|
|
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ____________________________________ United
States of America,
John
Murtari,
Defendant JOHN MURTARI, being duly sworn,
deposes and states: 1.
I am the defendant in this action, and I make this
statement in support of my motion dated February 12, 2003. Vacate the
prior order of the Court dated 13 December 2002. 2.
The order is too broad in nature and provides an
unjustified restraint on speech. Without
repeating here, I include the argument made by Ms. Peebles in the Appellate
Brief (Exhibit A, page 26). 3.
Without repeating, I also include the complete District
Court decision in the case of Bynum vs. United States Capital Police (Exhibit
B). 4.
Without repeating here, I include an excerpt from a Motion
made by Attorney Charles Keller in State Court requesting an “Order of
Protection” regarding the Federal Building be vacated (Exhibit C).
The motion was granted. 5.
There has never been a hint of evidence produced that I
have ever acted in a threatening or illegal manner with respect to office
contact of Members of Congress. I also include a copy of an “Order of
Protection” issued by a City Court Judge (Exhibit D), which was vacated, along
with a letter from Congressman James Walsh (Exhibit E). 6.
I dispute the factual finding of the order that “… John
Murtari has been charged on previous occasions with the same conduct for which
he has been found guilty…” I
was found guilty of trespassing & disorderly conduct triggered by
“congregating” with other. In all the prior incidents the issue of
“congregating” has never come up regarding conduct.
I do not believe that any evidence was brought up in the Trial record to
specify exactly what the prior charges were. 7.
I dispute the factual finding of the order that “… John
Murtari has been charged on two separate occasions during the pendency of this
case with the same unlawful activity.” Again,
the issue of congregating never came up. Also, as was mentioned in our previous
Court appearance, the US Attorney’s office still has note made a formal
complaint specifying the exact charges. The one set of tickets I have for the 30th of
September only charge “Failure to comply with directions from an FPS
personnel” and “Unwanted loitering/demonstrating, causing concern within
building”. I do not believe that any evidence was brought up in the Trial
record to specify exactly what these charges were. 8.
I dispute the factual finding that “…John Murtari has
indicated, publicly and in writing, that in the future he intends to continue
these same activities for which he has been found guilty…”
I continue to assert my innocence of “congregating” with others and
it certainly is not my public position to promote “disorderly conduct” or
“trespass” in the Federal Building. I do not believe any evidence was
brought up in the Trial record to support such a finding. 9.
I dispute both the facts and the relevancy of the last
finding that I have “…succeeded in bringing these issues to the attention of
the two offices…” 10.
The order broadly restricts my ability to contact my
Members of Congress and work for reform. It
did not limit itself to just saying don’t violate any laws such as disorderly
conduct (which I was found guilty of by the Court).
11.
The order really appears to act as an
“amendment” to fix presumed defects in the Building Rules.
I can only repeat the argument earlier made by Ms. Peebles that this is
not a “criminal” matter. If the
GSA feels the building rules are not good enough they should pursue legislative
change or civil suit. Dismiss any pending action based
on the order. 12.
The order should be vacated and in the interest of Justice
the pending actions which use the order as a basis should be dismissed. 13.
Orders are presumed to have “validity” but there is
certainly a threshold where an order can so exceed proper scope that an improper
burden is placed on the individual. 14.
As a moral individual who is acting in good conscience to
attempt to achieve Civil Rights recognition for parents and families, an order
which blanket precludes contact with Members of Congress is impossible to obey. Assigning another Judge to rule on this motion, to
preside at any potential contempt hearing, and future trials. 15.
When delivering its verdict, the Court who was unable to
say the words “not guilty” on counts one and two during my bench trial. 16.
The Judgment in a Criminal Case, dated 21 Nov, for this
matter does not contain a “not guilty” entry with respects to counts one and
two of the complaint. 17.
In my discussions with attorneys, I was unable to find any
precedence for such conduct. 18.
During our earlier appearance on January 15th, I
was concerned to hear the Court muse over the issue that 30 days confinement
might not be enough punishment regarding the pending Contempt charge. That the
Court considered “certifying” the matter to a District Judge so a six month
sentence could be imposed. 19.
I continue to also stand by my innocence in the matter that
went to Trial. The Brief (Exhibit
A) makes clear what the elements of the crimes were and that they did not exist.
I believe I was not given a presumption of innocence, nor was the government
required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt during my bench trial. 20.
I have a great respect for the Court.
I am thankful for the original assignment of Counsel to help in my
defense. I am most thankful for the Courts forbearance in sentencing and in
scheduling appearances so that family visits with my Son could continue.
Words cannot express my real appreciation.
____________________
JOHN MURTARI Sworn to before me this 12th Day of February
2003. ______________________________ Notary Public |
