TRY ME!
Motion Dismissal For Selective Prosecution
Summary
Selective prosecution claims require evidence that others similarly situated are not prosecuted for similar conduct. Highlight the lack of specificity in the charges, the absence of an inspection report, and inconsistencies in the evidence. Emphasize the violation of due process rights due to the lack of notice and the extensive time frame. Present audio recordings and potential bias from city officials to strengthen your defense. Consider consulting a local attorney for personalized legal advice.Full Conversation
I need you to write me a motion to dismiss based on selected prosecution with this informationI need a motion to dismiss on selective prosecution based off this information• Background: The Defendant is charged with [list charges], related to alleged damage to a water meter and water theft at the property located at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *. • Property Ownership: The Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, a property solely owned by **** Church. The alleged damage and theft occurred at * Montgomery, which is co-owned by the Defendant and Mr. Kenneth Huffmaster. An RV owned by the co-owner is situated on this property. • Selective Prosecution: The decision to prosecute only the Defendant, while not pursuing similar charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution. This selective enforcement violates the Defendant's right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. • Lack of Justification: There is no legitimate basis for singling out the Defendant for prosecution while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property. • Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad time frame of over 10 months. This lack of specificity is unreasonable and significantly hinders the Defendant's ability to mount a defense. • Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations regarding water theft and meter damage. This failure constitutes a violation of the Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. • Relief Sought: The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the charges against him/her due to the unconstitutional selective prosecution, the unreasonable time frame provided for the alleged offenses, and the violation of due process rights.I need to file a response to this summons to court they are picking on me in the summons. Because two people own the property at * Montgomery street in Longton, KS *. Yet, I crystal church am the only one being summoned to court as a response to the count * of theft of water services. They have a time period Between the 5th day of September * and the 11th day of July * that's over a 10 month period they cannot even come up with an exact date of the supposed water theft. As for count two , the same goes , they have a time frame of a ten month period , stating that crystal church did and willingly knowingly by means other than fire explosives damage destroy. Defaces substantially impair the use of property to wit: water meter in which another to wit city of Longton has an interest. yet Their claims of a water meter Damage are inconsistent with their claims to account one because if they have water meter damage and the water meter is damaged and not working. How is it that they're coming up with *,* gallons being used with an amount of $*.* on the count one charge? If the water meter was damaged, then they should not be able to come up with the amount of supposed water theft. Because the water meter's damage is not working, so there's inconsistencies here .on top of that, the amount they came up with which was $*.* for a supposed, * gallons of water that they say was taken . well * gallons of water starting at *.* for the first * gallons and then $* for * gallons after that. Equals up to a $*.*. So once again inconsistenties here with the online water utilities payment details, it doesn't match up. They have a total of $*.*. Where did they get this amount once again? It doesn't add up with the amount that it states online the water utility charges and does not add up for the fact that the water meter is damaged supposedly? Secondly , count two , the water meter damage i crystal church went up to city hall where I talked to bonnie foged , who is city clerk , water operator and wastewater operator and gary beougher , who was a maintenance supervisor I asked for an inspection report on the water meter bonnie foged replied that she didn't know what I was talking About . I said that I'm being charged with damage to a water meter and there should be an inspection report for any damages. Bonnie said that they didn't have a damage report. Or inspection report on the damaged water meter and she didn't know what I was talking about. So then I asked who inspected this water meter and said it was damage. Bonnie foged replied that she and Gary beougher are the ones that expected it. And said it was damaged. I then replied. Well, I need the inspection report for the damaged water meter and asked if they still had the water meter because I'd like pictures of it and I'm going to have a licensed Plumber come and inspect it for damages so I can get a professional, second and unbiased opinion. That is when Gary beougher stated that the water meter is not damaged at all and it works just fine. I recorded the whole conversation and I have the conversation on my phone. So then again I want to know why I'm being falsely accused of these damages besides them Just picking on me when two people own the property bonnie foged is bias towards me because after her and her husband split up me and him had an intimate relationship. So she already holds hostile unselling feelings towards me. And as for the evidence that was submitted as proof of damages. There is no indication at all in the photos of whose water meter that is that could be anybody in long-term water meter. There's no identifying water meter number on there. There's no address, there's no house in the picture. It's just a close up picture of some water meter and that could be anybody's.This doesn't prove it's my water meter. And ask. For the pictures of the watermelon that they did submit, it's apparent that there's been water leaking because there's rust all over the lock and stuff that's in the picture. Which doesn't even matter because this is not my water meter.It doesn't prove it's my water meter.It doesn't prove nothing.It just shows that they know how to take a picture and that's it. Lastly i live at * montgomery lo gton kansas which is the property solely owned by me . * montgomery holds an rv that belongs to said co owner. I will be providing proof of this with the utility statementi got from the water company that states this these inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the city's claims.
