My Story

Introduction

2005-10-22T19:34:00.010-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Hello,

I was trying to make a right turn after waiting for the green light, which was waiting for traffic to come from the other direction and that traffic had to come and cross over that stop line or mark on the roadway. Well now, that the traffic was at the otherwise empty intersection and was interfering with my progress, I couldn't complete my turn. I had to wait for the man to back up his car so I could proceed. The car tailgating me through the intersection didn't expect me to have to stop and she nearly rear ended me and she was rear ended by the car behind her. I saw the impact and thought that I was crashed into. So I tell the man that just backed up that he needed to stay because, I felt that he was responsible and the cause of the accident. I told him to stay put. I went to the back of my truck to check on the people involved in the crash, and make sure if I was involved or not. I wasn't, but I was a witness with information to offer at the scene of the accident.

Who was charged with the only violation cited at that accident scene?

To view a picture of the truck and read a little more of the story you can follow this link...

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

The Accident and my Conduct

What happened in District Court

My version of what happened in County Court

The County Court Transcript Edited and Notated for readability and understanding

Two Key points about the County Court Transcript

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Evidence and Confessions

Back To:

The Accident and my conduct

2005-10-22T19:33:00.024-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Accident Date: 4/19/01
Accident Report #20010419M4
Citation No. A68666
Telford Police Dept.: 215-723-6700

THE ACCIDENT AND MY CONDUCT

Prior to the accident on this particular day (4-19-01), at least four other incidents of people crossing beyond the stop line had occurred. The incident prior to this one involved a woman, driving a minivan (one and a half vehicle lengths) beyond the stop line. While watching for her to acknowledge that the length of my vehicle would be hindered with her stopped where she was, I observed she was ignoring (me and the truck) I was driving. She finally looked in my direction as my vehicle slowly approached her vehicle, she looked at me with such contempt, but she refused to move her vehicle. Slowly I completed the right turn, I was able to complete the turn but I was out of my comfort zone because I had to place the truck much too close to the vehicle that was in the way. I was turning from southbound route113 making a right turn onto westbound Ridge Pike. I made my delivery nearby and was returning to our facility.

The accident.

I was coming through the intersection east bound Reliance Rd. to a right turn onto south bound County Line Rd.

There have been several close calls at this intersection in the past, in regards to having my vehicle struck from behind by other motorists. Even to the point on other occasions that I’ve had to get out of the truck to make sure the truck didn’t actually get hit or rear-ended. People are not expecting the truck that I am driving to have to stop, before completing my turn, due to motorists coming north bound on County Line Rd. and not stopping behind the stop line.

I had to stop for the changing traffic light. Although I was close, I was not yet into the intersection.

I stopped where I was supposed to: behind the marked stop line.

When the light changed to green, I checked the intersection and;

I proceeded into the turn appropriately according to the Commercial Drivers Manual pub. 223 (10-95) pg. 2-30 fig. 2-11 and pub. 223 (8-00) pg. 2-25 fig. 2-8

I saw a car approaching from the north bound lane of County Line Rd. coming up to the red light he had for his direction.

I saw that an elderly man driving a car with a woman passenger about his own age had stopped just over the stop line.

I had to stop: I couldn’t complete the turn.

While I was waiting for the elderly gentleman to back up, I was watching in my mirror to see that I wasn’t getting rear-ended;

I saw that my vehicle was close to being struck from the car directly behind me.

I saw the car behind me make an abrupt stop.

At 11:30 AM. 5-02-01 I left a message on Officer Fox’s voice mail asking to have the plates of the elderly mans car run so I could receive his information. He was responsible for the accident. And I asked for an addition to the accident report to be made with regard to the abrupt stop Mrs. Allsop made.

To this point I gave a deposition to Mr. Trans insurance company 5-02-01 @ 7:15 Reference # 3811J673706.

They contacted me and said they were not requested to call me by Mr. Tran. I spoke with a woman in the Tran household about 6:00 AM. (5-01-01). I requested to speak with a claim handler.

I saw the car that almost hit me get hit by the car behind her.

I set my parking brake and my four-way flashers and I went to the back of the truck to make sure everyone was ok (as per sec. 392.40 pg. #165 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (referred to here after as F.M.C.S.R.)).

I saw everyone was ok.

Mrs. Allsop, the woman behind me, said she was ok.

She had reached into her handbag and held her cell phone in her hand. (A small one like a Nextel type cell phone.)

I didn’t talk with her too long as I felt she needed time so she could call for police assistance.

Mr. Tran, the man operating the vehicle that struck Mrs. Allsop’s vehicle, told me that he was ok and that his daughter also was ok.

Taking note that Mr. Tran had a little girl in the car with him, I was flooded with emotions from dealing with Mark and Rae Ann Wieder’s memorial service and how I was dealing with telling my daughter, a student in Mark Wieder’s 4th grade class, how he died in a car accident.

The memorial service was just the Saturday before this accident (4-15-01).

The day of the accident was my first full day of work because of the long lay-off this past winter.

The partial unemployment went from 12-16-00 through 4-19-01.

I made certain I was not involved.

I went back to the front of my truck and told the elderly man to “stay put; don’t go anywhere,” and that I felt he should be charged for causing the accident.

I wanted to compel him to stay and give his drivers information to the police.

I knew I had no right to keep him there by physical force and I would not consider assaulting anyone not at all I am a pacifist. My intentions were to set a precedent for this case.

I told him in a very assertive way.

I didn’t use profanity in talking to anyone.

If I were profane it would not be reasonable, to expect the elderly man, to remain at the scene.

My use of profanity would ruin my credibility as a witness.

I went back to the cab of my truck to get a piece of paper and then back to the rear of the elderly man’s car to record his license plate number (DVH -1936) PA registration.

Getting back into my truck;

I moved the truck through the intersection, and parked the truck to the side of the road to the best of my abilities without leaving the scene.

I very much wanted to talk to a police officer about how hard it is to make turns at this intersection, it is my opinion that the intersection should be marked better so that even if a inattentive motorist stops on or just over the stop line there presence would not interfere with the egress of traffic through the intersection.

As I got out of my parked truck, a male voice yelled in my direction in a very derogatory way using very profane language.

I looked and saw, the operator of a vehicle, which I recognized as making harassing and profane comments to me before. He drove a red and white Ford pickup with contractor racks, (or at least it looked like a contractors pickup truck.)

I looked northbound County Line Rd. to make sure no traffic was currently coming in my direction;

From the intersection, I saw the cars that had just rear-ended each other just preparing to move.

As I stated the first thing I did was to check on the individuals in the cars. And the cars did look rather peculiar with the bumper of the Allsop vehicle over top of the bumper of the Tran vehicle.

I retorted, “Just hold on a minute; I want the old man to stay. I feel he was just as responsible for causing the accident, as the man who hit the woman behind me.”

Didn’t I have a right to show that I was offended by the remarks and use of profane language, coming from the Red and White Ford pickup truck?

This individual did exhibit this socially abusive behavior on another occasion.

By harassing me this individual was seen to be a threat to other individuals safety and the safety of myself.

I would like to know what Michelle Townsend thought of the individual in the Red and White Ford pickup truck behind her.

Did she even realize the profanity came from him?

My retort to this individual was a retort to keep peace. Refer to F.M.C.S.R. sec. 392.40 subsection (b) pg.#165.

Take all necessary precaution to prevent further accident at the scene.

I took one step back so as to turn around and-.

A green car pulled up behind me close enough to almost hit me.

The operator showed no intention of stopping at the scene by displaying four way flashers.

The displaying of his hazard flashers would have let me know that he was a professional.

Refer to F.M.C.S.R. sec. 392.22 subsection (a) pg.#162.

Whenever a motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops the driver of the stopped vehicle shall immediately activate the vehicular hazard warning signal flashers.

He pulls up to a stop at the same time as I turned around.

I saw the car as I turned around-

I was warned about the impending danger by a woman motorist (Michelle Townsend) who was stopped behind the elderly man and in front of the pickup truck (the person who was harassing me), she warned me at the same time as I turned around, she said “Hey, watch out”

I responded back “yes, I can see him.” My response was quiet and calm.

As I turned around to look at the car I saw no four-way flashers and the car was close enough to kneel on its bumper.

I thought if I fainted I probably could have hit my head on the cars windshield.

As I was trying to put my case together I heard many times from different people that the police are supposed to be there for public safety.

How is it in the best interest of public safety to drive a car in such a manner?

He drove his car in such a manner as to cause an accident sec. 396.7 pg. #314 (F.M.C.S.R.)

396.7 Unsafe operations forbidden (a) General - A motor vehicle shall not be operated in such a manner as to cause an accident –

He didn’t use safe vehicle control sec. 383.121 pg. #50 and #51

It’s hard to say exactly how far Detective Floyd’s car really was coming from on the approach to my position standing by the cab of my truck.

I stated that I had checked the intersection the only cars moving were from behind my truck, (those cars involved in the accident). There was a red light displayed. The cars were moving into the parking lot behind the truck and on its right side.

I believe the report to be correct that the truck was pulled past the intersection 50’

My truck is 36’ long and the bed is 29’ long.

Standing by the cab of my truck and adding 29’ for the bed of the truck plus 50’ for pulling past the intersection and then add the distance of the intersection, you get a minimum distance the Detective had to travel as I gave my retort.

I looked at the driver as I walked over to his drivers’ window. His window was down just a little bit (1.5”-2”)

I was upset 1st the stop line, 2nd the nearly getting struck from behind, 3rd the profanity and now 4th I was assaulted by a vehicle driven by some guy who put his car in such a position as to nearly cause me harm.

I spoke firm and loudly to the driver of the green car, I asked a question, “What, are you doing trying to hit the pedestrian standing in the street; as if we don’t have enough problems here?”

He then retorted something concerning the possibility of my not watching where I was walking as I stepped back to turn around, and that I might have walked backwards into his car possibly hitting it.

I stated in court that with ten years of volunteer firefighting experience I knew not to walk backwards into the unknown.

The driver then asked, “Why are you standing in the middle of the street yelling at people?”

I had no idea who he was to ask me that question. I figured that didn’t matter; he didn’t have to drive so close to a pedestrian in the street. At least if I was in his way he should have given me some kind of warning: using his horn or voicing some kind of pardon.

At this point I was looking for a police officer even as earlier when the accident occurred.

This whole thing to me is improper police conduct the man became a participant instead of putting public safety first.

It is on this one point I felt the District Attorney should have been notified, prior to the perjury in court.

Certainly having someone crowd my personal space especially with their car was something that would not help the circumstances at that moment.

He pulled off around me yelling or angrily shouting, “Do you want me to call the police?” he quickly parked in front of my truck opening up his car door and showing me and others his cell phone.

This individual to me looked like many other individuals who you can spot frequently, the ones irritated that they have to share the road with anyone that might hold them up for a few seconds.

At least I knew for certain that the police would soon be here and I would have my chance to talk to an officer.

I would like a copy of the transcript from police dispatch regarding this incident.

When Mrs. Allsop called and what was said.

When Detective Floyd called and what was said.

I said, “Yes, I want the police here.”

In court he testified that I used profanity in replying to him.

Again I look to what Mrs. Townsend heard at this point.

He then added that he wanted me charged with disorderly conduct; did I want to be arrested? And he again commented something about walking into his car.

As the green car pulled over, I also recorded his license plate number (YBB 0969) PA registration, and;

If the individual could have identified himself as a police officer sooner I would not have had to write down his license number.

The woman, who warned me about his reckless approach, turns to me in response to what she just saw and heard. She says, “What is His problem?”

I later found out the identity of this woman to be a Michelle Townsend.

I turned to assist the elderly gentleman park his car figuring to talk to the elderly gentleman and to safely get his car off of the street.

By this time traffic was about to start moving and I didn’t see the Elderly gentleman’s car. But then to my surprise-.

I spotted the elderly gentleman standing at the back corner of my truck.

I walked from the center of the street to the back of my truck to the sidewalk at the back of the truck where the elderly gentleman was talking with the individuals involved in the crash.

At some point as traffic started to go, the driver of the red and white F150 yelled while passing by something to the effect of, “That’s what you get for doing 50mph through a turn!” This comment caused the man from the green car to stop his walk as he was about half way along the passengers side of my truck walking to the group of us gathered at the back of my truck.

I definitely was not going too fast, because I knew there was a great probability I would have to stop. Though even with my experience I wasn’t sure, since the elderly gentleman stopped just over the stop line.

I needed just a little forgiveness from the people marking the intersection (Penn DOT) because too many people will cross over the white line, crowding the intersection.

Even with all of my experience, I was not sure of whether or not I could complete this turn with the position of the elderly man’s car just over the stop line.

While making the turn, I positioned the truck perfectly as instructed in the Driver Training Manual (Pub. 223 (10/95), pg. 2-30, sec. 2.7: Managing Space- Right Turns, Fig. 2-11)

And also from this publication: All drivers are instructed to stop behind the stop line. (Sec. 12.1, pg. 12-1)

===========================
Note to: Penn Dot
==============================

It would really be a great help if someone could move the stop lines a few feet further away from this intersection in all directions.

===================

In regard to the fact that there is no law about crossing the stop line it is an automatic failure when taking a driver’s test, and the state appeals court opened the door for police to follow through in the fact that we have enough driving laws in this state to cover any driving offense. This was a recorded fact when the Hilltown Ban on driving while talking on the cell phone was challenged on appeal in the state court system. The state justices said it would not be right for local municipalities to make such legislation.

And then the man in the green car, that had harassed me just minutes before, finally joined the group of us at the back of my truck. That is when he started to introduce himself as a Detective Floyd of the Telford Police Department.

Because of his conduct, I asked, when offered, to see his badge.

I said, “Yes I would like to see that please.”

I watched Mr. Tran, Mrs. Allsop and the Gentleman who crossed the stop line decline to view the Detective’s badge when he offered to show it to them.

He began questioning my conduct asking why I was yelling in the middle of the street. I began to explain saying “the man in the pick up truck” and he silenced me, he began lecturing me, he started with the statement that “he saw the whole thing.”

((On (9-8-88) at about 6:45 am. I had received a written warning from the Warminster police department about this very issue.

Because I attempted to help a stalled motorist.

The light had cycled several times before I finally got the opportunity to make this turn.

The officer saw me get out of my truck to help.

The officer didn’t write me a citation of violation.

I was informed that I made an illegal turn against the traffic control signal because my vehicle didn’t break the curb line of the intersection.

Even though I was well past the stop line.

This led me to believe that indeed I was in the middle of the intersection.

Of course if I had pulled the truck beyond the curb line as the officer intends then the large vehicle wouldn’t have been able to complete the turn without having to back up or run over the curb and sidewalk when exiting the turn.

In this matter I was instructed to contact my congressman to enact legislation in regards to the stop line.))

After Detective Floyd introduced himself and had some words with me.

Officer Ritter pulled up,

and then Officer Fox

They greeted Detective Floyd

The officers looked over the scene

I was asked for my driver’s I.D.

Detective Floyd then apologized to the other two officers for having to have them come out and fill out the accident report, since the accident was a non-reportable one. He said, “I could have done this myself.”

Based on Detective Floyd’s conversation, he seemed to think at the time that there might have been more damage to the cars than there was.

Detective Floyd then spoke of a meeting he was trying to get to.

That may explain his impatience to, get past the accident scene and myself without introducing himself first as a police officer.

Then Detective Floyd asked why it was that if I wasn’t involved in the accident that I was stopped here on the highway? Why wasn’t I on my way? Didn’t I have work to do? Why is this truck sitting here blocking traffic? What is this man doing here?

Thankfully, one of the officers spoke in response to say exactly what I was thinking in answer to his question, “He is a witness”. I gave the officer a very confirming look.

I was flabbergasted; I couldn’t believe an officer of the law was asking such a question.

I believe that Officer Fox was writing up my license information at the time.

I believe Officer Ritter was close by.

At this point officer Ritter took me off to the side to question me about what happened. I tried to hold our conversation as quickly as possible, and immediately identified a visual obstruction. A few more steps closer to the side walk or even on the sidewalk and I could have pointed to that which we were about to discuss.

I started walking over to the sidewalk where we would have a better view.

I was trying to explain to Officer Ritter that I saw we did not have a clear view of the intersection. I knew what I wanted to show him and possibly where we could stand to see this.

Officer Ritter asked me to come back to where he was standing

This was in the middle of the parking lot.

I was definitely and normally upset.

This created a question and answer session that I was trying to avoid, over the details of the intersection that could not be visualized.

I answered the rest of Officer Ritter’s questions to the best of my ability.

I asked Officer Ritter some questions in return.

Confirming that it was better to move the vehicles out of the intersection?

He said yes.

Was it Penn Dot’s responsibility to mark the intersection?

He said yes.

Who notifies Penn Dot when there is something obviously unsafe?

He said it was up to the public, not the police department

I suggested that maybe by pressing this issue a good alternative might be to stop all truck traffic through this intersection.

I was relieved that at least in his opinion, that wasn’t really a practical solution.

While Officer Ritter and I were discussing the problems I saw with the intersection, we witnessed a ten-wheeler traveling south on County Line Rd. making a right turn onto west Reliance Rd., and having to drive his right- side tires over the curb because of a car that was ½ car length over the white line.

After observing this, I made the comment, “That sounded really bad for the sidewalls of that driver’s tires,” and how that can cause premature tire failure. It also causes economic mayhem to the consumer.

Officer Ritter and I had moved to where I wanted him to see what the problem was when the truck had the issue of getting through his turn, his vehicle was much smaller than the one that I operate.

I was trying to explain the problem to Officer Ritter when he was called away and told to go on another police call.

After talking with Officer Ritter, and officer Ritter had left then Detective Floyd came over and lectured me for a third time.

He commented to me how maybe we should just stop trucks from coming through these streets.

That was a classic response I was surprised to hear him make. He made this remark with the typical discrimination toward trucks and their operators that I see and hear from motorist on a regular basis.

He explained how he felt my behavior was inappropriate. He talked about shouting in the street, making the Company look bad, etc.

To this I said that my conduct might have appeared egregious.

He then told me that his Dad was a truck driver.

Then he walked away, asking pardon, to go to his meeting, from officer Fox.

After being left to myself, I walked to Officer Fox.

I asked if they were finished with me so that I could get back to work, and the truck on it’s way

He seemed pleased at the suggestion, and affirmed that they were finished with me.

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

What happened in District Court

My version of what happened in County Court

The County Court Transcript Edited and Notated for readability and understanding

Two Key points about the County Court Transcript

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Back To:

The District Court Case

2005-10-22T19:33:00.021-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

The District Court Case of 6-22-01

6-22-01 Fri.
Finally the day of the court case this took about 4 hours from my workday. I met Mary at the door when she finally arrived. I had an uneasy feeling when I saw Detective Floyd. What perjury from the police and the witnesses that they brought. How depressing I sure hope GOD is in control.

I and my wife entered into the court room early, my wife was a stay at home mom available to take care of the needs of the children when they returned home after school was willing to come to court with me. I sat at the defense table and Mary was the only person to sit on my side of the court room right behind me.

