Concurrent and Continuing Demands
and Discovery Demands
demand a withdrawal of my plea; it
was given without counsel. My public
defender is not counsel; she is representation.
I do not need somebody to take my
place. I need assistance - effective
assistance - just like the 6th
demand that the court devise a telephone
or other means to permit my out of
state counsel to speak for me at every
demand all discovery before I make
demand to see the affidavit in support
of the warrant.
demand a prompt (within 5 working
days) transcript of each hearing.
demand a WordPerfect version of every
transcript. If you don’t have WordPerfect
then html, WordPerfect, txt, rtf,
or editable pdf format is acceptable.
demand that no business on my case
be transacted in chambers.
demand a copy of all discoverable
documents including police reports
and all files regarding me immediately.
demand a copy of the affidavit and
application for the warrant.
demand a certified copy of the warrant.
waive no rights.
demand a court reporter whenever I
am in court.
cannot pay the costs of this litigation.
demand a trial at a fair pace.
other Authorities of Law cited herein:
Argersinger v Hamlin
(1972) 32 L Ed 2nd
407 US 25, 92 S Ct 2006. Cannot put
a guy in jail if you don’t give him
a right to a jury trial. Cited in
12 scholarly motor vehicle treatises
including:48 ALR 4th 367,
71 ALR 3rd 562, 53 ALR
3rd 1002, 93 ALR 2nd
747, 26 ALR Fed 218, 103 L Ed 2nd
1000, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017,
98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 98 L
Ed 2nd 1115, 65 L Ed 2nd
1219, 61 L Ed 2nd 1018,
18 L Ed 2nd 1420.
Bell v Burson
(1971) 402 US 535, 29 L Ed 2d 90,
91 S Ct 1586,
Boyd v. United States,
116 U.S. 616, 635 "It may be
that it is the obnoxious thing in
its mildest and least repulsive form;
but illegitimate and unconstitutional
practices get their first footing
in that way, namely, by silent approaches
and slight deviations from legal modes
of procedure. This can only be obviated
by adhering to the rule that constitutional
provisions for the security of person
and property should be liberally construed.
Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373
U.S. 83. 1
Griffin v Illinois
1 100 L Ed 891,
351 US 12, 79 S Ct 585, 55 ALR2d 1055
holds that everybody is entitled to
Due Process at every stage
of the proceeding - and a free
M.L.B. v. S.L.J.
(1996) 519 U.S. 102. In important
civil cases a state may not block
a defendant's right to appeal just
because that defendant is poor. The
state must provide a transcript at
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
1 384 U.S. 436,
86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694,
10 ALR 3rd
974 and 59 other ALR treatises cited
in the 1992 edition of Lawyers’s Edition
Quick Case Table regarding Miranda.
Olech v Village of Willowbrook
(1998) 160 F.3d 386 (7th Cir.1998
Overton v Ohio (2001)
151 L. Ed. 2d 317 (2001) 1
Primus, In Re
(1978) 56 L Ed 2nd , 436
US 412, 98 S Ct 1893. Ms. Primus violated
the state bar’s proscription of her
right to free speech. She talked with
those pesky people who were injured
by a corporation. The Supreme Court
backed up the first amendment here!
Schneckloth v Bustamonte(1973)
412 US 218, 36 L Ed 2d 854, 93 S Ct
2041. Even the most subtle coercion
Weeks v. U. S. (1914)
1 232 US 383, 58
L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341. The Exclusionary
Rule. Invented by the Supreme Court
in Weeks v. U. S. (1914), this rule
of evidence bans from trial information
that directly or indirectly stems
from illegal police investigation.
Applied to the states during the Due
Process Revolution. The Court developed
the rule to deter police from violating
the Fourth Amendment. In the U. S.
neither administrative controls nor
civil suits had much impact on police
malpractice. While the U. S. has been
a pioneer in developing the exclusionary
rule, other countries have adopted
the reform, particularly when faced
with major problems of political legitimacy.
