Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
By Joseph Zrnchik for 5th Estate Media Email: [email protected] (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Another Instance of Why More and More Americans now Despise Police, Prosecutors and Judges From Valparaiso, Indiana

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.


JOSEPH ZRNCHIK                               )   IN THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT

PETITIONER                                     )   AT VALPARAISO, INDIANA

                                                            )                                                                                                                                               )                                                                                               v                                                                        )

)   

STATE OF INDIANA                                    )     CAUSE No.  64D04-0908-CM-8046

RESPONDENT                                  )          

                                                                        )

                                                            )

                                                            )       JUDGE: DAVID CHIDESTER                                                                                        )

                                               

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED PETITION FOR SEALING OF RECORDS AND/OR EXPUNGEMENT

 

 

Comes now the Petitioner pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-5 and seeks an expungement of arrest records and in support of this petition states:

 

 

1.  Recent legislative changes to Indiana Code involving expungement have lowered the standard for being granted expungement of arrest records from that being beyond a reasonable doubt to now being a preponderance of the evidence.  Petitioner knows that if he is granted a hearing, he will be able to show that even beyond a doubt that the false charges were the result of perjury and police misconduct given the issues that were exposed during this prosecution and the hindsight provided as the result of what was actually an adjudication of police perjury and malicious prosecution by a jury.  Additionally, Indiana Code states, regarding the Court’s discretion, that the Court shall grant the petition unless the petitioner has not met the burdens of I.C. 35-38-9-1(a).  Petitioner has met the burden of I.C. 35-38-9-1(a).  It is exactly because of police lying becoming habitual and courts habitually covering for increasingly lying and abusive police that this statute was enacted.

 

2. I.C. 35-38-9-1.b states that expungement and sealing records is proper if : Not earlier than one (1) year after the date of arrest, if the person was not convicted or adjudicated a delinquent child, or the date of the opinion vacating the conviction or adjudication becomes final, the person may petition the sentencing court (if the person was sentenced), the court in which the person was charged (if the person was charged), or any court exercising criminal jurisdiction in Indiana (if the person was not charged or convicted) to seal records contained.   It is clear to Petitioner that the Court clearly demonstrated prejudice when it denied Petitioner due process by refusing to allow Petitioner Leave of Court or a Continuance to get 30 days Petitioner needed to allow the Valparaiso Police to supply evidence ordered by subpoena.  This was more than a year before Petitioner even went to Court after Petitioner obtained an attorney.  And, given police and prosecution inconsistencies, it is overwhelmingly obvious that police perjury occurred, yet this Court stated  that because the jury was out for 45 minutes, this clearly demonstrated there was a basis for the prosecution of Petitioner and so denied expungement, although this decision flies in the face of the fact that police committed wholesale perjury for two complete days.  This is absolutely the most absurd and twisted piece if logic I have even witnessed.  Fortunately, Indiana Code no longer allows any judge to carry water for corrupt and lying petty tyrants committing perjury as I.C. 35-38-9-1 now states “the Court shall grant the petition unless the petitioner has not met the burdens of I.C. 35-38-9-1”.  Additionally, if denied this petition, Petitioner accordingly seeks a finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law. And, absent this, as it seems the Court has a habit of denying every motion filed by Petitioner, Petitioner will seek to take this issue to an Appellate Court that will see the failure of this Court should it deny Petitioner and refuse to abide by Indiana Code.  Additionally, Petitioner asks the Court this: How is the fact that it took a jury 45 minutes to sift through two days of police perjury indicative of Petitioner’s guilt, and how is it that 45 minutes can even be quantified as a determining factor in the denial of expungement by this Court?  Such a statement clearly demonstrates bias and a continuation of rationalizations and twisted logic in order to deny Petitioner a miniscule measure of justice after having suffered a manifest injustice aggravated by wholesale perjury.