I prepared my papers that I researched for the case at hand, after all what authority did I have to take control of the accident scene until a police officer arrived? How was I supposed to make the turn with the large truck that I was driving and who do I report trouble to when there are obvious problems that could easily be corrected. What is the best way to correct issues where there is constant interference by opposing traffic and how do we cut down on the amount of car crashes and wasted time waiting for people to get their cars into the right position so that traffic can proceed? I had all these issues and more laid out ready at a moments notice if so required.

I sat in the chair all my papers before me on the table and in walked the detective suddenly I felt a cold lonely feeling pass over me. I felt that GOD who was always with me had just left the room. Where did my GOD go? Where was my confidence? I prayed to myself quietly, “GOD please don’t leave, don’t leave me here by myself alone, why are you forsaking me in my hour of need?” I buckled down and focused on the matter at hand, no matter what this is where I was and what I had to do.

I tried to collect a type of roll call and this is, who was there that day, to the best of my recollection according to my notes and memory.

Who was in the, courtroom?
1. The Judge Harold Borek
2. My wife Mary C. Landis
3. Detective Randy S. Floyd
4. The Telford Borough Police secretary
5. Officer Daniel S. Fox
6. Chief Douglas Bickle
7. Mrs. Carole Mary Allsop
8. Mr. Allsop
9. Mr. My Van Tran
10. Two women that sat together and I didn’t recognize.
a. I believe the one was Debra L. Swank, I.D. #78717
b. I’m not sure who the other woman was maybe an associate.
11. Outside of the court room hanging out in the Lobby was Officer Ritter.

The hearing went poorly. Detective Floyd commanded the courtroom, using obscenities and perjuring himself several times.

Detective Floyd called to testify;

1. Mrs. Carole Mary Allsop
a. She told of my immediately getting out of the truck and cursing at the man who crossed the stop line.
b. Then she described the event where she said she observed me in a state of “Road Rage”.
When I had the opportunity to ask Mrs. Allsop about her testimony, I asked her if she was sure she heard me curse before coming back to check on her well-being.
Her response to my question was a simple answer, she answered “yes.”

I really need to find out who the man in the car with license #(DHV-1936) is. If I could subpoena that man to testify in court I could create a defense contradicting the testimony of Mrs. Allsop because I know that I didn’t utter one single curse word that day and I’m certain that the man who crossed the stop line could have corroborated my testimony that is if I was allowed to testify.

Since the man that crossed the stop line is the one person that some people think, I cursed he should know if I cursed at him.

I’d like to question him and his wife as to the events they saw that afternoon. Even though they might have been a little concerned or even upset, by my being assertive to keep him at the scene, I believe they could confirm that I was only acting as an authority and not being aggressive or abusive. I wouldn’t have expected them to stay at the scene if I was abusive or profane.. I believe that vulgarity causes people to run away and hide. I hope I read his character correctly since he did stay at the scene and talk to the individuals involved in the accident.

At the court hearing I started to question Mrs. Allsop about her abrupt stop behind the truck. I wanted to know if she could describe the truck was it a long flat bed. She tried to avoid answering my question as though she didn’t understand what I was asking.

Then I asked her about being able to see the vehicle for which I had to stop.

The Judge asked about the car coming from which direction?

Immediately the Detective objected to my line of questioning as I asked, Mrs. Allsop about the accident.

I was asked to explain my reasons for this line of questions. As I tried to explain I started to testify, this brought about another objection. So in questioning Mrs. Allsop about this accident I began to testify or so I was told, the judge immediately interrupted and told me that I would get my chance to testify later. Then there was another objection and this time the judge told me to testify about my conduct and not the accident. But Mrs. Allsop was still on the stand.

The detective objected to my questioning about the accident and the judge sustained the objection that the accident was not about my conduct.

We only just began the hearing.

I was trying to think of a way to get Mrs. Allsop to realize that the first thing that I did was to go to the back of the truck and to check on the accident victims’.

This prevented me bringing up the fact that I already gave a deposition to Mr. Trans’ insurance company.

Realizing that I had no way of disproving Mrs. Allsop’s version I stopped questioning the witness.

Mrs. Allsop believes that I jumped out of the truck cursing the man who crossed the stop line. Not true, my first concern was for the safety of the people who were involved in the accident and when I saw the little girl in the Tran vehicle I became overwhelmed with emotion from the grief of attending my 4th grade daughter’s teacher and his wife’s memorial service. Had the accident been different someone could have been seriously hurt say if a motorcyclist was involved. I also own a motorcycle.

Mrs. Allsop did testify in court that she witnessed road rage in me. I’d like to see her degree that makes her an expert to diagnose road rage. Especially from a person at least 50 feet away from her and opposite a truck, I’m sure what she is testifying to is the profanity that the driver of the pickup truck used but how do I get her to realize her mistake? Who else could have helped to piece together the missing pieces, who did I need in court, anyone? After all, didn’t I have the right to deal with the harassing and profane individual so as to keep him quiet and under control at least somewhat and to make a retort if that is all it would take? It worked for a little while at least until the man in the pickup truck drove by.

Again about the man in the pickup truck, this individual did exhibit this socially abusive behavior on another occasion.

By harassing me this individual was seen to be a threat to other individuals safety and the safety of myself.

I would like to know what Michelle Townsend thought of the individual in the Red and White Ford pickup truck behind her.

Did she even realize the profanity came from him?

My retort to this individual was a retort to keep peace. Refer to F.M.C.S.R. sec. 392.40 subsection (b) pg.#165.
a. Take all necessary precaution to prevent further accident at the scene.

As I tried to address some other issues in District court, the Detective objected stating that the other individual wasn’t on trial here. The Detective told the Judge that even if this had happened traffic started moving and he never had a chance to question the man.

I would have loved to ask Mrs. Allsop if she heard the man yell as he drove by.
I would have also liked to ask Mrs. Allsop if she feels the Detectives testimony was truthful especially when he stated for a fact that I cursed demanding to see his badge. His badge was offered I admit accepting the offer to view the badge. I had no reason to use profanity, although the earlier conduct of the detective does warrant an investigation into his mental health and what issues he might be suffering from.

The next person to testify was.

2. Mr. My Van Tran

He testified about a conversation between a man in a little truck and myself. He stated that he saw an argument.

He told the court something about the badge much of what he was trying to say was unintelligible; the language barrier was a problem for me.

I didn’t address any questions to Mr. Tran

The next person to testify was.

3. The lying detective Mr. Randy Floyd

He testified twice that he observed me yelling obscenities.

He actually used a very profane word in court at least seven times.

He said I was walking backwards and acted as if that is a crime to walk backwards in the street. I would have loved to have Mrs. Townsend there as a witness even a hostile witness as she had to be watching because she warned me about the dangerous position I was in. She yelled out to me, “Hey! Watch out!” as I pivoted around, I know my fire training and I know not to walk backwards into the unknown.

Detective Floyd perjured himself several times as he testified against me.
1. He said that I came over to his car cursing.
a. Again Mrs. Townsend could shed light on this.
2. He described my reply to having him call the police on his cell phone as though I used obscenities in my response.
a. Ask Michele Townsend, (the woman who warned me of his dangerous approach)
i. Ask her if I cursed at the man who drove his car up to my leg.
1. I try to avoid cursing in every aspect of my life.
2. Another reason I wouldn’t curse was because I absolutely wanted to maintain my credibility as a witness.
ii. Don’t ask her if I cursed at the man who crossed the stop line.
1. I understand from talking to her husband that she may have some misunderstanding as to what happened when I first got out of the truck.
a. Or she just might not want to testify; I understand she might not want to take time off from work.
b. The truth would later come out in that the mechanic and his buddy were going to have a little fun with me to annoy me and get under my skin. Isn’t life wonderful in a world of bullies?
2. I am praying that the moral character of the gentleman and or his passenger will come through about the issue, of my profanity or lack there of.
3. As I said before I was very assertive that the man stay to also talk to the police and that I wanted his actions charged for causing the accident.
3. A transcript of the call into the radio room may also prove that Detective Floyd perjured himself when I asked him, “did he see the cars as they were” actually involved in the accident.
a. He denied actually seeing the cars that were actually involved in the accident.
b. I believe he actually thought the cars would need to be towed.
i. I don’t think he wanted to be bothered with a reportable accident and it turned out to his surprise that it wasn’t a reportable accident and he just made matters worse.
c. He falsely showed the position of the vehicles as he demonstrated with his charts.
i. This was his claim so as to not be able to see the cars.
ii. The accident report could prove this to be different.
1. The Allsop vehicle came close to striking the back of the truck I was operating center a little to the right of center.
2. The Tran vehicle struck the Allsop vehicle with the right front of Tran’s car to the left rear of the Allsop vehicle the bumper of the Tran vehicle lifting the rear of the Allsop vehicle making the accident look much worse than it really was.
4. He showed me his badge.
a. No I didn’t curse asking to see the detective’s badge he offered to show me his badge of his own volition. (Ask the elderly gentleman who was standing with every one else.)
5. He mentioned about his slow approach in his police cruiser.
a. I questioned him on this detail his car didn’t look like a police cruiser.
b. I didn’t mention how he traveled over 100’ and probably much further, in less than eight seconds? (That is the time taken for my retort to the harassing and profane individual.
6. I then questioned why was there all of this, talk of profanity? The citation that I received had no mention of my use of profanity.
a. It was explained to me that a special note of my use of profanity was provided at the bottom of the citation
i. This now explained the comment made to me by the Borough manager (5-25-01).
ii. I wasn’t prepared to defend myself against this lie.
4. Officer Daniel Fox
a. He testified that he wanted to know why the truck was parked by the side of the street. But this was a lie, it was the liar Randy Floyd who asked about that at the scene, they were going to play a little game with my head as though I wouldn’t know what to do by them confusing the issues and turning things around I would be caught completely off guard by the two officers being completely deceptive in court.
b. He said that he wanted me arrested on the spot to cuff me and put me in the back of the cruiser, and to tow the truck away.
c. He said I interrupted their conversation and that I was pacing around.
i. I asked him about being the officer that said to Detective Floyd that I was there as a “witness”.
1. He denied making any such comment.
i. At the hearing I believe the judge to be finding things the Detective was saying a little hard to believe.
ii. The judge asked, “Didn’t the defendant have the right to be a witness at the accident scene?”
iii. The question was asked about three times.
iv. The question was, evaded by the Detective each time.
d. An officer of the law should always tell the truth, “especially one who was just acquitted for a possible wrongful shooting”.
i. At first I was certain that the shooting was justified, the report in the newspaper made such a clear picture of a simple mistake.
1. I thought the character of the police officer above reproach.
ii. Now after seeing the other side of the man I don’t know.
1. This may explain the presence of the Detective on my job site a week after my hearing.
iii. A co-worker later after the case told me he had problems with Officer Fox lying about a situation his wife got into.
1. This same co-worker tried to warn me that the police in this community would lie to get a conviction.
2. The husband of Mrs. Townsend also told me of the police being a problem in the community and that is why he didn’t want his wife to be a witness.
3. There have been several other comments made by individuals where the police have abused their powers to manipulate other cases.
4. On (7-12-01) I learned from a customer that Detective Floyd lied in the Perkasie (Probably Sellersville) District Justice courtroom she wrote the infraction into the record of the event. I believe the situation from which Detective Floyd was caught lying involved a case where the victim was assaulted.
5. My Self
a. I was prepared to defend my conduct at the scene based on truth. When confronted by lies I became distraught. I realized right away that I needed legal representation; the police took matters beyond my ability to defend. I wanted to testify to the reasons, why I responded to the things that happened. I waited for my chance to testify, and when my opportunity came the Detective objected for this reason or that.

This was then followed by a ruling on the objection about the stop line.

The Judge Harold Borek then commented about the stop line. He said, “We have no laws in the state of Pennsylvania to prevent people from crossing over the stop lines in this state you can cross fourteen feet over the stop line and it isn’t against the law.” There was some joviality in this comment and the people in the courtroom chuckled.

He then added while looking at the Detective that he didn’t even know why stop lines are even painted on the roads. Maybe they shouldn’t have any at all.

This time there was outright laughter

Then he added, as he reproved me and cautioned me not to make another mention about the stop line or he would stop my testimony short and make a ruling on this matter.

I felt completely violated and stifled.

I became very concerned about the judge finding me in contempt of court.

There was much for me to say at this point. This is where I could have used the citation that the husband of our former babysitter was charged with for crossing over the stop line on a rainy night, a situation where he wasn’t blocking or interfering with the progress of traffic. I certainly understand people and their behaviors how we all miss the mark from time to time, but here these people are supposed to be looking for the truth of a matter and they are allowing lies to be promoted and built up to convict innocent people of other people’s actions. These types of convictions should be expunged they are so abhorrent to our system of justice and everything that we teach to our children to respect our elders and to respect the people enforcing our laws. This court case is so egregious and soon we will find out just how we go from one bad situation into another. I sure hope no one else ever has to go through a mock trial such as this again.

b. The judge and the Detective joked about some of the very issues I wanted to address. So I tried to avoid those issues.
i. The stop line
ii. Trucks on residential streets
1. This was a residential/commercial street.
2. The street is not restricted to truck use.
3. The truck not being an 18-wheeler. (This I left alone because of the judge’s visual cue).
c. As I started to testify the Detective found it such an appropriate time to change the tape in one of his tape recorders.
i. What a subtle distraction?
d. I tried to testify to what had happened from the beginning and there was an objection to my talking about the accident.
i. In explaining I mentioned yelling at the individual who set these events in motion and that I might have been overly emotional due to a state of grieving.
1. We heard laughter for this comment and an immediate objection.
e. Moving past the accident I tried to speak of the social abuse. This brought on some more laughter from the courtroom.
i. An objection was made to the effect that this individual was not on trial here.
f. I talked about Officer Ritter taking me aside.
i. His, insisting, that I walk back over to him.
ii. I spoke of our conversation about the stop line.
g. Immediately the Judge put an end to my testimony for talking about the stop line or the accident.
ii. Since my testimony was finished the Detective tried to follow up what I was trying to say I believe it was about this time that the comment of trucks not coming through the intersection came up in court.
i. The judge jumped in to make a statement that this was not bias but that it was an opinion.
ii. He then said while giving me a very stern look, that he didn’t want 18-wheelers coming down his residential street.
i. Again this brought out even more laughter more than his first comments about the stop line.
ii. I held fast to my chair and didn’t say anything even knowing that the truck I drive isn’t an 18-wheeler.
iii. Detective Floyd then asked about his conversation when he came over to me the last time.
i. I wasn’t sure where his question was coming from or where he was going.
ii. I asked for clarification.
iii. He started again something about when he came over to me the last time.
1. I commented “you mean when you came to Lord over me before you left.”
iv. He responded, “Yes when I came over to Lord over you the last time.”
1. I still didn’t get his question to me and I couldn’t give him any kind of answer.

I was asked if I wanted to call any witnesses for my defense.
h. I responded that nobody wanted to testify against the police.
i. I gave thought to recalling Mrs. Allsop but I figured it was better to leave well enough alone.
i. I’m thinking that I needed a lawyer.

I was given a chance to plea my case.
j. I said that I didn’t curse! And that I didn’t want to ruin my credibility as a witness.

The Judge came back with an expected guilty verdict.
a. He did something that I didn’t expect.
i. He apologized as he was finding me guilty. “I’m sorry to find you guilty.”
ii. He said the Detective brought a greater burden of the evidence.
iii. He spoke of his decision based solely on the fact that Mrs. Allsop was a Professional Managed Health Care Supervisor.
iv. He said, “She deals with the public on a daily basis”.
1. In making this point I felt second -class.
a. I believe he implied I was less than a professional.
v. He felt that she had no reason to lie.
1. He didn’t get to hear about the deposition I gave to Mr. Tran’s insurance company.
vi. He said something to the effect that everybody tends to get things a little confused; I believe he was talking about believing she may have heard some obscenities that might not have really been there.
b. He then mentioned that I had the right to appeal his decision and suggested that I get a Lawyer.
i. He appealed to me this message three times.
ii. He told me that I shouldn’t want this on my permanent record.
iii. He told me to appeal at the Montgomery County Court House in Norristown.
c. After the hearing about my disorderly conduct there was a brief recess and I went outside for a breath of fresh air.
i. As I walked out of the courtroom I noticed Officer Ritter was also at the courthouse from what I could tell he didn’t come into the courtroom but stayed out with the secretary’s by the counter.
1. I thought about talking to him but after the incident with the chief and the accident report I stayed clear.
2. Officer Ritter never answered my call to make an addition to the accident report.
ii. Outside Officer Fox was standing there smoking a cigarette. (And looking a little annoyed).
iii. I approached him as my wife was following me outside to tell me about Mr. Tran’s comment to the Detective.
iv. I questioned Officer Fox saying, “So that’s how people get railroaded?” I felt that I was prosecuted by ambush.
v. He replied in accordance to how he testified in court that he whished he had cuffed me and put me in the back of the cruiser and had the truck I was driving towed away.
vi. My wife said to me “don’t say anything to anyone”. She took me aside and then she told me about Mr. Tran. It seems that Mr. Tran created a little scene (as I left the courtroom, for a drink and some fresh air). My wife said he went up to the Detective and told the Detective that I called him a liar. He was smiling and proud to help out or something. The Detective then told him that if I said anything else to him to let the Detective know about it.

Next the charges against the Detective were dismissed because of his testimony and some kind of immunity to government employees.

The judge allowed me to read a document where Detective Floyd was asking for some kind of immunity from the charges that I had brought against him. This was a document that I would give to my lawyer a document submitted by the insurance provider for the borough of Telford to allow the detective immunity. I had later to go back to my lawyer to regain possession of this document once and after this case went through the county court level.
d.
i. The Judge said that he had read this document earlier.
ii. The Judge allowed me some time to read the document and when he came back asked if I had any objections to what was about to be allowed.
1. I tried to object on grounds of cause of effect.
2. Boy did I need legal council, I may have been right in my thinking but it sure didn’t come out of my mouth.
3. It was later when I was rereading the document that I realized the Detectives testimony and all of his lies were on this document.
a. I don’t believe I had a fair hearing if the Judge previously read this document.
b. I came to court fighting the wrong battle. I came prepared for truth not lies.
e. After the hearing, I then approached the bench where the Judge was putting some books away.
i. I asked if I could ask a question and the Judge warned me that he couldn’t answer any legal questions. I assured him it wasn’t legal.
ii. I asked why he allowed the F-word to be used in court; nobody else had any problem finding another way to describe profanity or obscenities.

I went out of the courtroom looking for a Lawyer and the D.A.
k. My character was just attacked over an issue I am very proud of. And it is a fact that I worked very hard to not be an individual who flippantly uses profanity.
i. You can ask anyone I have ever worked with in my lifetime.
ii. This is why I would be willing to make up a petition and to see if the response would be as large as some people indicate, since so many have requested of me how they would like to come to court to testify as a character witness on my behalf.