CC
To draft a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution, you should focus on the following key arguments:
Selective Prosecution: Argue that the decision to prosecute only the Defendant, **** Church, while not pursuing similar charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution. Highlight that this selective enforcement violates the Defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lack of Justification: Emphasize that there is no legitimate basis for singling out the Defendant for prosecution while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
Absence of Specificity: Point out that the accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad time frame of over 10 months, which hinders the Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
Failure to Provide Notice: Argue that the City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations regarding water theft and meter damage, constituting a violation of the Defendant's right to due process.
Inconsistencies in Evidence: Highlight the inconsistencies in the evidence, such as the discrepancy in the water usage charges and the lack of an inspection report for the alleged water meter damage.
Bias and Hostility: Mention any potential bias or hostility from city officials, which may have influenced the decision to prosecute.
Relief Sought: Conclude by requesting the court to dismiss the charges due to unconstitutional selective prosecution, unreasonable time frames, and due process violations.
Hi ****! Here's a concise motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution:
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, by and through her undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Lack of Justification: There isno legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
- The water usage charges and claims of meter damage are inconsistent.
- The city’s own personnel admitted the water meter is not damaged.
- No inspection report or credible evidence identifies the damaged meter as Defendant's.
*. Bias and Hostility: City officials, specifically Bonnie Foged, have demonstrated bias against Defendant due to personal animosity.
WHEREFORE, based on the unconstitutional selective prosecution, the unreasonable time frames, and violations of due process rights, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all charges against her.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email Address]
---
Phone: (*)
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, by and through her undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Lack of Justification: There isno legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
- The water usage charges and claims of meter damage are inconsistent.
- The city’s own personnel admitted the water meter is not damaged.
- No inspection report or credible evidence identifies the damaged meter as Defendant's.
*. Bias and Hostility: City officials, specifically Bonnie Foged, have demonstrated bias against Defendant due to personal animosity.
WHEREFORE, based on the unconstitutional selective prosecution, the unreasonable time frames, and violations of due process rights, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all charges against her.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email Address]
---
Elk County District Court
Phone: (*)
Can u add this information to the motion I crystal church co own the property at * montgomery longton , kansas * with Kenneth huffmaster I crystal church reside at * Montgomery.A property that is solely owned by me. The property at * montgomery sits a r v that belongs to kenneth huffmaster. Yet I crystal church am the only one being summoned to court for this matter. Bonnie foged the city official that pushed to make these false claims against me. Has unsettling feelings towards me.Because after her and her husband split up me and her ex husband had an intimate relationship. This is a violation of my 14th amendment rights.
Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Kansas Supreme
Court in State v. Keys, * P.3d * (Kan. *).
In State v. Robinson, * P.3d *, * Kan.App.2d * (Kan. App. *), the Kansas Court of Appeals reiterated that selective prosecution claims require evidence that others similarly situated are not prosecuted for similar conduct and that the defendant was singled out based on arbitrary or invidious criteria
**** church was never given any notice by the water utility company prior to the summons
In Kansas, the notice requirements for water theft accusations by a utility company are informed by the principles of due process as established in the case of Dedeke v. Rural Water Dist. No. * Leavenworth County, Kan., * Kan. *, * P.2d * (Kan. *). I crystal church was denied my right to due process as I was never given any prior notice of the claims being made against. me.