 

3.  What does it say about the credibility of the Valparaiso Police Department when its officers proffer two days of disjointed, contradictory, provably perjurous, illogical, demonstrably false and rationalized testimony that is completely discredited by two children, one of which is a special education student?  The Court can try to hang on to the fiction that this perjury and malicious prosecution was not a crime against Petitioner, and demonstrate it values the power to enforce tyranny and protect state power when it is used corruptly more than it values justice.  It can and has shown that it seeks to protect the state’s crimes more than it values allowing justice to be a shield that protects the innocent from corrupt state actors control, but the Court’s duty is to value truth and justice over all else.  When two completely uncorrupted child witnesses are given more credibility by a jury of adults than Valparaiso Assistant Police Chief Spicer, Patrol Captain DeHaven, an evidence technician, Sergeant Toby, another patrol officer, a Valparaiso fireman and Chief Brickner who sat through a two-day Disorderly Conduct trial, what does that say about the value of the police testimony?  Moreover, what does it say about a Court that refuses to allow a motion to seal the arrest that gave rise to corrupt testimony deemed valueless by a jury of mature, honest, diligent and ethical citizens?  The Court can demonstrate its arrogance, stubbornness, prejudice and desire to wield power in a corrupt manner, or it can so easily allow justice thereby laying down all the baggage that comes with protecting corrupt police.  Why is it the Court refuses to pursue and allow simple truth and justice?  Petitioner asks the Court to examine itself and truthfully and honestly answer that question to itself.  That I can honestly write this while the Court, in its heart, knows I have written the truth, speaks to where the Court is valuing truth and justice.  No amount of state power or coercion can change the truth, this power can only further injustice in this case.  So, Petitioner asks the Court to acknowledge truth and justice and use the Court’s power towards these ends thereby allowing law to be the shield that protects the innocent as opposed to being a weapon of police who have demonstrated their desire to engage in arrogance, corruption and tyranny.  No matter how much power the Court can wield to coerce Petitioner, the fact is that it can never really change the truth to what happened, it can only perpetuate the state’s fiction, lies and corruption that was advanced in many areas.  This Court can hate Petitioner for being right, but Petitioner is right.  It seems what the Court hates is being forced to embrace the truth by someone who has no power except that power that is provided by truth.  Petitioner asks the Court to humble itself to be the servant of that truth

 

4. Petitioner took a picture with his smart phone of a car resting in a field that was involved in an accident.  Police admitted, and their own photo evidence submitted to the Court shows, the damaged car was not marked off or designated sealed off in any way and no police were within 100 yards of the vehicle.  Petitioner took a picture of the vehicle when Lieutenant DeHaven came up and told Petitioner he would charge him with Tampering With Evidence because he was “not going to allow some asshole to be posting this on Youtube.”  Lieutenant DeHaven then issued additional coercive threats to force Petitioner to surrender his camera.  Petitioner told police he would only surrender his camera under a subpoena or police could seize it and then legally answer for such seizure, but such surrendering of the camera would be under duress.  When Petitioner informed police of his rights these officials then made good on such threats of bringing false charges.  The police then arrested Petitioner for Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement, and Disorderly Conduct.  The Court summarily dismissed Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement as a matter of law but allowed the State to continue to prosecute the false charge of Disorderly Conduct, a charge routinely used by police to abuse their authority and attempt to use the catch-all when in fact and law no crime has been committed. 

 

5.  Jury instructions were granted on the part of the State that made the standard for conviction an exceedingly low “community standard”, and after all the other false charges were dismissed, some after being amended and repeatedly filed by the State, the jury found the testimony by Assistant Chief Spicer, CPT Michael DeHaven, Sergeant Jim Toby, an unknown evidence technician from the Valparaiso Police Department, and a Fireman from the Valparaiso Police Department to be so disjointed, contradictory, logically impossible, and so absent of causality and chronologically impossible to have no credibility, even for, but especially for the charge of Disorderly Conduct, and accordingly acquitted Petitioner. 

 

6. The jury listened to and suffered manifest perjury for two days on the part of law enforcement officers who disgraced themselves through their “testilying” which proved completely unconvincing to a jury.  After listening to what was police subornment of perjury, a jury rightfully acquitted Petitioner of Disorderly Conduct.  