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

My version of what happened in County Court

The County Court Transcript Edited and Notated for readability and understanding

Two Key points about the County Court Transcript

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Back To:

What happened in County Court a letter to the religious

2005-10-22T19:32:00.009-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

WhatHappened in County Court 1-03-2002

As you know I needed some real help and support! We can add my name as another "innocent victim" to be punished by our corrupt judicial system. You would think that after the events of 9-11 people would show signs of moral conscience. Instead of morality we had more perjury. But this time we were given an even more significant twist (read the list below 1-13).

As a man that has attended the last two Promise Keeper rally's, I went the Distance and I tried to Turn the Tide. Why? Because I believed that I was called to do so by divine interpretation of Christian values. (From reading the Bible and interacting with other Christians and listening to wonderfully presented ministries; and oh, how each person was so in touch with the very situation I was going through).

On cross examination, I spoke of being a Christian and that early in my life I made a decision to not use profanity in public. (Ever since this event, I don't think that I ever want to speak another profane word for eternity!) I used to take pride that when I pulled up on to an obscene job site suddenly, with rare exceptions the level of profanity went down. This was not because I ever said anything to make people aware that they were cursing around me, I didn't encourage others to curse and this caused the type of language used to come up out of the gutter. Now you notice I don't say I have never cursed, and I might have even joined in once in a while in private, just to show I wasn't a prude or maybe because I let my guard down. But absolutely if I didn't want to curse I could make a conscious decision not to, and that is what I did! At the scene of the accident there were definitely moments where I needed to make a conscious decision not to curse.
My resolve was fortified by the incident 13 years ago, when I received a written warning and was told to enact legislation for stop lines to be considered the starting point of an intersection. I carried with me a desire for vindication and to expose the absurdity of the officer back then to interfere with my duties. He threaten me with a citation, after watching me sit out a traffic light 3 times due to the stalled motorist in front of me. Of course his reasoning to give me a warning (and not a citation) was because he saw me get out of my truck to help the stalled motorist. I really wish I could have stated everything just like that in court. I was able to mention about the warning but it wasn't followed up.
On 1-4-02 as I was working, (and I don't know if it was better that I didn't have a radio with me but I did forget to bring it along today.) I was struck with a very profound thought. What does it mean to me not to use profanity? And, why do I feel this way? It seems to me this issue might just be the very start of perversion in our justice system. The issue that each and every Christian must come to grips with, is just how convicted are we not to use profanity or swear or curse? God forgive me for being weak in the court room and not standing convicted to just describe the type of language used. I was forced into actually testifying about the profanity that was yelled at me. In trying to come to a proper understanding of the situation that I was just put into and how to respond in a Christian manner I failed to be firm. The issue was that if I didn't repeat the profanity I'm sure that I was being threatened with contempt of court. It frightened me to have that thought, implied by the prosecution. If I have to testify that way again I might very well find myself in contempt of court. Because, as of today it has been written on my heart that I will not speak in that manner any more. I showed, righteous indignation at the scene, I was opposed to that type of language. And then I compromised my very own religious beliefs in court. I wish I could have had more back bone, but that wasn't the issue or precedent that I was after, I can't fix everything in one shot can I? But resisting on religious beliefs is how we stand up for Christ!
Why didn't my Lawyer generate the petition for all the people that were so surprised to hear that I was charged with using profanity like I asked him to! You see these people (employees, former employees, employers, former employers and customers) told me that they would sign a petition to the fact that no one can remember making profane outbursts or using profanity.
Now knocked off balance, I became ripe to be plucked, I felt compromised and that I was taken advantage of. Then the prosecutor wanted a yes or no answer to this question; "did I then calm down after the detective identified himself"? I answered the question stating that I was not upset the whole time. I started to explain and I was cut short. Upset with my answer he then expanded upon his question stating that I just testified to calming down after the detective identified himself. I saw where the prosecutor was going with his line of questioning, and I knew that he had a foot in the door to convict me for perjury. By just having my values compromised and being asked to repeat the profanity in court, I was caught off guard with misrepresented facts, I was questioned to a fact when I answered a question in general, (a statement as testified to by others was somewhat true,but not entirely) it was a very minor detail and now it was going to be used as a fact from which I could be considered a liar. (I want the transcript.)

As closing arguments were given and the time came to make a decision in the matter I was fined another $100 and called a liar twice by the judge.

We had a preoccupied judge, his book that he was reading was more important than listening to the facts.

My Lawyer really dropped the ball, as far as I am concerned, by not contacting and bringing forth my witnesses.

He didn't feel that he needed them.

He didn't feel their testimony would be relevant or substantiated. That would have been acceptable if I only knew of one person at the scene, but we could have had three and a fourth to corroborate that the other officer the conspirator was also known to lie. A fifth person you'll read about latter. And we might even be able to include the prosecutions own witness described in #7. below. (Remember he knows that I was trying to help him.)

He didn't study my documents very well and he didn't prepare me for what was to come. Not only that, I had a copy of every document that I gave to him, and they are in Outline form for quick reference. He should have had me use these documents on the stand. The only exception is that even on the Outline's I didn't include the verbatim account of what was yelled at me. When I wrote the Outline many months ago I knew the profanity didn't have to be repeated.

When I was forced to testify to the profanity yelled at me as questioned by the prosecutor, my Lawyer never redirected my comment in return to the harassing individual, my retort is proof that I didn't use profanity, it was at this point a moment in time when I was really vulnerable to the use of profanity.

Let my words spoken at the scene exonerate me. I believe my words were heard and someone of many should recall what was said. I know exactly what I said, and so does my LORD.

My Lawyer explained to me that he really did not want to pursue the perjury, so now I want to take this case to Dick Marsch the D.A. that works in the office of public complaints.

My Lawyer must not have understood Mr. Tran's testimony he didn't even explore that comment in #7a.

I tried not to say to much, although I am surprised how much I was permitted to say. I am very aware that my testimony could have been objected to for this reason or that. I wanted to be guided, I put my faith in my counselor instead of my LORD!

My Lawyer told me he wasn't happy with the judge because the judge didn't even know what my lawyer had objected to?

The judge let me be heard for the most part.

I don't feel that my lawyer brought out enough details that could have clarified answers to the prosecutions questions, these details would have been substantiated by the testimony of my invisible witnesses (the ones that should have been there).

My wife was mad at my lawyer for not even talking to the people willing to testify on my behalf.

The prosecutions witnesses;

Even though the Vietnamese witness (the man that I tried to help) Mr. Tran was hard to understand;

He really did, on the stand speak pretty clearly; that the detective did have opportunity to observe a harassing individual in a truck drive off making and yelling a derogatory comment. (I wonder what the court stenographer got out of his testimony?) and this time he didn't insinuate that I used profanity at all.

He did have the events out of order, and some of the events were misconstrued (as in they didn't happen that way).

He gave the very testimony my star witness was to give. (wait until I get a chance to view the transcript.)

I wonder if Mrs. Allsop still considers my being provoked by that harassing individual as "road rage" or "self defense" as it really was.

Why didn't my Lawyer recall Mrs. Allsop to question her about this if he understood we had an opportunity here as well.

I can forgive these people for their misrepresentation of facts after nine months, but I was definitely insulted and disappointed when the detective couldn't or wouldn't tell the truth.

The testimony of the detective started out truthful and then he went into the lies. And we had no proof in the courtroom of his flagrant misconduct (not that it couldn't be proved).
One point to be made is that upon being recalled to testify the detective testified earlier that he didn't allow me to speak, he told me to calm down and be quiet at the seen as he was introducing himself. On this cross examination a key point brought out was that I didn't discuss with him about, and identifing the man that crossed the stop line. Now how if I was told to be quiet could I have identified a missgiving of another individual? As the detective took control and he knew everything he released the individual from the scene.

The head dressing that he was wearing was a really interesting touch, self applied with wires sticking out the top.

The judge and the detective had a giggle as they talked about his attire and the judge called the detective a cone head.

The strange part about this is I made up a signature that said, "When the Rafters Rock and the Timbers Shake, I would stand firm on my God's Grace". (It seems that the detective has been suffering from tremors.) Isn't that strange?(And how about those two earthquakes earlier this morning?)

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that his tremors were just a ploy.

I wonder where his buddy was? The officer that perjured himself in District Court.

I wish we could have had the fifth witness, the one that told me about the detective's reprimand in his court case. That is where the judge supposedly wrote the reprimand into the case file for his lying to her! He was caught in the past not long ago. I should have been able to access this fact from the court document. (Not having to rely on or convince someone who really doesn't want to put his statement as fact in court against the "Police". This is where our system is so corrupt. It protects the guilty and punishes the innocent and sometimes the innocent victim. What is this case really, VOCATIONAL PROFILING! I am GUILTY! because I drive a truck, and I claim Christ as my Savior.

When I asked my Lawyer about those civil liberties that were violated, he tried to tell me that I came to him with those ideas. The civil liberty violations were the basis for which he told me; "I should immediately go and appeal this case".

Now that this case has been heard, my obligation to my Lawyer should be finished. Even though I still have questions and if any one cares about or if they would please consider explaining to me and help me understand how First Amendment rights and Wm. Penn's 1681 New Years Eve speech or prayer could have been used to effectively bring about a moral understanding to the judge. Or even how my civil liberties were violated. Maybe I could give guidance to other individuals if anyone should ever get into a similar situation.

My Lawyer tried to patronize me with the fact that the world needs more individuals like myself. He said, don't be to down trodden.

***12. I realized that this still could be used to glorify God's Kingdom, and that he is sovereign. And then I received a phone call from one of the members of our Church staff who was very encouraging and supportive as I explained what had happened.

This person explained that I now know how Paul felt and after writing this document I really see what they mean.

I graciously accepted that point of view and explained that my favorite verse comes from I Peter 1:3-16, I definitely feel as though I am being refined. I feel the rough edges being made smooth.

One of the things that I realized after it was all over was that detective Floyd, when telling the truth, contradicted the testimony of his own witnesses. (I would really like a copy of that court transcript!)

Mrs. Allsop said the detective pulled up and spoke with me in the middle of the intersection.

Mr. Tran testified that the detective had me move my vehicle.

But then the detective testified similarly to my version that he came up to me after I moved the Truck off to the side of the road and upon exiting my vehicle and seeing me having some kind of dispute with some other individual.

In the first courtroom the judge mentioned that he didn't have any video evidence of what had happened.

Three weeks prior to this incident I was inside of a camera store looking for a video camera to mount inside my truck to document some of the outrageous things people in society do to us the servants of our society. (I would like to pilot a program to show just what I am talking about.)

The men driving those big vehicles are our servants, and they definitely get trodden upon. I am a servant for man and also HIS Kingdom. Look at it this way if you were a truck driver, before you get behind the wheel you will be automatically guilty if anything happens around you. You will be cursed at, you will be interfered with, cut off, passed, cut in front of, and pulled over by the police to be inspected, make one mistake and you will probably be cited. You will be required to handle the vehicle beyond the limits of physics, including stopping and starting and turning and not enough clearance in all directions, (front, side, back, up and down) it is easy to be a Christian but not when you are a professional driver. It is really no wonder why the accidents that occur on our highways do, many times it is just inches from disaster. The mariners got it right, maritime law stipulates that the larger vessel has the right of way. Consider slowing down, being courteous and leaving extra room, for a person going from here to there, with the materials we all need.

I lost; an entire summer of my life due to these charges, I almost lost my job, the stress I put on my poor family, my bank account is diminished, and I am seriously disillusioned about our judicial system more so now than ever before. Everything that I was to believe this country stood for and all of the victimization I received in my past, the trials preparing me for this moment. And how many times I was punished then, for being the victim and still this hour it continues. Wouldn't I have been better off just to give in to the desires of the world, to just give the hood of the detectives car a really good kick or two. It probably would have been a lot less painful and a lot less expensive than to stand up for what I believed was right. I am almost sorry I wrote this but isn't there some real truth here?

In the end I give this all over to God and his workers, my intent if I would have won I would have only kept 50%. The other 50% I was to give to many different ministries. But this is God's problem and I completely wash my hands of it, I only want to work for his kingdom. If I need to testify in truth I would. But I have no intention of taking this matter any further on my own. Will there be a book forth coming I don't know It has been quite an adventure. I can't believe how the songs and the ministries of WBYN can touch so deeply the chords of my heart. They truly are inspirational and life changing, affirming and equipping. I also want to Thank the ministering staff of my Church, and the Congregation those that suffered through my testimony, and those that didn't even know what I have been going through these past 9 months. Last Easter set a series of events in motion we just can't imagine how the LORD can use each and every one of us. I wondered what gifts did I really have, I am not certain but I feel there is a revival coming like we have never seen before, can you see it? Let's ask the restaurant owner who was jailed, because the police Chiefs hamburger was not made correctly?

After reading about this entire mess, I want you to consider HOW MANY PEOPLE could be won into the Kingdom of Christ, through the knowledge and fear of his awesome power. For if you do not fear the LORD you will TREMBLE! Think about that.

In his service, calling all people to know our LORD AND SAVIOR (This is a cry by a lamb, from the wilderness!)

Revive us Oh, LORD

Blessed be our LORD!
Keep Looking Up!
For; When the mountain trembles,
when the Rafters rock,
and the Timbers shake,
we will be able to stand firm on God's Grace.

Thank You,

Gary L

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

The County Court Transcript Edited and Notated for readability and understanding

Two Key points about the County Court Transcript

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Back To:

The Transcript

2005-10-18T22:16:00.005-04:00

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 4630-01

vs.
GARY J LANDIS

SUMMARY APPEAL

Courtroom 6
Thursday, January 3, 2002
Commencing at 2:00 p.m.

Paula Meszaros,
Official Court Reporter
Montgomery County Courthouse
Norristown, Pennsylvania

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN, JUDGE

COUNSEL APPEARED AS FOLLOWS:

REEVE SWAINSTON, ESQUIRE
Assistant District Attorney
for the Commonwealth

L. BRUCE HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE
for the Defendant

Date: Clerk of Courts:

la
INDEX

COMMONWEALTH’ S EVIDENCE
Witness Direct Cross Redir Re c

Carol Allsop 3 12 --

Mike Dran 20 27 --

Randolph Scott Floyd 29 45 --

DEFENDANT’ S EVIDENCE
Gary James Landis 54 61 69

COMMONWEALTH’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

Randolph Scott Floyd 71 71

EXHIBITS

COMMONWEALTH’ S

Number Marked Rec’ d

C-1 Citation 31 45

C-2 Polaroid Photograph 44 45
2

(The proceedings were commencecd
with the Court, Reeve Swainston, Esquire, L. Bruce Hoffman, Esquire, and the defendant being present.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, we

are ready. This is going to be a hearing. We have three witnesses to offer for our case. They are
Officer Floyd, Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop. They are all here today and we are ready to proceed.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor,
respectfully, since there’s two civilian witnesses, I would respectfully request sequestration.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. SWAINSTON: I would ask for
mutual sequestration. I don’t know if there are any defense witnesses, but if there are --

MR. HOFFMAN: There’s no
defense witnesses.

MR. SWAINSTON: -- I would ask
for sequestration.

THE COURT: All right. It is
granted.

MR. SWAINSTON: All right.

3

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

(The prospective witnesses

left the courtroom.)

COMMONWEALTH’ S EVIDENCE

MR. SWAINSTON: I will start
with Carol Allsop.

CAROL ALLSOP, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. SWAINSTON: May I proceed,
Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. I want to direct your attention to April 19th.
2001, that’s a Thursday. Do you remember that day?

A. Yes, I do very well.

Q. At about 4:40 in the late afternoon, were you
in the area of Main and Reliance in Telford
Borough?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. All right. Were you driving an automobile?

4

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

A. Yes, I was.
Q. What kind of automobile were you driving?
A. A 2001 Impala.
Q. Okay. And did there come an occasion at that intersection on that date at approximately than time that you came in contact with somebody that you see here in the courtroom today?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you identify that person?
A. Mr. Landis.

MR. SWAINSTON: Indicating the
defendant, Your Honor, by name and pointed finger.
MR. HOFFMAN: So stipulated, if that’s necessary.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Ma’am, what happened on that day that brings you to court today?
A. It was late in the afternoon; and with the rush hour traffic, Mr. Landis was driving a concrete truck with the concrete blocks on it, not the mixer type. He was in front of me at the light.

Q. Was he directly in front of you?
A. Yes, he was directly in front of me.

5

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

Q. Were you -- let’s take it one step at a time.

A. Yes.

Q. Were you stopped

A. Yes.

Q. -- behind him?
A. At the red light.
Q. Okay.
A. There was a red light and we were stopped at the red light.
I was directly behind him.
Q. All right.
A. When the light turned green, he proceeded to make a right-hand turn onto County Line Road
and because of the traffic he could not make his right-hand turn. He stopped and I stopped.
Q. You said it was rush hour traffic?
A. It was busy.
Q. So there was a lot of traffic at that time?
A. Yes, it was busy.
Q. What were the weather conditions?

A. It was a fine -- it was a nice rain-free afternoon.
Q. Sunny, clear?
A. Yes.
Q. The road was not wet?

6

CAROL ALLSOP -- DIRECT

A. No.
Q. What happened then when he was trying to make that right-hand turn?
A. Well, the gentleman behind me completely not attached to what happened here at all bumped into my bumper - -
Q. Who - -

A. - - which was completely separate.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mr. Dram.
Q. Okay. Is he here today?
A. Yes, he is here today.
Q. He is the other gentleman?
A. The other gentleman, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. And that was completely - - I got out of my car. I went back to Mr. Dran’s car to make sure was okay. He had a small child with him. Again, separate to what happened.

Q. So just so we are clear - -
A. Yes.
Q. - - what happened between you and Mr. Dram, you are saying that was separate - -
A. Right.

7

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

Q. - - from why you are here today?

A. To why I am here today.
Q. Okay.
A. Mr. Landis, when I had turned back to do thac it was just a few seconds was in the intersection.
Q. You were out in your car at this point?
A. Yes, I was out of my car. He was using
obscene language with the car that was on the other side of the road to him.
Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court.
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry to interrupt you.
A. That’s okay.
Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court for a
minute. Where was the defendant? Was he still in the truck?
A. He was out of his truck standing in the middle of the road.
Q. Okay.
A. Was the light green or red at that point?

MR. HOFFMAN: Objection. Which
light?
THE WITNESS: Well, the light
at

8

CAROL ALLSOP -- DIRECT

THE COURT: Wait a minute.
What’s the objection?
MR. HOFFMAN: I don’t know
which light we are talking about?
THE WITNESS: The traffic
light.
MR. SWAINSTON: The traffic
light - -
THE COURT: At the
intersection.
MR. SWAINSTON: - - at the
intersection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I couldn’t tell you if it was green or red when I turned, because by that time it probably changed several times. The traffic was stopped because his truck was there and he was standing in the middle of the road.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Well, let’s establish a time frame then. How much time passed between the time that the defendant went in to the intersection and you observed him out of the truck after you bumped by Mr. Dran?

