Half of Alabama drug arrests for marijuana possession

There is a shocking article in the Birmingham News today about how the number of drug cases in Alabama are double what was previously thought and that over half of all drug cases in Alabama are for simple marijuana possession. That information isn't what is shocking to me...hell it's what I've been saying for years. The fact that it is being reported is what is shocking!!

Drug Problem Worse based on New Data

Sunday, October 21, 2007
DAVE PARKS
News staff writer

Day breaks in Bessemer, and an unmarked van rumbles over railroad tracks. It turns down a street filled with grand but aging homes and parks behind a rundown frame house, the worst in the neighborhood.

Eight heavily armed men and women dressed in black, with armored vests and helmets, pile out. They smash through the home's rear door, shouting, "Sheriff's department! Search warrant!"

In the war on drugs, it's another skirmish, something that is occurring far more often in Alabama. For the first time, the state Department of Forensic Sciences crime lab is counting drug cases statewide, and it's getting a total that is nearly double what was previously calculated.

Now we know 30,891 drug cases were filed in Alabama in fiscal 2006, said Gary Wallace, chief of drug chemistry at the crime lab.

That's one case for every 150 Alabama residents. It represents more defendants than the entire population of Bessemer, and at that rate in three years the number of people arrested could fill Bryant-Denny Stadium.

Alabama, like the rest of America, has an escalating and costly drug problem. The FBI estimates that adult drug arrests tripled from 1970 to 2005. More than 1.5 million of these arrests occur annually in the U.S. The cost of illicit drug use in 2002 was $181 billion, with $107 billion of that associated with crimes such as murder and robbery, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Carol Roberts, a public information expert for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, said some police agencies in the state, including the state Department of Public Safety, the state troopers, fail to report their drug arrest numbers. Thus, data are incomplete, she said.

Wallace said the total number of cases handled by the crime lab nonetheless provides a fairly accurate indication of just how many drug arrests are made in Alabama. The lab handles drug cases from all police agencies in Alabama, he said. Everybody sends in their evidence because quantitative and chemical analyses are necessary for criminal prosecution.

So the crime lab is able to accurately count criminal drug cases, which are now pouring into the lab at a rate of 2,800 a month, or about 90 a day, Wallace said.

A typical raid:

The drug operation in Bessemer early one Wednesday morning provided a look at what kinds of charges are typically filed, and what types of drugs are most often seized.

Minutes after deputies crashed through the back door, a bleary-eyed, shirtless man was brought out in handcuffs. "Usually when you do this early in the morning you catch them in bed," said Lt. Paul Hogan, head of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department narcotics division.

Deputies confiscated a 12-gauge shotgun, and two police dogs sniffed out what appeared to be small amounts of crack cocaine and marijuana. The 38-year-old resident of the home was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.

The overwhelming majority of drug arrests nationwide and statewide are for possession, as opposed to trafficking.

Marijuana was the top illicit drug confiscated last fiscal year in Alabama. According to the crime lab, authorities seized about 2,500 pounds of marijuana in 15,409 cases. That's half the state's caseload for drug violations.

"Lortabs have taken over as the pharmaceutical drug of choice," Wallace said. "Valium led that for a while, but Lortab has taken over."

Wallace said most trends revealed by the statistics aren't surprising. Officials generally know what's being seized because they handle the arrests and paperwork. They also know many types of illegal drugs come and go.

LSD has come and gone several times since the 1960s. It's now gone, with only five seizures of that hallucinogen in fiscal 2006.

But the main drug of choice stays the same, easily topping the number of seizures by police. "The majority is marijuana," Wallace said. "That's pretty standard every year."

One of the deputies participating in the Bessemer raid said it is much easier to zero in on street drugs than prescription drugs. That's because people who abuse prescription drugs usually make their purchases through medical channels. They may shop around for several doctors, or find an unethical doctor willing to write prescriptions for a price, making those kinds of crimes tough to uncover.

Still, Hogan's team of narcotics deputies stays busy, sometimes putting in long days and nights. The deputies started work at 5 a.m. the day of the Bessemer raid, and planned to conduct another operation later that day, and then again at 7 p.m.

"I don't think we're ever going to stomp out drugs totally," Hogan said.
-------------------------

And that is perfectly alright with Officer Hogan because it means he will always have a job! That's what the drug war is. A government jobs program.

And there you have it folks...the unvarnished truth about who is filling up prison cells. Harmeless, mostly peaceful marijuana smokers.

Let's say that all 15,409 people who were arrested in 2006 for simple possession of marijuana were sentenced to one year in jail at $12,000 a year (just for housing in prison). That comes to a whopping $184,908,000 and it does not include the court costs, officer man hours, the loss of employment if the person was employed, the destruction of the family unit if they had a spouse and children, the long term cost to taxpayers to help care for family members left behind and so many other bad things that go along with getting busted for smoking a joint. Now, we know that not all of these people did jail time but they could have and the astronomical dollar figure is really on the low end of the range.