 

7.  While one officer testified of telling Petitioner to leave as he refused to leave, another officer stated Petitioner took pictures and then ran and had to be pursued across a field.  So, how could Petitioner have had such a long conversation with Lieutenant DeHaven if he had taken the pictures and then ran while having to be pursued by Sergeant Toby?  And, as Petitioner was complying with one officer’s demand to leave, another officer was demanding that Petitioner not leave.  This is the type of nonsense that went on during this trial.   Now that the arresting officers have had to tip their hand to expose their lies, Petitioner will, with 100% clarity provide through hindsight, be able to further expose their lies that have caused the last five years this injustice to hang heavily upon Petitioner.

 

8.   The prosecutor’s office then committed perjury and suborned perjury on an Affidavit for Search Warrant written by a Valparaiso Police Officer to illegally search Petitioner’s phone.  The Prosecutor lied and said all the contents of the phone were needed for an investigation of Stalking and Intimidation thereby seeking all digital data be copied from Petitioner’s cell phone.  The officer who signed the Affidavit for Search Warrant admitted he did not write that part of the search warrant.  He testified that the prosecutor’s office made changes and additions for which he knew nothing and was told nothing, but the officer testified he decided to sign it anyway after the perjurous changes made by the prosecutor’s office as he figured the lies added by the prosecutor had some basis.  They did not and this truth was exposed by their own testimony.  As is usual, the Court decided to tolerate these lies on the part of the State.  However, perjury was committed nonetheless, and the Prosecutor’s Office used this officer to suborn perjury in an effort to go on a fishing expedition to shore up false charges hoping to find illegal activity or illegal digital information on Petitioner’s phone.  Petitioner states these facts for the record knowing Judge Chidester did nothing regarding this perjury and abuse by the prosecutor’s office.  The police and prosecutors know they can lie and will never be charged for lying on a sworn affidavit as they did when they claimed verbiage was accidentally left on, but then the officer testified it was added by the Prosecutor even though there was no case, charges, or investigation for Stalking and Intimidation.  The Prosecutor’s office merely lied and claimed this was a mistake. 

 

9.  Since Petitioner’s acquittal, Petitioner has since been threatened by CPT Michael DeHaven and screamed at, intimidated, and threatened with additional false arrest by Chief Brickner of the Valparaiso Police Department.

 

10.  The abuse of police powers in this case was despicable and grotesque.  Moreover, it displayed openly to those who truthfully testified, and to a jury that was able to discern the truth, the truth that perjury by police is not only tolerated, but also encouraged and allowed to become part of the system.  This tolerance for perjury by courts is a rape of justice by the police and prosecutors.  This action brings discredit and doubt upon police, the prosecutor’s office, and the court system.  In actuality, this entire event was a criminal conspiracy whereby state actors sworn to justice engaged in felonious conduct to convict an innocent citizen due to pettiness and spitefulness, truth be damned.

 

11.  Petitioner did not commit the crime of Disorderly Conduct.  Capt. Michael DeHaven threatened to make false charges and then carried through on his threat to coerce Petitioner to give voluntarily surrender property.  Petitioner was under no obligation by law to voluntarily surrender private property that even the Supreme Court has since determined police need a warrant to inspect.  As for the Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement, these charges were legally without merit and were summarily dismissed by the Court.  The charge of Disorderly Conduct was only merited through the perjury of police officers from the Valparaiso Police Department. 

 

12. Capt. Michael DeHaven  says Petitioner refused to leave the accident scene and kept taking pictures after being repeatedly ordered to leave.  Yet witnesses testified to Petitioner taking three pictures and then leaving.  So if Petitioner kept taking pictures after being ordered to leave, where are all the extra pictures Petitioner took that took all of 30 seconds to take?  Sgt Jim Tobey said Petitioner took pictures and then started to flee and continued to flee after being repeatedly ordered to stop, yet Petitioner never fled, nor was he charged with Fleeing Police.  Prosecutions own pictures introduced into evidence show Petitioner only several feet from the vehicle and Valparaiso Police pictures show Petitioner 30 feet from the vehicle with three witnesses who accompanied Petitioner standing about 10 feet from Petitioner when Petitioner was arrested and handcuffed.  How is it Respondent refused to leave when he was 30 feet from the vehicle being arrested, and how is it he refused to stop if he is being handcuffed in a picture only 30 feet from the vehicle?  And, if Petitioner fled, how is it the three people accompanying him are standing mere feet away while Petitioner was being handcuffed in the Valparaiso Police Department’s own pictures?  The citizens who witnessed the incident knew the police testimony amounted to perjury.  The Prosecutor, who conducted depositions, knew the civilian witnesses testimony had been 100%  consistent with Petitioner’s Defendant’s Answer and 100% in opposition to police reports, the probable cause affidavit and the police information.  Petitioner assures the Court, probably much to its dismay, that all civilian witnesses Petitioner will bring will assuredly and rightfully and accurately describe police testimony as lies and perjury. 