9

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

A. Less than a minute.
Q. Okay. Now, you described the defendant in the intersection. Tell His Honor what you saw the defendant doing?
A. He was speaking obscenely, gesturing obscenely. Road rage was what came to my mind when I was observing this in the middle of the intersection. Traffic was being held up. He was clearly out of control and then - -
Q. Did you talk to him? Did you address him?
A. No, did not talk to him at all.
Q. Why not?
A. He - - actually, I take that back. He did come
up to me and at one point just to make sure that
everybody was okay. Then I backed right off
because he was out of control. It was unsafe.
Officer Floyd, who I did not
know was Officer Floyd at the time, was coming
through the intersection going straight through,
also asked Mr. Landis to please be quiet and to get
out of the middle of the intersection which he
would not do. And then he pulled - - Officer Floyd

pulled in front of the truck and got out of his

car, showed his badge at which point I was very
10

CAROL ALLSOP - - DIRECT

relieved to see there was actually a police officer
in the right place at the right time. I had my
cell phone. I was about to call the police and
Officer Floyd took care of that and called for other officers.

Q. Now, you mentioned that the defendant was engaging in some conduct you said was
obscene. Do you remember specifically anything about that conduct?

A. He was using obscene language. He was waving his arms around.
He was just obviously - -

Q. Do you know who if anyone - -
A. Ranting and raving are the words that come to my mind.
Q. Do you know who, if anyone, that was directed towards?
A. Everybody and anybody who was in the intersection at the time.

Q. Was there any traffic coming the other direction?

A. Not while he was standing in the middle of the road. There was traffic to come, but it couldn’t get by until - - because, A, his truck was trying to get around the corner this way. It was stuck; and

11

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

if anybody had tried to go through the intersection, they would have risked hitting him.

Q. Okay. Was any traffic able to get through the intersection while he was in the middle of the intersection?
A. Not until Officer Floyd had him pull his truck clear of the intersection and park it on the side of the road.
Q. Okay. Did anything else occur after the officer showed up regarding the defendant, that you recall?
A. Yes, Officer Floyd asked him to be quiet and it took him three times and he finally did say, sir, if you are not quiet, that he would have him arrested; and he finally stopped.

Q. At any time did you see Officer Floyd use any kind of language
A. No.

Q. - - that you described - -
A. None whatsoever.

Q. - - that the defendant used?

A. None whatsoever.

Q. Would you describe the demeanor of Officer Floyd?

12

CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS

A. Very professional, very courteous, very much in command on what was going on. He did what he had to do.

Q. Okay.

MR. SWAINSTON: I have nothing

further.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Sir.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Good afternoon, ma’am?
A. Good afternoon.
Q. As I understand it, there was a fairly large truck trying to make a right-hand turn that was in front of you; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And he could not navigate the turn for what reason. Do you know?
A. Because of the size of his vehicle and the traffic that was on the road at the time. It was busy time in the afternoon.
Q. Well, was there something that was preventing his truck - - I mean, why did he not complete the turn? Was there something that prevented it that

13

CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS

you were aware of?
A. I did not have a clear view of what prevented him because I was behind him.

Q. All right.
A. The traffic in general - -

Q. All right.
A. - - prevented him from making his right-hand turn.

Q. So as a consequence, you came to a stop and the vehicle behind you did not and it struck you, struck the rear of your vehicle?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. At that point, is that when Mr. Landis got out of his vehicle?
A. I got out of my vehicle and he got out whet I turned back he was out of his vehicle, yes.

Q. Okay. So you don’t know exactly when he got out of the vehicle?
A. The same time I got out would be fair to say.

Q. Okay. And was he walking toward you or away from you? Where was he going when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. The fact that I got bumped had nothing to do with what we are here
14
CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS
for.

Q. Okay. I am not asking about that.
A. Okay.

Q. All I asked you was was he walking away from you or toward - - or back toward where your vehicle was when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. He was standing in the intersection.

Q. He was standing there?
A. He was in the intersection.

Q. And you said that he was obscene?
A. Yes.

Q. What was he saying? I am - - this Mr. Landis?
A. The exact terminology at this time I could not relate exactly word for word. He was using obscene language. He was - -
Q. Well, what language was he using, is what I at trying to get at?
A. Fuck you, God dam, et cetera, et cetera.
Q. And who was he saying that to?
A. There was a car parked - - there was a car in the intersection that he was - - as I said to the
District Attorney representative, anybody and everybody who happened to be standing there.

15
CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS

Q. Were there other people standing there?
A. Well, the crowd that draws attention, what have you.

Q. He was yelling
A. He was out of control. He was ranting and raving and just anybody who is in a fit of temper is just going to rant and rave.

Q. And this all happened within less than a minute, is that what you said on direct examination?
A. The attorney had asked me how quickly it started happening, yes, within less than a minute.

Q. And there was a crowd that gathered within less than a minute?
A. You know, people standing around, people going home, it is a very busy intersection.

Q. Okay. But I mean, was he angry at you?
A. He was just angry at the situation.

Q. Okay. He didn’t come up to you and ask you if you were okay?
A. Very briefly, yes.

Q. Okay. And he was concerned about the driver of the other car, whether that driver was okay?
A. I would not say so.

16
CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS
Q. Didn’t he ask if everybody was okay, that’s what he was asking you?
A. Yes, I think he said everybody okay.

Q. So he was concerned about that?
A. Yeah.

Q. And he was ranting and raving and cursing at whom? I seriously don’t understand.
A. To the situation. To everybody else that he was angry because he could not get his truck around. He was angry at the whole situation.

Q. Okay.
A. What had happened with my car and the other gentleman’s car.

Q. I understand, that’s clear. J Know if he do you know if he thought perhaps that another vehicle hit his vehicle, also?

MR. SWAINSTON: Objection.

MR. HOFFMAN: Does she know,
that’s all I am asking.

THE COURT: All right.
Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don’t know if
he did but I certainly - - he was not hit.

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
17
CAROL ALLSOP - - CROSS
Q. Well, so he was not directing any anger or obscenity toward you?
A. Yes, by being there and making you feel afraid to be in a situation.

Q. Officer Floyd came upon the scene. Were ther any other officers on the scene before Officer Floyd came upon the scene?
A. No.

Q. How did Officer - - is it Detective Floyd, I’m sorry?
A. Yes.

Q. I’m sorry. How did Detective Floyd come upon the scene?
I mean, in what manner, did he drive upon the scene?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was he in a marked vehicle or unmarked vehicle?
A. An unmarked vehicle.

Q. Was he in uniform or not in uniform?
A. He was dressed the way he is now.

Q. Okay. When he came upon the scene, where did he come from? I mean, what direction, on what road?

A. He was on County Line Road proceeding south.
18
CAROL ALLSOP - CROSS

Q. Okay.
A. I think that goes north, south.

Q. Okay. And is that where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. Yes.

Q. Where did his vehicle come to a stop with reference to where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. In the middle he proceeded into the intersection and then Mr. Landis came up to his car.

Q. When his car came to a stop, that is Detective Floyd’s car came to a stop, how far was it from Mr. Landis?
A. Mr. Landis walked up to his car when Detective Floyd

Q. I appreciate that that’s what you are trying to tell me. I am asking you, though, when Detective Floyd’s car stopped moving, where was Mr. Landis? How far away from it was Mr. Landis?
A. A foot, a couple of feet, maybe more.

Q. All right. That’s what I am asking. When Detective Floyd came up to within a foot or two of Mr. Landis, did he arrive quickly or did he come up very slowly in his vehicle?

19
CAROL ALLSOP - CROSS

A. Cautiously.

Q. Okay. I understand cautiously, meaning he was being careful. But his speed, did he just coast
or did he come upon the scene quickly because there was a scene?
A. He had been stopped at the red light and he had proceeded into the intersection.

Q. He proceeded into the intersection?
A. Just up to him. He could not go anywhere else.

Q. Okay. And he came within a foot or two of him?
A. He came up to ask Mr. Landis to please - -

Q. Well, you did not know that until he - - you did not know he was even a police officer, did you,
when he came upon the scene?
A. No, not at that time.

Q. Okay. And do you know if Mr. Landis knew he was a police officer when he came upon the
scene within a foot or two from him in the vehicle?
A. No, I do not know if he knew that.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, maam.
I have nothing further.

MR. SWAINSTON: No redirect,

20
MIKE DRAN - DIRECT
Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That ‘s
all.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Mr. Dran,
briefly.

MIKE DRAN, after having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. SWAINSTON: May I proceed,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Good afternoon, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand me? Do you speak English well now?
A. A little bit.
Q. Okay. What language do you speak?
A. Vietnamese.
Q. Vietnamese?

21
MIKE DRAN - DIRECT

A. Yes.
Q. Will you understand me if I speak slowly?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If you don’t understand me, tell me.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you understand that - - and if anyone
asks you questions in this room and you don’t
understand, make sure you tell that person. Okay?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. I am going to direct your
attention back to April of 2001. Do you remember that month?
A. Yes.
Q. And specifically on April 19th, were you involved in a car accident?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was that car accident with Miss Allsop, the woman in court right here? (Indicating.)
A. Yes.

Q. Were you alone in your car or with anyone else?
A. My car?

Q. Yes
A. Yes

22
MIKE DRAN - DIRECT

Q. Did you have anyone else in your car?
A. My daughter.
Q. How old is your daughter?
A. Maybe one year and six months like that.
Q. Okay. So eighteen months old?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you at the intersection of Main and
Reliance in Telford Township?
A. From - -

Q. From Township Line?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, do you recognize anyone other than Miss Allsop in the courtroom from that intersection on that day, that you see here in the courtroom?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I
will stipulate my client was there that day.

MR. SWAINSTON: Very well.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Did you see that man right there?
A. Yes.

Q. At the intersection?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you try and tell the Judge what happened?
A. From that day, I had my daughter - - my work in

23
MIKE DRAN DIRECT

a company and from him, truck driver.

Q. He is a truck driver.
A. He had indicated right.

Q. Indicating a right-hand turn?
A. Yes. And him get on to turn on and her behind a truck and behind her.
Q. You hit her?
A. Yes. Let’s him stop it and for her stop, and I behind and hit from - - for her in the back from her car.
Q. Okay. Can you tell the Judge what he did, if
anything
A. Yes.
Q. - - brings you to court today?
A. Oh, I heard him and have an accident and for
him to come in.
Q. The officer?
A. Yes, him come in and him tell him to move the car in the parking lot. And for him tell the guy move the car and the truck go on the side.
Q. Let’s take it slowly. You saw the detective
A. Yes.

Q. - - tell him to move?
24
MIKE DRAN DIRECT

A. Move the truck, go on the side and
Q. To go away you said?
A. No. Him say for her to move the car in the
parking lot.

Q. In the parking lot?
A. Yes. From him and move her car, move her
truck on the side.

Q. Okay.
A. You know.
Q. When he said move - - listen to, when the Detective said to Mr. Landis move - -
A. Yes
Q. - - what did you see him do? What did he do?
A. He was mad. Him say to - -
Q. He was mad?
A. Yes. Him say that guy, who are you.
Q. To the detective?
A. Yes. And him say, him a police at Telford and
him say where your I.D.
Q. Stop. He said, I’m a police officer from
Tel ford?
A. Yes.
Q. And he said where is your I.D.?
A. Yes.

25
MIKE DRAN DIRECT

Q. What happened then?
A. And him to in a wallet from I.D. from
police
Q. Indicating the detective holding a badge?
A. Yes. And him flipping from from the

Q. Indicating putting it in the breast pocket?
A. Okay.
Q. And then what did he do?

A. To him?
Q. Yes.
A. And him get have a fight with some people
on the other side
Q. Who was having a fight?
A. Him.
Q. The defendant?
A. Yes.
Q. With people on the side?
A. Yes, some people had to stop.
Q. How many people?
A. I think ten cars, something like that.
Q. Ten?
A. Ten cars had stopped, you know what I mean,
and long lines. Some people move it.
Q. Was he out was he walking?

26
MIKE DRAN DIRECT

A. Yes. Him move, go out of the truck. Him walking and talk a lot.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I will object. I know that there’s a difficulty but I am going to object to the leading nature of the questions.

THE COURT: I will give him
some lead way. Go ahead.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. So he was walking by those cars?

A. Him out of the car and the back of the truck and him fighting
Q. And fighting with him?
A. Yes. And fighting with some people half stuck in car.
Q. Okay. Were those other people in their car
A. Yes.
Q. or out of the car?
A. In the car.
Q. They were in the car
A. Yes.
Q. still.
Do you remember anything that the defendant said?

27
MIKE DRAM DIRECT

A. One car go away him say you, you, you, you. Him yell and the truck and the guy stuck the car. Have him move it and him follow you. You, you, like that. Him yell at a guy driving.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. Excuse me, and after that, a couple of weeks and him call my house a lot of time. He say him a witness from my accident or something like that.
Q. The defendant was calling you at your house?
A. Him call my house a lot of time.
Q. A lot of times?
A. Yes. Him call say him had a witness from my accident for her, something like that.
Q. Okay. Thank you. This man right here is going to ask you some questions.
A. Yes.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Was he trying to help at the accident scene?
MR. SWAINSTON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Was he concerned? Was he worried about you

28
MIKE DRAN - - CROSS

and about Mrs. Allsop at accident scene?

A. I don’t understand what you talking.
Q. The cars that were lined up on the other street
A. Yes.
Q. - - were they preventing him from turning his truck, from finishing his turn? Were they in the way?
A. I don’t understand.
MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing
further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Step
down.

MR. SWAINSTON: Sir, thank you
very much for coming in. Sorry it was so difficult

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: I call

Detective Floyd, please.

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD, after
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

29
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

MR. SWAINSTON: May I, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Detective Floyd, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Sir, I am going to ask you a few questions regarding this matter involving this defendant. Were you on duty as a police officer in Telford on the date of April 19, 2001?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you were actually a detective; is that correct?
A. Yes, I was. In fact, at that time, I was on my way home from work, but I take my borough car home with me and I am technically on duty until I arrive at home.
Q. Well, in any event, you are a sworn police officer in Telford?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Did you have your badge with you?
A. I had it with me, yes.
Q. Were you in civilian clothes?

30
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

A. I was dressed very similar to what I am today.
Q. As a detective, so you were not in police uni form?
A. No.
Q. Did you have occasion to come in contact with the defendant on that day?
A. Yes.
Q. That was late in the afternoon sometime after
4:30?
A. About twenty of 4:00 or twenty of 5:00.
Q. That was at what intersection?
A. The intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road. Main Street just for some clarification in this case is often referred to as County Line Road because it is the divider between Bucks and Montgomery County. This was in the Montgomery County side.

Q. So it was in Montgomery County?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you have occasion to issue a citation to the defendant?
A. Yes, I did, I filed it.

Q. And what was that citation for, specifically the charge?

31
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

A. Disorderly conduct for all four subsections of the violation.
Q. All right. Do you have that citation with you in your case folder?

A. Yes. I believe you have my copy.
Q. All right.
MR. SWAINSTON: May I approach,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SWAINSTON: Can I have this
marked has C-1.

(Citation, marked as Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-1, for identification.)
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Sir, I will hand you what purports to be the citation for disorderly conduct. I have marked that as Commonwealth’s Exhibit-1. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes. That’s this copy, Xerox copy of my citation I issued to Gary Landis.

Q. All right. And would you describe to the Court, you can read from the citation if there’s no objection, what it is that you cited the defendant for?

32

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

A. Okay. In that the defendant did with intent to cause public inconvenience and annoyance and alarm, yell and scream, block traffic and cause a disturbance in a public place, and additionally, a the bottom block traffic Main and Reliance during rush hour, yelled and scream belligerently and continued after warning, children and others in the area, alarmed a number of persons.

Q. Now, you issued that citation as a summary; not a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. But you said you had warned the defendant. Can you describe to the Court what you did to warn the defendant from this behavior?
A. Yes. I was traveling southbound on Main Street approaching Reliance Road. Our police station is approximately three blocks from that location. I left the police station; and as soon as I left the police station, I observed up in that intersection a very good line of sight that traffic was all backed up and there appeared to be some type of problem at that intersection.

Q. How far away were you?
A. About two or three blocks. As I got closer,

33

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

it appeared that there may have been a traffic accident. And as I got closer yet, I saw that there was a large orange truck, nice clean truck which I am familiar with the company. It’s a company affiliated with Landis Block Company which is right outside of our town.

Q. Describe that truck and where it was.
A. Initially, when I was further back soon after I pulled cut of the police station that truck was heading east into the intersection from Reliance Road; and then as I approached and arrived on che scene, the truck had pulled right around the come and was on south Main Street, right on the -- riqh on the intersection.

Q. You say right on the intersection -- in the intersection between the two?
A. Just off the intersection, along the street there, but it is a no parking zone and the traffic is very tight there. It was and it worsened the traffic problem. Fortunately, all the traffic in front of me made either right or left-hand turns which enabled me to get up into the intersection. As I was probably a half a block away, I saw Mr. Landis get out of the truck and go down to

34

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

Q. You actually saw him exit the vehicle?

A. I saw him get cut of the truck. Immediately saw him enter into an argument or a shouting match with a motorist that was parked in the line of traffic at the traffic light.

Q. Heading what direction in relationship to the t muck?

A. That would have been opposite heading north on Main Street. The traffic was blocked up. I believe Mr. Dran was pretty accurate when he said there was about ten cars there. I believe the car
were backed up, ten to twelve in length. There was a man

Q. What was blocking those ten cars?

A. At that - - on that side of the road, only the red light. However, there was traffic that was blocked up all around due to the truck being parked where it was. It slowed everything down. The southbound traffic did not get through. Northbound traffic was blocked up. Everybody was slowing down to look at what was going on, and the other traffic was also blocked up.

Q. When you came on the scene then, did you feel the need to ask the defendant to move his truck?

35
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

A. Actually, I had to ask the defendant to move himself. He had stepped out into the traffic.
Q. But did you -- did you feel that the truck also needed to be moved?
A. Initially, yes.
Q. Did you express that to the defendant?
A. At some point I believe I did.
Q. But - -
A. I am not positive at which point in the incident it was.
Q. But it was done?
A. It was done, yes.
Q. So prior to getting to that point, though, yet just stated that you asked the defendant himself
to move. Why did you do that?
A. Well, as I mentioned everything, was all blocked up. The traffic was all tied up at the intersection. Mr. Landis was himself blocking traffic standing in the road. Nobody could get through him.
Q. Could you describe what you mean by that? There were vehicles actually getting through intersection?
A. Yes. There is -- going northbound on Main

36

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

Street it is a straight ahead lane and a left turn lane. He was walking in the left turn lane which kept traffic from being able to pass through if they wanted to make a left-hand turn.

The truck was parked in the southbound side, which is a no parking zone, which only enabled - - well, the northbound traffic would have to move over a little bit in order to let the southbound traffic get passed the truck. He is standing in the intersection - - standing in the roadway, not directly in the intersection, but up further and he is yelling and screaming at a man that was parked in the northbound traffic. They are having a verbal argument. The man was in his car. I was never able to identify that person.

But Mr. Landis is standing in the road at this point facing south, his back towards me, yelling. His arms are in the air, shouting and screaming at this man. He is walking backwards towards where I am coming approaching him.