It's time for people to stand up and demand that governmnet stop wasting our tax dollars in this futile and extremely socially harmful manner. Write a letter in response to this story today!! I'll post mine later.

D.A. Taints Jury Pool in Loretta Nall Case

I went back to court this morning and ultimately nothing happened as far as my case being called. The jury was picked for another trial and my lawyer told me that if they get to my case this week it will be Thursday or Friday. If they do not get to it this week it will be 6 more months before it comes up again.

While speaking with my attorney in the hallway outside the courtroom he informed me that last week the D.A., E. Paul Jones, brought up my name in voir dire jury selection in a case that is not in any way related to my case. The D.A. asked the jury pool if they knew Loretta Nall. The lawyer quoted him as saying, "Does anyone in this courtroom know Loretta Nall? She ran as the Libertarian candidate for Governor last year. Does anyone know her?"

The case the jury was being picked for was this drug trafficking case. The only connection is that the defendant in that case and I share the same attorney. In my case the attormey is appointed and not hired. I do not know if he is appointed or hired in the trafficking case.

There are two reasons the D.A. would bring up my name...or perhaps a better way to put it is that bringing up my name in front of the entire jury pool feeds two heads of the DA dragon...those being

1. To make the jury pool think that my lawyer is somehow evil and sinister for defending drug cases...even though in at least one of those cases he is an APPOINTED attorney.

2. To tie my name to a drug trafficking case when my case has NOTHING to do with drug trafficking.

When I heard this I said, "He tainted the entire jury pool against me by doing that."
My attorney enthusiastically agreed and is taking the necessary steps to see that this is addressed.

I am absolutely astounded that the DA would ask the entire jury pool about me when my case is close to being called and heard by some members of that same jury pool. Wow! To me this just reeks of desperation. They are willing to try every sneaky, dirty, underhanded trick in the book to get a conviction in this case. I hope they realize that I am keeping score and I am documenting every move they make, every slip up, every mistake.

Court Again Today

I have to be back in court this morning at 9 a.m. . One of two things will happen. We will strike a jury and my case will proceed this week or my case will be held over until the next session which is 6 months away I think. I am hoping for the former but bracing for the latter.

A note on striking a jury...my attorney has asked for my assistance in that part of the process. The way it is done is 70 potential jurors are packed in the courtroom and are subjected to a list of questions by the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney. Questions like if they work in law enforcement, have family that works in law enforcement, are the more likely to believe a cop than a regular private citizen and so forth. I'll be taking notes on their answers and crossing out the ones I do not want on my jury. Of course the prosecution will be targeting the ones I like and I will be targeting the ones he likes and what I suspect we will be left with is people with a 3rd grade education who can barely read and write much less understand the complicated proceedings of a courtroom.....but that is the way the cookie crumbles so far as I have been told.

I don't know how long I will be in court today. Check back here for updates which I will post once I get home.

Another Gem from my Trial Transcript

This line of questioning is about the 'evidence' they claim to have found in my home. Exhibit 3 is the envelope containing the contraband. Pay close attention to what happens during this excange.

Players
Damon Lewis - Prosecutor (Q)
Eric McCain - Kindergarten Cop (A)
Wilson Myers - Defense Attorney (Q)

Q (BY MR. LEWIS:) AND TELL ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE
12 EXHIBITS 3, 4, AND 5.
13 A YES, I DO.
14 Q ALL RIGHT. AND, IF YOU WOULD, LET ME DIRECT
15 YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. WHERE DID YOU
16 FIND ITEM NUMBER THREE?
17 A IT WAS ON THE -- IN BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND
18 THE LIVING ROOM AREA, RIGHT THERE ON THE TOP OF THE
19 COMPUTER, I BELIEVE.
20 BY MR. LEWIS: FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, CAN
21 WE SAY THAT'S THE COMPUTER AREA?
22 BY MR. MYERS: OKAY. THAT'S FINE.
23 Q (BY MR. LEWIS:) AND, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID

0042
1 YOU FIND AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 3?
2 A I FOUND SOME ROACHES -- MARIJUANA.
3 BY MR. MYERS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO
4 HIS CHARACTERIZATION.
5 Q (BY MR. LEWIS:) I'LL REPHRASE IT FOR YOU.
6 LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. DID
7 YOU FIND ITEM NUMBER FOUR AS STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 3?
8 A YES.
9 Q DID YOU COLLECT NUMBER FOUR?
10 A INVESTIGATOR MCALISTER COLLECTED THAT.
11 Q OKAY. AND THAT WAS SENT TO THE LAB FOR
12 ANALYSIS; IS THAT CORRECT?
13 BY MR. MYERS: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO
14 THIS CHAIN OF CUSTODY AT THIS POINT. HE HAS TESTIFIED
15 THAT ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR IS THE ONE WHO COLLECTED IT.
16 AND THERE IS NO WAY THIS OFFICER --
17 BY MR. LEWIS: NO, NO. WAIT A MINUTE. YOU
18 CAN TESTIFY TO WHAT YOU KNOW. CHAIN OF CUSTODY GOES TO
19 THE WEIGHT OF CREDIBILITY, NOT ADMISSION.
20 BY MR. MYERS: BUT, AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, HE
21 JUST TESTIFIED THAT ANOTHER PERSON COLLECTED WHAT IT IS
22 THAT WAS FOUND IN THAT ENVELOPE.
23 THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