 

13.  Brian Gensel, Porter County Prosecutor, knew the Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement did not occur as a matter of fact and law, but merely kept the charges in hopes of bolstering a case of Disorderly Conduct in hopes of gaining a plea agreement.  Captain Michael DeHaven admits this fact in his police report when he states, “On August 07, 2009, I responded to the Porter County Prosecutor’s Office and filed Disorderly Conduct (‘B’ Misdemeanor) charges against Zrnchik also.” So, if the first two charges, that being Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement were summarily dismissed by the Court as a matter of law and the false charges of disorderly Conduct was added afterward at the behest of the Prosecutor who was not there, what is the likelihood of this charge being true or valid given the perjury already committed by the Prosecutor’s office to illegally search Petitioner’s phone?  Again, the Disorderly charge was a false charge made after the arrest to only to bolster the false charges that Brian Ginsel knew had no basis in law of fact and had in fact been summarily dismissed as a matter of law by the Court.

 

14.  The testimony by civilian eyewitnesses was identical and 100% completely consistent with all pictorial evidence, while police testimony was disjointed, conflicting with their own pictorial evidence and testimony, nonsensical, did not follow cause and effect and perjurous.

 

15.  Petitioner’s request serves a public good by being in the interest of justice and relieves Petitioner of specific harm to his business and reputation.  This petition also serves a public interest in exposing perjury, a crime that should be intolerable to citizens and the Court and hopefully deters future police lies, perjury and malicious prosecution.  If the Court can honestly show no bias and deference to lying state actors, as all Americans know this would be difficult given the current police state Americans now suffer under, and if the Court listens to very credible civilian witnesses, it would be obvious even to an idiot that the police committed manifest perjury given the extent of their contradictions and the logical impossibilities of what they allege.

 

16.  Sergeant Toby stated he arrested Petitioner for Disorderly Conduct.  When asked when Petitioner because disorderly, the officer stated that Petitioner had become disorderly as be was being arrested for Disorderly Conduct.  Yet, Lieutenant Dehaven testified that the Disorderly Conduct charge was only added on later at the behest of the Prosecutor’s Office.  Obviously Officer Toby did not coordinate his lies well enough with Lieutenant DeHaven.  Sergeant Toby knew he had no right to take my phone and so the Interfering with Law Enforcement and Resisting Law Enforcement for not voluntarily surrendering my phone, even though no forcible act had been committed by Petitioner, which is why the charge was summarily dismissed, was not preceded by the Disorderly Conduct charge as alleged by Sergeant Toby.  But, even if one uses Sergeant Toby’s description of the Disoderly Conduct charge preceding the other two charges, how can the Disorderly Conduct charge precede itself?  Sergeant Toby testified by that Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct and only became disorderly after being arrested for Disorderly Conduct.  How can the arrest precede the initial act?  How can one be arrested for an act that the arresting officer testified to not having yet occurred but supposedly occurred after being arrested for it?  The Court itself made mention of this issue in its own filings into the case, but then after dismissing the first two charges and allowed the State to continue in its prosecution given this logical, causative, and chronological inconsistency which is further placed into doubt since Lieutenant DeHaven admitted the Disorderly Conduct charge was added later and the initial arrest was only for not voluntarily surrendering personal property?

