they can accommodate her vacation ---- but not my disability

To:Kenneth Ditkowsky (kenditkowsky@yahoo.com)

From:31881: TIMOTHY LAHRMAN - Location: D D14 B2

Subject:just an fyi

Date:4/2/2016 7:14:11 PM

I was originally scheduled for court on Monday the 4th but for reasons unexpained to me I was taken to court at 6am on the 31st where a public defender who never even spoke with me was there and ready to proceed.The judge admonished her for not having met and spoke with me
and her stated reason was that she had no time because she was leaving town on vacation on the 1st of April. Accordingly, my hearing was continued until the 11th once my appointed attorney's vacation is over.

yepper --- they can accommodate her vacation ---- but not my disability

 

I could not reach Tim to respond to this e-mail -  I heard about the 6 AM court hearing     In my 53 years in the practice of law the earliest that I ever had a Court hearing was 8:30 A.M.    We did by agreement try a case at the end of term time to 2:00 AM.      

Let's put all this into perspective.    The matter that Tim is wrongfully in jail for is 17 years old plus.    It is a misdemeanor.    No bail has been set - (Constitutional Violation).     Whomever the public defender is is either incompetent or disinterested.    The PD has a duty to the client.   Apparently, this PD could care less.   (I will inquire if a malpractice action is feasible ).    What apparently happened in Court was another Constitutional violation - 6th Amendment.     The delay is a clear violation of the right to a speedy trial. (violation 3).

Lets go a step back.   By herculean efforts Attorney CS and Journalist JP were able to obtain copies of the court file.    It appears that the 17 year old charges were kept alive by a highly suspect proceeding - an exparte trial.    Tim was not present.   Of course there are some jurisdictional problems, to wit:  Tim was declared incompetent and a guardian was appointed for him.    A plead of innocent was entered.     There is a serious question of jurisdiction!    It does not appear that the trial court actually considered that issue.

The file shows a crime lab report.    That report creates the reasonable doubt that required the Court to sua sponde dismiss the charges.     The report finds that whatever substance that they were given to examine was Marijuana.    Marijuana is a plant.    Possession of a plant is not against the law, the crime is if the plant contains a barred or controlled substance.   Every mariner has possession of this plant - it is called hemp and its makes a very fine grade of rope.     There is no finding as to any controlled or banned substance being found.

The fact that Tim is reported to have missed the hearing is irrelevant.   The JUDGE had an absolute duty to protect Tim's rights.    When the element of a controlled or banned substance was not proven by proof beyond a reasonable doubt the Judge pursuant to his duty and oath of office had to sua sponde dismiss the proceedings and order remediation of the whatever damages Tim might have suffered.

Of course - the 6th amendment required Tim's PD to be present - the failure of the PD to move for a dismissal based upon the finding of Tim's incompetence and upon the lack of a controlled substance/banned substance was INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL.    The vacation of any warrant is per se mandatory.    In a similar manner the prosecuting attorney breached his duty.   The job of a prosecutor is not to convict - it is to see justice was done and therefore knowing that he could not prove that the controlled substance/banned substance was present he was required to dismiss the proceedings.

Looking at the present  - 17 year old warrants for misdemeanors cannot be renewed .   Everyone is aware that prosecution of stale misdemeanors is wrongful and a denial of equal protection of the law - the law enforcement people have dishonored themselves by even arresting Tim.   The Judge, the prosecutor and the PD all had a duty to protect Tim's rights.    It is apparent that they chose not to do so.

As Tim has been declared a disabled person, it is assumed that the local authorities are aware that the holding of Tim, and his continued incarceration are all violate the Americans With Disabilities Act.    Tim is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.   Appointment of PD who is not available is not appropriate or reasonable.   The holding of a citizen in jail under these conditions is outrageous and unAmerican.    

PUrsuant to Rule 8.3, 18 UsCA 4,  I have reported this terrible situation to the Justice Department.   The Justice Department administers the ADA.    I 've also reported the violation of 18 UsCA 241,242 42 USCA 1983.    (The Goshen Indiana authorities have also been informed).     

What has happened to Tim Lahrman is terrible and a serious violation of his (and our) Civil and Human Rights.     It cannot be unanswered.    I urge you and all your friends to realize that what Happened to Tim could happen to you, unless we sent a strong message.    I leave it to each person who is on this thread to instanter make at least on positive action in support of the Constitution of the United States of America.   

I've urged in e-mails the local law enforcement to do their jobs and protect Mr. Lahrman's civil and human rights and mitigate the damages that have been caused.    

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com