As I get close to Mr. Landis,

he turns around. I am creeping. I am moving very slow. I am getting up as close as I can.

37

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

At this point, he turns around and he sees my car there, starts yelling and screaming at me saying, you know, what the fuck, are you trying hit me. And he comes up to my driver’s window. As soon as he approached, he is yelling and screaming.

I said to him, you better knock

it - - I believe my almost exact words were, if you don’t knock it off right now, you will be arrested.

At that point he says, well,

you call the fucking cops, because I want the fucking cops here.

I simply replied, you got one;
and I pulled off to the side of the road.

At that point, Mr. Landis - - I pulled up in front of the truck, up on to the sidewalk as close or up to the sidewalk to not block traffic any worse; and as I am walking up, he approaches me a second time. This is about the time that I meet Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop.
Q. Were you in or out of your vehicle?
A. At this point, I am out.
Q. All right.
A. And Miss Allsop says to me something to the
38

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

effect - -
MR. HOFFMAN: Objection, Your
Honor, hearsay. She was here to testify.

THE COURT: Is that - - I did
not know it is hearsay.

MR. HOFFMAN: I understand.
would argue it’s just in any event he is on the scene of an accident.

MR. SWAINSTON: It is not

THE COURT: It is not offered
for the truth.

MR. SWAINSTON: - - offered - -

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.

THE COURT: Of course not. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: She made a statement something to the effect, boy, I’m glad you’re here. I could see in her face and I could see in Mr. Dran’s they were alarmed. They were upset with what was going on.
I could see this is a main intersection, people were stopped, they were looking out of their cars. There’s several residents - - people came out of the residence. It

39
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

drew - - it was a major disturbance.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. How did they know that you were a police officer?

A. At that time, around that same time I approached and Mr. Landis approached me again and he said, if you are a cop, I want to see some I.D. There’s profanity mixed in with that at which time I was already pulling my wallet - - my badge wallet out from my pocket and pinning my badge on to my coat which displayed - -

Q. Detective, you are an officer you testified before, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You said there’s profanity involved in that conversation. Describe for the Court exactly what he said, if you remember?
A. The exact words I cannot tell you, but the word “fuck” was used many times. Dam, fuck, of course, stood out. There was children in the area.
I got very firm with him. I told him, I am telling you right now, knock it off, or you are going to be arrested. When I meant being arrested, I meant being taken in to actual

40
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

physical custody because of his conduct around everybody.

After he realized that I was a police officer, then he did finally settle down an~ began to vent about the way the traffic patterns are and how difficult it is for him to maneuver truck around the intersection. I simply told him - - I said I lived in that community all of my life. I know how bad the traffic can be, but this is not a time to stand out in the middle of a public place with children and other people using profanity to express your views and that was stated to him.

I told him at the time he was going to be receiving a citation because of his disorderly conduct.

Q. So did you not arrest him on the scene then?

A. No. I could have and I believe his conduct certainly went beyond the summary level. I believe it was definitely misdemeanor level, and I could have taken him into custody and removed his truck. We chose not to do that simply to get the intersection cleared and get him moved on.

MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to

41
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT
object to the legal conclusion that the witness is
drawing.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. What happened then?
A. All right. At that time, I had my cell phone
with me. I contacted our patrol officers who were on duty. I had them respond. I simply told them was at the scene of an accident. There was a disorderly subject and I needed their assistance right away. They came.

They - - at this time, the
officers arrived almost simultaneously. I learned at that time - - that at the same time the officers - - the patrol officers did that Mr. Landis was not even involved in the accident, that it was solely Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop and he had no reason to be there. He was in front of the accident. Simply got out of - - his conduct had nothing to do with the accident. He was just upset about other things.

Q. Would you describe any of the conversations that you had with the defendant? Did the subject ever relate to the welfare of the two individuals

42

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT

in the accident?

A. Not to me, no. I know from talking to Mrs. Allsop that he asked about them, but there was nothing indicated in my presence.

Q. How many warnings did you give the defendant to cease this behavior?

A. I warned him at the car initially my first contact with him. I warned him a second time and then I warned him at least a third time to settle down and stop being disruptive.

Q. How many other people on the scene whether it be in the vehicles or outside of the vehicles were there?

A. I would guess there’s 15, conservatively stating that there was 15 to 20 vehicles in the intersection from all directions. It was a warm day. The windows were down. There were people who came out of their houses nearby. The parking lot, which is right at that intersection where we stood, the business -- people were in and out of that business. I did note that there were several young teenagers or even younger children who appeared at the intersection drawn to the yelling and screaming that was going on.

43

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT

In addition to, of course,
Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop who were already there am Mr. Dran’s young daughter who were present during the whole incident.

Q. Did the defendant eventually cease that behavior that you described?
A. He quieted down. He did not cease the swearing. I would say he was still agitated, but it was more refined and that he slowed down and then I - - after he was calmed down, I actually left and the other officers appeared at the scene. Mr. Landis left with his truck.

Q. So he was sent on his way - -
A. Yes.

Q. - - and received a summons.
A. Yes. And the summons was sent to him by mail.
Q. You brought pictures, I see?

MR. SWAINSTON: May I approach,
Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I had prepared exhibits. We had a leak in our evidence vault which made them unusable.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. And what do these pictures purport to be?

44
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

A. Those Polaroid photographs are simply taken of
the intersection where this incident occurred. This is the intersection of Main Street and
Reliance Road, basically, from all the directions.

Q. Can you pick one of these pictures and pull one out for the Court to get an idea of what the intersection looks like?
A. Probably will depict the best.

MR. SWAINSTON: Can I have thi.s
marked as C—2.

(Polaroid Photograph marked as
Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-2, for identification.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I

don’t believe there’s an objection. I would ask to publish this photo just as a demonstrative aid to the Court. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Officer, can you describe that photo that the Judge is looking at right now?
A. Yes, that’s this intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road looking from the north to the
south down Main Street. To the right, Your Honor, on that photo where the businesses are located is primarily where the incidents took place.

45

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

Q. And that photograph depicts a fair and accurate representation - -
A. Yes.

Q. - - of that intersection as it existed on the date in April?
A. Yes, it does.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I
would ask for admission of C-1 and C-2.

I have no further questions of
this detective.
MR. HOFFMAN: No objection.
THE COURT: They are admitted.
(Exhibits C-1 and C-2, received into evidence.)

CROSS - - EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Officer, do you know what the defendant was upset about?
A. He was upset about he cannot make the turn for truck.
Q. Why could he not make the turn?
A. I don’t know. I believe he told me that somebody was pulled up beyond the turn mark. I didn’t witness that and I certainly believe what he

46

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

said. It is a problem that happens at most intersections.
Q. Okay. And he drives a large truck?
A. I would say it’s a large truck. It is not a fifty foot trailer.

Q. I don’t mean eighteen wheeler?
A. Yes.

Q. He drives a significant vehicle?
A. Yes.

Q. And did he tell you he has this problem and you say you are aware of this problem?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So who -- and there was an accident caused as a result. Is that your understanding as well?
A. There’s an accident at the same time, whether it had, you know, again, I didn’t witness the accident; but from what I learned from Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran, yes, he was making - - trying to make the turn and Mr. Dran drove into the car.
Q. Okay.

A. Because she had to stop.
Q. Did you observe him at any time angry with Mrs. Alisop or Mr. Dran?

47
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - CROSS

A. No, not at all.
Q. And who he was waving his arms at or whatever, his activity was related to was the vehicle who was up above that strip?
A. No, that’s not what I observed.

Q. All right. What did you observe?
A. I observed him having an argument with a guy who was about seven, eight, ten cars in the back line of traffic.

Q. Okay.
A. That had nothing to do with him not being able to get around the turn.

Q. All right. So you don’t know what happened - - you don’t know what that was about?
A. With the argument that I witnessed?

Q. Yes.
A. It was just shouting. The man said to him something - - I heard the man in traffic yell something about moving the truck, you are blocking traffic up. At which time he responded by yelling, shouting back to him.

Q. Now, do you know why he stopped his truck and left it there? I am talking about before you arrived on the scene.

48
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

A. Not particularly, no.
Q. Did he tell you that he thought that his vehicle was struck, too, or that he was involved in an accident?
A. He may have said that, I don’t know. I initially thought he was involved in an accident. I didn’t know until later that he wasn’t, so he may have said that, yes.

Q. So it was reasonable to assume that he was involved in an accident on his part and your part?
A. Yes.

Q. And it would be correct not to move your vehicle if you were involved in an accident, would it not, especially a commercial vehicle?
A. He did move the vehicle, though. He did. He moved it around the turn and he parked it where it obstructed the traffic even more.

Q. I mean, removed your vehicle from the scene?
A. (No response.)

Q. In other words, to leave the scene of an accident?
A. Yes. No, that would be improper, certainly.

Q. So if he were involved in an accident or if he thought he was involved in an accident, his

49
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

behavior was not only legal but required, that is to leave the truck there?

A. Yes. But that had nothing to do with the disorderly conduct citation that he was cited for.
Q. I am not - - I’m just asking you this one question now. Would you agree with me that it would be appropriate for him to leave the truck there?
A. If he was in an accident, to stop and move hi2 truck and get out and exchange information, certainly.

Q. All right. So now, you come upon to the scene. He is not even out of his vehicle yet; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You see him get out of the vehicle?
A. I see him get out of the vehicle.

Q. How long of a time elapsed between the time when you saw him get out of his vehicle until you arrived at the scene?
A. I would say it was within a block or two. I was driving probably 30 seconds.

Q. Okay. About 30 seconds?
A. Yes.

50
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - CROSS

Q. So that’s when you saw this behavior going on; is that right?
A. It continued. As I got closer to the intersection, it was going on. So I observed him for probably a minute acting disorderly.

Q. Okay. His back was towards you, as I understand?
A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you drove your car how close to him?
A. I would say I creeped up. I was moving up until about maybe five, eight feet. Then I stopped and he was moving back towards me. In fact, I thought he was going to walk into me. We were close but I saw him walking. I got up as close as I could to the incident without striking him.

Q. Let’s think about this. For whatever reason - - from his point of view, for whatever reason, either he is walking backwards or you are coming forward, there’s that feeling that he is going to be struck by a vehicle, both by him and by you. You were afraid you were going to hit him or he was going to walk into you.
A. No, I was not afraid I was going to hit him.

Q. You were afraid he was going to back up into

51
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

the vehicle?
A. Exactly.

Q. You were that close?
A. He was not paying attention to what he was doing. He was walking towards me. I stopped.

Q. I understand that.
A. And I did not - -

Q. I understand your testimony. I am not trying to say that one way or the other. All I’m trying to say it would be reasonable from his point of view as he turns around and finds out he is within inches of a vehicle to think he was just going to be struck by a vehicle?
A. That’s possible, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, the vehicle is not marked. You have not identified yourself as police officer and there’s no way to identify yourself as a police officer; is that accurate?
A. That’s correct.

Q. He is upset. And you tell him two or three times to quiet down?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Then he quiets down?
A. Right.

52
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

Q. All right. Any further difficulty from him o anything like that?
A. He was agitated the whole entire time. After I finally laid it out for him that if you don’t knock it off right now, I am going to take you into custody. Then he finally settled down. I actually had one of the other officers talk to him while I talked to Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran.

Q. Okay. How long would you say - - how long a period of time elapsed from the time you identified yourself as a police officer until the time when, you know, he quieted down, so to speak?
A. A minute.

Q. Okay. So this all took place within a minute’s time?
A. No. That’s not right.

Q. After you identified yourself as a police officer, I mean?
A. Yes.

Q. What was his purpose in being there? I mean, was he - - he is a truck driver, he is on the road all of the time?
A. Right.

Q. And there was a motor vehicle accident which

53
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS

may or may not involved him. But in his mind we don’t know that yet. But is he - - there were no other police on the scene?
A. No, not at that time.

Q. And he was not wrong for not moving his vehicle from the scene if he was involved in an accident?
A. Right.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further.

Thank you.

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, the
Commonwealth has no further evidence. The Commonwealth rests for the purpose of this hearing.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I
call the defendant to the stand.

DEFENDANT’ S EVIDENCE

GARY LANDIS, after having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
54
GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Mr. Landis, did you ever use profanity at the scene of this situation?
A. I had a reason not to.
Q. First answer me if you ever did?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And why would you - - why did you not - - what reason did you have not to?
A. Thirteen years ago I received a warning for making a stop line violation. The officer observed me sit a traffic light out three times.
MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I
will object to this. Anything regarding anything that happened three 13 years ago I don’t believe is relevant to what happened on April 19th of last year.

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. My question is: You said you did not use profanity at the scene?
A. I did not.

Q. Tell us if that’s -- this - - you stated you did not use profanity at the scene. I ask you why?
How do you know that?

55
GARY LANDIS -- DIRECT
A. I wanted to be a witness to this accident.
Q. Mr. Landis, is there any way you would have used profanity at the scene of this accident?
A. I’m not a perfect person. I could but not in this instance. I am a Christian. I made a promise to myself not to use profanity in public.

Q. Okay. You were trying to make a right - hand turn. What prevented you from making a right -hand turn?
A. A vehicle that crossed the stop line in front of me, I had to wait for him to back up.

Q. Okay. So your vehicle came to a stop and there was a motor vehicle accident. Did you feel you were involved in the accident?
A. I thought I was struck from behind, the car was so close behind me.

Q. So what, if anything, did you do at that point?
A. I wanted to testify as a witness that the man who crossed the stop line caused the accident.

Q. Okay. The man who crossed the stop sign which was not Mrs. Allsop or not Mr. Van Dran; is that correct?
A. No. This was another individual who was

56
GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT

approaching a red light and failed to stop in an appropriate place at the intersection for the large vehicle to clear the turn.

Q. Okay. So he was the man that was preventing you from completing your turn. Was that man still at the scene?
A. Yes, he was. I asserted myself to have him stay at the scene.

Q. All right. That’s the person who you were in contact with or talking to when the detective came upon the scene?
A. No. The detective had to be further back. He may have observed me talking to that individual. I had still not moved my truck off from the scene off to park it to the side of the road. At that point nobody was there.

Q. All right. So you were in your own mind involved in a motor vehicle accident. There was a vehicle that you -- a driver of a vehicle who you felt was a probable cause involved in this accident and you wanted to get that man’s identity?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Your back is to the approaching traffic including the detective?

57

GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT

A. After I cleared the intersection with my vehicle to allow traffic to move past, I exited my vehicle to go back and help the individual who I just asserted to stay at the scene. I was walking in that direction when from over my shoulder I heard harassment and profanity coming in my direction.

Q. From whom?
A. This was the vehicle - - it would be the third car in line. We had the man that crossed the stop line, we had another vehicle in between and there was this guy in this pickup truck who I recognized to have cursed at me on another occasion.

Q. And he was the one yelling and cursing?
A. Again.

Q. At you?
A. Yes.

Q. Because - -
A. And the man that crossed the stop line who was not moving his vehicle because I told him to stay put until the authorities so that he could exchange information with the people who just had the accident.

Q. What happens next?

58

GARY LANDIS - DIRECT

A. Well, when I heard the profanity and the harassment coming from in my direction, I took a couple of steps back in the middle of the road; and from my firefighter training, I recognized that if I stayed close to the cars I would be a hazard. Somebody could try and slide by between the truck and the traffic. I took two steps back to get in the center of the traffic, so that I wouldn’t be a threatened.
So I turned to the individual and I yelled at him, so that he would stop yelling at me and the other people.

Q. All right. And Detective Floyd’s car comes from where?
A. He comes from behind me. At this time I had my back towards the direction of traffic.

Q. That’s what I am trying to get to. And did you recognize Detective Floyd as police officer?
A. Not at all.

Q. What did you think rightly or wrongly was going to happen when Detective Floyd’s vehicle was approaching you from the back?
A. I thought Detective Floyd was another motoris that was trying to get through and was interfered

59
GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT

with in his progress of day to day routine. As a truck driver, I suffer harassment from that direction many times.

Q. Okay. And when Officer - - Detective Floyd identified himself as a police officer, what, if anything, did you do?
A. That was awhile later. When Officer Floyd first pulled up on the scene and he drove his car up behind me, I had only put my foot back to turn around as a pivot maneuver not to walk backwards; and when the lady in between - - the guy that was harassing him for profanity and the guy that was crossing this stop line, she warned me about Officer Floyd’s approach.

Q. Like watch out?
A. Yeah, hey, watch out.

Q. All right. And so what, if anything, did you do at that point?
A. Well, I turned around and squared up on Officer Floyd’s car to realize that he was so close I could kneel on his bumper.

Q. You had been walking backwards?
A. Not at all. I just pivoted.

Q. When Officer - - when Detective Floyd

60

GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT

identified himself as a police officer, did you stop talking to him as though he was an outsider on the scene?

A. Well, he didn’t offer himself as a police officer. In fact, I wasn’t - - I calmed down and I cooperated with him immediately once I saw his badge. He offered his badge and he offered it to everybody else and nobody wanted to see his badge.
I said, yes, I want to see the badge. I didn’t use profanity then. I asked to see his badge because I couldn’t believe that he was a police officer when he approached me. He never used his four ways, his headlights, his horns, the things that professional drivers is supposed to do when approaching a situation.

Q. What was your intention, the intention of you activities on the scene?

A. I wanted to remain on the scene. I wanted to

be a witness to the guy. I wanted to give a statement to the police and get on my way.

I just wanted to tell him, hey, the guy that crossed the stop line I felt he was the primary

cause of how this accident enveloped, that the state needs to move those lines back a

little further and then

61
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

they need to enforce people staying behind those lines.

Q. Okay.
A. I had the intersection cleared if everybody would have parked where they were supposed to. I would have been able to get that particular truck through the intersection. It is tight.

Q. How long have you been driving a truck?
A. Fifteen years.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing
further.

CROSS - - EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Mr. Landis, you testified just a few moments ago, it’s fresh in my memory, I will ask you abouE that first. You testified a few moments ago that as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge you calmed down; is that correct?
A. I was calm with anybody who was calm with me.

Q. Just answer my question. You testified a few minutes ago that as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge you calmed down?
A. I would say I was calm even before I saw Detective Floyd’s badge.
62
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

Q. That’s not my question and we will try it one more time.
You testified a few moments ago when your lawyer asked you the question as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge, you testified in front of His Honor that you calmed down, correct or not correct? We can read it back.
A. Yes, I was upset, and - - but I was calm.

Q. All right.
A. Even at the scene, Detective Floyd - - when he offered his badge, I had already calmed down. It wasn’t a matter that I was out of control the whole time. There was only two people that I was assertive with.

Q. I understand that. But I am just talking about what you testified to a few minutes ago. We will move on now. Is that okay?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you testified just a few moment ago that after you saw his badge you calmed down. What did you calm down from?
A. I was upset from hearing the profanity from the individual who was harassing me.

Q. That’s the guy in the pickup truck, right?

63
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

A. And also from Detective Floyd yelling at me for almost walking backwards into his car and wondering why I was standing in the middle of the street yelling.

Q. Okay. You did not testify on direct that Detective Floyd used any profanity to you, did you.
A. I never said Detective Floyd used profanity.

