Well kids, some interesting developments after a tiring day of trying to get subpoenas served on those defending themselves in a truly unwinnable case. To start with, there was only one subpoena served lawfully...and then thrown back at the server, once the person who accepted it realized that it was a subpoena, and that she had messed up by accepting it...on none other than the criminal Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone. 'Magine that.
To start with, let us post the story of the serve in the words of the very person that served it. The name has been blotted out to protect the innocent.
I, Blankety-Blank, who represents the Petitioner in the capacity of process server, do
hereby swear that the following is true, concerning witness John P. Sarcone:
"That I did enter the Polk County Justice Center, for the purpose of serving John P.
Sarcone with a subpoena for this case, on June 26th, 2017, at approximately 12:30 p.m.
I spoke with one Jenny Diaz, who, after agreeing to take the papers for John Sarcone,
then accepted them. After reading that the papers were a subpoena, Ms. Diaz then
threw them back at me, and stated loudly that she would not accept them, and that it
wasn’t a legal service, because it was a civil matter concerning a criminal case, and that
I would have to serve them at 111 Court Avenue (The Polk County Treasurer’s office). I
took the papers and left the Justice Center, not knowing if this was the truth or not, to
serve them at 111 Court Avenue.
Upon my arrival at 111 Court Avenue, I was told that John Sarcone had no office at the
Treasurer’s building, and that if I wanted to serve these papers, I would need to serve
them to him at the Polk County Justice Center.
It is my personal belief that, after seeing that a subpoena was being served on John
Sarcone, his agent, Jenny Diaz, who accepted the papers like she does it all the time,
was merely trying to avoid getting in trouble for accepting a subpoena for her boss, John
Sarcone. This entire interaction between me and Ms. Diaz was recorded on their
security cameras, including her taking the papers, reading them and throwing them back
at me."
In case you didn't quite get what happened there, let me put it in layman's terms, for your better understanding:
She served the subpoena to the guy LEGALLY, in the correct place, to the right person. John P. only comes out of his well-guarded castle around once a year...probably on the day of the blood moon to make a sacrifice to the Devil, or something...to tell Polk County the yearly arrest numbers. The rest of the time, the guy sits behind 2" of bulletproof glass, with security cameras everywhere (a classic criminal's set up), locked in his office behind thousands of assistants, paralegals, and secretaries.
How do we know that it was served legally?
Not even an hour after this affidavit was filed, the server's phone began to ring...and ring...and ring. No message was left. Finally, she calls it back...and the voice on the other end? The caller's name was Tom. No last name. We assume this was Tom Miller, the Attorney General. Who else would have such quick access to the affidavit, complete with the server's phone number? There are no other Toms even associated with the case. This person began questioning whether she served the criminal John...she hung up on the guy....whoever he was (the author gives a chuckle here).
IMMEDIATELY following this, the next morning, a motion to quash is filed. Of course you can see it, I insist:
"COMES NOW the Polk County Attorney John P. Sarcone, pursuant to Iowa Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.1701(4),1 and moves to quash a subpoena purportedly served upon Polk
County Attorney John P. Sarcone. In support therefore:
1. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff through process server Tanya Meyers filed an
Affidavit of Service, which purported to serve a subpoena upon Polk County Attorney John P.
Sarcone.
2. Mr. Sarcone is not in possession of the subpoena2 and a copy of said subpoena
was not attached to the Affidavit of Service. It is presumed the subpoena sought to compel Mr.
Sarcone’s testimony at the trial on Plaintiff’s Petition for Postconviction Relief scheduled for
July 5 and 6, 2017.
3. Mr. Sarcone was not given prior notice as to what testimony Plaintiff seeks to
elicit.
4. Mr. Sarcone has had no contact with Defendant except to be on the receiving end
of numerous communications and prior attempts to solicit his testimony.
5. Most importantly, Mr. Sarcone has not had any contact with the Plaintiff
concerning the facts of the underlying charges in this case. He has no personal knowledge of any
fact or legal matter admissible or relevant in this proceeding.
6. Based upon Plaintiff’s Statement to the Court filed on June 26, 2017, it can be
assumed Plaintiff seeks to compel Mr. Sacrone’s testimony as part of his baseless, wholly
unsubstantiated claim of a massive conspiracy between the witness, the county, the Department
of Human Services, numerous members of the Iowa judiciary, journalists at CityView and the
Des Register, and the victim in the underlying criminal case. See Statement to the Court.
