
lawyer finked on me to the prosecutor. However I am not certain why the
prosecutor wanted Giant Food to be protected against legal claims by a private
party. Was he a Giant Food shareholder? Did they give him big discounts on
roast turkey? Who knows?
Furthermore, if David Schiller was telling
the truth when he said Giant Food was not liable for the fact that a dozen of
its employees formed a posse to hunt me down and for the false charges brought
by its employee Tyler-Morris, then why did the prosecution find it necessary to
impose the condition that I not sue Giant Food?
One peculiar thing he told me at that
meeting was that the prosecutor had to appease a lot of angry people. It turned
out that those angry people were the instigators of the whole farce, namely
Tyler-Morris & Co. I didn't have the
presence of mind to ask him “So what?” Besides it was unclear to me exactly
what they were indignant about and in what manner such alleged indignation on
the part of a couple of minimum-wage proles could influence the issue. But I am
not a quick thinker. I was pressured into making a decision at once, because
the court was waiting for me to decide. If I had had a day or two to think
about it, I would have refused those conditions.
Schiller told me that according to the deal he had made with the prosecutor, Tyler-Morris was going to be
compensated for her alleged sufferings, and that Schiller would himself pay her
the couple of hundred bucks involved out of the fee I had paid him. That was a
prudent move on his part. If he had asked me to fork out money to that scumbag
for getting me into all this trouble, I would have flatly refused.
So if Tyler-Morris was able to snag a
coupla hundred bucks, I suppose she did have some means of exerting pressure.
Because as I relate elsewhere, Tyler-Morris had suffered no injuries whatever,
as proven by the fact that no medical evidence was ever submitted.
My big mistake was trusting David Schiller,
believing what he told me and assuming that he would act in my best interests.
As a matter of fact he signally failed in several respects: he didn't look at
the tape I had made despite my repeated entreaties, and he made no effort to
procure the Giant supermarket surveillance tapes that would have cleared me of
any wrongdoing. Actually, once when I was telling him to obtain the supermarket
surveillance tape, me misunderstood me and thought I was talking about the tape
in my own camcorder. Obviously subpoenaing supermarket surveillance tapes was a
most eccentric thing to do and didn't suit his plans at all. Then to cap it off
he double-crossed me by telling the prosecution of my plans for legal
retaliation, thus nipping them in the bud.
It should have been obvious to me that
Schiller was on the side of the prosecution, simply because he was fated to go
on dealing with them for years, and I was obviously a one-time client. He
intuitively sensed that I wasn't planning to rob any banks or perpetrate other
felonious outrages that would force me to hire a lawyer in the future. So
obviously it was to his advantage to do the prosecution favours that he might
later cash in on by getting special treatment for rich clients who were willing
to reward him accordingly, or just by the coziness of enjoying cordial
relations with the state’s attorney.
One thing that puzzles me is that since
Schiller considered it beneath his dignity to examine the evidence, he had no
way of knowing whether I was guilty or not. After all, that's what evidence is
for – to prove innocence or guilt. So if he didn’t know whether I was guilty or
not, how could he negotiate with the prosecution? He had no idea of whether I
was in a strong or weak negotiating position. What was he offering them and
what were they offering him/me? I once tried to join his palaver with the prosecutor at the district court, and he had
gruffly warned me to keep away from
them. So I was unable to discover what
they were talking about. But they talked for at least half an hour.
On the whole my years of court interpreting
had left a favourable impression on me about the US Puerto Rico . In Washington ,
DC
I was especially struck by the fact that in
all my years as a court interpreter (both in federal and state courts), no
government official, no attorney, nobody at all, had ever asked me to break my
oath of secrecy by disclosing anything that had transpired in any private meeting
between attorney and client at which I had been present.
However my experience with the Maryland kangaroo court system revealed to me that in
some ways the US is exactly
like Mexico
Appendix
Assorted data
(240) 773-9700
(240) 777-9960
[1]
This sworn statement was written on 21 July 2007. Language in italics was added
two years later, in 2009, but is no less accurate than the original statement.