In 1982 when Canada made the rule
part of its new Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. Faced with a series
of police abuses of power in confronting
the Northern Ireland civil war and
recent waves of non-white immigrants,
Britain enacted in 1984 the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act, which substantially
broadened its exclusionary rule. Exigent
circumstances Situations that require
immediate intervention. The exclusionary
rule does not apply when police officers
discover evidence while responding
to emergencies. For example, if there
is a fire in your dorm room or someone
yelling "Help! Police!"
a police officer may enter and if
upon entry any evidence is in plain
view it will be admissible without
a search warrant. This exception to
the exclusionary rule exists to prevent
officers from having to choose between
responding to emergencies or giving
up the possibility of discovering
evidence of a crime.
Regulations, City Ordinances cited
New York Penal code section
170.10 Forgery in the second degree:170.10
Forgery in the second degree. A person
is guilty of forgery in the second
degree when, with intent to defraud,
deceive or injure another, he falsely
makes, completes or alters a written
instrument which is or purports to
be, or which is calculated to become
or to represent if completed: 1. A
deed, will, codicil, contract, assignment,
commercial instrument, credit card,
as that term is defined in subdivision
seven of section 155.00, or other
instrument which does or may evidence,
create, transfer, terminate or otherwise
affect a legal right, interest, obligation
or status; or 2. A public record,
or an instrument filed or required
or authorized by law to be filed in
or with a public office or public
servant; or 3. A written instrument
officially issued or created by a
public office, public servant or governmental
instrumentality; or 4. Part of an
issue of tokens, public transportation
transfers, certificates or other articles
manufactured and designed for use
as symbols of value usable in place
of money for the purchase of property
or services; or 5. A prescription
of a duly licensed physician or other
person authorized to issue the same
for any drug or any instrument or
device used in the taking or administering
of drugs for which a prescription
is required by law. Forgery in the
second degree is a class D felony.
New York Penal code section
190.25 Criminal impersonation in the
second degree. 190.25 Criminal impersonation
in the second degree. A person is
guilty of criminal impersonation in
the second degree when he: 1. Impersonates
another and does an act in such assumed
character with intent to obtain a
benefit or to injure or defraud another;
or 2. Pretends to be a representative
of some person or organization and
does an act in such pretended capacity
with intent to obtain a benefit or
to injure or defraud another; or 3.
(a) Pretends to be a public servant,
or wears or displays without authority
any uniform, badge, insignia or facsimile
thereof by which such public servant
is lawfully distinguished, or falsely
expresses by his words or actions
that he is a public servant or is
acting with approval or authority
of a public agency or department;
and (b) so acts with intent to induce
another to submit to such pretended
official authority, to solicit funds
or to otherwise cause another to act
in reliance upon that pretense. Criminal
impersonation in the second degree
is a class A misdemeanor. 1
Treatises Cited herein:
32 scholarly treatises regarding
the right to counsel. They all cite
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
9 L Ed 2nd 799, 372 US
335, 83 S Ct 792, 93 ALR 2nd
733, subject of 32 scholarly annotations
and a major motion picture
starring Henry Fonda. The annotations
are: 65 ALR 4th 183, 47
ALR 4th 1069, 79 ALR 3rd
1025, 73 ALR 3rd 725, 71
ALR 3rd 562, 64 ALR 3rd
1291, 36 ALR 3rd 751, 36
ALR 3rd 1403, 34 ALR 3rd
470, 34 Alr3rd 1256, 33 ALR 3rd
229, 18 ALR 3rd 1074, 10
ALR 3rd 1371, 5 ALR 3rd
1269, 5 ALR 3rd 1360, 93
ALR 2nd 747, 36 ALR Fed
594, 26 ALR Fed 218, 102 L Ed 1049,
101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L
Ed 2nd 1074, 83 L Ed 2nd
1112, 65 L ed 2nd 1219,
33 L Ed end 865, 33 L Ed 2nd
932, 31 L Ed 2nd 921, 25
L Ed 2nd 1025, 18 L Ed
2nd 1388, 18 L Ed 2nd
1420, 14 L ed 2nd 992,
12 L Ed 2nd 1340, 9 L Ed
ALR 4th 367, 71
ALR 3rd 562, 53 ALR 3rd
1002, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 26
ALR Fed 218, 103 L Ed 2nd
1000, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017,
98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 98 L
Ed 2nd 1115, 65 L Ed 2nd
1219, 61 L Ed 2nd 1018,
18 L Ed 2nd 1420. They
all cite Argersinger v Hamlin
(1972) 32 L Ed 2nd
407 US 25, 92 S Ct 2006. 1
Brief #3789: First Amendment Rights
of Lawyers. State Bar Acts are unconstitutional.