Q. But you were upset because you say you had two people yelling at you?
A. Detective Floyd and the individual in the pickup truck.

Q. Let’s talk about the guy in the pickup truck for a minute. You said that that guy used some profanity at you. He did use some profanity at you, right?
A. He used all kinds of profanity, yes.

Q. Tell us what he said.
A. Said that I was to tell the - - I don’t like t use profanity, sir.

Q. Now, this is a court of law, sir? You will have to tell us what he told you if I ask you that question, so tell us what he told you?
A. He said tell the fucking old guy to get his car moving. Tell that guy to get out of the

64

GARY LANDIS - - CROSS
intersection. Tell that fucking old man to go.
Q. Okay. And who was he referring to? You?
A. He was referring to the man that crossed the stop line that I told to stay put?

Q. That’s the guy who you were concerned about causing that accident or who you - -
A. Correct.

Q. - - thought might have caused that accident, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And that individual was driving what kind of car? Do you recall?
A. I believe it was a Lincoln.

Q. Did that man use any profanity at you?
A. No, he didn’t.

Q. No. But you were upset with him because you thought he caused an accident?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And, in fact, you were upset with him because you thought that he caused an accident that you were involved in, correct? Because at this point you did not know you were not involved in the accident?

A. That’s correct.
65

GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

Q. You testified that you thought that Detective Floyd - - his demeanor in telling you to stop or get out of the intersection or whatever it was he said, you said that you felt he was suffering from the same kind of interference, the day-to-day interference that people suffer on daily routine? Is that what you testified to or something like that?

A. I have noticed that in my 15 years of driving a truck, that people are getting more and more irate with large vehicles that seem to be in their way.

Q. Okay. And you testified that after that, after you - - after you showed a concern for the interruption of Detective Floyd’s day-to-day routine, you testified that as a driver of a truck of 15 years that you are used to having your day-to-day routine interfered with by other drivers; is that correct?

A. Me, personally, I just go out there and drive. I am - - whether I am used to it or it is what I get paid to do, drive safely and slowly.

Q. Well, once again, that’s not the question that I asked you. I asked you you testified earlier

66
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

that as a truck driver of 15 years you are used to your day-to-day routine being interrupted by other drivers, correct or not correct?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I
think that’s a mischaracterization of what he said.

THE COURT: Let him say so.

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: But it works - - he can say that. I can say that is true because the guy that crossed the stop line in front of me it is a commonplace occurrence where I have to stop the truck and wait for people to back up.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. So that guy interrupted your day-to-day routine on that particular day, correct, on April 19th?
A. That’s the fourth or fifth time that day.

Q. Fourth or fifth time that day, that very day?
A. Not by that same individual, but by other motorists.

Q. You must have been frustrated by that point, this was the fourth or fifth time your day-to-day routine had been interrupted by other drivers?
A. But that doesn’t mean I am going to blow my
67
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

top and use profanity when I don’t normally use profanity.

Q. And you don’t use profanity, if I am correct, because on this particular day you testified that you had a reason not to; is that correct? You testified that you had a reason not to?
A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. Okay. And you testified that you are not a perfect person, correct?
A. I’m not.

Q. And when we were talking about the use of profanity you said, I’m not a perfect person and that you are a Christian? Is that what you testified to?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Okay. And is it because you are a Christian, Mr. Landis, that you choose not to use profanity?
A. It was a decision I made as a child a long time ago.

Q. As a child.
A. I have lived up to that promise to myself and everybody at work will tell you I don’t curse and they never heard me curse. In fact, my previous employers would tell you that. Previous people

68
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS

that I have worked with. It is rare to hear me curse.
Q. I’m sure it is. I am sure it is rare. But on this particular day, you were upset, weren’t you?
A. Not so much with the incident. I wanted to be a witness to what had happened because of the incident that happened 13 years ago.

Q. And as a Christian, have you also promised yourself to tell the truth?
A. I do tell the truth, yes.

Q. Do you think or do you want this Court to believe that the two witnesses that were called to testify about the events that took place lied to the Court?
A. The two witnesses, which two?

Q. We’re talking about Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop, the two witnesses right here?
A. I would say that some of their testimony was misconstrued.

Q. Okay. So when they testified that you used words like fuck, dam, et cetera that they were lying?
A. They may have been confused by the profanity heard from the other person. They testified they

69
GARY LANDIS - - CROSS/REDIRECT

first heard me - - that I first got out of the truck and had the interaction with the person in the pickup truck.
Q. That’s not my question. They testified and they pointed to you and they used your name and they said that you used those words. Are they lying or are they not?
A. They are lying.
Q. Do you know them?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Have you ever met them before?
A. No.

MR. SWAINSTON: I have nothing
further.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Mr. Landis, you are saying they are intentionally telling an untruth or you use the word misconstrued before or mistake?
A. I believe they are making an honest mistake. Mr. Dran never said that I used profanity here. Mrs. Allsop did, but Mr. Floyd, that’s a different story.

70

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT/REBUTTAL

Q. All right.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing
further, sir.
THE COURT: What’s a different story?
THE WITNESS: The way he talks about my profanity. I think he is deliberately telling a lie.
THE COURT: All right. Step down.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I
have one question of Detective Floyd on redirect.

THE COURT: All right. This is in the nature of rebuttal?

MR. SWAINSTON: Yes, Your
Honor, on rebuttal.

COMMONWEALTH’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD, having
been duly sworn previously, recalled for further testimony, was examined and testified as follows:

71

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT/REBUTTAL

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Detective Floyd, after all of this conduct took place after you instructed the defendant to calm down, after you identified yourself as a detective, did the defendant ever express any concern whatsoever with the other driver that he talked about on his direct testimony with his attorney?

A. He said there was a problem with the guy crossing the stop line, never indicated that the guy had stopped there at the scene. I had never seen anybody. He never pointed anybody out to me, no, whatsoever.

Q. Did he have an opportunity to do so?
A. Certainly. I was standing there talking to him. And, you know, he had more than plenty of opportunity to tell me that there’s never anybody pointed out or indicated to me at all.

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you.

Nothing further.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Well, Detective, how did you become aware he

72
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS/REBUTTAL

was concerned about this fellow who crossed the stop sign?

A. After he calmed down a little bit, he started to tell me about the problems with the stop line and all of this and the problems that he has all of the time driving, people crossing the stop line.

Q. All right.

A. That’s when I told him -- as I testified earlier, I told him that’s fine. I have problems with the traffic, too. But you can’t stand out in the middle of Main Street at rush hour and make a spectacle of yourself over it.

Q. But you said he had an opportunity to talk to you about this guy that had done this or in his mind caused this accident?

A. Yes, yes. In fact, he talked to two other officers as well.

Q. So he was talking to everybody about it.

A. No, no, no. I am saying he had the opportunity to tell them more. There was nobody -he did not say to me the guy in that Lincoln Town Car there is the guy who caused this accident. There was nobody ever identified.

Q. Was that car still there? Do you know?
73
RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - CROSS/REBUTTAL

A. I didn’t see a car, and he didn’t say anything. This is the first I learned that it was even a Lincoln.

Q. All right. But he did discuss it with you at the scene; and to your knowledge, he did discuss it with other officers at the scene?

A. Not specifically. Only that somebody had crossed the line and that’s what he was upset about.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further,
sir.
THE COURT: All right.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Do you want to say
anything in closing?

(Closing argument by
Mr. Hoffman.)
(Closing argument by
Mr. Swainston.)
THE COURT: What’s the maximum
fine here?
MR. SWAINSTON: Three hundred
dollars.

74

THE COURT: The Court finds the Commonwealth has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gary James Landis, committed the crime of summary offense rather disorderly conduct by engaging in tumultuous behavior making unreasonable noise, using obscene language and he created a hazardous or offensive condition by his acts on that occasion. He is sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and costs.

(At 3:25 p.m., the proceedings
were concluded.)

75

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me in the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of che same.

Paula D. Meszaros
Official Court Reporter

Received and directed to be filed this

day of 2002.

THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN

Back To:

Excerpts from the Transcript, a simple read narrated and comprehensive

2005-10-18T22:16:00.004-04:00

Gary Narates -- Now lets look through the transcript, the transcript was very hard to read through. This might be a little better and yet it is still quite long. I'm sure the reader will enjoy and with the other documentation that I've provided can corroborate the truth that I'm trying to share.

CAROL ALLSOP, having been dulysworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SWAINSTON:

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT
Q. What kind of automobile were you driving?
A. A 2001 Impala.

Q. Okay. And did there come an occasion at that intersection on that date at approximately than time that you came in contact with somebody that you see here in the courtroom today?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you identify that person?
A. Mr. Landis.

Q. Ma’am, what happened on that day that brings you to court today?
A. It was late in the afternoon; and with the rush hour traffic, Mr. Landis was driving a concrete truck with the concrete blocks on it, not the mixer type. He was in front of me at the light.

Q. Was he directly in front of you?
A. Yes, he was directly in front of me.
Q. -- behind him?
A. At the red light.
A. There was a red light and we were stopped at the red light.I was directly behind him.
Q. All right.
A. When the light turned green, he proceeded to make a right-hand turn onto County Line Roadand because of the traffic he could not make his right-hand turn. He stopped and I stopped.

Q. You said it was rush hour traffic?
A. It was busy.
Q. So there was a lot of traffic at that time?
A. Yes, it was busy.

[Narrative by me, let's point this out as a lie, a single car pulls up in front of me and a little while later another car pulls up to the intersection after the car blocking my progress backs up behind the cross line and allows me room to complete my turn. Due to the accident that would result from Mrs. Alsop and her tailgating and abrupt stop I would first check on the people involved and tell the offending motorist to stay put to give his credentials to the police, his actions resulted in the crash behind my truck.]

Q. What happened then when he was trying to make that right-hand turn?
A. Well, the gentleman behind me completely not attached to what happened here at all bumped into my bumper - -

[Narrative again, bumped bumpers? That's all? The car that collided into her car nearly has her left rear tire lifted off of the ground... I'd like to see the estimates for repairs from the insurance companies of both damaged vehicles. Mrs. Allsop couldn't pull forward either because of her surprised stop she was only 6 inches from striking the back of the truck I was driving I couldn't tell if I was involved in the accident or not, I had to go to the back of the vehicle I was driving to make certain.]

Q. Who - -
A. - - which was completely separate.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mr. Dram.

[According to the accident report his name is Tran.]

Q. Okay. Is he here today?
A. Yes, he is here today.

Q. He is the other gentleman?
A. The other gentleman, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. And that was completely - - I got out of my car. I went back to Mr. Dran’s car to make sure was okay. He had a small child with him. Again, separate to what happened.

[She got out of her car to note that Mr. Tran had his daughter with him after I pointed that out to her.]

Q. So just so we are clear - -
A. Yes.
Q. - - what happened between you and Mr. Dram, you are saying that was separate - -
A. Right.
Q. - - from why you are here today?
A. To why I am here today.

[And when you read what the lying detective testified to you'll see that we are there because of the detectives conduct and I was getting railroaded.]

Q. Okay.
A. Mr. Landis, when I had turned back to do that it was just a few seconds was in the intersection.
Q. You were out in your car at this point?
A. Yes, I was out of my car. He was using obscene language with the car that was on the other side of the road to him.

[I was not using obscene language and was offended by the language that was being used by a man that used or made obscene and derogatory comments at me on another occasion, his issue was that the light was green and the man I told to stay at the scene was not moving his car waiting for me to help him park safely as I told him I would do.]

Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court.
A. Yes.

[I wouldn't mind if the District Attorney was painting a true picture and not creating a work of fantasy!]

Q. Sorry to interrupt you.
A. That’s okay.
Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court for aminute. Where was the defendant? Was he still in the truck?
A. He was out of his truck standing in the middle of the road.
Q. Okay.
A. Was the light green or red at that point?

MR. HOFFMAN: Objection. Which light?

THE WITNESS: Well, the light at

[I'm sure that the witness said more in the court room, nearly a complete answer to my lawyers objection which I thought quite odd because we all know that an objection called by a lawyer is like calling for a time out...]

THE COURT: Wait a minute.What’s the objection?

[Why doesn't the judge know what the objection is about? What book was the judge reading during the testimony? Reading for pleasure while sitting at the bench should be against the law, you'll especially see why later...]

MR. HOFFMAN: I don’t know which light we are talking about?

THE WITNESS: The trafficlight.

MR. SWAINSTON: The trafficlight - -

THE COURT: At theintersection.

MR. SWAINSTON: - - at theintersection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

[I think the judge just got caught in a compromising situation, and I'm going to pay for it later.]

THE WITNESS: I couldn’t tell you if it was green or red when I turned, because by that time it probably changed several times. The traffic was stopped because his truck was there and he was standing in the middle of the road.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Well, let’s establish a time frame then. How much time passed between the time that the defendant went in to the intersection and you observed him out of the truck after you bumped by Mr. Dran?
A. Less than a minute.
Q. Okay. Now, you described the defendant in the intersection. Tell His Honor what you saw the defendant doing?
A. He was speaking obscenely, gesturing obscenely. Road rage was what came to my mind when I was observing this in the middle of the intersection. Traffic was being held up. He was clearly out of control and then - -

Q. Did you talk to him? Did you address him?
A. No, did not talk to him at all.
Q. Why not?
A. He - - actually, I take that back. He did comeup to me and at one point just to make sure thateverybody was okay. Then I backed right off because he was out of control. It was unsafe.

[I immediately checked on the people involved in the accident. I had gone to take care of moving my truck and making sure the cause of the accident the man that crossed the stop line stayed at the scene. She is so mixed up... she felt threatened, after hearing the man in the pickup truck that she couldn't identify because; she had a visual block preventing her from seeing that vehicle, at the time profanities were heard from the pickup truck driver she had already moved her car into a parking lot along side of my truck. She would need to look through the truck I was driving. I was standing where a view of my upper body could be seen over the bed of the truck. The vehicle of the profane individual was blocked by the cab or other components of the truck. About the gestures that she and detective Floyd describe I would love to demonstrate, I pointed at the profane individual, and using the left hand I pointed with my thumb over the left shoulder and then pointing my index finger at the car that crossed the stop line. I made no obscene gestures!]

Officer Floyd, who I did notknow was Officer Floyd at the time, was comingthrough the intersection going straight through,

[Okay, she has by now moved her car into the parking lot and is out of her car and she is seeing detective Floyd arive upon the scene.]

also asked Mr. Landis to please be quiet and to getout of the middle of the intersection

[Uhmmm? I was asked what I was doing in the intersection, later after detective Floyd identifies himself I would be prevented from disclosing my information to him, especially about the fact that the man in the pickup truck that was yelling comments and yelling obscenities had done this on another occasion.]

which he would not do. And then he pulled - - Officer Floyd pulled in front of the truck and got out of his car, showed his badge at which point I was very relieved to see there was actually a police officer in the right place at the right time. I had mycell phone. I was about to call the police and Officer Floyd took care of that and called for other officers.

Q. Now, you mentioned that the defendant was engaging in some conduct you said was obscene. Do you remember specifically anything about that conduct?
A. He was using obscene language. He was waving his arms around.He was just obviously - -

Q. Do you know who if anyone - -
A. Ranting and raving are the words that come to my mind.
Q. Do you know who, if anyone, that was directed towards?
A. Everybody and anybody who was in the intersection at the time.
Q. Was there any traffic coming the other direction?
A. Not while he was standing in the middle of the road. There was traffic to come, but it couldn’t get by until - - because;
A. his truck was trying to get around the corner this way. It was stuck; and if anybody had tried to go through the intersection, they would have risked hitting him.

[Her testimony is flip flopping back and forth from the first event when the accident happened and to later when we had the cars parked in the parking lot. I was specific to tell her to park in the parking lot once I moved the truck so eveybody knew what we were doing.]

Q. Okay. Was any traffic able to get through the intersection while he was in the middle of the intersection?
A. Not until Officer Floyd had him pull his truck clear of the intersection and park it on the side of the road.

[Nope, officer Floyd was not on the scene at that time when I pulled the truck over to the side of the road.]

Q. Okay. Did anything else occur after the officer showed up regarding the defendant, that you recall?
A. Yes, Officer Floyd asked him to be quiet and it took him three times and he finally did say, sir, if you are not quiet, that he would have him arrested; and he finally stopped.

[If I or you had very important information regarding our previous exchange in the street, wouldn't you try to be heard and to give that information to the detective?]

Q. At any time did you see Officer Floyd use any kind of language
A. No.
Q. - - that you described - -
A. None whatsoever.
Q. - - that the defendant used?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Would you describe the demeanor of Officer Floyd?
A. Very professional, very courteous, very much in command on what was going on. He did what he had to do.
Q. Okay.

MR. SWAINSTON: I have nothing
further.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Sir.

CROSS -EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Good afternoon, ma’am?
A. Good afternoon.

Q. As I understand it, there was a fairly large truck trying to make a right-hand turn that was in front of you; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

Q. And he could not navigate the turn for what reason. Do you know?
A. Because of the size of his vehicle and the traffic that was on the road at the time. It was busy time in the afternoon.

Q. Well, was there something that was preventing his truck - - I mean, why did he not complete the turn? Was there something that prevented it that you were aware of?
A. I did not have a clear view of what prevented him because I was behind him.

Q. All right.
A. The traffic in general - - prevented him from making his right-hand turn.

Q. So as a consequence, you came to a stop and the vehicle behind you did not and it struck you, struck the rear of your vehicle?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. At that point, is that when Mr. Landis got out of his vehicle?
A. I got out of my vehicle and he got out when I turned back he was out of his vehicle, yes.

[She was sitting in her car, I jumped out immediately to make sure no one was hurt, 10 years of firefighting experience, I wasn't just sitting in the cab of the truck, I couldn't.]

Q. Okay. So you don’t know exactly when he got out of the vehicle?
A. The same time I got out would be fair to say.

Q. Okay. And was he walking toward you or away from you? Where was he going when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. The fact that I got bumped had nothing to do with what we are here for.

[It seems the witness was very well coached... You should read the testimony of Mr. Tran and how he couldn't answer any questions on cross examination becuase he didn't speak english very well. He memorized the right words to say pretty good for the prosecutor.]

Q. Okay. I am not asking about that.
A. Okay.
Q. All I asked you was was he walking away from you or toward - - or back toward where your vehicle was when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. He was standing in the intersection.
Q. He was standing there?
A. He was in the intersection.
Q. And you said that he was obscene?
A. Yes.
Q. What was he saying? I am - - this Mr. Landis?
A. The exact terminology at this time I could not relate exactly word for word. He was using obscene language. He was - -

[She was so confused this is so sad...]

Q. Well, what language was he using, is what I at trying to get at?
A. Fuck you, God dam, et cetera, et cetera.
Q. And who was he saying that to?
A. There was a car parked - - there was a car in the intersection that he was - - as I said to the District Attorney representative, anybody and everybody who happened to be standing there.