Hi ****! Here’s the updated motion:
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, by and through her undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. RV Ownership: The property at * Montgomery houses an RV owned by Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant'sright to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Lack of Justification: There is no legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
- The water usage charges and claims of meter damage are inconsistent.
- The city’s own personnel admitted the water meter is not damaged.
- No inspection report or credible evidence identifies the damaged meter as Defendant's.
*. Bias and Hostility: City official Bonnie Foged has demonstrated bias against Defendant due to personal animosity stemming from a prior relationship with Foged’s ex-husband.
WHEREFORE, based on the unconstitutional selective prosecution, the unreasonable time frames, and violations of due process rights, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all charges against her.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, by and through her undersigned counsel, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. RV Ownership: The property at * Montgomery houses an RV owned by Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant'sright to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Lack of Justification: There is no legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
*. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
- The water usage charges and claims of meter damage are inconsistent.
- The city’s own personnel admitted the water meter is not damaged.
- No inspection report or credible evidence identifies the damaged meter as Defendant's.
*. Bias and Hostility: City official Bonnie Foged has demonstrated bias against Defendant due to personal animosity stemming from a prior relationship with Foged’s ex-husband.
WHEREFORE, based on the unconstitutional selective prosecution, the unreasonable time frames, and violations of due process rights, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all charges against her.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your
I want the references to case law put in the motion
Hi ****! Here's the updated motion with the case law references:
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. RV Ownership: The property at * Montgomery houses an RV owned by Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Supporting Case Law:
- The Kansas Supreme Court in *State v. Keys*, * P.3d * (Kan. *), supports that selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- In *State v. Robinson*, * P.3d *, * Kan.App.2d * (Kan. App. *), the Kansas Court of Appeals reiterated that selective prosecution claims require evidence that others similarly situated are not prosecuted for similar conduct and that the defendant was singled out based on arbitrary or invidious criteria.
*. Lack of Justification: There is no legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- In Kansas, the notice requirements for water theft accusations by a utility company are informed by the principles of due process
---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF ELK COUNTY, KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRYSTAL CHURCH,
Defendant.
Case No. [Your Case Number]
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW the Defendant, **** Church, and moves this Court to dismiss the charges against her for selective prosecution. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
*. Background: Defendant is charged with theft of water services and damage to a water meter at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *.
*. Property Ownership: Defendant resides at * Montgomery, Longton, KS *, which she solely owns. The alleged offenses occurred at * Montgomery, co-owned by Defendant and Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. RV Ownership: The property at * Montgomery houses an RV owned by Kenneth Huffmaster.
*. Selective Prosecution:
- The decision to prosecute only Defendant, while not pursuing charges against the co-owner, constitutes selective prosecution.
- This selective enforcement violates Defendant's right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Supporting Case Law:
- The Kansas Supreme Court in *State v. Keys*, * P.3d * (Kan. *), supports that selective prosecution violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- In *State v. Robinson*, * P.3d *, * Kan.App.2d * (Kan. App. *), the Kansas Court of Appeals reiterated that selective prosecution claims require evidence that others similarly situated are not prosecuted for similar conduct and that the defendant was singled out based on arbitrary or invidious criteria.
*. Lack of Justification: There is no legitimate basis for prosecuting only Defendant while ignoring the co-owner, who shares equal responsibility for the property.
*. Absence of Specificity: The accusations lack an exact date for the alleged damage, providing only a broad *-month time frame, which significantly hinders Defendant's ability to mount a defense.