0043
1 Q (BY MR. LEWIS:) AND THAT WAS SENT TO THE
2 LAB; IS THAT CORRECT?
3 A YES.
Q NOW, STATE'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 IN PARTICULAR,
17 YOU COLLECTED THAT?
18 A YES.
19 Q DID YOU PROCESS IT FOR FINGERPRINTS OR
20 ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
21 A NO, I DIDN'T.
22 Q ALL RIGHT. AND TELL ME WHAT STATE'S EXHIBIT
23 NUMBER 3 IS.

0044
1 A IT'S A FEDEX BOX WITH MS. NALL'S NAME ON IT.
2 Q OKAY. AND THIS TIME THE STATE MOVES TO ADMIT
3 STATE'S EXHIBIT 3.
4 BY MR. MYERS: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT BY
5 THE VERY FACT THAT THE OFFICER HAS MISIDENTIFIED WHAT
6 THE EXHIBIT IS. AN OFFICER -- FOR AN EXHIBIT TO BE
7 ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, THE OFFICER MUST HAVE FIRSTHAND
8 KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT HE'S GETTING
9 READY TO ADMIT.
10 IN THIS CASE HE CLEARLY DOES NOT. THAT IS NOT A
11 FEDEX ENVELOPE. FEDEX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT
12 ENVELOPE. SO CLEARLY THE OFFICER DOES NOT -- THE
13 WITNESS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS HE'S LOOKING AT,
14 NOR UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S ASKING THE COURT TO ADMIT.
15 Q (BY MR. LEWIS:) READ WHAT IS ON THAT
16 ENVELOPE.
17 A A FLAT-RATE ENVELOPE, POSTAGE RATE REGARDLESS
18 OF WEIGHT, PRIORITY MAIL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
19 Q IT LOOKS LIKE A FEDEX ENVELOPE, RIGHT?
20 A YES.
21 Q BUT THIS IS THE ENVELOPE YOU COLLECTED AT THE
22 SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
23 A YES.

0045
1 Q THIS IS IN THE SAME CONDITION AS IT WAS THAT
2 DAY; IS THAT CORRECT?
3 A YES.
4 BY MR. LEWIS: WE MOVE TO ADMIT THIS EXHIBIT.
5 BY MR. MYERS: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD
6 OBJECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD TO
7 IDENTIFY FOR THE WITNESS WHAT THE EXHIBIT WAS. THAT IS
8 NOT A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION.
9 THE COURT: IT'S ADMITTED OVER YOUR
10 OBJECTION.
--------------

On every piece of documentation I have from the warrant and arrest that envelope is identified as a FedEx envelope. But, it wasn't a FedEx envelope they had in court, it was a USPS Priority Mail envelope. And the judge overruled our objection and allowed it to b e admitted as evidence against me anyway. Can you believe that? And this case is still going on and on and on.

Hurry Up and Wait

My regular readers will know that a date for my jury trial still has not been set. I spoke with my attorney yesterday evening about court yesterday. I asked him if Beth Shaw and Eric McCain showed up. Defendants and witnesses for the prosecution were kept seperate and I did not see them. My attorney said he didn't see them either but would find out for me if they were there. He also told me that since a big murder case started yesterday it is highly unlikely that my case will come up this week. He went on to say it is possible that we will have to wait another term before finally getting a trial.

That makes me very unhappy. I am so sick of delays. This whole case is a complete police fabrication. The original testimony is replete with contradictory testimony from the key players, especially Eric McCain. I want to know how come a judge can't just read the hysterical lies that made up the police testimony contained in the transcript and say, "This is bullshit" and throw it out? Why does the prosecution get to get away with continually pursuing this case when anyone with eyes and even half a brain can see that what the police, DA and Judge did was illegal? Why must they waste more taxpayer money prosecuting a case that they will not win?

I know it is in my best interest for this case to drag on so long that no one will remember what they said or did oh so many years ago. But, dammit, I want justice. I want these people to pay for what they have done to my family and I want to ensure that they never do it to anyone else ever again. At least not in this county. And I won't rest until I get it.

How Court Went

Well...it didn't. At least not for my case today. I arrived around 8:30, went through the metal detector without incident and proceeded toward the courtroom doors. The assistant DA in this case whose brilliant witness examination skills can be read here walked in front of me, looked up and immediately hung his head and walked faster. I almost cackled out loud. Damon Lewis has never failed to smile at me and speak to me in court or in any other venue where we happened to cross paths. His lack of salutation and the way he hung his head and grew jet engines on his heels tells me he is most unhappy that I refused his umpteenth bullshit plea deal and am going to make him defend his illegal actions before a jury. I could almost see "Fuck she's here" in a balloon above his head.