Q. Were there other people standing there?
A. Well, the crowd that draws attention, what have you.
Q. He was yelling
A. He was out of control. He was ranting and raving and just anybody who is in a fit of temper is just going to rant and rave.
Q. And this all happened within less than a minute, is that what you said on direct examination?A. The attorney had asked me how quickly it started happening, yes, within less than a minute.
Q. And there was a crowd that gathered within less than a minute?
A. You know, people standing around, people going home, it is a very busy intersection.
Q. Okay. But I mean, was he angry at you?
A. He was just angry at the situation.

Q. Okay. He didn’t come up to you and ask you if you were okay?
A. Very briefly, yes.
Q. Okay. And he was concerned about the driver of the other car, whether that driver was okay?
A. I would not say so.
Q. Didn’t he ask if everybody was okay, that’s what he was asking you?
A. Yes, I think he said everybody okay.
Q. So he was concerned about that?
A. Yeah.

[See in the beginning and as always I am concerned and I care, I care about the truth and this was so out of context, why would I be obscene and hang around to be a witness to an accident, why would I want to scare this woman? Do you think this woman had something to gain to have me prosecuted?]

Q. And he was ranting and raving and cursing at whom? I seriously don’t understand.
A. To the situation. To everybody else that he was angry because he could not get his truck around. He was angry at the whole situation.
Q. Okay.
A. What had happened with my car and the other gentleman’s car.

Q. I understand, that’s clear. Do you know if he thought perhaps that another vehicle hit his vehicle, also?

MR. SWAINSTON: Objection.

MR. HOFFMAN: Does she know,that’s all I am asking.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he did but I certainly - - he was not hit.

Q. Well, so he was not directing any anger or obscenity toward you?
A. Yes, by being there and making you feel afraid to be in a situation.

[Is she telling us that because I exist, I am guilty?]

Q. Officer Floyd came upon the scene. Were ther any other officers on the scene before Officer Floyd came upon the scene?
A. No.

Q. How did Officer - - is it Detective Floyd, I’m sorry?
A. Yes.

Q. I’m sorry. How did Detective Floyd come upon the scene?I mean, in what manner, did he drive upon the scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was he in a marked vehicle or unmarked vehicle?
A. An unmarked vehicle.
Q. Was he in uniform or not in uniform?
A. He was dressed the way he is now.

[He was wearing a suit.]

Q. Okay. When he came upon the scene, where did he come from? I mean, what direction, on what road?
A. He was on County Line Road proceeding south.
Q. Okay.
A. I think that goes north, south.
Q. Okay. And is that where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. Yes.

Q. Where did his vehicle come to a stop with reference to where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. In the middle he proceeded into the intersection and then Mr. Landis came up to his car.

Q. When his car came to a stop, that is Detective Floyd’s car came to a stop, how far was it from Mr. Landis?
A. Mr. Landis walked up to his car when Detective Floyd

Q. I appreciate that that’s what you are trying to tell me. I am asking you, though, when Detective Floyd’s car stopped moving, where was Mr. Landis? How far away from it was Mr. Landis?
A. A foot, a couple of feet, maybe more.

Q. All right. That’s what I am asking. When Detective Floyd came up to within a foot or two of Mr. Landis, did he arrive quickly or did he come up very slowly in his vehicle?
A. Cautiously.

Q. Okay. I understand cautiously, meaning he was being careful. But his speed, did he just coast or did he come upon the scene quickly because there was a scene?
A. He had been stopped at the red light and he had proceeded into the intersection.

Q. He proceeded into the intersection?
A. Just up to him. He could not go anywhere else.

Q. Okay. And he came within a foot or two of him?
A. He came up to ask Mr. Landis to please - -
Q. Well, you did not know that until he - - you did not know he was even a police officer, did you, when he came upon the scene?
A. No, not at that time.

Q. Okay. And do you know if Mr. Landis knew he was a police officer when he came upon the scene within a foot or two from him in the vehicle?
A. No, I do not know if he knew that.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, maam. I have nothing further.

[Now let's move to the lying detective's testimony.]

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYDDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Detective Floyd, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. Sir, I am going to ask you a few questions regarding this matter involving this defendant. Were you on duty as a police officer in Telford on the date of April 19, 2001?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you were actually a detective; is that correct?
A. Yes, I was. In fact, at that time, I was on my way home from work, but I take my borough car home with me and I am technically on duty until I arrive at home.
Q. Well, in any event, you are a sworn police officer in Telford?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you have your badge with you?
A. I had it with me, yes.
Q. Were you in civilian clothes?
A. I was dressed very similar to what I am today.

Q. As a detective, so you were not in police uniform?
A. No.
Q. Did you have occasion to come in contact with the defendant on that day?
A. Yes.
Q. That was late in the afternoon sometime after 4:30?
A. About twenty of 4:00 or twenty of 5:00.

Q. That was at what intersection?
A. The intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road. Main Street just for some clarification in this case is often referred to as County Line Road because it is the divider between Bucks and Montgomery County. This was in the Montgomery County side.
Q. So it was in Montgomery County?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have occasion to issue a citation to the defendant?
A. Yes, I did, I filed it.
Q. And what was that citation for, specifically the charge?
A. Disorderly conduct for all four subsections of the violation.
Q. All right. Do you have that citation with you in your case folder?
A. Yes. I believe you have my copy.
Q. All right.
Q. Sir, I will hand you what purports to be the citation for disorderly conduct. I have marked that as Commonwealth’s Exhibit-1. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes. That’s this copy, Xerox copy of my citation I issued to Gary Landis.
Q. All right. And would you describe to the Court, you can read from the citation if there’s no objection, what it is that you cited the defendant for?
A. Okay. In that the defendant did with intent to cause public inconvenience and annoyance and alarm, yell and scream, block traffic and cause a disturbance in a public place, and additionally, a the bottom block traffic Main and Reliance during rush hour, yelled and scream belligerently and continued after warning, children and others in the area, alarmed a number of persons.

Q. Now, you issued that citation as a summary; not a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, correct?A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. But you said you had warned the defendant. Can you describe to the Court what you did to warn the defendant from this behavior?
A. Yes. I was traveling southbound on Main Street approaching Reliance Road. Our police station is approximately three blocks from that location. I left the police station; and as soon as I left the police station, I observed up in that intersection a very good line of sight that traffic was all backed up and there appeared to be some type of problem at that intersection.

Q. How far away were you?
A. About two or three blocks. As I got closer, it appeared that there may have been a traffic accident. And as I got closer yet, I saw that there was a large orange truck, nice clean truck **[He said Nyce Crete truck]** which I am familiar with the company. It’s a company affiliated with Landis Block Company which is right outside of our town.

[And he was so familiar that he called the owners company Nyce Crete in Lansdale to find out that I drive out of the Souderton yard the detective complain about me with his lies and told my dispatcher in Souderton that I was getting cited. I'll bet the look on my face was priceless, when my dispatcher confronted me with this information.]

Q. Describe that truck and where it was.
A. Initially, when I was further back soon after I pulled cut of the police station that truck was heading east into the intersection from Reliance Road; and then as I approached and arrived on the scene, the truck had pulled right around

[(the corner and was on south Main Street, right on the -- the riqht hand shoulder of the intersection. edited)]

Q. You say right on the intersection -- in the intersection between the two?
A. Just off the intersection, along the street there, but it is a no parking zone and the traffic is very tight there. It was and it worsened the traffic problem. Fortunately, all the traffic in front of me made either right or left-hand turns which enabled me to get up into the intersection. As I was probably a half a block away, I saw Mr. Landis get out of the truck and go down to

Q. You actually saw him exit the vehicle?
A. I saw him get out of the truck. Immediately saw him enter into an argument or a shouting match with a motorist that was parked in the line of traffic at the traffic light.

Q. Heading what direction in relationship to the truck?
A. That would have been opposite heading north on Main Street. The traffic was blocked up. I believe Mr. Dran was pretty accurate when he said there was about ten cars there. I believe the cars were backed up, ten to twelve in length. There was a man

Q. What was blocking those ten cars?
A. At that - - on that side of the road, only the red light. However, there was traffic that was blocked up all around due to the truck being parked where it was. It slowed everything down. The southbound traffic did not get through. Northbound traffic was blocked up. Everybody was slowing down to look at what was going on, and the other traffic was also blocked up.

Q. When you came on the scene then, did you feel the need to ask the defendant to move his truck?
A. Actually, I had to ask the defendant to move himself. He had stepped out into the traffic.

Q. But did you -- did you feel that the truck also needed to be moved?
A. Initially, yes.
Q. Did you express that to the defendant?
A. At some point I believe I did.
Q. But - -A. I am not positive at which point in the incident it was.
Q. But it was done?
A. It was done, yes.

[What a lie, how could I move the truck with the detective's car parked in front of the truck?]

Q. So prior to getting to that point, though, you just stated that you asked the defendant himself to move. Why did you do that?
A. Well, as I mentioned everything, was all blocked up. The traffic was all tied up at the intersection. Mr. Landis was himself blocking traffic standing in the road. Nobody could get through him.

Q. Could you describe what you mean by that? There were vehicles actually getting through intersection?
A. Yes. There is -- going northbound on Main Street it is a straight ahead lane and a left turn lane. He was walking in the left turn lane which kept traffic from being able to pass through if they wanted to make a left-hand turn.
The truck was parked in the southbound side, which is a no parking zone, which only enabled - - well, the northbound traffic would have to move over a little bit in order to let the southbound traffic get passed the truck. He is standing in the intersection - - standing in the roadway, not directly in the intersection, but up further and he is yelling and screaming at a man that was parked in the northbound traffic. They are having a verbal argument. The man was in his car. I was never able to identify that person.
But Mr. Landis is standing in the road at this point facing south, his back towards me, yelling. His arms are in the air, shouting and screaming at this man. He is walking backwards towards where I am coming approaching him.

[Never walk backwards into the unknown! - Firefighter 1]

As I get close to Mr. Landis, he turns around. I am creeping. I am moving very slow. I am getting up as close as I can.

[With in 6 inches, close enough to cause a woman alarm to warn me about his approach from behind!]

At this point, he turns around and he sees my car there, starts yelling and screaming at me saying, you know, what the fuck, are you trying hit me. And he comes up to my driver’s window. As soon as he approached, he is yelling and screaming.
I said to him, you better knock it - - I believe my almost exact words were, if you don’t knock it off right now, you will be arrested.

[And this is supposed to be believable?]

At that point he says, well, you call the fucking cops, because I want the fucking cops here.

[Nope, not my words and not me... Yes, I wanted the police called and I answered yes to his question if I would like him to call the police as he waved his cell phone from his car before he ever identified himself.]

I simply replied, you got one;and I pulled off to the side of the road.

[We have a detective with a bad memory and he is reporting the sequence of events out of order.]

At that point, Mr. Landis - - I pulled up in front of the truck, up on to the sidewalk as close or up to the sidewalk to not block traffic any worse; and as I am walking up, he approaches me a second time. This is about the time that I meet Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop.

[So he testified that he saw me get out of the truck he had me move the truck and he just parked in front of the truck, at what point did I have a chance to move the truck?]

Q. Were you in or out of your vehicle?
A. At this point, I am out.
Q. All right.
A. And Miss Allsop says to me something to the effect - -

MR. HOFFMAN: Objection, YourHonor, hearsay. She was here to testify.

THE COURT: Is that - - I didnot know it is hearsay.

MR. HOFFMAN: I understand.would argue it’s just in any event he is on the scene of an accident.

MR. SWAINSTON: It is not

THE COURT: It is not offeredfor the truth.

[Uhmmm? Hello everybody? If you don't tell the truth in the court of law you are committing the crime of perjury, or so I was taught!]

MR. SWAINSTON: - - offered - -

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.

THE COURT: Of course not. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: She made a statement something to the effect, boy, I’m glad you’re here. I could see in her face and I could see in Mr. Dran’s they were alarmed. They were upset with what was going on.I could see this is a main intersection, people were stopped, they were looking out of their cars. There’s several residents - - people came out of the residence. It drew - - it was a major disturbance.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. How did they know that you were a police officer?
A. At that time, around that same time I approached and Mr. Landis approached me again and he said, if you are a cop, I want to see some I.D. There’s profanity mixed in with that at which time I was already pulling my wallet - - my badge wallet out from my pocket and pinning my badge on to my coat which displayed - -

[Remember how I was not permitted to talk? But I was asked as everyone else present was offered to look at the badge the detective was offering to show us.]

Q. Detective, you are an officer you testified before, right?
A. Yes.

[And this detective was reprimanded in another court room in another case for lying to the judge in that case and a written reprimand was put into that case file, I would love to pull that case file and corroborate that fact with the fact that I'm providing because the truth does matter. If it was my child being charged with a crime, I would want to be able to trust the police to tell the truth!]

Q. You said there’s profanity involved in that conversation. Describe for the Court exactly what he said, if you remember?
A. The exact words I cannot tell you, but the word “fuck” was used many times. Dam, fuck, of course, stood out. There was children in the area. I got very firm with him. I told him, I am telling you right now, knock it off, or you are going to be arrested. When I meant being arrested, I meant being taken in to actual physical custody because of his conduct around everybody.
After he realized that I was a police officer, then he did finally settle down and began to vent about the way the traffic patterns are and how difficult it is for him to maneuver truck around the intersection. I simply told him - - I said I lived in that community all of my life. I know how bad the traffic can be, but this is not a time to stand out in the middle of a public place with children and other people using profanity to express your views and that was stated to him.
I told him at the time he was going to be receiving a citation because of his disorderly conduct.

[If that was true, then you should have seen the expression of surprise on my face when my dispatcher told me I was being cited the next day... I started writing, and keeping track of everything that I was doing. I had just become familiar with the internet and was starting to use the computer for a journal, I even created a program for keeping a journal when I first started using a computer. I like writing about my life. If I'm so profane, I'm sure it would be reflected in my writing, when I'm really tired or excited. Nope, not me, it is a fantasy of other people to portray me in this light, a negative and dark light at that.]

Q. So did you not arrest him on the scene then?
A. No. I could have and I believe his conduct certainly went beyond the summary level. I believe it was definitely misdemeanor level, and I could have taken him into custody and removed his truck. We chose not to do that simply to get the intersection cleared and get him moved on.

MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to object to the legal conclusion that the witness isdrawing.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. What happened then?
A. All right. At that time, I had my cell phone with me. I contacted our patrol officers who were on duty. I had them respond. I simply told them was at the scene of an accident. There was a disorderly subject and I needed their assistance right away. They came.
They - - at this time, theofficers arrived almost simultaneously. I learned at that time - - that at the same time the officers - - the patrol officers did that Mr. Landis was not even involved in the accident, that it was solely Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop and he had no reason to be there. He was in front of the accident. Simply got out of - - his conduct had nothing to do with the accident. He was just upset about other things.

Q. Would you describe any of the conversations that you had with the defendant? Did the subject ever relate to the welfare of the two individuals in the accident?
A. Not to me, no. I know from talking to Mrs. Allsop that he asked about them, but there was nothing indicated in my presence.
Q. How many warnings did you give the defendant to cease this behavior?
A. I warned him at the car initially my first contact with him. I warned him a second time and then I warned him at least a third time to settle down and stop being disruptive.
Q. How many other people on the scene whether it be in the vehicles or outside of the vehicles were there?
A. I would guess there’s 15, conservatively stating that there was 15 to 20 vehicles in the intersection from all directions. It was a warm day. The windows were down. There were people who came out of their houses nearby. The parking lot, which is right at that intersection where we stood, the business -- people were in and out of that business. I did note that there were several young teenagers or even younger children who appeared at the intersection drawn to the yelling and screaming that was going on.In addition to, of course, Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop who were already there and Mr. Dran’s young daughter who were present during the whole incident.

Q. Did the defendant eventually cease that behavior that you described?
A. He quieted down. He did not cease the swearing. I would say he was still agitated, but it was more refined and that he slowed down and then I - - after he was calmed down, I actually left and the other officers appeared at the scene. Mr. Landis left with his truck.

Q. So he was sent on his way - -
A. Yes.
Q. - - and received a summons.
A. Yes. And the summons was sent to him by mail.
Q. You brought pictures, I see?

MR. SWAINSTON: May I approach,Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I had prepared exhibits. We had a leak in our evidence vault which made them unusable.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. And what do these pictures purport to be?
A. Those Polaroid photographs are simply taken of the intersection where this incident occurred. This is the intersection of Main Street andReliance Road, basically, from all the directions.
Q. Can you pick one of these pictures and pull one out for the Court to get an idea of what the intersection looks like?
A. Probably will depict the best.

MR. SWAINSTON: Can I have thi.smarked as C—2.
(Polaroid Photograph marked asCommonwealth’s Exhibit C-2, for identification.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I don’t believe there’s an objection. I would ask to publish this photo just as a demonstrative aid to the Court. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Officer, can you describe that photo that the Judge is looking at right now?
A. Yes, that’s this intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road looking from the north to the south down Main Street. To the right, Your Honor, on that photo where the businesses are located is primarily where the incidents took place.
Q. And that photograph depicts a fair and accurate representation - -
A. Yes.
Q. - - of that intersection as it existed on the date in April?
A. Yes, it does.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, Iwould ask for admission of C-1 and C-2.
I have no further questions ofthis detective.

MR. HOFFMAN: No objection.

THE COURT: They are admitted.(Exhibits C-1 and C-2, received into evidence.)

CROSS - - EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Officer, do you know what the defendant was upset about?
A. He was upset about he cannot make the turn for truck.
Q. Why could he not make the turn?
A. I don’t know. I believe he told me that somebody was pulled up beyond the turn mark. I didn’t witness that and I certainly believe what he said. It is a problem that happens at most intersections.
Q. Okay. And he drives a large truck?
A. I would say it’s a large truck. It is not a fifty foot trailer.

[Note the sarcasm?]

Q. I don’t mean eighteen wheeler?
A. Yes.
Q. He drives a significant vehicle?
A. Yes.

[Wow in district court the man called the truck insignificant in size.]

Q. And did he tell you he has this problem and you say you are aware of this problem?
A. Yes.

[So why can't the state of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation mark the intersection so that large trucks which use the intersection often can get through the intersection with out being stopped to wait for people to make enough room for the truck to get through? Why don't the local police enforce the laws that require people to obey posted signs?]

Q. Okay. So who -- and there was an accident caused as a result. Is that your understanding as well?
A. There’s an accident at the same time, whether it had, you know, again, I didn’t witness the accident; but from what I learned from Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran, yes, he was making - - trying to make the turn and Mr. Dran drove into the car.

[But he saw the truck move when I moved the truck not that I was asked to move the truck. He observed this from the police station three blocks away with a great field of vision? He didn't see the two cars crashed into each other right behind the truck?]

Q. Okay.
A. Because she had to stop.
Q. Did you observe him at any time angry with Mrs. Alisop or Mr. Dran?
A. No, not at all.
Q. And who he was waving his arms at or whatever, his activity was related to was the vehicle who was up above that strip?
A. No, that’s not what I observed.
Q. All right. What did you observe?
A. I observed him having an argument with a guy who was about seven, eight, ten cars in the back line of traffic.

[Actually three, there was the man that crossed the stop line, the woman that would warn me about the approach of the detective and the man in the pickup truck that was actually yelling obsenities.]

