 |
| http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP994/k16535393/ |
Let's keep on, shall we? Here are the two NEW motions to surpress evidence, with some new surprises, as well as the perfect defense for the blog...:D...first, the one for the drug testing...
*******************************************************************************************************
COMES NOW, Christopher Bruce, in his motion to suppress evidence submitted per the prosecution for drug testing, pro tempore in the adjudication hearing, as well as it will be in our upcoming permanency hearing, with clear and convincing evidence for exhibit.
1. The father has acquired two urine cups that will used as exhibits. These two cups are used to do official drug testing at a facility that serves DHS in their efforts. One was used to find the father dirty for methamphetamines after the hearing held at the Polk County Courthouse on 12/18/2014. After the test was completed, the cup was taken out of the bathroom trash minutes after the administrator of the test had left. It showed, and CONTINUES TO SHOW, NO results, clean or dirty. Another clean cup, not used, was acquired by the mother, who took her cup from Central Iowa Family Services after she refused to do her drug test, after they denied her the right to have a witness to her test. This cup was fresh, and not used. Upon our arrival at our home, I did another test in the witness of the mother in this clean cup. It also showed NO RESULTS once again, even after the father did the test in the exact same fashion as the tester had done at the courthouse, after a 3 minute waiting period (the same period waited for at the courthouse). These test results of the father, given to DHS and showing the results of the father to be positive for methamphetamines are FALSE, AND WILL BE SUPPRESSED IMMEDIATELY, as will be the hair follicle tests, done by this facility back in August of this same year and also false.
2. The person who did the father’s drug test the day of 12/18/2014 was informed in full detail of the condition of this facility on 2911 Merle Hay Road; and was told of the results of the father’s initial hair follicle test back in August of this year, and after the father had described this facility in full detail, he then informed the father that he had been in constant contact with this facility for over a year, and that it did not at all resemble the father’s description of this place. When the father served this place with a subpoena on 12/15/14 of this year (3 days prior to the hearing held on the 18th, and too late), it had changed completely from the date that these parents had attended the place earlier this year, upon completion of the hair follicle test in August of this year. The large room with a single desk was gone, and had been replaced by a closed off wall, a security door and cameras, and now had a small waiting room and the dirty carpet I witnessed back in August was replaced. The father will very soon have more witnesses to this fact; it would appear obvious that after the father wrote about this in his blog post in 8/14, concerning this facility, that DHS then asked that they change it in order to disprove what was written and make it appear more professional. The father is in the process of finding more clients in general, and in an open records request that will testify as to the parents’ knowledge of the look of this facility back when we did our hair test, and will bring fraud charges against this facility as well as against DHS, when they discover that DHS is this facility’s only client. Charges will be filed immediately without hesitation, and proof provided against all, as the client list grows. Open records requests will be filed tomorrow, and client lists will be called to add more issues to the list for witness.
3. The father will also submit as proof of this, also, his blog posts, which the prosecution uses as evidence against him. This evidence, thanks to his Honor, has yet to be suppressed, so will instead be used in the father’s favor, as well as it is for the prosecution, and WILL be used as factual against them.. These posts are used against the father often, as well as duly stated to be fact, yet, as the author, the father is refused the same privilege in his defense. It is, therefore, the father’s statement of fact, as posted in HIS blog, that the results of these tests are duly false and fabricated. These actions, claiming things said in his blog, and used against the father will be brought up, not only in front of the Iowa Supreme Court as unconstitutional and suppressive, but in the United States Supreme Court as well.
4. Immediately following this motion will be brought a writ of Habeus Corpus against the Judge William A. Price for bias in this case. I will bring to the fore every action this judge has made in this case against these defendants, besides this drug testing being claimed as fact, including the removal order, done with no proof and no basis, as well as without merit, and forced of this defendant’s wife to sign under duress. This interaction is recorded to it’s end, as well as posted in my blog, a source of truth and fact, as presented and found so by the D.A.’s office, and will be considered so in subsequent hearings, or I will be stretching this matter out to the United States Supreme Court. Most recent in this long list of biased actions is when he callously and flippantly dismissed a motion to correct facts stated in this defendant’s motion to correct Attorney Dale Mays’ motion to withdraw as my wife’s attorney on 12/11/14, because this attorney had been, just a few minutes earlier, dismissed in our case immediately at the start of that hearing by his Honor. Yet, Attorney Dale Mays, upon receiving from this defendant, a subpoena to appear in our hearing on 12/15/2014 (to appear in court on the hearing held on 12/18/2014), was allowed to file a motion in our case on 12/16/2014, regardless of the fact that he was no longer involved, to quash this subpoena; then his Honor then granted that motion to quash, even though he was no longer involved, in this judge’s own words. This, of course, is only one of many biased actions this judge has made in our case that will be presented in this separate action.