Explains over breadth and lists many
1st amendment cases. Found
Magna Charta, and Ancient sources
of law cited herein:
1st amendment guarantees
the right to associate and petition
association protected under
the 1st amendment
Due Process is defined as
including notice and meaningful opportunity
to be heard. 1
Equal protection which is
a concept that is both civil and criminal
U.S. Constitution. 4th
Amendment: The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
Schedule of Action, Motions, and Hearings
August 4th Monday Proposed
Date of service of this Motion to
August 7th 4 pm.
for Dismissal and Notification to
me of dismissal.
August 8th Filing
of Civil Rights complaint.
August 26th Tuesday Hearing
on the Suppression motion.
August 28th Thursday Hearing
July 7 2004. Proposed
Week for Jury Trial. 5 day estimate.
of Actor William McNamara of Hollywood
William McNamara, declare the following
under penalty of perjury: I am a percipient
witness to the following except as
indicated herein. I am competent to
testify. If called I will testify
am one of the Private People in the
New York Republic, one of The united
states of America, a Union of republic
am a student of the law. I have witnessed
first hand the corruption of the uneducated
police and the educated judges and
lawyers. I am aware of the pathetic
injustice perpetrated by the low level
“justice” courts of mass production.
I belong to The Patriot Network. I
am backed by a bevy of experienced
civil rights lawyers. The internet
is exposing the court system to close
scrutiny. Please visit my webpage
for further information at
. I am engaged with the making of
a documentary regarding local and
state courts and the justice system
in America of today. My film is based
on my personal investigation and the
freshly released report by the ABA,
"Justice in Jeopardy” which is
linked to my website.
am informed of procedural mistakes
and deprivations of Phyllis’s constitutional
rights, as set forth in her statement
of the case and elsewhere.
and her family, upon advice of counsel,
are recording and documenting the
events of this case as best they can.
Their goal is to end this case. Failing
that they have procured the assistance
of experienced civil rights lawyers
from New York and California to write
a civil rights complaint. They have
the capability to file in federal
court as soon as Friday 8 August.
far the police, the prosecutor, the
judge and or magistrate have failed,
neglected or refused to provide Phyllis
signed affidavit of a victim,
and effective assistance of counsel.
Christine Coho, the public defender,
appears overworked. At the faux arraignment
the public defender relayed a deal
form the prosecutor. She had not yet
interviewed Phyllis. I am informed
that this is standard procedure. The
public defenders throughout the country
generally meet the client in court
- and usually they make a plea then.
They thereby preclude effective assistance
in a pre-plea motion such as a demurrer
by whatever name it is known.
could not analyze the offer due to
the prosecution’s failure to provide
discovery documents. More specifically
paperwork (Phyllis’s Mom provided
the charging instruments);
copy of any warrants.
appears that this is a victimless
crime, or more specifically, an aggressive
malicious act of an uneducated vindictive
police officer, James Kilfoyle.
__________________ told Phyllis in
my presence that the record (police
report, witness list, affidavit of
the victim, warrant, transcript of
either probable cause or application
for warrant) at the time of arraignment
on July 28th was not available.
In retrospect I offer the following
conjecture: these items were not available
because they did not then exist. Subsequently
the complaint signed on 22 July by
Kilfoyle was produced. If it was signed
on 22 July then it should have been
available on 28 July a week later
- unless it was back dated. I further
speculate that the police will draw
up a warrant and pre-date it as they
did in the case of Attorney Douglas
Palaschak who figured it out - and
many other people who have not figure
observed that Phyllis could not possibly
make an effective plea.
know from my discussion with Attorney
Douglas Palaschak that as a general
rule, a lawyer should review all documents
before entering a plea. I know that
standard practice is to continue the
arraignment to give the lawyer time
to evaluate the plea - and collect
money from the defendant.
is obvious to me that there is no
person to be impersonated here. I
am informed that this is a basis for
a this demurrer.
have personally observed numerous
due process violations in this case.
have been informed that the following
items of evidence were obtained illegally
and must be suppressed:
smoking gun, the declaration of Phyllis.