[2]
Later identified as one Sharon Tyler-Morris
[3]
Later identified as one Jerome Doye
[4] The accuracy of my quotations and the inaccuracy of Murphy’s
quotations was verified by listening to the recording of the original 911 phone
call.
[5] In my original sworn statement, quoting my words from memory, I
mistakenly asserted that I had said "pebbles", not "rocks". However when I listened to the recording I
found that I really had said “rocks”, just as reported by Murphy.
[6]
Nonetheless that unspeakable wretch complained for months of her supposed
injuries, as my landlady reported to me every time she came back from shopping at the Giant Food
supermarket, where Tyler-Morris continues working to this very day
[check].
[7] This
seems to reflect a grotesque lack of proportion in the process of setting bail.
The charge was that I had kicked somebody once, causing no injuries. I fail to
understand how such a charge could lead to a 25-year prison sentence. An
analogy: I am charged for example with carrying a weapon. Possible sentence: 10
years. But the “weapon” could have been an atom bomb, or it could have been a
slingshot. Does Maryland
[8]
This is a flagrant breach of Article 21 of the Maryland Constitution, which
requires that criminal defendants be promptly informed of the charges against
them. As I pointed out in a motion (see Pro Se chapter), for several
weeks this flagrant breach of the Constitution persisted. As far as I know the
court never ruled on the motion. This is but one indication of the grossly
irregular conduct of the proceedings and the general indifference to legal
niceties shown by officials.
[9]
The Feminazi Bucket Brigade section was entirely written in July 2007,
except for language in italics. Please pardon the rhetorical excesses, which
reflect my mental state at the time.
[10] A most accurate prediction, albeit an understatement. Actually, the
prosecutor didn't bother to examine the
evidence at all. All my pleas to various (invariably female) prosecutors to
view the videotape on which the charges were based were ignored or dismissed
out of hand. My lawyer likewise ignored my advice to look at the videotape. He
did not do so until the day of trial. I
have been unable to recover the videotape.
[11]
This is actually not entirely accurate, because I don't translate Dutch. On the
other hand I do translate from Catalan, which I feel compensates somewhat for
my ignorance of Dutch.
[12]
However, as I note elsewhere, the magistrate appears to have been also
influenced by the pre-trial report, whose author, one Ms. Henry, had on the
previous day been very assiduous in fishing for statements that could be
construed as signs of madness.
[13]
“>>” stands for "Gives me phone number & then I phone”
[14] These pages are an exact reproduction of my telephone calls records, except for
spelling mistakes and the like, which have been corrected. The language in italics
is commentary I inserted later.
[15]
Please note this peculiar situation: the police asks the defendant what
evidence the police is going to use
against the defendant!
[16] Let
me repeat that: “The Montgomery County Soviet Union .
[17] [Pronounced more-AHL] A handwoven
sisal carryall that is extremely capacious and resistant. You can carry rocks
in it. After more than 20 years of intensive use it showed no signs of wear.
There is only one place in the solar system where you can obtain this specific
artifact, namely the Indian village of
Santiago Atitlán in Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala
[18] I'd
be most intrigued to discover exactly what the prosecutor told the grand jury
to persuade them (in Count 1) that I had “intercepted or endeavored to
intercept an oral communication.” Perhaps something on the lines of “the
microphone on his camcorder was switched on while he was shopping”. According
to the First Amendment Handbook
[http://www.rcfp.org/ handbook/c03p02.html], what Maryland
[19] I find it most peculiar that he found it
necessary to question me about the content of the tape, when he had for months
been in a position to look at it himself – as I often urged him to do.
[20]
México is my usual standard of reference when judging the United States because it was the country I lived
in before moving to the US US
before I went to Mexico US
is contagious, and I eventually wound up moving to New York
City and later Washington ,
DC
Commenti
Posta un commento