Monthly Archives: November 2010

Drunken blathering or inebriated tales of foreboding?

I had a chance to listen to a friend of mine inform me of information imparted to him by someone in the Fairview Heights Police Department.  This conversation took place in a drinking establishment and alcohol has a way of either loosening lips or enhancing delusions. During this alleged conversation, the “informer” told my friend that I was ready to “go down”; that there is an investigation underway by the FBI, IRS, and Homeland Security. I guess that for whatever reason I should consider myself fortunate enough to have the resources of three alphabet agencies converging on little ol’ me. Honestly, I find the allegation specious and implausible. There is an allegation that I have supposedly claimed to the Fairview Heights Police, during processing subsequent to my arrest, that I was not a US citizen, but that I still exercise benefits of US citizenship. He also said that he “would not want to be me”. That feeling is mutual because I would not want to be him. He would not know what to do with the thoughts I possess.

For the record, I am  NOT a US citizen. I claim no benefits or privileges of US citizenship. It is not my fault that deluded fools claim to possess some power over me because of the office they occupy. When I was arrested on Feb. 17, 2009 and taken into custody I may have said during questioning that I was not a US citizen. I had suffered a head injury, courtesy patrolmen Alemond and Nyman, so the exact contend of that encounter is a little hazy. Especially since I was denied medical treatment when requested. I do remember being asked for a social security number during processing and I commented that I did not have one. Of course, the police can’t fathom someone not possessing a government identity when all the other compliant drones readily submit. When I challenged the presumption of being a US citizen one of the men (they are not officers) basically asked me why I don’t leave the country? Again, arrogance and ignorance from a fool who believes that people have no right to live where they wish without having to pledge their allegiance to political foolishness.

The “informant” also said there was video evidence that I attempted to stand up and assault Alemond and Nyman during the encounter, when the video evidence presented to me shows the opposite. Unless the police tampered with the video and hired either Nicholas Cage or Robert DeNiro to stand in for me during a staged incident I seriously doubt there is any such video. I was there. I know what happened. Regardless, when men, whether disguised as police or other fictitious fantasy, choose to exact violence against another they deserve whatever force or resistance greets them since no individual has a duty to suffer at the hands of anyone. That is their burden and mistake to believe such insane notions.

I’ve already been questioned by the FBI, as well as having worked with them in the past. That relationship soured when I dared question them about the acts of murder they took in Waco. Homeland Security has already detained and questioned me before making a report that I am not a violent man. The IRS…well, they are of no consequence. I have already challenged them and we have nothing more to say to each other. The entire US Government has received my Declaration and knows of my position. If they want anything to do with me they has better bring conclusive proof I am under their jurisdiction and have refuted every statement in my Declaration. They are largely dangerous fools who operate on fear and ignorance of the masses. They are violent, deceitful, immoral, and in contradiction to my conscience.

If there is such knowledge of an investigation in possession of a lowly city cop where my demise is in the offing then the FBI, IRS, and Homeland Security need to muzzle their mutt. My crime is waking up to the lies and deceit. I have removed myself from that delusion and choose to live my life peacefully and morally. To hell with them and their government. I commit no crime aside from not conforming my thoughts to satisfy their commands. I do violence to no one. If any of these agencies want to make an example out of me they know where to find me. I’ll not lose any sleep over it.

Drunken blathering or inebriated tales of foreboding for moi? Who knows and who cares? It would be in their best interests to leave me be. Have a nice day.

Judge LeChien calls the letter of the law, "punctilios".

In the ongoing battle with the City of Fairview Heights, Patrolman Joshua Alemond and Patrolman Aaron Nyman, I had a hearing on Nov. 8, 2010 in courtroom 401 in St. Clair County, Illinois. The purpose for the hearing was to determine if the Defendant’s were to enjoy further protection under the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act. The Defendant’s received a 90 day stay in the proceedings on August 5, 2010 when the presiding judge, Robert LeChien, ruled that the motion for stay met the requirements of the SCRA. I argued that the evidence and exhibits submitted by the defense did not meet the requirements of the act. I lost, and the Defendant’s were entitled to an initial 90 day stay with a hearing to determine if the stay should be extended to cover the duration of Alemond’s deployment. Nov. 8, 2010 was that date.

I will not dwell on the particulars. I am bringing this action against the City of Fairview Heights and Patrolmen Alemond and Nyman, pro se. Most of the attorneys I spoke with would only take the case if I pursued a Title 42 action for violation of Civil Rights, which do not apply to me since I am  not a US citizen. So, my last recourse was to pursue an action in tort in state court.

What was particularly interesting in the hearing of Nov. 8, 2010 was the blatant bias exhibited by judge LeChien. I believe the man knows the law, but uses his position to either ignore it or use it as his personal tool and weapon against those who he feels is not worthy of his magnanimity.

The point raised in my objection was that the defense, after already enjoying a 90 day stay on an insufficient pleading, lacking the information specified by the Act, brought nothing more to the table in correcting the defective pleading. The Act clearly set fort the requirements for receiving a stay:

(2) Conditions for stay
An application for a stay under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember’s ability to appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear.
(B) A letter or other communication from the servicemember’s commanding officer stating that the servicemember’s current military duty prevents appearance and that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember at the time of the letter.

The Defense did provide a letter – Alemond Deployment, but that letter does not conform with (B) of the Act. LeChien felt it would not be fair to have Alemond deal with his legal obligations should he be home on leave, especially during the holidays. However, commentators on the Act, as well as courts, have held that if leave is permitted, the servicemember must use that leave to tend to his obligations. I guess LeChien knows better than those who deal with this law on a regular basis.

I tried to argue that point and Judge LeChien, after reflecting on my objection to the Exhibit, said that I was dwelling on a “punctilios” reading of the statute and that the evidence did satisfy the “intent” of the Act. For those who do not know what “punctilios” means:

1. a fine point, particular, or detail, as of conduct, ceremony, or procedure.
2. strictness or exactness in the observance of formalities or amenities.
Now, this is coming from a judge who deals with the “black letter of the law” daily, but who, when  posed with a defect in a pleading turns on me to say I am being “punctilios”. In my opinion, after having observed LeChien’s demeanor with other attorneys in his court, is that he twists the law as he sees fit to benefit who he deems deserving. The Act clearly states what is required in a letter where a stay is requested, but LeChien apparently does not need to be encumbered by such surplusage.
The Defense won, again, and justice once more delayed. A great lesson in the game of “law” where power-hungry and corrupt men use their position to benefit their doting sycophants.
I expect to be filing a complaint with the Judicial Review Board against LeChien as well as a motion for substitution of judge, since he will obviously be biased against me for having publicly criticized him. All the better. I prefer to not have that man involved in my case since I would not receive any justice or fairness.