The was the product of coercion in
a custodial interrogation of somebody
who was not even a suspect.
evidence flowing from this egregious
violation of Phyllis’s rights and
am informed that Jackie Miller is
the sister of the defendant and that
Jackie Miller would want
her sister to use her name if it would
help the cause. Nobody asked Jackie
Miller if she wants to prosecute.
This is merely vindictive action of
the police that has crossed the line
and has become a crime.
investigation shows that James Kilfoyle
committed perjury on the bogus charging
instrument by stating that defendant
intended to benefit by avoiding arrest
on a warrant - while failing to mention
that in fact there was no warrant.
Defendant could not therefore have
benefited. Her intent is irrelevant;
Phyllis had a right to remain silent.
She attempted to exercise that right
as best she could in the face of armed
police who had already demonstrated
that they could lewdly feel her up
was deprived of her right to counsel
at her bail hearing.
failure was excessive causing her
to suffer 3 days incarceration on
this bogus and malicious false arrest.
was never given a Miranda warning.
was never shown an actual warrant
on 28 July 2003. Witness ______________
can attest to that. This raises the
specter of kidnaping pursuant to 18
USC 1201. See Overton v Ohio
(2001) 151 L. Ed. 2nd
317 for definition of warrant.
seems to be no record of the court
proceedings so far.
was an illegal search and seizure
on July 15th at 12:15 a.m.
alongside and road. They seized Phyllis’s
car and her person without probable
cause - or even any suspicion that
Phyllis had committed any crime. They
had no right to even question her;
she had spousal privilege.
was no warrant directing the officers
to detain and interrogate Phyllis
Burfeindt . At the time of detainment
on July 15, 2003 officers failed to
Mirandize Phyllis Burfeindt according
to James Kilfoyle’s sworn statement.
the time that the police solicited
that written statement from defendant
they were obligated to inform her
that she was the focus of a criminal
investigation and that she had a right
to remain silent. They should have
advised her of her right to counsel
who would have advised Phyllis of
her spousal privilege. Thereafter
in a vindictive effort to “get Phyllis”
Kilfoyle, the officer who lewdly felt
up Phyllis using the pretext of a
pat down for weapons, and who thereafter
refused to provide a police escort
back home, preferring to have Phyllis
sleep on the sofa hear his isolate
office, this same Kilfoyle concocted
this bogus forgery charge without
running it past a lawyer. Police “out
to get” somebody triggers damages
under section 1983. See Olech
v Village of Willowbrook (1998)
160 F.3d 386 (7th Cir.1998) .
July 15, 2003 Office Kilfoyle and
his conspirators acted outside of
his legal jurisdiction and obtained
a statement under false color of law.
At the time of the illegal search
and seizure of Phyllis Burfeindt on
July 15, 2003 she was a passenger
in her own car which was driven safely
and legally. There was no basis for
situation in this case triggers remedies
under Brady v. Maryland (1963)
373 U.S. 83. See
for the new 2002 Los Angeles Brady
policy. (In California a Brady
motion is sometimes called a “Pitchess”
motion.) We want to know what kind
of guy Kilfoyle is - and whether he
has felt up other attractive witnesses
and taken their cars.
took Phyllis's personal property,
dignity, signature, and statement
under threat and intimidation under
false color of law thereby abusing
the power of his office for his own
personal lascivious satisfaction.
William McNamara. 31 July 2003
of Attorney Douglas Palaschak regarding
traffic and minor cases.
Douglas Palaschak, declare the following
under penalty of perjury: I am a lawyer
with 18 years of experience. I have
never been licensed in Iowa. Most
of my work is in the area of bankruptcy
and civil liberties. I was a civil
libertarian before I went to law school.
An innocent criminal defendant
needs about a year to adequately defend
himself; guilty people require less
time for their trial generally. We
all know from watching the O.J. Simpson
trial that even a trial with priority
takes a long time. I know from experience
that a traffic case is in many ways
more complicated that a felony case
because traffic court is so accustomed
to making deals and trampling on defendant’s
rights. Example: Argersinger