Joseph Zrnchik Destroys Highland, Indiana Police Lies and Perjury and Beats Six Officers' False Charges

Verified Motion for Expungement of Arrest Records

Comes now the Petitioner and prays the Court, in the name of justice and pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-5-1, to grant Petitioner Expungement of Arrest Records.  In support of this motion Petitioner states:

1.  Petitioner was made the victim of a false arrest for Disorderly Conduct for which additional charges were added at a later date in an attempt to coerce Petitioner to accept a plea agreement for this initial false charge.  Months after the incident Petitioner was then charged with Interfering With Law Enforcement, Resisting Law Enforcement, and Battery.  Police officers did little more than commit perjury and Prosecutor Edgar Rodriguez actually suborned perjury by mailing a completed Probable Cause Affidavit for Resisting Arrest to the arresting officer Lee Natelborg months after the incident asking for Highland Police Officer Natelborg’s signature in hopes of coercing Petitioner into a plea agreement.  Officer Natelborg admitted in his deposition that Prosecutor Rodriguez had in fact mailed him a completed Probable Cause Affidavit for signature months after the incident.  There is not one single bit of evidence ever provided by any or at least five law enforcement officers present on the scene that states Petitioner resisted law enforcement in any manner.  In fact, the official police report states the exact opposite as the official police report documents that Petitioner was “taken into custody and transported without incident”.  Additional proof of this fact is that even while the prosecutor filed additional false charges and suborned perjury, Prosecutor Rodriguez offered a plea agreement made known to Petitioner by counsel that provided for no probation, no fine and no community service with an additional stipulation that after six months there would be no conviction record.  

2.  Prosecutor Edgar Rodriguez had absolutely zero evidence that there was any incident involving any forcible resisting of the arrest or interfering with law enforcement by Petitioner, but he personally drafted a false and perjurous Probable Cause Affidavit and then mailed it to Officer Natelborg seeking the signature of the arresting officer who admitted in his sworn deposition of having been mailed the Probable Cause Affidavit while also stating “I really didn’t want to mess with a resisting charge”.   The fact is, and Prosecutor Rodriguez knew there was no basis for these additional false charges and, in fact and law, no act could in any way be construed as or justify a Resisting Law Enforcement or Interfering With Law Enforcement.  But, Natelborg then decided, based on the fact that Prosecutor Rodriguez mailed a perjured Probable Cause Affidavit, that suddenly Petitioner should be charged with these additional false charges months later.  The Probable Cause Affidavit filled out by Prosecutor Rodriguez made no mention of any act performed by Petitioner, but merely falsely claims Petitioner resisted arrest.    Petitioner is mailing a copy of this Verified Motion to the Indiana Bar Association to provide the Indiana Bar with evidence that Prosecutor Rodriguez knew there was no testimony or evidence of any act having been “forcibly” done, which as a professional prosecutor he knows is a necessary modifier and element for the charge of Resisiting Law Enforcement and Interfering With Law Enforcement.  Moreover, even if the incident which police perjurously claimed to have occurred actually did occur, the description of the event by every officer who was deposed, to include the arresting officer’s deposition lacks every single element necessary for the charge of Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering With Law Enforcement.  There is absolutely no act claimed by any one of at least five, and quite possibly six officers, that in any way could fit the description of Resisting Arrest or Interfering With Law Enforcement.  Additionally, all civilian deponents’ descriptions are completely at odds with those of Officer Natelborg, and his lies about Petitioner using profanity were even contradicted by some of Officer Natelborg’s fellow officers.  Officer Natelborg has absolutely zero credibility, and quite frankly has no business being granted any government power as welding such is completely beyond his ethical capacity and capability.