 

17. The problem is that Lieutentant DeHaven, who was not the arresting officer but who had directed SGT Toby to affect the arrest, wanted to say that the initial arrest was for Petitioner not voluntarily surrendering his smart phone and so was arrested for Interfering with Law Enforcement and Resisting Law Enforcement, but Petitioner was not under any obligation to voluntarily surrender his phone.  Even given Dehaven’s uncontradicted version of events, as Petitioner’s witnesses were not called until day two of the trial, on the very first day the Court found as a matter of law that Petitioner did not commit the crimes of Resisting Arrest and Interfering with Law Enforcement.  And, given that SGT Toby stated he had arrested Petitioner for Disorderly Conduct first, but evidence and filings prove this charge occurred only after being directed by the Porter County Prosecutor, all proves the police version of events is very seriously in doubt, contradictory, heavily rationalized, contradicted by every single civilian who testified, logically and chronologically impossible and violates logic in its application for cause and effect. 

 

18. Petitioner asks the Court to see that his request does no harm to the police, the state, the general public, or any specific individual, unless it be found that truth is subversive.  The fact of the matter is that that the State has already discredited itself in the eyes of the witnesses and jurors beyond anything that could be done by Petitioner, this petition merely provides some small semblance of justice to a victim of police perjury.

 

19.  In closing, Petitioner reminds the Court of the words of Justice Brandeis:

“Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example.” He stops there. But Brandeis goes on to write in his dissent, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for laws; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.” A lawless government, Brandeis writes, “invites anarchy”. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution.”  Having quoted this, such words do not even begin to address the criminality of those who go after not “ a private criminal”, but instead go after an innocent man with false accusations thereby engaging in wanton violence while using the state as a weapon.  The resulting imprisonment due to such criminality on the part of the state would be even more heinous and perverse than that carried out by a kidnapper and torturer, because as such a criminal would do it knowing it was a crime, the police attempted to do it to me under the color of law knowing what they were doing was every bit as criminal while hiding behind the State so as to be provided impunity for their wrongdoing.     

 

20.  The necessary information to be provided for the Court for expungement under IC 35-38-5-1 is as follows:

a.  Petitioner’s full name at the time of his/her arrest was Joseph F. Zrnchik Jr.  Petitioner’s

current name is Joseph F. Zrnchik Jr.  Petitioner is a white male whose date of birth is

May 31, 1961.  Petitioner’s social security number is 309-78-2260.

b. Petitioner was arrested on August 6th, 2009 for the crimes of Resisting Law Enforcement, Interfering with Law Enforcement, and Disorderly Conduct.  The docket number for the offense was 64D04-0908-CM-8046.

c.  The arresting officer was Sergeant James Tobey and the arresting officers agency was the Valparaiso Police Department.

c. Petitioner had the charges of Resisting Law Enforcement and Interfering with Law Enforcement dismissed by the Court as a matter of law and was acquitted of Disorderly Conduct on March 29th, 2010, by a jury in the Porter Superior Court.

d. Petitioner had no sentence imposed nor required to fulfill any the terms for any diversion agreement.

e. Petitioner has never been convicted of a felony, and there is no proceeding involving any crime that is presently pending or being instituted against the Petitioner.

f. The circumstances warrant expungement, and the expungement is consistent with the public welfare. As of the date this Petition for expungement is filed, there are no criminal or traffic charges pending in any court or jurisdiction against the Petitioner.

g. The circumstances and behavior of the Petitioner warrant the expungement and the case was only prosecuted due to perjury on the part of police.

h. The expungement is consistent with the public welfare.

i. That the Petitioner should be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from all related arrest records.

 

Wherefore, Petitioner seeks the Court, in the name of justice that was denied to Petitioner by the State, to grant this petition to amend the long-suffered injustice to which Petitioner has been subjected. 

 

 

 

 

                                                            Signed: __________________________

                                                                             JOSEPH ZRNCHIK, PRO SE

                                                                             9306 SARIC DRIVE

                                                                             HIGHLAND, IN 46322



Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!


Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST


Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)

Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Report abuse

    Comments

    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    MOST RECENT
    Load more ...

    SignUp

    Login

    Newsletter

    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.