*. Failure to Provide Notice: The City of Longton failed to provide proper notice of the accusations, violating Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- In Kansas, the notice requirements for water theft accusations by a utility company are informed by the principles of due process
City claiming i damaged the water meter and accusing me of water theft they have a dollar amount they are trying to charge me for water theft yet they say the water meter is damaged so where did they come up with this dollar amount how to i present this infoemation professionally incourt
Hi ****! Here’s a concise way to present the inconsistencies regarding the water meter damage and water theft professionally in court:
*. Inconsistency in Charges:
- The city claims the water meter is damaged, but also calculates a specific amount ($*.*) for water theft over 10 months.
- If the meter is damaged, the accuracy of this calculation is questionable.
*. Discrepancy in Amounts:
- The city claims *,* gallons of water were used, costing $*.*.
- According to the utility rates, *,* gallons should cost $*.*, indicating a significant discrepancy.
*. Lack of Evidence:
- The city has not provided an inspection report or credible evidence identifying the damaged meter as yours.
- The city's personnel admitted the meter isn't damaged, contradicting their claims.
*. Bias:
- Mention potential bias from city official Bonnie Foged due to personal reasons, affecting the credibility of the accusations.
By highlighting these points, you can create a strong argument challenging the validity of the charges in court.
*. Inconsistency in Charges:
- The city claims the water meter is damaged, but also calculates a specific amount ($*.*) for water theft over 10 months.
- If the meter is damaged, the accuracy of this calculation is questionable.
*. Discrepancy in Amounts:
- The city claims *,* gallons of water were used, costing $*.*.
- According to the utility rates, *,* gallons should cost $*.*, indicating a significant discrepancy.
*. Lack of Evidence:
- The city has not provided an inspection report or credible evidence identifying the damaged meter as yours.
- The city's personnel admitted the meter isn't damaged, contradicting their claims.
*. Bias:
- Mention potential bias from city official Bonnie Foged due to personal reasons, affecting the credibility of the accusations.
By highlighting these points, you can create a strong argument challenging the validity of the charges in court.
How do i add to that information the fact that the pictures they provided as evidence show no meter number nor house number to prove where they were taken it could be anybodys water meter also in the pictures they submitted as evidence its apparent there was water leaking by the looks of the rusted lock but i guess that irrirelvent because the pictures prove nothing except for the fact thay someone took a picture of someones water meter some where and in one of the pictures the photo has been edited because the background is all blurred out how do i present this information professsionally with the imformation above
Hi ****! Here's a concise way to add the information about the photographic evidence:
*. Lack of Identification:
- The photos provided as evidence do not show any meter number or house number.
- Without these identifiers, it cannot be proven that the meter in the photos is yours.
*. Evidence of Tampering:
- One of the photos appears to be edited, with the background blurred out.
- This raises questions about the authenticity and reliability of the photographic evidence.
*. Irrelevant Evidence:
- The presence of rust on the lock suggests prior water leakage, but this does not prove any recent damage or theft.
- The photos only show a water meter somewhere, which does not establish that it is your water meter.
*. Inconsistency in Meter Readings:
- If the meter was damaged, it challenges the city's calculation of water usage and theft amounts.
By including these points, you’ll further undermine the credibility of the evidence presented and strengthen your argument.
*. Lack of Identification:
- The photos provided as evidence do not show any meter number or house number.
- Without these identifiers, it cannot be proven that the meter in the photos is yours.
*. Evidence of Tampering:
- One of the photos appears to be edited, with the background blurred out.
- This raises questions about the authenticity and reliability of the photographic evidence.
*. Irrelevant Evidence:
- The presence of rust on the lock suggests prior water leakage, but this does not prove any recent damage or theft.
- The photos only show a water meter somewhere, which does not establish that it is your water meter.
*. Inconsistency in Meter Readings:
- If the meter was damaged, it challenges the city's calculation of water usage and theft amounts.
By including these points, you’ll further undermine the credibility of the evidence presented and strengthen your argument.