3.  Petitioner also would like to direct the Court’s attention to the fact that every single civilian witness present completely contradicted all the police officers’ testimony and one officer, a chief protagonist during the incident, Corporal Linda Potesta, simply refused to even honor the Court’s subpoena for her deposition thereby showing direct contempt to this Court.  While at the scene of the incident Corporal Potesta was recorded on police dispatch trying to contrive false charges, and after being told by the on-duty dispatcher that not a single false charge fit, she should “just arrest him for Disorderly Conduct”.  This instruction was given without her having mentioned one single word that Petitioner had engaged in any disorderly act whatsoever.  The dispatcher’s meritless suggestion to the officer’s repeated solicitation for false charges, for which the officer on scene failed to utter a single word of Petitioner being disorderly in any way, was responded to with, “Okay.”  Again, this was all documented on the Highland Police Department’s own recordings for radio and phone traffic that Petitioner had obtained through his Subpeona Duces Tecum.

4. To the false Domestic Battery Charge made against Petitioner, the arresting officer, Lee Natelborg, had no idea that any such charge was even made, as this charge too was another false charge added months later.  It should be noted that the person who made this false complaint, Tammy Frets, was completely discredited in Judge Tavitas’s court and she was even denied an Order of Protection prior to Prosecutor Rodriguez deciding to champion more false charges that even the arresting officer was completely ignorant of ever having existed.  When asked about a charge of Battery in his sworn deposition, Officer Natelborg stated he had no information regarding any such charge.  Not only was the arresting officer not aware of the charge, but he was also even unaware of any such complaint ever having been made by Tammy Frets.  There is little doubt that Prosecutor Edgar Rodriguez was also instrumental in the connivance of this false charge. 

5. Given that one officer, Linda Potesta, refused to be deposed and was caught on tape trying to devise false charges, and all the officers who were deposed proffered testimony that conflicted between themselves while Officer Natelborg was ignorant of false charges and signed a perjurous Probable Cause Affidavit because it was already filled out and had Officer Natelborg’s signature being sought by Prosecutor Rodriguez even after every single civilian witness deposed completely contradicted the depositions of all the officers by completely detailing the lack of any illegal action made by Petitioner, and while the civilians’ depositions were completely consist with what Petitioner had stated in his defense, Petitioner asks to Court to realize that all the State’s charges were not only without merit, but were completely perjurous and accordingly were finally summarily dismissed by Prosecutor Rodriguez himself once his own depositions proved police were committing perjury and he was caught suborning perjury  by the 100% drafting of a false Probable Cause Affidavit.  Yet, Prosecutor Rodriguez maintained this charade for 2 ½ years.  Petitioner will provide proof to the court in the form of sworn witness depositions that show all civilian testimony was consistent with Petitioner’s Defendant’s Answer.  

6.  Officer Natelborg had lied so completely to the Court that Prosecutor Rodriguez had absolutely no choice but to finally dismiss all charges so that the Court never got the chance to hear Petitioner complying 100% with the officer and not once yelling, raising his voice or even cursing even after being falsely arrested for what was initially only a Disorderly Conduct charge.  Accordingly, all descriptions by Officer Natelborg are completely perjurous and Petitioner asks the Court to consider charging, or at least investigating Perjury, Making False Sworn Statements and False Police Reporting by Officer Natelborg.   Officer Natelborg was standing only two feet away from Petitioner speaking on his cell phone to the Highland Police Dispatcher, and even after Petitioner was told to leave and was complying, Petitioner was then placed under arrest.  Natelborg failed to once identify a single profane utterance by Petitioner on his Police Incident Report, his Probable Cause Affidavit and his Police Information sheet.  Even after being pulled out of his car by Officer Natelborg and Petitioner being told he was being arrested for Disorderly Conduct, Petitioner can be heard still speaking quietly and without even uttering one single profane word.  Moreover, Petitioner can be heard being in complete compliance with police commands after being arrested as even the police report itself states.  Again it states, “Subject was taken into custody and transported to Lake County Jail without incident.”  If Petitioner was recorded even uttering one single profane word on the inadvertent recording made during Officer Natelborg’s police phone call as Natelborg was arresting Petitioner, Petitioner asks the Court to charge Petitioner with Perjury.  Officer Natelborg had not realized he was being recorded through his own phone call, nor did Petitioner until he subpoenaed the telephone and radio traffic.  Officer Natelborg completely left out of his testimony regarding how or why he dragged Petitioner out of his car while Petitioner was attempting to leave as directed by officers.  Officer Natelborg had completely failed to address how or why he had went after Petitioner as Petitioner sat in his car.  Again, Officer Natelborg could not and did not even describe one single profane word or utterance used by Petitioner in his deposition, Police Report, Probable Cause Affidavit, or police Information.     

