Poor old redacted
In Propria Persona
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
POOR OLD REDACTED,
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 8CA10541
NOTICE OF MOTION TO TRAVERSE AND
REQUEST FOR FRANKS VS. DELAWARE HEARING POINTS , AND MOTION FOR FRANKS VS. DELAWARE HEARING AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
DATE: / /2009
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: 40
Time Estimate:
POOR OLD REDACTED”S MOTION
FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO FRANKS V. DELAWARE
TO: LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY AND/OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 4, 2009, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, the Defendant herein, In Propria Persona, will and hereby does move the court for a Franks hearing.
NOW COMES your Defendant, POOR OLD REDACTED, and moves the Court to grant her a hearing on the truthfulness of certain statements in the affidavit of DETECTIVE JOHN GREGOZEK, hereinafter called Affiant, and requests a hearing, and would show unto the Court the following:
I.
Two search warrants were issued to authorize a search any and all accounts possibly associated with the e-mail account associated with a facebook account that is supposedly tied to someone making statements about Notaro’s bad character etc. The warrants to search all the possible accounts associated with ingridgood@aol.com were for reasons unspecified in the warrant to include searches of accounts that were not owned by the defendant but may possibly be owned by her sister, Poor old redacted, or her mother, Henya Poor old redacted, or in the alternative were somehow connected to a wholly unfamiliar individual named Patricia T. Brummer. The logic of how Gregozek will attempt to “link” the defendant to the alleged facebook postings is not clear nor is any attempt to make it clear to be evidenced on the part of Detective Gregozek either in his affidavit or in any support statements available to the defendant. The incomprehensible reasons and methods used to search the accounts of three individuals who are not the defendant, thus noted, the affidavit in support of these two warrants to search these accounts or ISP is based on nothing but stale and false statements by Mathilde Notaro given some 10 months before these warrants were presented to the Hon. Samantha Jessner. There has been ample evidene and documents that have been available to Det. Gregozek( I sent them to him via e-mail) which should have been included. This warrant which allowed a search of The AOL account of Lauren Poor old redacted, The AT @T account of Poor old Mother redacted, the accounts of the mysterious Patricia T. Brummer and then to search something called a Peer One Network for such undelineated reasons is not only without probable cause but Gregozek’s affidavit is riddled with misstatements, omissions, completely stale and false allegations, and it can be shown that Gregozek did so recklessly and with intent to supply false information and that no probable cause could exist to warrant any searches or seizures of the private areas of the Defendant’s family members or for that matter the defendant. A copy of the warrant and affidavit are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
II.
The allegations made by Affiant in the Affidavit, to wit, that a “link” is in any way possible and or that his training would discourage rather than encourage any further “investigation” must be noted. Material omissions, attempts to mislead, and false statements were made deliberately by Affiant Gregozek knowing that they were false, or were made with reckless disregard for the truth. There is insufficient probable cause to support the search warrant without such false statements.
III.