A brief word about the 'courthouse'. The courthouse recently moved from an old, dilapidated building built in the 1800's in the town square to a new, more modern facility a few blocks away. This new facility is an old Russell Manufacturing building which was donated by Russell when they moved their HQ to Atlanta. Alexander City was built by Russell Mills, who, up until their move and major downsizing, employed probably 80% of the working people in Alexander City. Now that Russell is gone many of it's former employees are unemployed. When poverty comes to town we all know crime rises. How very telling it is that Russell would donate a building for a Court House which will now prosecute many of the people out of work because of Russell's move. That says a great deal about our society to me.

When I made it to the courtroom doors they were guarded by some suit who asked me if I was a juror. I told him no that I am a defendant. He said, "Go down the hall and through those glass doors to the D.A.'s office." I looked at him for a minute and told him again that I am a defendant and that the state is prosecuting me. I'm thinking in my head, "If I were to walk into Damon's office after the non-exchange in the hall he might scream." He still insisted that I go to the DA's office. So, I said, "The DA is PROSECUTING a case against me and I think it is probably a really bad idea for me to go busting into his office. Where am I supposed to wait." Well that finally got through to him and he sent me to the small courtroom where all of the other brave folks who have demanded jury trials were waiting. I hope he didn't send any murder defendants into the DA's office where the victims family's were waiting. That would be like Daniel walking into the Lion's Den. These people really need to get their shit together before someone gets hurt.

There were about 30 of us misfits sitting in the Small Courtroom. It was an absolute scream. I could not believe they would leave all of us 'criminals' unsupervised and in each others company. I think today was the first time I have ever seen more white defendants than black defendants.

One of the people in the room was a witness for a defendant. He was an old feller, a big old feller, with a SHAW'S GUNSTOCKS cap on. And he is one of the funniest people I have ever come across. This guy was like a local Jerry Clower and he picked on everyone who came through the door. At one point some man who looked like he might have been carved out of wood and was obviously an employee of the DA's office poked his head in and asked for someone. As soon as his head was out the door, but with the door still very much open and him within earshot PaPaw let fly with "Hell, he had all the personality of a damn door knob didn't he?" The whole room cracked up. A few times when people were called out PaPaw would holler, "If they try to get you on a horse don't do it!" PaPaw said he didn't get to eat before leaving the house this morning and asked was anybody game for a biscuit run. This guy should consider cutting an album. He lightened the tension in the atmosphere so much. He was incredible.

A few minutes later a group of black people walked in. There were three or four black guys sitting behind me already. One of the new arrivals had a long Gerry curl all combed out, sporting about 10 gold teeth and was covered in gold rings and necklaces. One of the brother's behind me hollered out, "Damn! Dare go James Brown" and everybody lost it again....even the James Brown look-a-like. I can't imagine what the 'authorities' in the hallway must have been thinking about all the noise we were making. I know we didn't sound a bit scared or cowed because we were in court.

All in all we were all stuck in that little room for about three hours before someone came and told us we could leave but to be back on Thursday at 9 a.m.
So, unless the DA's office suddenly decides that they really don't want to take this case to trial I will be back in court yet again on Thursday at 9 a.m.

I have not spoken with my attorney today. I left him a message after I left the court house. I'll update this post if there is anything to update after I talk with him later today.

Why Loretta Nall is Right and the State of Alabama is Wrong

UPDATE: I go back to court this morning. I don't really expect a great deal to happen. My attorney says he expects the judge to call all witnesses before him and to tell us to be in touch with our attorney's about the next date.

It is possible that my attorney will get to argue his motion today, but not likely. There is a murder case starting today, then my attorney has a case to argue which he said will take two or three days and then we will get to my case. I don't expect any action until next week. Of course, if the witnesses for the prosecution do not show up again today then we will request a dismissal of the charges due to witnesses not showing up...again.

I'll post an update when it is all said and done.

I go back to court on Monday for the same case that has been dragging on for 5 years. In light of that I have decided to re-read the transcript from the original district court trial and pick apart the basis for the warrant line by line.

A word of advice to ANYONE who ever makes the decision to take a case to trial at the district level...HIRE A COURT REPORTER!!
Court reporters are not provided at district level/bench trials so, if you don't hire one then there is no written record of what happened in court. I am so glad that I spent the extra money for the court reporter in this case. No one would ever believe me if I were telling this story without documentation.

Basic Questions of How the warrant was obtained:

How did a police officer come to question my then five-year-old daughter at school?