7.  All the officers present try to characterize Petitioner as being “loud and boisterious”, but not once was Petitioner ever told he was being “loud and boisterous”, and many witnesses deny any such behavior by Petitioner.  The false charge of Disorderly Conduct is regularly used by police as a catch-all charge and even Prosecutor Rodriguez realized he could never win a case based on the police officers’ false testimony that was repeatedly contradicted by civilian witnesses.  Officer Natelborg and his fellow officers try to characterize Petitioner’s speech as argumentative when all Petitioner did was respond to their false charges.  When Petitioner was told he was going to be arrested for violating a Protective Order, Petitioner informed officers he was not on the Protective Order, nor had one ever been served to anyone, as it was later admitted by Lindsey Zrnchik that she lied on a police report after she had the Protective Order delivered to her and obstructed its service.   When officers told Petitioner they were going to arrest him for trespassing, Petitioner informed police he was an invited guest, nor was he ever given a trespass warning.  Petitioner was told he was going to be arrested for Theft and Burglary, and Petitioner told the police he stole nothing and offered to let officers search his car.  Petitioner was told he was going to be arrested for Breaking and Entry and Petitioner stated he did not break in but was invited by the homeowner.  For this Petitioner was told, “Shut the ?uck up.”, and, “You think your some kind of smart-ass lawyer don’t you?”.  When Petitioner explained that Lindsey Zrnchik had obstructed the Protective Order due to the fact that she met Andrew Zrnchik only hours earlier and delivered all the divorce paperwork except the aforementioned Protective Order for Andrew Zrnchik’s meeting with his divorce attorney, and such order was obtained outside of Lindsey Zrnchik’s divorce attorney specifically so she could have it mailed to her so she could obstruct its service as opposed to going through her divorce attorney, Petitioner was told, “Shut the #uck up.  If you say another word you’re going to jail.”  This is the kind of abuse Petitioner was subject to before being falsely arrested, and even after being arrested, was inadvertently taped by police behaving in a manner completely inconsistent with all the officers’ testimony on the Highland Police Department’s own recorded phone line to the Police Dispatcher. Corporal Linda Potesta repeatedly lied and stated the Protective order was mailed to “Hammond”, and to “Andrew’s Grandmother’s house” and to “Where Andrew is living with his grandmother.”  It was later discover that the Protective Order was addressed by Lindsey Zrnchik to be delivered to where Lindsey Zrnchik was living and was delivered the day before Petitioner and his son were arrested.  Moreover, Petitioner will subpoena Lindsey Zrnchik and has already submitted the Protection Order with her having addressed it to herself.  Petitioner has also submitted into evidence the sworn affidavit by Lindsey Zrnchik into evidence in which she denied having delivered the Protective Order along with her contradictory police report in which she claimed to have submitted the Protective Order to Andrew Zrnchik.  There were so many crimes and rights violations committed by police and those who made false police reports, contradictory statements, affidavits and depositions, that Officer Natelborg, Prosecutor Rodriguez, Lindsey Frets and Tammy Frets have made a mockery not only of justice, but also of this Court.  There is no way Petitioner could say all these things if his claims were not true. 

