Letters to the Editor • Law Enforcers or Peace Officers

Stay the heck out of New Mexico

Ms. Brandenberg, (Bernallilo County DA) I recently went through a, pro-se, 3 month long traffic case TR2748110 in Metro Court and had it dismissed on 8/11/10 due to failure to prosecute by the City, they didn't show up in Court after the Judge ordered them to produce discovery. I have on tape, APD officers lying to me twice, during the case, refusing my rights to discovery, and I have irrefutable proof, tampering with public records just being one, of criminal actions by the officer involved in the case. I also have a sustained complaint from the oversight commission sighting a violation of APD order 2-18-19B that has been placed in the officer's permanent record. Along with a letter of agreement and a, half baked apology, from the Chief. The oversight commission does not look into criminal activity and so I went to APD IA (Lt. Mike Miller) and he is refusing to look into the situation. The State Police also refuse to investigate. Due to the Judge not dismissing the case based on contempt, all of this information is being swept under the rug and, I now fear retaliation from APD officers as I travel through Albuquerque. Also the Judge did not document any of her decisions in the case, even though I filed a written request that she do so, as she is required to under NMMMVC 66-8-135. I am at a loss as to what I should do to get this information on the record somewhere, as I feel the truth needs to be on the record, so that APD officer's will think twice before they try to retaliate against me. I'm sorry to have to say something like that but, after all the lying by APD, the looking the other way by the Court, and the silence from the City Attorney; I can't put anything past the APD. Do you have any suggestions? Sincerely Mr. Charles Arasim The following is her response: Dear Mr. Arasim, We do not have any ability to investigate and initiate cases. We get all our cases from law enforcement agencies, once they have conducted an investigation. If you feel there has been a violation of the law, you need to make a report. Kari Brandenburg This is what you get. Looks like Ms. Brandenberg can read but has zero comprehension. I have bunches more of crap just like this from other local authoritah

6 Comments in Response to

Comment by Charles Arasim
Entered on:

Well, nothing is changed. The Judge just sent me a "formal" summons, with the full power of the law behind it, to have an "informal" discussion in the courtroom while other defendants cooled there heels. She was "intrigued" by my last letter to her and she wanted to discuss the law and court rules with me. She did thank me for making her aware of the police department's orders. And I made sure that she, meaning the court, also understood how the Albuquerque Police Department does not document the use of electronic speed detention systems in any way, shape, or form.

Comment by Charles Arasim
Entered on:

UPDATE!!! The Judge has reopened the case. I'll let you all know what transpires after the 18th.

Comment by Charles Arasim
Entered on:

This is a draft of the criminal complaint I put together and sent off to the APD IA for their investigation. They refused........ Criminal Complaint 30-26-1 TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC RECORD A. Knowingly altering any public record without lawful authority, whomever does this, is guilty of tampering with a public record and has committed a fourth degree felony. According to APD procedural order 2-18-19B, officer Miller had no lawful authority to alter the citation and therefore is in violation of section A of this Statute and is subject to the penalty. 66-8-123 CONDUCT OF ARRESTING OFFICER; NOTICES BY CITATION A. Except as provided in Section 66-8-122 NMSA 1978, unless a penalty assessment or warning notice is given, whenever a person is arrested for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978] or other law relating to motor vehicles punishable as a misdemeanor, the arresting officer, using the uniform traffic citation, shall complete the information section and prepare a notice to appear in court, specifying the time and place to appear, have the arrested person sign the agreement to appear as specified, give a copy of the citation to the arrested person and release him from custody. E. Any officer violating this section is guilty of a misconduct in office and is subject to removal. According to APD procedural order 2-18-19B, which reads: Officers will not mark out or write over information on the face of the citation, but instead will “void” the citation and issue a corrected one in its place. Since officer Miller did mark out and write over information in the information section, he did not “complete the information section”, as required under section A of the statute. And by not doing so, he is subject to the penalty in section E. 6-8-133 DESPOSITION OF CITATION B. Citations spoiled or issued in error shall be marked "void" in large letters on the face, signed by the officer, and the copies disposed of as a valid warning notice. C. It is a misdemeanor and official misconduct for any officer or other public official or employee to dispose of a uniform traffic citation except as provided in this section. Again, according to APD procedural order 2-18-19B, which reads: Officers will not mark out or write over information on the face of the citation, but instead will “void” the citation and issue a corrected one in its place. Since officer Miller did mark out and clandestinely write over information, and did not “void” the citation, and did not issue a corrected one; he did not properly dispose of a “spoiled” citation and is therefore in violation of section B of this Statute and is subject to the penalty in section C. Officer Miller may also be guilty of violating the following statutes: 29-1-1 INVESTINGATION, 30-3A-2 HARRASSMENT, and 30-8-1 PUBLIC NUISANSE. Only a full and proper investigation can determine these possibilities. I believe officer Miller should be subjected to demonstrating, on scene, exactly how he operated on May 19th 2010 along southbound I-25 mile mark 221. And that City Assistant Attorney Ben Sherman should be questioned as to officer Miller’s assistance in gathering the court ordered defendant’s discovery in Metro Court case TR2748110, that was never presented. I have spoken to Attorney Sherman and he related to me that the only information he was able to obtain, in three weeks, was the operation manual for the laser that was allegedly used by officer Miller in this case. I also believe the officer Miller mislead Attorney Sherman as to the relationship of his court presented laser devise model certification and the actual model of laser device he allegedly/actually used. Officer Miller testified that there were no photos or logs available for discovery; yet, the devise listed on his presented certification has those capabilities. Something does not add up and Attorney Sherman agreed with me after I informed him of these facts. I will gladly share all the documentation I have to support a full investigation and I am more than willing, as a firsthand witness, to observe any demonstration and testify in court.