From the transcript:

Cross Examination of School Resource Officer Eric McCain by Defense Attorney Wilson Myers: Officer Eric McCain's testimony is in italics

15 CROSS EXAMINATION
16
17 BY MR. MYERS:
18 Q OFFICER MCCAIN, MY NAME IS WILSON MYERS. I
19 SPEAK ON BEHALF OF LORETTA NALL. WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL
20 ME THE BASIS OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT THAT YOU ASKED THE
21 COURT TO SIGN?
22 A THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON MS. NALL'S
23 DAUGHTER.
0008
1 Q AND BY DAUGHTER, DO YOU MEAN HER
2 FIVE-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AT THE TIME?
3 A THAT'S CORRECT.
4 Q AND DO YOU RECALL HER NAME?
5 A BELLE.
6 Q BELLE. AND WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO BELLE?
7 A I HAVE TO LOOK.
8 Q NOW, I'M SORRY, IT APPEARS YOU'RE REFERRING
9 TO SOME NOTES. WHAT KIND OF NOTES ARE YOU REFERRING TO
10 AT THIS TIME?
11 A THESE ARE THE NOTES THAT MS. NALL WROTE TO
12 THE SCHOOL -- (What is a cop doing with notes I wrote to the school?)
13 Q ALL RIGHT.
14 A -- IN REFERENCE TO HER CHILD.
15 Q OKAY. AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE
16 CHILD?
17 A NO.
18 Q OKAY. WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO THE CHILD?
19 A THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
20 Q ALL RIGHT.
21 A ON 11/13/02.
22 Q PLEASE TELL ME THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT
23 CONVERSATION. WHERE WAS IT?

0009
1 A IT WAS AT HORSESHOE BEND SCHOOL.
2 Q AND WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS IT?
3 A I'M NOT CERTAIN ON THE TIME OF DAY.
4 Q WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE COURT WHAT HAPPENED
5 AT THAT TIME DURING THAT CONVERSATION?
6 A MRS. NALL'S DAUGHTER HAD TOLD ME THAT THERE
7 WAS SOME LEAVES THAT SHE COULDN'T BRING TO SCHOOL
8 BECAUSE HER MOM HAD SAID THAT THEY WERE ILLEGAL.
9 Q ALL RIGHT. SO SHE USED THE WORD ILLEGAL?
10 A YES.
11 Q AND THIS IS A FIVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL?
12 A YES.
13 Q AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU HAPPENED TO COME TO
14 THE SCHOOL TO SPEAK WITH HER?
15 A I WENT AND CHECKED ON ALL THE KIDS AT THE 16 SCHOOL.17 Q IN WHAT CAPACITY, PLEASE, SIR?
18 A ANY KIND OF PROBLEMS. THEY WERE FREE TO COME
19 TO ME AT ANY TIME IF THEY WERE HAVING A PROBLEM.
20 Q OKAY. SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT BELLE CAME
21 TO YOU ABOUT THIS?
22 A NO, I WENT TO HER.
23 Q YOU WENT TO HER?

0010
1 A YES.
2 Q AND WHAT CAUSED YOU TO GO TO HER?
3 A HER TEACHER HAD CAME TO ME.
4 Q AND WHAT WAS HER TEACHER'S NAME?
5 A MS. SHAW.
6 Q AND HOW LONG BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO BELLE DID
7 MS. SHAW SPEAK TO YOU?
8 A ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A TIME LIMIT?
9 Q APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR, TWO HOURS, TWO DAYS,
10 FOUR DAYS, HOW LONG?
11 A WITHIN, SAY, THIRTY MINUTES.
12 Q SO MS. SHAW CAME TO YOU, AND THEN THIRTY
13 MINUTES LATER YOU SPOKE WITH BELLE?
14 A YES.
15 Q AND DID YOU SPEAK TO BELLE IN HER CLASSROOM
16 OR IN THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE? WHERE DID YOU SPEAK TO
17 HER AT?
18 A MORE IN THE HALLWAY.
19 Q WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND?
20 A NO, NOT THAT I KNOW.
21 Q DID YOU TELL BELLE WHY YOU WANTED TO TALK TO
22 HER?
23 A I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I TOLD HER WHY I WANTED

0011
1 TO TALK TO HER.
2 Q WERE HER PARENTS PRESENT WHEN YOU WERE
3 TALKING TO HER?
4 A NO, THEY WEREN'T.
5 Q WAS THERE ANY OTHER ADULT PRESENT WHEN YOU
6 WERE TALKING TO HER?
7 A MS. SHAW.
8 Q SO MS. SHAW WAS STANDING THERE WITH YOU AS
9 YOU WERE TALKING TO BELLE; IS THAT RIGHT?
10 A YES.
11 Q DID MS. SHAW PARTICIPATE IN THE CONVERSATION?
12 A NO.
13 Q SO WHILE MS. SHAW WAS STANDING THERE, IF
14 BELLE SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, MS.
15 SHAW WOULD SAY, YES, YOU DO, BELLE; REMEMBER WHAT YOU
16 TOLD ME?
17 A NO. I DON'T REMEMBER HER SAYING ANYTHING.
18 Q THIS WAS OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY?
19 A IT WAS.
20 Q AND IT WAS RIGHT OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM?
21 A YES.
22 Q AND MS. SHAW BROUGHT BELLE OUT TO YOU; IS
23 THAT RIGHT?

