On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:44:20 -0700, "John C. Randolph"
> ptsc wrote:
>> They know their case is weak, and they have shown the first sign of weakness.
> I think that describing their case as "weak" rather misses the mark.
> Try "Fucking Asinine."
I may be wrong, but I am entirely convinced that the DA *never* expected to have to try this turkey, and my lawyer has come around to the same view. Say what? Moxon, Paquette and one or more of the Hemet DA's (Schwarz's boss Tom Gage who signed the complaint would be my prime suspect) conspired to set me up to be arrested on failure a to appear charge. This is a violation of Section 182 of the Penal code. To do this they set up a video taped deposition and when they had a firm date for the deposition, filed this amazingly weak case against me so the arraignment date would hit while I was in a deposition. Then, they put information I can *prove* to be false in the court's computer records, namely the notice that my status was "release with letter to appear." This is a violation of Section 132 of the Penal code. The letter, defendants copy of the complaint, was not given to me or mailed in spite of a "statement under oath" that it had been put into the court's records. This copy had been left in the case file and was handed to me by Deputy Borner on September 15, 2000 when I unexpectedly showed up in court that morning. They expected me to plead out on failure to appear charges after being held overnight in another county and transported to Riverside in handcuffs. The CoS lawyers, particularly Helena Kobrin screwed up thinking I knew about the arraignment and accidentally gave me notice. At that point the scheme went off the rails and poor Robert Schwarz was left with trying to prosecute a bogus case they never expected to try. Keith Henson