Complaint Review: The City Of Mesa Arizona - Mesa Arizona

This is just procedural details. Well, after 18 years in Mesa, Arizona, the Scumpit of ALL Scumpits, you would think I couldn't be shocked. I mean, after all, if you live that long in a venue where cops murder 15 year-old kids with ten or more hits (they were about thirty feet away... ain't it odd that 33% of the bullets from these cowardly scumbags MISSED?), what can POSSIBLY shock you any more? The fact that the little pissant chickenshits openly protect "coyotes" who import illegal Mexican labor? Or that they seem to be "in cahoots" with the thousands of local Methamphetamine and crack cocaine dealers, or at least, seem MIGHTILY uninterested in doing anything to suppress any REAL crime where these quivering, gutless pansy flowers might actually get injured??? Nah. That's minor league stuff. What REALLY shocks me is that this collection of automaton fluff flowers is actually CELEBRATING their little acts of murder and the fact that the legless weasel, Romley, continued their lies and coverups, as if their acts of complete corruption had something to do with COURAGE...or DUTY...instead of what they really are, which is the penultimate act of direct treason to the citzens of the community. There is no statute of limitations on Murder, filthy scum sucking ratbastards who pretend to be police, but there IS the proviso against "double jeopardy", a technicality the like of which sniveling filth like these three bastards will USE to cover their continuing criminal conduct. There you go! Cowards and traitors, calling themselves "cops", using "technicalities" to protect their immoral and illegal conduct, and relying on their most corrupt allies to reinforce their lying cover stories. How disgusting!!! How demented can you get?

My first major issue with your report is that the rules you are referring to are civil procedure rules, yet you assert that a court operating under these rules could imprison you. This is an erroneous statement. These rules only pertain to civil infractions, not misdemeanors. If a court was hearing a misdemeanor (or felony for that matter) case they would operate under a completely different set of rules wherein the defendant actually does have the rights that you presume civil defendants have (or should have). Now, lets get into the constitution. You assert that these rules violate the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendments. The fourth amendment protects privacy (unreasonable search and seizure). Often times people tend to think that the purpose of the fourth amendment is to simplify criminality, but it is not, it is only there to protect us from government intrusions in our homes, cars, etc. Furthermore, you don't set forth any facts showing a defiance of the fourth amendment in the first place. The fifth amendment requires grand jury indictments in felony trials and prevents people from being forced to act as witnesses against themselves. This amendment speaks only to criminal law, and as such has no bearing on civil cases. The sixth amendment begins with the words "In all criminal prosecutions." Again, no bearing on civil cases. You have a fairly decent argument for the seventh amendment, unfortunately the supreme court disagrees with you, and not without good reason. The seventh amendment does not "guaruntee" the right to a jury trial, as most people think, it merely "preserves" that right. What this means is that, if you would have had the right to a jury trial in a particlar case at the time the constitution was written, you still have it. If your case is one that either didn't exist in 1789, or if in that year your case wouldn't have required a jury trial, you don't have a constitutional right to one today. It may seem silly, and it may seem that the supreme court has misread the constitution, but they have not, and there is a very good reason behind this construction and on the whole it benefits the administration of fair justice more than the common misconstruction would. As for evidentiary rules, nothing in the constitution dictates what evidence states must require their judges to allow in their courtrooms. Evidentiary issues are solely a province of state law, unaffected by the U.S. constitution. If, however, evidentiary rules are being enforced arbitrarily, i.e. they apply to the defendant but not to the state, then I think you'd have a due process issue. If they go both ways, i.e. neither side can introduce a particular type of evidence, the constitution is not offended. Now to a brief history lesson. Your assertion that the founding fathers put the fourth through seventh amendments in the constitution as a restraint on the activities of the states is the opposite of what really happened. The bill of rights was written to place limits on the federal government only. The first ten amendments place no restraint on state governments, and were actually included largely to ensure that the federal government would not intrude upon the rights of the states. It was not until the reconstruction (1868 to be specific), when the fourteenth amendment was introduced, that the bill of rights was applied to the states. Nobody likes to lose a legal battle, and when we do we look to sources other than the strength of our claims or defenses to blame for it. Did you actually violate the leash law? What evidence could you possibly have introduced to say that you hadn't? How would a jury have helped? If you actually did violate this law, then what you are really angry about is that you weren't allowed to use up valuable courtroom time presenting worthless evidence, empanelling a jury, and whatever other steps you incorrectly feel you are entitled to. Civil infractions are generally what are known as "strict liabilty" offenses, meaning that the only defense that will do you any good is that you didn't actually do it. Not knowing about the law, a pattern of non-enforcement, your dog ran loose from his leash, etc. would have been of no use to you anyways.

Just to let you all know, the email address I put at the top of the report doesn't go anywhere. What I should have put in is this web page: http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/government/default.asp This web address will take you to a city of Mesa web page where you can look up the code yourself. It's in Title 1. Also, the actual City Code number is Chapter 27 section 7. See for yourself and have a copy of the Bill of Rights in your hand when you do. Then ask yourself how the City Council could possibly justify passing these rules into law. Finally, just for fun, how about letting the Mayor and City Council know about these two rules and ask them how they stack up against the Preamble to the Mesa City Charter. (For laughs look that up too!) Their email addresses are on the same web page. I know it won't do any good, but if you got nothing better to do for a few mintutes...