7. It would be unreasonable or oppressive for Mr. Sarcone to attend this trial when
he has no connection to the case outside of his supervisory role over all criminal prosecutions in
Polk County.
8. This is not Plaintiff’s first abuse of the subpoena power. In the underlying
criminal case, Plaintiff subpoenaed Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, Attorney General
Thomas Miller, Judge William Price, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director Charles
Palmer, several DHS employees, Assistant Attorney General Grant Dugdale, numerous assistant
Polk County attorneys, several private attorneys, and police officers. All of Plaintiff’s subpoenas
were quashed. See Exhibit 1—Ruling.
For these reasons Polk County Attorney John Sarcone respectfully requests the district
court to quash the subpoena as unreasonable or oppressive under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure
1.701(4).
1 Alternatively, the witness requests the subpoena be quashed under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.611 as
harassing.
2 Because the undersigned is not in possession of the subpoena, the witness cannot verify whether the
subpoena was issued in compliance with Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1701(1), (2).
Respectfully Submitted, Jesse Ramirez, Asst. Polk County Attorney."
That rule, by the way, Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.611, goes like this...at least the portion they're trying to get it quashed with:
"Rule 5.611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. a. Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment."
Oh God no, we wouldn't want this poor guy to get harassed, and, most importantly, would want him to be embarrassed....not when he's the only one that can legally harass and embarrass the defendant, huh? Harassed....keep in mind, this Petitioner has only served the poor man twice...ever. He hasn't appeared either time...keep that in mind as well.
I would like to, as a preamble here, bring up this point: If this was an illegal serve....then why are we motioning to quash the subpoena? Oh, and another thing...how are we "purportedly" serving a subpoena? And if it is purportedly, again, why are they motioning to quash a subpoena we "purportedly" served?? I thought we'd just get that one out of the way, toot de suite.
Let's go over the details, quickly. First, notice that John P. Sarcone is "coming", as himself, to quash his own subpoena. Is this legal??
Note, also, that, supposedly, I am supposed to give the guy prior notice about what he might be testifying about?? I never had to do that in the first case...why do I have to do that now? When did this start becoming a norm, or become the law of the land?
Note also some more, that in the pursuit of my innocence, I am, by serving anyone in elected office, ABUSING the power of the Subpoena...and that the subpoenas, in the first case that we're disputing, are PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE (see "The Post-Conviction Case, Part IV, found here:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-post-conviction-relief-case-part-iv.html
to be clear about what we're talking about)
Let's follow this up with my very quickly put together "Motion to resist the Quash"
"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby submit this motion to
resist the defense’s motion to quash the subpoena for John P. Sarcone:
1. According to the affidavit of service filed in this case, it is obvious that the office of the
county attorney misled the server, Tanya Myers, to believe that she had made an illegal
serve at the rightful offices of the county attorney, and to someone who claimed to be his
agent and accepted the service. So how can a subpoena be quashed that wasn’t
legally served? The County Attorney WAS legally served. It was because of this
UNLAWFUL misdirection that the County Attorney does not have a copy of the
Subpoena.
2. Moreover, the county attorney has full access to the record of the court in this case,
I’m sure, if not himself, through his lackey, Mr. Ramirez. There is a copy of the
Petitioner’s “Minutes of Testimony” on the record of this case; should he need to see
why the Petitioner needs him to testify, he can find that information on the record.
3. As to the subpoena being “Harassing”, the county attorney has only been served a
subpoena from this Petitioner twice. Moreover, he was able to get the subpoena in
FECR292312 (the proceeding from which this case springs) quashed as well. This
subpoena is not, by any legal definition of the word, “harassing.”
The petitioner, hereby, asks the court that another copy of the subpoena be picked up by
Mr. Sarcone, (which should be easy, since he is RIGHT NEXT DOOR) and that he be
compelled to testify in this matter.
Mr. Sarcone himself, along with Linda Lane, at that time, an assistant Polk County
Attorney, fed a libel-filled article to the Des Moines Register, and the Petitioner fully
intends to compel Mr. Sarcone, who opted to officially comment on the case that he
supposedly knows NOTHING ABOUT, FECR292312, in that article. This is why the
plaintiff needs him to testify (see Petitioner’s Exhibit, J, “Christopher Bruce, Domestic
Terrorist”, Exhibit filed in this case on 2/9/2017, and the Amended Minutes of Testimony,
filed 2/20/2017)"
Of course, I await, with the usual baited breath, the order to quash the only subpoena I was able to get served. Details will come when I know more.