Attached as Exhibit B is the audio tape made by Gregozek and his partner James Hoffman that was made on May 7, 2008 without the knowledge of the Defendant or her sister or mother and which completely eliminates any mention of Henya Poor old redacted’s statements and which clearly and convincingly aims to misstate or invent behaviors( angry outbursts) and statements that are allegedly made by the defendant .Any hearing of the 120 minutes of audio will show that Detective Gregozek is inventing statements and behavior(many angry outbursts” “the sarah silverman show sucks”) in an effort to incriminate the defendant. The omission of the restraining order hearing, and the subsequent investigation that would be expected should be noted. Only the stale and malicious allegations of Mathilde Notaro are offered and there can be no reasonable explanation for this that should satisfy any trier of fact. The defendant submits that Detective Gregozek acted in BAD FAITH in constructing this affidavit and though no evidence was found that should have been sufficient to convince any reasonable person that the defendant was responsible for any crime ,the charges still were approved by the Honorable Bork. Despite no notice of motion available to the defendant for this “amended complaint” nor notice of what the motion was to address, it was allowed to be heard and the Public Defender(as per) did nothing to protect the rights of the defendant, who at the time, was not aware of motion practice and only agreed to the instant hearing of this motion because the Pro Tem Judge in Division 40 told her that otherwise she would still be stuck with the Public Defender. The defendant had lost all faith in that office and wonders if it is even allowed to condition a farretta hearing on the hearing of such a motion without any time to prepare a viable oppossition. Judicial Notice should have long been imperative as the appearance of malfeasance is indicated and the defendant and her family have been injured for far too long by this malicious prosecution that began on May 7th of 2008 and has continued unabated despite overwhelming evidence that this is without a doubt a very suspicious and malicious prosecution that is being funded by the taxpayers and who when presented with this prosecution will be inclined to rule for the defendant.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the court grant her a hearing on the truthfulness of the statements complained of herein; that the court find that such statements were false; and that the Court suppress all evidence seized as a result of the said search warrant.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. Evidence constituting probable cause which had occurred nine months prior to the request for a warrant was determined by the Appellate Courts to be stale in State v Probst, 247 Kan. 196 (1990). Evidence constituting probable cause concerning events that occurred within 60 days of the application of a warrant were found to be stale under the facts of the case in State v Tyler, an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals found at 138 P. 3rd 417 (2006).
2.The general rule is that stale information cannot support a finding of probable cause. Stale information only gives rise to a mere suspicion and not a reasonable belief, especially when the items to be obtained in a search are easily concealed and removed.”
Raymer v State, 482 N.E. 2nd 352 (Ind. 1985) cited with approval in State v Cunningham, 90 P.3rd 379 (2004).
3.While the Kansas courts have not specifically addressed the issue of staleness as it related to probable cause for an
arrest the courts have analyzed the issue relative to the issuance of search warrants.
“The first is whether the criminal activity is continuous. The second is the time between the issuance of the warrant and the alleged criminal activity relied upon to establish probable cause. The third is the
use of present or past tense verbs in the affidavit supporting a search warrant. Finally the Court looks at the likelihood the contraband would be moved from the location of the proposed search. Taking all these factors into consideration the Court determined there must be a logical link
between the place to be searched, the property seized, and the criminal
conduct.”
See State v Hemme, 15 Kan. App. 2nd 198, 203.
4. A mere possessory interest in the item seized does not by itself confer standing to challenge the search of the place in which the item was found. Legal "possession of a seized good [is not] a substitute for a factual finding that the owner of the good had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched." United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 92 (1980). Thus, there is no standing simply because someone was charged with a possessory crime. 3
CONCLUSION
FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant respectfully requests that this court suppress the evidence obtained as fruit of the unlawful detention and search. FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant respectfully requests that this court grant a Franks vs. Delaware hearing so as to examine why these warrants were granted in the first place and why Detective Gregozek et. Al have chosen to commit perjury, to obstruct justice, and to compromise the fiscal state of California in their efforts to either railroad the defendant so her actionable claims against them lose potency or to curry favor with the law firm of Lavely and Singer who represent Arnold Shwartezenneger, California’s governor, and the one who appointedd Ms. Mary Lou Villar to the bench. Ms. Villar is also the sister of Anthony Villagroisa and therefore a conflict of interest should be of concern to the court—as Judge Villar up until this point seems to be concerned with the interests of the defendant’s adversaries rather than in justice. The honorable Judge Villar has despite only contrary evidence concluded that my lawyer could withdraw without delay or notice or sanction or any of the remedies that would and should occur to anyone in such a position.
The motives and methods of this motley bunch are not yet entirely clear but become increasing so with time and tireless effort and a clear pattern of Gregozek’s and Waxler working with Alison Seivers(who has not responded to any appeal and who did not show up to the restraining order hearing nor did she ever file a substitution of attorney as required by law)has certainly emerged and if trial commences a jury must be aware this very suspect alliance between all the adversarial parties.
Respectfully submitted,
No comments:
Post a Comment