8.  Petitioner will also subpoena Tammy Frets and expose her lies evidenced on police reports and her completely contradictory testimony as evidence through certified transcript from Judge Tavitas’ court, both of which Petitioner has already submitted into evidence. Tammy Frets claimed Petitioner stalked her and then admitted in her testimony that she had only two contacts with Petitioner in seven years, both of which she purposely initiated by going to where she knew Petitioner to be for the expressed purpose of confronting him.  She bashed her way into and scratched Petitioner to gain access to Andrew Zrnchik’s home and then waited until hours later to falsely claim Petitioner “chest-bumped” her.  Petitioner will prove beyond even a reasonable doubt, if given the chance, that Tammy Frets even lied in this regard and only asks the opportunity as there is evidence Tammy Frets does not yet know about.   Tammy Frets is then caught claiming Petitioner threatened her on March 23^rd, 2012, in her testimony in Judge Tavitas’ court, yet police arrived on March 23^rd before Petitioner arrived and Petitioner was kept separated from Tammy Frets at all times by the intrepid Officer Lee Natelborg himself.  As Petitioner left before Tammy Frets and the police did, how and when could have Petitioner threatened Tammy Frets on March 23, 2012?  And, while Tammy Frets claims Petitioner threatened her on March 23^rd , 2012, she made no such claim on the police report for that date while Petitioner had been separated from her at all times.  Tammy Frets just keeps making things up as she goes along.  She then sought $7,000 dollars in damages from Petitioner by stating Petitioner poisoned her fish.  She was finally denied her protective order and Judge Tavitas told her, “This Court does not deal in fish.” 

9.  Petitioner is despised by the Highland Police because he exposed an illegal moped licensing scheme in which the Highland Police had collected money and exposed this illegal activity to the state, in addition to many other incidents of illegal activity he has brought to light.  In fact, Petitioner prays the Court grant a hearing so he could prove additional incidents of perjured Probable Cause Affidavits that include Highland Police Detective Potesta falsely claiming to have been on duty, dispatched and taking witness statements when it was discovered in a subsequent investigation due to Petitioner’s complaint that Detective Potesta was not on duty, had not been dispatched and did not interview any of the witnesses present.  This is just one of many incidents Petitioner and his family had to suffer at the hands of corrupt Highland Police and the criminal actions of officers in the department.  If Petitioner is lying about Detective Potesta lying on a Probable Cause Affidavit, Defendant again asks the Court to charge him with Perjury. 

10.  Officer Natelborg, in his sworn deposition in which he unintentionally destroyed his own case, stated he saw that Petitioner intimidated Natelborg’s fellow officers who always refused to arrest Petitioner.  Natelborg claims Petitioner intimidates Natelborg’s fellow officers and apparently he is the only officer with enough courage to affect an arrest upon Petitioner.  Petitioner would also like to submit to the Court a previous incident in which, after Officer Natelborg conducted an illegal search of Petioners’ son and Petitioner’s vehicle.  Natelborg falsely claimed Petitioner’s son was under the influence of narcotics to hide his illegal search and then filed a false police report of Matthew Zrnchik being under the influence of narcotics even as Natelborg allowed Matthew Zrnchik to drive off in the vehicle Natelborg searched.  Again, Natelborg makes up lies and brings up the incident.  The reason he did not arrest Petitioner who objected to his illegal search was that there was at least six other witnesses present.  When Petitioner went to the police station to lodge a complaint and asked why Officer Natelborg would say Matthew Zrnchik was under the influence of narcotics on his police report while then allowing him to drive away without even doing so much as giving a sobriety test, Police Chief Pete Hojniki just laughed in Petitioner’s face.  This is just a small sample of the ridiculousness of Highland policing.

11.  Petitioner relishes the opportunity to expose police mendacity through subpoenas Petitioner will issue to numerous officers the Court was denied having heard from due to Natelborg’s own perjury destroying his attempt at malicious prosecution.  Petitioner refers mainly to Corporal Linda Potesta and Officer Lee Natelborg, but there are also numerous other incidents of which Petitioner can offer evidence. 