0012
1 A I DON'T RECALL IF SHE WENT IN AND GOT HER, OR
2 IF I WENT IN AND TALKED WITH HER, -OR TOLD HER TO COME
3 OUTSIDE, AWAY FROM EVERYBODY ELSE. I DON'T REMEMBER AT
4 THE TIME. I JUST REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION OUTSIDE.
5 Q SO IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY, THEN, THAT YOUR
6 CONVERSATION WITH BELLE, NOT WITH THE TEACHER, WAS THE
7 BASIS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT?
8 A BOTH.
9 Q BOTH. OKAY. SO YOU DID TALK TO THE TEACHER
10 AS WELL?
11 A I DID.
12 Q AND THE SEARCH WARRANT, I BELIEVE, SAYS THAT
13 BASED ON A CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH MS. SHAW, YOU
14 BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE MARIJUANA PLANTS AT BELLE'S
15 MOTHER'S HOUSE; IS THAT RIGHT?
16 A I TALKED WITH HER. AND IT WAS BASED ON THAT
17 ALSO.
18 BY MR. MYERS: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SEE THE
19 SEARCH WARRANT, PLEASE, SIR?
20 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) NOW, YOU SAY IN THE SEARCH
21 WARRANT, IN THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU SIGNED -- THAT
22 IS YOUR SIGNATURE, ISN'T IT?
23 A YES.

0013
1 Q THAT'S THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, ISN'T IT?
2 A YES.
3 Q THERE WAS A CLASS PROJECT THAT DAY AT THE
4 SCHOOL THAT INVOLVED BRINGING LEAVES FROM TYPES OF
5 TREES AND PLANTS; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
6 A YES.
7 Q NOW, I SEE YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE SEARCH
8 WARRANT. DO YOU HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF
9 THIS EVENT EXCEPT BY REFERRING TO YOUR NOTES?
10 A NO.
11 Q AND THE SEARCH WARRANT SAYS THE STUDENT TOLD
12 HER TEACHER THAT SHE HAD SOME LEAVES FROM SOME PLANTS
13 SHE WANTED TO BRING, BUT HER MOTHER TOLD HER THAT THEY
14 WERE ILLEGAL, AND SHE COULDN'T BRING THEM TO SCHOOL;
15 ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU SWORE TO?
16 A YES.
17 Q AND THEN YOU WENT ON TO DESCRIBE WHERE THE
18 STUDENT LIVES AND WHO THE STUDENT IS AND THE FACT THAT
19 THE STUDENT DESCRIBED THE LEAVES AS BRIGHT GREEN. SHE
20 STATED THAT HER MOTHER HAD TOLD HER THE PLANTS WERE
21 ILLEGAL. NOW, ALL OF THIS IS AS A RESULT OF THE
22 STUDENT TOLD HER TEACHER; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
23 A YES.

So, the interrogation of my child was brought about by Bell going up to the cop and just telling him a bunch of made up stuff.....No....wait...Bell went to the teacher....no wait the teacher went to the cop with secondhand information based on what Bell suppossedly said during a make-believe leaf project that the cop has no independent recollection of without referring to his notes. Uh huh.


The Use of the LTE as a basis for the warrant:

10 Q THE OTHER BASIS OF YOUR SEARCH WARRANT -- THE
11 GROUNDS FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN
12 BY MS. NALL TO A NEWSPAPER; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
13 A REPEAT YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE, SIR.
14 Q THE SECOND GROUND THAT YOU USED TO GET THE
15 SEARCH WARRANT WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN A NEWSPAPER BY
16 MS. NALL; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
17 A THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY
18 LORETTA NALL.
19 Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU RECALL, I THINK, HAVING
20 A CONVERSATION WITH ME BEFORE COURT STARTED, DON'T YOU?
21 A YES.
22 Q AND I ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T I?
23 A YES.

0021
1 Q AND YOU SAID THAT THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN
2 AFTER YOU GOT THE SEARCH WARRANT; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
3 A I THINK IT WAS.
4 Q ALL RIGHT. SO THE ARTICLE THAT YOU'RE
5 REFERRING TO IN THIS HEARING MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING
6 WRITTEN BEFORE THIS INCIDENT; IS THAT RIGHT?
7 A MS. NALL HAS WRITTEN SEVERAL ARTICLES, TO MY
8 KNOWLEDGE.
9 Q ALL RIGHT. WHICH SPECIFIC ARTICLE WERE YOU
10 REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SWORE OUT THE AFFIDAVIT -- THAT
11 YOU BASED THE AFFIDAVIT ON?
12 A I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE SO
13 MANY.
14 Q ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU SAID ON HERE: PLEASE
15 SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
16 A YES.
17 Q OKAY. SO WAS IT AN ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN
18 BY MS. NALL THAT YOU ATTACHED TO THE SEARCH WARRANT?
19 A I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY NOTES.
20 Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE REASON I'M CONFUSED
21 ABOUT THIS IS --
22 BY MR. LEWIS: OBJECTION TO HIM BEING
23 CONFUSED.