How do i prodessionally point out the extensive time frame of 10months with no exact date as to when damages occured and use that to my benefit
Hi ****! Here’s a concise way to highlight the extensive time frame:
*. Absence of Specificity:
- The city alleges the damage occurred within a broad *-month period.
- This lack of an exact date significantly hinders my ability to mount a defense.
*. Unreasonable Time Frame:
- The broad time frame makes it difficult to verify alibis or identify specific events that could counter the accusations.
- It is unreasonable and unfair to expect a defense without precise timing.
*. Due Process Violation:
- The lack of specificity constitutes a violation of my due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Kansas case of *Dedeke v. Rural Water District No. * Leavenworth County* emphasizes the importance of specific notice for fair legal proceedings.
By presenting these points, you can effectively argue that the extensive time frame is unfair and detrimental to your defense.
*. Absence of Specificity:
- The city alleges the damage occurred within a broad *-month period.
- This lack of an exact date significantly hinders my ability to mount a defense.
*. Unreasonable Time Frame:
- The broad time frame makes it difficult to verify alibis or identify specific events that could counter the accusations.
- It is unreasonable and unfair to expect a defense without precise timing.
*. Due Process Violation:
- The lack of specificity constitutes a violation of my due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The Kansas case of *Dedeke v. Rural Water District No. * Leavenworth County* emphasizes the importance of specific notice for fair legal proceedings.
By presenting these points, you can effectively argue that the extensive time frame is unfair and detrimental to your defense.
Upon going up to city hall and talking to bonnie foged and gary beougher i crystal church asked for the inspection report for the damaged water meter. Bonnie said she didnt know what i was talking about i then asked who it was that made the claim of damages to the water meter against me bonnie said that she and gary were the ones who inspected it and said it was damaged. So i asked to see the water meter i wanted pictures and i told bonnie and gary i was going to have a licensed plumber come inspect the water meter for damages because i know i didnt do nothing to the meter and i want a professional unbiased second opinion. That is when gary came forth and said that the water meter was not damaged at all. I have all this information on an audio recording. And i really am upset about the defamation of character ther causing me and i want to know why the state is making false claims against me how do i present this information in a professional manner to the court
Hi ****! Here's how to present the information about the conversation professionally in court:
*. Request for Inspection Report:
- I requested the inspection report for the alleged damaged water meter from Bonnie Foged and Gary Beougher.
- Bonnie Foged stated she didn't know what I was talking about and there was no inspection report.
*. Admission of No Damage:
- Upon further questioning, Gary Beougher admitted that the water meter was not damaged at all.
- This contradicts the city's earlier claims of damage.
*. Independent Inspection Request:
- I expressed my intention to have a licensed plumber inspect the water meter for an unbiased second opinion.
- This was met with the admission that the meter was functional and undamaged.
*. Audio Recording:
- I have an audio recording of this entire conversation, which verifies these statements and admissions.
*. Defamation of Character:
- The false claims against me have caused significant distress and defamation of character.
By presenting these points clearly and concisely, you can effectively communicate the inconsistencies in the city’s claims and the lack of credible evidence against you.
*. Request for Inspection Report:
- I requested the inspection report for the alleged damaged water meter from Bonnie Foged and Gary Beougher.
- Bonnie Foged stated she didn't know what I was talking about and there was no inspection report.
*. Admission of No Damage:
- Upon further questioning, Gary Beougher admitted that the water meter was not damaged at all.
- This contradicts the city's earlier claims of damage.
*. Independent Inspection Request:
- I expressed my intention to have a licensed plumber inspect the water meter for an unbiased second opinion.
- This was met with the admission that the meter was functional and undamaged.
*. Audio Recording:
- I have an audio recording of this entire conversation, which verifies these statements and admissions.
*. Defamation of Character:
- The false claims against me have caused significant distress and defamation of character.
By presenting these points clearly and concisely, you can effectively communicate the inconsistencies in the city’s claims and the lack of credible evidence against you.
Start a new chat