Comment by Charles Arasim
Entered on:

Powell, I forgot to mention that I sat in the Judge's court for a few hours before I was to come before her. On one of these occasions, a fellow who had had his DWI case dismissed, months before, due to a lack of prosecution, was dragged all the way from Portland OR to face a reopening of his case. His attorney asked that the case be dismissed with prejudice as the prosecution failed to appear again. The Judge said "I will dismiss the case again, but I never dismiss cases with prejudice". It sure showed me how this Judge is in the back pocket of the Police and the City Attorney.

Comment by Charles Arasim
Entered on:

Thanks Powell, The oversight commission came to their conclusion after the case was over and after the 15 day limit on my ability to appeal. However, I did touch on the "Brady List" in this letter I sent to the Judge: Case#2748110 9/17/10 Dear Judge Jaramillo, In some ways it is unfortunate this case was dismissed before it ever really got started. I was really looking forward to cross-examining officer Miller. However, I thought you should be made aware of a recent revelation that has just come to my attention. I doubt anyone within APD or the City Attorney’s office has done so. Two days after I was issued the invalid citation in this case, 5/21/10, I filed a complaint with the Albuquerque Police Oversight Commission, CPC-097-10. On 9/9/10 the commission sustained my claim that the citation issued by officer Miller was indeed invalid as it violated APD’s procedural order 2-18-19B that reads: Officers will not mark out or write over information on the face of the citation, but instead will “void” the citation and issue a corrected one in its place. Being such, my motion to dismiss based on the fact that the Court did not have a valid complaint and therefore no cause of action was indeed accurate. In light of all of the mistakes and clandestine alteration on the citation and the existence of NMMVC statute 66-8-133, it just seemed logical to me. After all, I believe any untainted person would agree that a state law should supersede a local court rule. I would think the Court should do one of two things, reopen the case and dismiss it based on there being no valid cause of action or expunge the case from the record completely. Perhaps you could consult with your fellow Judges to determine the best course of action. I would also think that this letter would be placed in the case file if need be. I look forward to hearing where the Court plans to go from here. Officer Miller will now be subjected to having this injustice placed on his permanent record. I can only hope that he will be recommended along with his Sergeant and Lieutenant, to the proper office, by the Court, to be placed on the Brady list and their questionable honesty be disclosed to any future defendants they may be involved with. To say the least, I am mystified as to why this procedural order is not familiar with the DA’s office in Judge Walker’s Court: Judge Walker’s Court itself, or your Court. The only, harmless, explanation I can possibly think of is that no one knows APD’s procedures because they don’t publish them, just as they mysteriously stopped publishing their general rules during the course of my case. On the other hand, with all the supposed experience represented, I somehow find that difficult to believe. I must also say that it appears the only person that was straight with me during this whole ordeal was APD Commander Eric Garcia. At least he was willing to admit APD’s questionable use of electronic speed detection devices and how the Traffic Division of the Metro Court’s blind eye to this has fixed the process in the plaintiff’s favor and how happy he was that someone was finally standing up for their rights. After having been lied to and being subjected to collusion by several APD officers and being rejected by the Court concerning APD’s illegal denial of my due process, it appears he was correct. At least Chief Shultz has and City Assistant Attorney Sherman has agreed to write me a letter of apology. It appears that Attorney Sherman was innocent in his behavior and was unwittingly thrown to the APD wolves in this case. However, I believe Attorney Sherman has learned a valuable lesson. He himself is mystified as to why after three weeks of trying he could only come up with, what he thought was, the owner’s manual for the alleged laser device officer Miller utilized in the case. The two of us believe there is something very suspicious going on there as officer Miller testified that there were no photos or logs when the device he presented certification for has those capabilities. It makes one wonder if there is something devious going on in APD as it makes no sense for APD not to use those capabilities to lock down their prosecution. Respectfully Submitted Mr. Charles Arasim Cc: Judge Walker Cc: Judge Ramczyk

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:
1.  This shows the importance of being able to document your interactions with any authority.     2.  Are you surprised the judge didn't want to document her ruling.   3.  I am glad things worked out for you and applaud your take no prisoners stance.  You won.   4.  Since you have been found not guilty--well charges dismissed with prejudice I hope -- the only recourse you have is a federal civil rights violation: 42USC1983. The only Right I can see right off the bat is failure to provide the evidence against you.   But since they didn't prosecute and indeed dismissed the charges because of the failure to produce evidence against you to support the charge, I am not sure if your rights were violated.  New Mexico may have a civil remedy as well beyond IA.  I doubt there is a criminal remedy even for lying as beyond a detain and release you were not under arrest.  Time limits may apply.
If your documentation as to the cop is irrefutable one point of revenge would be to send a copy of your evidence as well as a summary of what the judge determined and mail it to every county prosecutor in New Mexico, and to any city attorney he is likely to interact with asking each to add the cop to their "Brady list."  This effectively destroys the cop's career as a prosecutor is suppose to disclose to the defense any time the cop is going to be a witness in court that they are a known liar.

http://www.pdsdc.org/Resources/SLD/What is Brady Letter.pdf   http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2008/10/73446.php

 



Free Talk Live