0022
1 BY MR. MYERS: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S
2 PRETTY OBVIOUS I CAN BE CONFUSED.
3 THE COURT: I HAVEN'T HEARD THE WHOLE
4 QUESTION YET.
5 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
6 IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, WHICH WAS SIGNED AND SWORN
7 TO ON THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, IT LOOKS LIKE AT
8 TWELVE-THIRTY P.M. -- THAT'S THE DAY YOU SIGNED THIS,
9 RIGHT?
10 A THAT WAS THE DAY THAT IT WAS SIGNED BY THE
11 JUDGE.
12 Q ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU TESTIFIED, I THINK, THAT
13 THIS CONVERSATION WITH BELLE OCCURRED ON THE 13TH OF
14 NOVEMBER, DIDN'T YOU, THE SAME DAY THE SEARCH WARRANT
15 AND AFFIDAVIT WERE PREPARED?
16 A YES.
17 Q AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT WAS LATE IN THE
18 MORNING WHEN YOU AND BELLE HAD THE CONVERSATION?
19 BY MR. LEWIS: OBJECTION. I BELIEVE HE
20 TESTIFIED HE WASN'T SURE WHEN IT WAS.
21 THE COURT: IF HE KNOWS, HE CAN ANSWER.
22 THE WITNESS: IT WAS SOMETIME BETWEEN SCHOOL
23 AND, SAY, LUNCH.

0023
1 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) SO SOMETIME BETWEEN EIGHT
2 AND TWELVE?
3 A YES.
4 Q BUT IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT,
5 WHICH WAS ISSUED AT TWELVE-THIRTY P.M. ON THE SAME DAY
6 ALL THIS HAPPENED, YOU STATED UPON FURTHER
7 INVESTIGATION IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. WHO
8 BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION; DO YOU RECALL?
9 A I DON'T RECALL.
10 Q OKAY. AND, AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF
11 EXHIBIT A WITH YOU, DO YOU?
12 A I DIDN'T SEE IT IN HERE.
13 BY MR. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IT WOULD BE PART
14 OF THE COURT RECORD. IT SHOULD BE IN THE FILE.
15 NUMEROUS ATTORNEYS HAVE TRAIPSED THROUGH HERE AND HAVE
16 TAKEN IT WITH THEM.
17 BY MR. MYERS: AND I APPRECIATE THE NUMBER OF
18 ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE HANDLED THIS CASE BEFORE ME. I CAN
19 ASSURE THE COURT I HAVEN'T TAKEN THEM.
20 THE COURT: MR. MYERS, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK
21 FOR SOMETHING, I'LL --
22 BY MR. MYERS: I'VE LOOKED AT IT, JUDGE. I
23 CAN'T FIND IT.

0024
1 THE COURT: I MEAN, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THERE.
2 THAT'S THE REASON I'M ASKING.
3 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) YES, SIR.
4 BUT, IN FACT, YOUR SEARCH WARRANT DID CONTAIN
5 EXHIBIT A, DIDN'T IT?
6 A IF IT WAS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT.
7 Q I MEAN, YOU SWORE TO IT?
8 A SURE.
9 Q SO IT HAD TO BE HERE. MAYBE ONE OF THOSE
10 OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT'S TRAIPSED THROUGH THE FILE MAY
11 HAVE DONE SOMETHING WITH IT.
12 A SURE.
13 Q ALL RIGHT. SO AN ARTICLE WRITTEN IN A
14 NEWSPAPER THAT SOMEBODY ELSE TOLD YOU ABOUT WAS THE
15 BASIS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT?
16 A IT WENT ALONG WITH THE OTHER THAT I HAD.
17 Q ALL RIGHT. HAD YOU BEEN COLLECTING
18 INFORMATION ON MS. NALL BEFORE THIS DATE?
19 A NO.
20 Q HAD ANYBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, THAT YOU KNOW
21 OF, BEEN COLLECTING INFORMATION ON MS. NALL?
22 A NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
23 Q WERE YOU AWARE AT THIS TIME THAT MS. NALL WAS

0025
1 AN ADVOCATE OF THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA?
2 A NO, I DIDN'T.
3 Q YOU DID NOT?
4 A I DID NOT.
5 Q OKAY. SO ON THIS DATE, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY
6 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HER ADVOCACY OR PUBLIC STATUTE -- OR
7 PUBLIC POSITION ON MARIJUANA?
8 A I HAD NO IDEA.

So, the second basis for the warrant is this letter, which the cop tried to claim only became known to him AFTER he got the warrant. Well then how could he have used it IN THE FUCKING WARRANT if he didn't know about it until after? His testimony was nothing short or PERJURY. I saw the original affidavit, which listed the letter as the first probable cause, the 'confidential complaints' as the second probable cause and the results of interrogating my daughter as the third probable cause. Our side was NEVER given a copy of that affidavit and I only got to see it when my then attorney took it from Damon Lewis's folder when Damon was in the judges chambers. The copy machine at the court house was broken that day, so we were not able to make a copy of it. Nine months later when I began acting as my own counsel I was given a copy of an affidavit that was nothing like the one I saw in court. It had my daughter listed first, the letter second and the 'confidential complaints' listed last.
So, the cop lied about when he knew about the letter to the editor, conveniently doesn't recall who brought the letter to his attention, the letter is super conveniently missing from the prosecutions evidence exhibit and my former attorneys get blamed for the failure of the prosecution to keep up with evidence. Hey...sounds good enough for a warrant to me.

