- Not allowed to cross-examine the adverse witnesses properly.
- If you are cross examining properly, he will then attempt to take over the cross examining of your witness for you and work off of a script to ensure the state wins.
- If you are laying the groundwork for proving your case, i.e. impeaching the witness, he will attempt to confuse and misdirect your defense by falsely claiming you are interfering with the hearing.
- He will not allow you to testify on your own behalf. Hmmmm….Does he understand the right to due process?
- He will also claim that asking relevant questions is interfering with the hearing.
- He will also tell the adverse witness (the accuser) not to answer questions, i.e. acting as the consul for the adverse witness, then when you ask for a court determination he will state that you should get a lawyer. Last time I checked, the adverse witness (who is also the accuser and the party that will see financial gain if they win, world dictators love this kind of set-up) was not the one on trial. Further by this ‘actus rea’ he demonstrated his ‘mens rea’ in which he knew that the motorist was correct in that the refusal notice was fatality flawed and that the adverse party was indeed lying.
- He will threaten you with shutting down the hearing if you are proving your case.
- He will accept documents into the record (kind of admitting its relevant), created by the adverse witness, that you introduce, and then when you point out fatal flaws within the documents he will claim it is not relevant.
- And If you attempt to prove the other party is lying with their own paperwork he will get extremely upset with you.
- He will then threaten you with being kidnapped (unlawful arrest) for exercising your due process rights, then will shut the hearing down, demand you leave the building and storm out of the hearing room like a three year old child who didn’t get his daily dose of candy. Gee, thrown out again…
Can you say “recusal” and perjury of oath of office? (if he actually has one on file). I wonder if Glenn has ever read the US Constitution and the New York State Constitution. Ohhh…. that’s right he was a JAG officer, he took an oath to the Constitution to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Last time I checked officers in the Military can be called up at anytime, retired or not. A retiree is eligible for recall up until 30 years of service would have been accrued, or is he still in the reserves? Maybe time to call up the MP’s or an active duty JAG over this issue?
The beauty about an appeal/recusal is the judge goes on trial for his actions. Will the appeals board and/or DMV attempt to cover up what actually occurred? This will be interesting.
What was nice about this hearing is there were many other people awaiting to be heard in the other room, these are witnesses of what actually occurred, their statements if required before the grand juries will be interesting and you are allowed to get a copy of the audio tape. Have you ever done that? In New York it’s called FOIL requests, which the motorist is allowed a transcript by law and also a true, correct and complete copy of the audio tape of the hearing. Lets see if the DMV chops and edits the audio recording in an attempt to hide what actually occurred, or it comes up missing. Here is more info on FOIL requests.
I wonder if he understands the terms “fair and impartial”?
Here is the interesting part of it. Try to locate the actual procedures for a refusal hearing, it is VERY difficult, to the point where you literally have to go to a law library to locate them. Better yet, look how they try to hide them in the statutes;
S 1194-b.(i)(6)(iii) Hearings conducted pursuant to this subdivision shall be in accordance with this subdivision and with the provisions applicable to the adjudication of traffic infractions pursuant to the following provisions of part 124 of title fifteen of the codes, rules and regulations of the state of New York: paragraph (b) of section 124.1 regarding the opening statement; paragraph (b) of section 124.2 regarding the right to representation and to remain silent and paragraphs (a) through (e) of section 124.4 regarding the conduct of the hearing, procedure and recusal; provided, however, that nothing contained in this subparagraph shall be deemed to preclude a hearing officer from changing the order of a hearing conducted pursuant to this subdivision as justice may require and for good cause shown.
Do you know what this translates to? Click here to find out.
- Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)]
- Common/Case law has shown that when a judge acts outside of his capacity judicial immunity is not absolute. In this matter Glenn Murray failed and/or refused to abide by specific rules governing refusal hearings. Murray knew, or should have known that he lacked authority(jurisdiction) to deprive claimant of his rights and therefore immunity is lost. [Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2nd 844].
- The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice [David v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449].
- The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights is wholly incompatible with the judicial function. When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion to individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a ‘minster’ of his own prejudices [Pierson v. Ray 3986 U.S. 547 (1967)].
- A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as t the subject matter and person to be entitled to immunity from civil actions for his acts. [Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689]
- No one in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer (that means you too Albanese and Schwabenbauer) of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it [Buckles v. King County 191 F.3d 1127 via United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)].
One must be curious as to the 004 designation, is their a pecking order in place in the state when it comes to these types of numbers? and if so, how far up the chain of command is this fellow? Discovery can be a real bitch…
Have you had a problem with Glen If so click here.