UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I am the defendant in this action, and I make this statement in support of my motion dated July 31, 2003.
Stay the order dated December 13, 2003
In prior motions made to the Court (and still pending) it has been argued that the order of Decebmer 13, 2003 was overly broad in nature.
Beyond the building rules, this order alone has become the foundation for a series of arrests and a strong block against constitutional freedoms - especially the ability to contact a legislator.
Given the Court has stayed rulings on prior motions due to the matter being under appeal. It is hoped the Court would stay it's order and compel the government to find other lawful reasons to inhibit the defendant's conduct.
Protect the defendant from arrest.
The record of the earlier trial made it clear that Federal Building officials had allowed the defendant to proceed unchallenged in the past in identical conduct.
The record of the earlier trial made it clear the US Attorneys office had dismissed charges on two prior occasions and had acknowledged the conduct presented unique constitutional issues. The New York state Courts have repeatedly dismissed charges against the defendant.
The pending appeal may help clarify some of these issues and the defendant expects his right will be upheld.
The defendant has approached the US Attorneys office in an attempt to get a voluntary ``stay'' of the arrest/prosecutions as long as his conduct is identical and the appeal is pending resolution. This was refused.
Given the acceptance of his behavior in the past, the closest ``status quo'' position would be to allow the defendant to proceed as in the past.
Dismiss the complaint.
The complaint references New York Penal Law 140.05 (Trespass) and sections of the United States Code which allow prosecution based on violation of a state law.
In the history of this activity I have had approximately 29 charges dismissed in state court by three different City Court Judges. The majority of those were ``trespass'' charges (140.05) and these were dismissed because in a public area there has to be an allegation of wrong doing.
The complaint makes no such allegation other than failure to obey a lawful order to leave.
It is my belief the government will concede the fact Federal Officers were using the building rules to justify their order.
During the trial of October 29th, I was found not guilty of any violation of building rules. There exists no basis in the building rules for their order to leave the building.
I believe the government will also concede the fact I am not claiming any absolute right to be in the building. On at least 3 recent occasions I did comply with requests by Federal Officers/Security Staff to leave the building because of unique activities that day.
During the arrests that occurred on July 28th there had been a stay away order issued by the Court on December 13th. Without repeating here, I include the original argument made in a Motion dated 12 February 2003 to have that order vacated.
There was no lawful basis for an order to leave the building.
Assigning counsel for the defendant
There has been no significant change in my financial status since I filed my original statement with the Court.
I am under a tremendous debt burden and it is difficult to meet basic family obligations. There are other more urgent matters I wish to pursue in Family Court, but simply cannot afford counsel and a retainer.
I cannot pay for counsel to represent me in this matter nor in any appeal process.
Certainly the tone of the proceedings have established this matter is not a ``traffic ticket'' and there are significant Constitutional questions involved.
Assignment of counsel would insure an orderly and effective trial.
My motivation in the underlying matter is Civil Rights for parents and their children. Certainly there may be personal sacrifice involved as this effort continues - but not having effective counsel can only aggravate the situation. In the long run, no money is saved.
In the state court system I have been assigned counsel in these matters. I hope discretion will allow the same in the Federal system.