5. That each and every test done at this facility should be either retested at a true and legitimate testing facility, far out of the reach of the Department of Human Services, or suppressed for all who have attended this facility. I am advertising everywhere for others who have had their testing done here, and I have already gotten 3 recent clients in response. More will be continuously added to the list.
***********************************************************************************************
And of course, still my favorite, suppression of the blog...except this time, there's no place to run and hide. If they can shoot a single hole in this one, I'd like to see it...
***********************************************************************************************
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
1. COMES NOW, Christopher Bruce: In his motion to suppress, as evidence, NOW AND PRO TEMPORE, presented throughout this case, proceeding and open; in first, the removal hearing, held July 29th, 2014, second, the adjudication hearing, held September 12th, 2014, and, in the order and petition; causing the legal removal of the designated child in these proceedings, Trilynn Brueggeman, as legal reasons that have been presented as evidence in this case, also given to have this child removed, legally; I now state, in defiance of the use of this blog as evidence and reported evidence; against these defendants; as unconstitutional; for the court’s records, I now give these reasons:
2. Because this blog; an editorial piece, presented by this author, Christopher Bruce, as such, and also as his given opinion; concerning any subject, up to and including this case, its facts, as well as his wont to declare his decided opinion concerning all entities involved; is intended to be only a way for this author in which to candidly present, to his audience, feelings and fleeting thoughts concerning whichever subject he should be considering on any given day at any particular time. These time frames may only take up as many seconds as it takes for a thought to be processed; and should not be framed otherwise by anyone else, who is not the author; who might choose to peruse this blog; as a set time frame for factual statements or to be used in an evidentiary manner. Hereby, it is the finding of this defendant and author: that any idea, opinion or thought; expressed in the body of any of these stated editorials, as they are presented; should never be able to be legally brought against any person, who might also be involved in this case; in a legal manner, up to and including the author; or be used as evidence against this or any defendant.
3. Regardless of this court’s argument, as well may be refuted against this motion, that Iowa Law provides this court, as well as this proceeding, confidentiality for all involved in this case, as well as its content, the author and defendant in this case, Christopher Bruce, has a God-given Constitutional right, per the first Amendment to its Constitution of the United States; to be able to; per this Federally-mandated right; be able to publish this author’s continued opinion of the facts presented here in this case, the entities who prosecute and rule over this case, as well as the instigators of this case, presented as themselves, and hereby named, as belonging to The Department of Human Services/Child Protective Unit; regardless of its confidentiality; as long as the author refrains from stating these facts as stated, word for word, by its participants; without fear of it being used in an evidentiary or a reported evidentiary manner against the aforementioned author and defendant in this case.
3. That ALL evidence, presented as fact; as used as evidence or reported evidentiary; in the Order for Removal, the CINA petition, the Removal Hearing, The Adjudication Hearing, as well as any subsequent documents or hearings in which this editorial blog is or will be used as evidence or reported to be such, should be hereby suppressed and no longer used as such evidence, and should also be stricken from all court records as such evidence. Using editorial opinion as evidence of fact should not be allowed in any court-related legal proceeding, as this action, on the part of the prosecution, presents itself in such a manner as to indirectly or directly, inhibit, prevent or, through threat of intimidation or deprivation of freedom, would serve to deprive this author, as well as any given defendant; of their wont to express said opinion, thereby becoming direct in its attempt to suppress this author’s wont to express the afore-mentioned ideal, thought, or opinion; defining these actions; as taken by any court in any such legal action; to mean they desire, through whatever indirect means, to cease any effort made by the author and/or defendant, to express his opinion, a right given freely by the afore-mentioned Amendment.
4. That this editorial blog, which is used against the defendants now as well as pro tempore, and in the removal order, is deemed to be truthful and factual when used by the prosecution, yet is deemed otherwise when used by this defendant in his defense. Also duly noted is the fact that the defense only uses fractions or snippets of one sentence in order to make these defendants look guilty, yet totally ignores all facts and posts beyond the scope of the same guilty looking portion that would otherwise defend these defendants noble actions or intents, as well as anything that might fuel consideration of their innocence. This blog therefore, should be used to its full intent and include all stated as fact, or not used at all.
5. I now hereby move that all evidence, presented in the form of evidence, or reported as such, and used by the prosecution against this author, the defendant, and his wife, be hereby stricken from all court documents or reports; and in the hearings pro tempore, stated as fact, also involved in this case, as well as from all court records which might describe the proceedings of this case. Any further use or mention of this blog in an evidentiary manner in this case will subsequently involve a United States Supreme Court action and ruling to be brought against the prosecuting and trier-of-fact entities involved in this case.
/S/ Christopher Bruce