The "Confidential Informant" and Narcotics Complaints claim

9 Q THE THIRD BASIS OF YOUR SEARCH WARRANT IS
10 THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED, AS IT SAYS HERE, CONFIDENTIAL
11 COMPLAINTS REGARDING NARCOTICS. DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF
12 THOSE CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS THAT WERE MADE THE BASIS
13 OF THE SEARCH WARRANT?
14 BY MR. LEWIS: JUDGE, WE WOULD OBJECT TO
15 ANYTHING BASED ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
16 BY MR. MYERS: YOUR HONOR, I WAS SIMPLY GOING
17 TO ASK THAT THE OFFICER PRODUCE THE LIST FOR THE
18 COURT'S IN-CAMERA REVIEW --
19 BY MR. LEWIS: NO, SIR, WE OBJECT.
20 BY MR. MYERS: -- FOR A RELIABILITY
21 DETERMINATION.
22 THE COURT: ANYBODY GOT A COPY OF THE SEARCH
23 WARRANT? MR. MYERS HAS MINE.

0026
1 BY MR. MYERS: OH, I'M SORRY, JUDGE.
2 THE COURT: I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. I MEAN,
3 YOU'RE USING IT.
4 MR. MYERS: I'VE GOT A COPY.
5 THE COURT: ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, MR.
6 MYERS.
7 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) YES, SIR.
8 YOU STATED UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED
9 NUMEROUS CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS CONCERNING NARCOTICS
10 AT THE NALL RESIDENCE. YOU SWORE TO THAT, DIDN'T YOU?
11 A I HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM CONCERNED
12 CITIZENS.
13 Q SO THEY WEREN'T CONSIDERED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL
14 COMPLAINTS?
15 A THEY WERE.
16 Q ALL RIGHT.
17 A THEY WERE CONFIDENTIAL.
18 Q DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT
19 WERE MADE?
20 A I DO NOT.
21 BY MR. LEWIS: WE OBJECT TO HIM PRODUCING HIS
22 LIST OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS.
23 THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER

0027
1 THE QUESTION. YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
2 BY MR. MYERS: THANK YOU.
3 THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A LIST?
4 THE WITNESS: NO, I DO NOT.
5 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) SO IF THE COURT WANTED YOU
6 TO PRODUCE SUCH A LIST, YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT, DID YOU?
7 A NO.
8 Q AND IT WAS THESE THREE GROUNDS THAT YOU BASED
9 YOUR AFFIDAVIT ON: ONE WAS A STATEMENT BY A
10 FIVE-YEAR-OLD, RIGHT?
11 A CORRECT.
12 Q AND, OF COURSE, HER TEACHER, SHE ALSO TOLD
13 YOU --
14 A CORRECT.
15 Q -- WHAT THE FIVE-YEAR-OLD SAID, A NEWSPAPER
16 ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN ADVOCATING THE LEGALIZATION OF
17 MARIJUANA?
18 A YES.
19 Q ALL RIGHT. ALTHOUGH YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT
20 SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU?
21 A I DON'T REMEMBER IT.
22 Q ALL RIGHT. AND THE THIRD THING WAS A LIST OF
23 CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS THAT YOU DON'T RECALL WHO THOSE

0028
1 WERE OR WHAT THOSE WERE ABOUT?
2 BY MR. LEWIS: THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. HE
3 DIDN'T SAY HE DIDN'T RECALL WHO THOSE WERE. THAT'S A
4 MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS.
5 THE COURT: REPHRASE.
6 Q (BY MR. MYERS:) AND CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINTS
7 BY CITIZENS ABOUT NARCOTIC USAGE IN THE HOUSE; IS THAT
8 CORRECT?
9 A YES.
10 BY MR. MYERS: THAT'S ALL OF THIS WITNESS.

So, the cop is lying again. Remember during testimony about the letter to the editor Eric McCain testified:

Q ALL RIGHT. HAD YOU BEEN COLLECTING
18 INFORMATION ON MS. NALL BEFORE THIS DATE?
19 A NO.
20 Q HAD ANYBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, THAT YOU KNOW
21 OF, BEEN COLLECTING INFORMATION ON MS. NALL?
22 A NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

So, if no one, including Eric McCain, had been collecting information on me prior to that date, then how could there have been confidential complaints from concerned citizens about possible 'narcotics use' in my home?

Lies. Damn Lies...Every word out of their mouths is a lie.

The judge in this particular trial ruled against me, as you all know. I got him censured, so, I guess I won that particular battle in the end. You can read the the complaint I filed here
page 2 of complaint
Read Judge Taylor's Comments to the Media
Read the letter from the Judicial Inquiry Commission about their decision.