Subject: USA v City of Portland - State's Evidence Against Hardesty
----------------------------------------
From: Roger David Hardesty
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM
Subject: USA v City of Portland - State's Evidence Against Hardesty
To: "Geissler, Jonas (CRT)"
Cc: JoAnn Hardesty, vanita.gupta@usdoj.gov, david.knight@usdoj.gov, bill.williams@usdoj.gov, michelle.jones2@usdoj.gov, adrian.brown@usdoj.gov, Brian.Buehler@usdoj.gov, Seth.Wayne@usdoj.gov, Jaclyn.Menditch@usdoj.gov, Michael_Simon@ord.uscourts.gov, philipjames73@hotmail.com, kristijamison@gmail.com, shamaxhend@acninc.net, tomsteenson@comcast.net, windpines@comcast.net, TeyunaSe@hotmail.com, simcha613@gmail.com, info@mentalhealthportland.org, mdjaiona@aracnet.com, busybuns41@yahoo.com, lonevet2008@comcast.net, Joe Anybody , lisa_hay@fd.org, addie.byrum@gmail.com, mary rose lenore eng
From: Roger David Hardesty
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM
Subject: USA v City of Portland - State's Evidence Against Hardesty
To: "Geissler, Jonas (CRT)"
Cc: JoAnn Hardesty
Jonas Geissler
Senior Trial Attorney, US DoJ, Civil Rights Division
Hello, Jonas ~
The US Atty for Washington released this 12-minute video, in offering to dismiss Citation 6286935/OR45 for a bribe of about $150.
I took the deal when I realized Judge You, not a jury, would decide who has veracity; state security agents in close association and charged with protecting her life, or adversaries among justice advocates. I took the deal because I was fatigued at the recall of the U.S. Marshall’s whispered threat and hand on my bicep. (I now know victim trauma on a minor scale.) I took the deal because, by my reading, the state was only required to prove I had been ‘loud’ in a clarion call I had hoped would bring free speech advocates to my side.
For me, procedural justice has died. From his caution, I remain convinced the unidentified Marshall was acting in concert with peers in the Portland Police Bureau. That my psych profile in the Titan Fusion Center informed intervenors that initial threat, simply to prevent my testimony, would have sufficiently inhibited my cogency when allowed to make a case for the record. When Clerk Austed relayed “I heard one of the marshals very softly ask Mr. Hardesty to calm down and then I heard Mr. Hardesty shout some profanities,” I realize how at variance this was from an account beginning (as this evidence supports) where I stood silent and alone, waiting to sign up to testify. It was I, and not a whispering intervenor, who ‘created’ disturbance in a court at recess.
CSPAN recently offered three Federal judges in a panel. The first question from the audience related to President Jackson’s refusal to abide by the SCotUS ruling, that treaty rights prevail in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). “Why should we expect a President to abide by your decisions?” the man asked.
Two male judges puffed up, bragging that their probity and impartiality was almost irresistible. The woman judge allowed that separation of powers is all a perceptions game. She concluded by making a point I contended in proposing establishment of COAB, and a role in community: that, essentially, it is The People’s responsibility to insure the Constitution is in force. Having been in the attempt to employ reason for as long as I have, through limited channels permitted the public, I realize how shaky that premise is. Those who wield lethal authority hold real power in all channels permitting civilian intervention in Oregon.
I’m embarrassed I shook the bastard’s hand. Until my humiliation, my first response was that mutual civility had value.
Good luck protecting ‘civil’ rights in a new administration.
Roger David Hardesty
Comments
Post a Comment