12.  Not only is Officer Natelborg’s deposition bizarre, but his police reports are written at the level of a six-grader.  He can’t remember Tammy Fret’s being there; he can’t remember any charge of battery or any complaint of battery; he claims Petitioner came out of the house and then ran back into the house when on his police report he says that as soon as he knocked on the door Petitioner began screaming and cursing so loudly from inside the brick house that neighbors began to come out of their houses; he then claims Petitioner had refused to come out even though he did not know if a protective order existed; he lies about the protective order being served and then lies about where it was served; he misrepresents the issue regarding when the order was served and he fails to mention that a week previous, on March 23^rd, 2012, he was called when Lindsey Zrnchik claimed she had a Protective Order.  Officer Natelborg fails to mention that on March 23^rd, he and three other officers came to 3538 Highway Avenue and after admitting there was no Protective Order, that he and his fellow officers tore the homeowner’s car apart that was parked in his driveway using four officers to practically rip the car apart and open every item, container, bag, compartment, trunk, ash tray and console conducting a completely illegal search.  Officer Natelborg fails to mention that when Petitioner demanded the officers get a warrant that Petitioner was told, “Shut the #uck up.”  He fails to mention that the officers said, “You think your some kind of smart-ass lawyer, don’t you?”  He also fails to mention that while conducting the search whereby Petitioner told his son, Andrew Zrnchik, to lock his car, Natelborg said, “You say one more #ucking word and you’re going to jail.”  Natelborg also fails to mention that Andrew Zrnchik and Petitioner explained to him that Lindsey Zrnchik delivered all the divorce paperwork to where Andrew Zrnchik was living with his Grandmother sans Protective Order, and purposely failed to deliver the Protective Order that hindsight now proves was served only a day earlier and was served to the residence where Lindsey had addressed it, namely directly to where she was living thereby allowing her to obstruct it.  This police tyranny, half-truths and lies are despicable, illegal, disgusting and a sign of a bunch of degenerates acting as police committing crimes under the color of law.  The police lack common sense, legal understanding, integrity and judgment.  Anyone who takes the time to discern the truth would wonder why Police Chief Pete Hojnicki was not fired and his officers charged for crimes and at least disciplined.  That Officer Natelborg would say in his deposition that Petitioner intimidates Highland Police who are apparently afraid to arrest Petitioner and then accuses Petitioner of all sorts of wrongdoing but then admits Petitioner had never been arrested by Highland Police, yet when asked about a false battery made by Tammy Frets in an incident for which he was the arresting officer, he states, “Tammy?  What battery charge?  I don’t have anything listed here for battery.”  Petitioner asserts that maybe officers never arrested Petitioner because he never committed a crime and other Highland police were not willing to lie and end up looking like fools in depositions while not having the intellectual capacity to understand how they had destroyed their own case or were being laughed at.

13.  Petitioner asks the Court to order the Highland Police, because of their repeated illegal activities involving false charges, perjury, false police reporting, perjured Probable Cause Affidavits, civil rights violations and an inability to even remember simple events, witnesses or charges, to be ordered to wear recording devices so as to be prevented in the future from engaging in such heinous and odious criminal activity and tyranny under the color of law.  

14. Accordingly, Petitioner seeks expungement for his arrest pursuant to IC 35-38-5 Chapter 5. Expungement of Arrest Records, which reads:

IC 35-38-5-1
Petition; grounds; verification; filing; contents; service; notice of opposition; hearing

     Sec. 1. (a) Whenever:
        (1) an individual is arrested but no criminal charges are filed against the individual; or
        (2) all criminal charges filed against an individual are dropped because:
            (A) of a mistaken identity;
            (B) no offense was in fact committed; or
            (C) there was an absence of probable cause;
the individual may petition the court for expungement of the records related to the arrest.
    (b) A petition for expungement of records must be verified and filed in the court in which the charges were filed, or if no criminal charges were filed, in a court with criminal jurisdiction in the county where the arrest occurred. The petition must set forth:
        (1) the date of the arrest;
        (2) the charge;
        (3) the law enforcement agency employing the arresting officer;
        (4) any other known identifying information, such as the name of the arresting officer, case number, or court cause number;
        (5) the date of the petitioner’s birth; and
        (6) the petitioner’s Social Security number.
    (c) A copy of the petition shall be served on the law enforcement agency and the state central repository for records.
    (d) Upon receipt of a petition for expungement, the law enforcement agency shall notify the court of the name and address of each agency to which any records related to the arrest were forwarded. The clerk shall immediately send a copy of the petition to each of those agencies. Any agency desiring to oppose the expungement shall file a notice of opposition with the court setting forth reasons for resisting the expungement along with any sworn statements from individuals who represent the agency that explain the reasons for resisting the expungement within thirty (30) days after the petition is filed. A copy of the notice of opposition and copies of any sworn statements shall be served on the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of Trial Procedure. The court shall:
        (1) summarily grant the petition;
        (2) set the matter for hearing; or
        (3) summarily deny the petition, if the court determines that:
            (A) the petition is insufficient; or
            (B) based on information contained in sworn statements submitted by individuals who represent an agency, the petitioner is not entitled to an expungement of records.
    (e) If a notice of opposition is filed and the court does not summarily grant or summarily deny the petition, the court shall set

