Subject: Re: Lahrman’s arrest on fictitious illegal summons and warrants
Date: Apr 13, 2016 10:14 AM
I was not thinking of double jeopardy.
My approach was more straight forward than that.
The State of Indiana sought to try him ex-parte. On the record, based upon the laboratory report and the Brady rule the laboratory report is fixed in concrete. They did not find the controlled substance. They found evidence of plant that they knew or should have known and the judge knew or should have known to be used in the making of rope. It is also called ‘hemp’ It is not illegal to possess, own, trade, or otherwise use hemp. It is illegal to have in your possession with certain intents a controlled substance named THC. No THC, no conviction.
The judge being fully aware of the lack of this controlled substance decided to try Tim ex-parte. The propriety is not in question at this time–it just happens to be the fact. As the crime laboratory report is part of the file it is assumed that it was placed in evidence. As this report does not find any controlled substance Tim is exonerated. Yes – Tim could been held in contempt for missing his hearing, BUT HE WAS NOT! In criminal law there is no such thing as a defendant’s default. Whether the defendant puts up a defense or not, HE HAS TO BE PROVEN by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.
Such is impossible in Tim’s situation and therefore, the Judge was required as a matter of law to dismiss the charges. Criminal dismissals are with prejudice . The presumption of innocence bars any other conclusion.
This brings us to the fact that the State of Indiana ignored the law to discriminately punish Tim for raising the ADA issue. This is a Federal crime and a very serious one at that. Tim like it or not is a disabled person in the eyes of the law. The false findings of his need for a guardianship bind the State of Indiana. He is entitled to a full and complete accounting by his guardian for the entire time that the illegal guardianship continued.
The guardianship is res judicata – and bars even a question by the State of Indiana.
I want to make it very clear that Judges are not placed on the bench to look pretty – they are supposed to enforce the law and the Constitution. Violation of ADA does not carry with it any immunity! It is for this reason I am very surprised that the law enforcement and the justice community are not screaming for Tim’s release. Violation of the Constitutional Rights of a “disabled person” pursuant to ADA is unforgivable in the eyes of the Department of Justice. As I recall Indiana recently had a case that should have made the law enforcement community paranoid. (A non-party wanted a reasonable accommodation because he was hard of hearing – he got told by a local court official to buzz off! Enter justice and all hell broke loose. ) This case is 12,000 times more serious!