the matter for a hearing.
    (f) After a hearing is held under this section, the petition shall be granted unless the court finds:
        (1) the conditions in subsection (a) have not been met;
        (2) the individual has a record of arrests other than minor traffic offenses; or
        (3) additional criminal charges are pending against the individual.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.295-1989, SEC.1; P.L.159-1994, SEC.1.

14. The specific details of the case regarding information necessary for expungement in accordance with IC 35-38-5-1 are as follows:

1. Date of arrest was 3/29/12.

1. The initial charge against Petitioner was Disorderly Conduct, but then additional false charges were added months later that included Resisting Arrest, Disorderly Conduct, Interfering with Law Enforcement and Battery. 

1. The law enforcement agency employing the arresting officer is the Highland Police Department located in Highland, Indiana.

d.  The arresting officer’s name is Lee Natelborg and the case number is 45D12-1203-CM-00369.

e.  Petitioner’s social security number is: 309-78-2260. 

Wherefore, given the crimes committed against Petitioner by the Highland Police; and given that Officer Lee Natelborg’s police testimony largely conflicts with that of his fellow officers and completely with that of civilian witnesses; and given that Officer Lee Natelborg’s deposition conflicts with his own police reports; and given that Prosecutor Edgar Rodriguez had suborned perjury by drafting a Probable Cause Affidavit for signature by Officer Lee Natelborg; and given that Petitioner had to endure an oppressive Court Order by this Court for false charges of which even the arresting officer was not only ignorant but was even ignorant of any such allegations ever having been made; and given these false charges had already been made in Judge Tavitas’ court for which Tammy Frets had already been denied a Protective Order; all point to the criminality, civil rights violations and oppression Petitioner had to suffer at the hands of police who lie with impunity even when caught.  Petitioner argues that justice demands the complete expungement of all records regarding this case and of Petitioner’s arrest at the local, county, state and federal levels of law enforcement and any and all governmental agencies.  Additionally, Petitioner also seeks any and all other relief this Court deems to be just and equitable in the premises.  

 DATED this ____ day of __________________________, 20__.

__________________________________

Joseph Zrnchik

Address:

9306 Saric Drive

Highland, IN 46322

Telephone: 

I, Joseph Zrnchik, am the Petitioner/Respondent in the above-entitled action; that I have read the foregoing document and am competent to testify that the contents are true of my own knowledge except for those matters stated therein on information and belief; and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Date: _____________________

Signature: _________________________

______________________________

 Print Name of Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this _____ day of  _______________,

20__.

 ________________________________

 NOTARY PUBLIC 

CSS ENTRY FORM

CASE NO:  45D12-1203-CM-00369

                             (         Joseph Zrnchik

                             (          Petitioner                                                                          

                             (                        v.               (

CAPTION            (                                         ( Cause No. 45D12-1203-CM-00369                         

                             (          State of Indiana      (

                             (          Respondent           

The activity of the Court for Petitioner should be summarized as follows on the Chronological Case Summary (CSS):

Verified Motion for Expungement of Arrest Records

Joseph Zrnchik,  Pro Se

________________________________________________

Name and I.D. Number of Submitting Attorney

9306 Saric Drive, Highland, IN 46322,

Joseph Zrnchik____________________________________________________

Party Represented

Opposing Counsel Lake County Prosecutor’s Office

************************************************************************

(TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE COURT)

This CSS Entry Form shall be:

( ) Placed in case file

( ) Discarded after entry on the CSS

( ) Mailed to all counsel by: ___ Counsel___ Clerk___Court____

( ) There is no attached order; or

( ) The attached order shall be placed in the RJO: Yes ( ) No ( )

DATE:________________                    APPROVED _____________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  JUDGE