Q. Okay.
A. That had nothing to do with him not being able to get around the turn.
Q. All right. So you don’t know what happened - - you don’t know what that was about?
A. With the argument that I witnessed?
Q. Yes.
A. It was just shouting. The man said to him something - - I heard the man in traffic yell something about moving the truck, you are blocking traffic up. At which time he responded by yelling, shouting back to him.

[I wrote all about this in the outline, and also about the pickup drive yelling as the detective walked by my truck, "That's what you get for doing 50 miles per hour through an intersection!"]

Q. Now, do you know why he stopped his truck and left it there? I am talking about before you arrived on the scene.
A. Not particularly, no.

[I love this part... LOL What is a witness? Go back and read my outline this detective had a problem understanding that fact on the day of his crime. When his eventual cohort the officer that shot the homeowner told the detective at the scene that I was at the accident scene as a witness. How true was my vision in District Court a man and his family climbing a mountain and the man is pulled down a side trail by two sinister creatures. I pray lord give me a sign and the path becomes marked by the light of GOD.]

Q. Did he tell you that he thought that his vehicle was struck, too, or that he was involved in an accident?
A. He may have said that, I don’t know. I initially thought he was involved in an accident. I didn’t know until later that he wasn’t, so he may have said that, yes.

[Yep, at the same time I was told not to say anything, or I would be arrested, just for trying to speak about the conduct of these people involved in this situation, I wanted to say that the guy crossed the stop line and the guy in the pickup truck was profane on another occassion and on that day, and that I thought that I was rear-ended. Gee, I wish he could hear me now... I want him to know!]

Q. So it was reasonable to assume that he was involved in an accident on his part and your part?A. Yes.
Q. And it would be correct not to move your vehicle if you were involved in an accident, would it not, especially a commercial vehicle?
A. He did move the vehicle, though. He did. He moved it around the turn and he parked it where it obstructed the traffic even more.
Q. I mean, removed your vehicle from the scene?
A. (No response.)
Q. In other words, to leave the scene of an accident?
A. Yes. No, that would be improper, certainly.
Q. So if he were involved in an accident or if he thought he was involved in an accident, his behavior was not only legal but required, that is to leave the truck there?
A. Yes. But that had nothing to do with the disorderly conduct citation that he was cited for.

[That's because the wrong person got cited and accused and prosecuted. And look at what happened to me as a result! I'm glad I'm not a complete basket case, I'm just a person trying to get the truth told.]

Q. I am not - - I’m just asking you this one question now. Would you agree with me that it would be appropriate for him to leave the truck there?
A. If he was in an accident, to stop and move his truck and get out and exchange information, certainly.
Q. All right. So now, you come upon to the scene. He is not even out of his vehicle yet; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You see him get out of the vehicle?
A. I see him get out of the vehicle.
Q. How long of a time elapsed between the time when you saw him get out of his vehicle until you arrived at the scene?
A. I would say it was within a block or two. I was driving probably 30 seconds.
Q. Okay. About 30 seconds?
A. Yes.
Q. So that’s when you saw this behavior going on; is that right?
A. It continued. As I got closer to the intersection, it was going on. So I observed him for probably a minute acting disorderly.
Q. Okay. His back was towards you, as I understand?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you drove your car how close to him?
A. I would say I creeped up. I was moving up until about maybe five, eight feet. Then I stopped and he was moving back towards me. In fact, I thought he was going to walk into me. We were close but I saw him walking. I got up as close as I could to the incident without striking him.

[I set one foot back behind me to pivot around, firefighters are trained do not walk backwards into the unknown! Had I walked one step backwards I would have been involved in a pedestrian accident to which was my question upon my surprise to find a car that I could kneel on it's bumper the car was so close to my person, even I was shocked! How could he do that to me? Why?]

Q. Let’s think about this. For whatever reason - - from his point of view, for whatever reason, either he is walking backwards or you are coming forward, there’s that feeling that he is going to be struck by a vehicle, both by him and by you. You were afraid you were going to hit him or he was going to walk into you.A. No, I was not afraid I was going to hit him.

Q. You were afraid he was going to back up into the vehicle?
A. Exactly.
Q. You were that close?
A. He was not paying attention to what he was doing. He was walking towards me. I stopped.

[Uhmmm? Convicted by his own memory, I wonder what the judge is doing at this time, back to reading his book again?]

Q. I understand that.
A. And I did not - -
Q. I understand your testimony. I am not trying to say that one way or the other. All I’m trying to say it would be reasonable from his point of view as he turns around and finds out he is within inches of a vehicle to think he was just going to be struck by a vehicle?
A. That’s possible, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, the vehicle is not marked. You have not identified yourself as police officer and there’s no way to identify yourself as a police officer; is that accurate?
A. That’s correct.

[What is police entrapment?]

Q. He is upset. And you tell him two or three times to quiet down?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Then he quiets down?
A. Right.

[Yep, I'm real disorderly, I need to be punished.]

Q. All right. Any further difficulty from him or anything like that?
A. He was agitated the whole entire time. After I finally laid it out for him that if you don’t knock it off right now, I am going to take you into custody. Then he finally settled down. I actually had one of the other officers talk to him while I talked to Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran.

[Indeed - Who was this other officer and what did we talk about? Stop line violations and rubbing tires on curbs as we watched the very incident happen?]

Q. Okay. How long would you say - - how long a period of time elapsed from the time you identified yourself as a police officer until the time when, you know, he quieted down, so to speak?
A. A minute.
Q. Okay. So this all took place within a minute’s time?
A. No. That’s not right.
Q. After you identified yourself as a police officer, I mean?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his purpose in being there? I mean, was he - - he is a truck driver, he is on the road all of the time?
A. Right.
Q. And there was a motor vehicle accident which may or may not involved him. But in his mind we don’t know that yet. But is he - - there were no other police on the scene?
A. No, not at that time.
Q. And he was not wrong for not moving his vehicle from the scene if he was involved in an accident?
A. Right.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further. Thank you.

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you.
(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, theCommonwealth has no further evidence. The Commonwealth rests for the purpose of this hearing.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Mr. Landis, you are saying they are intentionally telling an untruth or you use the word misconstrued before or mistake?
A. I believe they are making an honest mistake. Mr. Dran never said that I used profanity here. Mrs. Allsop did, but Mr. Floyd, that’s a different story.

[My mistake, I thought Mr. Tran didn't accuse me in this hearing, my focus was more on what Mrs. Allsop had said and Mr. Tran with his accent was hard to understand. I had just listened to the testimony of the detective and he was the one that I was focussed on because he was the one to lie and to charge me and I was trying to be compassionate to the other witnesses... I felt sorry for them because the state and the local police set me up and the cause of the accident could have been avoided if society cared just a little more.]

Q. All right.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothingfurther, sir.

THE COURT: What’s a different story?

THE WITNESS: The way he talks about my profanity. I think he is deliberately telling a lie.

THE COURT: All right. Step down.
(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, Ihave one question of Detective Floyd on redirect.

THE COURT: All right. This is in the nature of rebuttal?

MR. SWAINSTON: Yes, YourHonor, on rebuttal.

COMMONWEALTH’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD, havingbeen duly sworn previously, recalled for further testimony, was examined and testified as follows:

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT/REBUTTAL

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Detective Floyd, after all of this conduct took place after you instructed the defendant to calm down, after you identified yourself as a detective, did the defendant ever express any concern whatsoever with the other driver that he talked about on his direct testimony with his attorney?
A. He said there was a problem with the guy crossing the stop line, never indicated that the guy had stopped there at the scene. I had never seen anybody. He never pointed anybody out to me, no, whatsoever.
Q. Did he have an opportunity to do so?
A. Certainly. I was standing there talking to him. And, you know, he had more than plenty of opportunity to tell me that there’s never anybody pointed out or indicated to me at all.

[Uhmmm... Excuse me? If I tried to tell him anything I was going to be arrested, and the person that crossed the stop line was released and sent on his way when the detective did finally speak with me, what was the point in saying anything about that, he couldn't do anything about that, I would have to figure that out, later and expected to find that information on the accident report. Again I was surprised to find that this information was excluded. The man that crossed the stop line his information was never collected!]

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you.
Nothing further.

CROSS -EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Well, Detective, how did you become aware he was concerned about this fellow who crossed the stop sign?
A. After he calmed down a little bit, he started to tell me about the problems with the stop line and all of this and the problems that he has all of the time driving, people crossing the stop line.
Q. All right.
A. That’s when I told him -- as I testified earlier, I told him that’s fine. I have problems with the traffic, too. But you can’t stand out in the middle of Main Street at rush hour and make a spectacle of yourself over it.
Q. But you said he had an opportunity to talk to you about this guy that had done this or in his mind caused this accident?
A. Yes, yes. In fact, he talked to two other officers as well.
Q. So he was talking to everybody about it.
A. No, no, no. I am saying he had the opportunity to tell them more. There was nobody -he did not say to me the guy in that Lincoln Town Car there is the guy who caused this accident. There was nobody ever identified.

[Had anyone run the registration to the car that crossed the stop line you would find that the owner would love if his Ford was actually a Linclon Town Car. I thought the car was a Lincoln but I wasn't sure, it was a Crown Victoria I do believe, I finally found the man and his car and the information that I sought long after this court case and remember 10 days after court I was involuntarily committed. Read the last part of My Story to see all about the case denied to move forward into Federal District Court. Pennsylvania has a strange court system, they are all geared to Federal Court, We have district then county and if the case is large or problematic enough then you file Federal District in the nearest location, for me it would be in Philadelphia.]

Q. Was that car still there? Do you know?
A. I didn’t see a car, and he didn’t say anything. This is the first I learned that it was even a Lincoln.

Q. All right. But he did discuss it with you at the scene; and to your knowledge, he did discuss it with other officers at the scene?
A. Not specifically. Only that somebody had crossed the line and that’s what he was upset about.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further,sir.

THE COURT: All right.
(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Do you want to say anything in closing?
(Closing argument byMr. Hoffman.)(Closing argument byMr. Swainston.)

THE COURT:

**{[Major ommision of text-- "So Mr. Landis, You think you're a Christian? Well, you're a liar!"

Mr. Landis: "Excuse me?"

THE COURT: "You're a Liar!"]}**

THE COURT: What’s the maximum fine here?

MR. SWAINSTON: Three hundred dollars.

THE COURT: The Court finds the Commonwealth has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gary James Landis, committed the crime of summary offense rather disorderly conduct by engaging in tumultuous behavior making unreasonable noise, using obscene language and he created a hazardous or offensive condition by his acts on that occasion. He is sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and costs.

(At 3:25 p.m., the proceedings were concluded.)

[Then the detective apologized for his appearence in court, and the court said, "You look like a conehead." The detective responded with information that his head was all taped like he used little pieces of tape himself covering every piece of hair includeing his sideburns he even had wires sticking out the top because he suffers from tremmors.]

[As I walk out of the courtroom with my Lawyer he tells me he wants nothing more to do with this case, he quit!]

Now if you read all of this, I ask you one question, of the testimony you just read, who was and is telling the truth?

Back To:

A journal or time line of events and more

2005-10-18T22:15:00.001-04:00

To: The disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
From: Gary J. Landis
Submitted on 7/28/03

A Time line of events surrounding this Accident and Court Hearing

4-15-01 Sat.
My family and I attended the memorial service for Mark Wieder my daughter’s 4th grade teacher and his wife who were killed in an auto accident during an Easter vacation outing.

4/19/01
Thursday approx. 4:30 P.M. an accident occurs behind the truck due to the negligence of the driver for whom I had to stop for in front of the truck where I had to wait for said driver to back up.

4/20/01
11:30 A.M. My dispatcher informs me he received a phone call earlier and that the man on the other end identified himself as a Detective Floyd of the Telford Police Department and that he was issuing a citation to me for Disorderly Conduct for the accident the night before. And that Mr. Floyd wanted to know if I had reported the incident.
6:10 P.M. I called the Telford Police Department and spoke with an officer Fox who seemed surprised that I was being issued a citation for Disorderly Conduct and asked if I had used profanity in a public place? I also asked for names of officers at the scene, and of the chief and the hours that he could be reached. I also asked for the accident report #.

4/23/01
10:15 A.M. I called the Telford Police Department to speak with the Chief. Detective Floyd took my call he explained that he would not stop a citation particularly if he felt it was warranted. He explained the Chief would not be in for 2 days. And I asked for the name of the local D.A. He gave me the name of Bruce Castor and his ph. # 610-278-3090.
As soon as we hung up the phone I realized that I should maybe have asked about his recollection of the Ford P.U. F150. I only received an answering machine, which directed me to call Mont. Co. Dispatch. Which I did they told me to try the station # again. And if I didn’t get through to call them back, which I had to. I left a message dispatch #5506 for Detective Floyd to call me back but he never did.

4/25/01
7:50 A.M. I explained my situation to Chief Bickle. He said he would have done the same thing that I did and that he had to talk to his Detective He said that he could not stop the citation it has to go to the J.P. where the Truth would come out and that I had a right to file charges against the Detective.

4/26/01
Thursday I received the citation in the mail it was mailed 4/25/01 and filed 4/24/01 wow what a shock a $200.00 fine. I couldn’t sleep that night I finally calmed down sometime after 1:00 A.M.

4/27/01
Fri. I arrived to work about 30 minutes later than I apologized to dispatch explaining about my shock at the citation and the amount of the fine. I asked for a statement, which he had agreed to write for me explaining that I wasn’t overdue in returning from my delivery that day. He replied that he would do that if it was ok with the boss. I requested that in my defense to the part of the charge that I was blocking and disrupting the flow of traffic.
After a long day of work I cancelled participating in the sleep over I paid for an event I was to participate with as a leader in my Church’s (1st Grade Boys) Club Program. My expense loss for this program was $13.00. Since I had some responsibilities to this event I did go and check that things were covered. I fellowshipped with them for just a bit and went home for a good night of sleep.

4/28/01
Sat. I woke up this morning and all I could think about was that I should counter sue.
A. Penn Dot
B. Detective Floyd
C. The Gentleman who crossed the stop line.
D. The woman who stopped so abruptly so as to cause herself to be rear-ended.

4/30/01
Mon. I lost about 50 minutes of work.
A. 8:45 A.M. I called District court to see if I could file a suit with them and how much it would cost.
B. First I went to the Bank to make a withdraw to cover costs.
C. Then I went to district court and spoke with Pat I asked about how much in damages I could ask for her reply up to $8,000.00 any more would have to go to a higher court. Then she explained that she would have to check with the Judge if he could hear a case where suit is filed against Penn Dot. Pat took down my work number and said she would call and let me know if I could file my suit in that manner.
D. Then I drove down to the Police Station to obtain a copy of the police report.
a. First I was asked if I wanted to pay the $15.00 fee for the accident report. I agreed to pay.
b. Then the secretary had to go to a back room for some reason? At this point I heard a resounding “No I don’t want to talk to him!”
c. The secretary came back to the window and explained that I would need to speak to the Chief about this. And that the Chief was next door at borough hall. He would be over in a minute.
d. The Chief came into the building and asked me “what did I want”. I said, “I would like a copy of the Police report please”. The Chief explained that only individuals actually involved in the accident could receive a police report, and that a copy would also get sent to the state. I asked again “I would like a copy of the Police report please”. He responded NO again he offered me some information off of the accident report. He then walked into the office, looked out the window, and said, “ Why don’t you have your lawyer subpoena this document from me.” At that I asked for the name of the Individual that rear-ended the woman. (For some reason and I didn’t know why at the time but as I was replaying the series of events in my head I must have been becoming aware of the fact that Mr. Tran was also a victim in this accident.) The Chief then looked at the report he mumbled something about this accident being a non-reportable accident and went to the copy machine and made a copy of the report he then walked to the window and handed the report to me and when I offered to pay for the report, and he refused to take my money?
E. I went back to work and Pat from district court called back, I was out dispatch gave me the message to call Pat. About 2:30 P.M. when I called Pat back she was on Lunch break. I left a message that I would call her back the following day in the morning.

6:30 P.M.
A. I read the accident report and was surprised to see that the elderly gentleman’s information was not there?
B. I called to speak with My Van Tran I couldn’t get through.
C. I called the State Police to see if they would run the License plate # of the elderly gentleman. I explained that I had no doubt the local police department wouldn’t help me in this matter. The State Police suggested that I talk to the borough councilman and he gave me a number to call that might be of service to me. (1-800-932-4600) M-F 7:00 A.M. – 9:00 P.M.

5/01/01
About 6:00 A.M. I called My Van Tran I spoke with a woman who didn’t speak English very well. I explained that the accident was not all Mr. Tran’s fault, and that I needed to talk to their claim handler.
Called back to District Court to speak with Pat, Barb answered and transferred me to Pat. She told me that my court date was 5/17/01 and that the Judge couldn’t hear a suit against the State, and that I needed a lawyer to do that. Then I asked if I filed suit against
A. The elderly gentleman who crossed the stop line.
B. Detective Floyd as a civilian.
C. The woman who stopped so abruptly she was rear-ended.
Pat said she would look into this and that I should call her back latter.

5/02/01
11:30 A.M.
A. I called back to see if I could go forward with my suit against those involved in my case. I was told to call back after 11:30 A.M. on 5/03/01.
B. I called the Telford Police Department and left a message on officer Fox’s voice mail requesting the name and address of the man who crossed the stop line I spoke of the License # DVH-1936 Pa. And I also asked to have the abrupt stop that Mrs. Allsop made included to my testimony.
7:15 P.M. I spoke with Tina Coles a State Farm Claim handler who called me of her own volition. Mr. Tran had not talked to her although she did mention that he also spoke broken English or at least someone in the house did. She left a message earlier in the day I think about 5:30 P.M. to call her back at 1-888-713-4694 ext.4170. She gave me a Reference # 3811J673706 and I gave her a deposition of the accident and events there after. Tina said my statement would be useful and that though Mr. Tran still had most of the burden of guilt for hitting the back of Mrs. Allsop’s car she was also culpable.

5/03/01
A. I called District Court Back about 12:30 P.M. My answer was yes the Judge would hear my complaint.
B. I called The Telford Police Department the woman in the office refused to run the plates of the elderly gentleman she said that I should call and or check with a notary.
C. I called the 1-800 # the State Police gave me and spoke with a Tonda after listening to my plea for help she explained that Federal Law Prohibited her from giving me that information and that it would also be illegal for a notary to give out that information. She advised me to seek legal advice.
D. I called Pat back and asked for her help in the matter of obtaining this information. She told me they couldn’t help. I then asked her how long the Statute of limitations would run for me to file suit she answered me with 2 years.

5/04/01
Fri. I completed the form to file a civil suit against the Detective since he was the only person I could legitimately go after. (I would have filed suit against the other drivers since it was their driving which brought me to this point.) I was a little late for work 15-20 minutes.
At some point in the morning I was allowed to take some time to go to District Court to file my civil suit against Detective Floyd. This took approximately 20 minutes.

5/(04-05)/01
In the evening of one of these days I contacted Mrs. Allsop and spoke with her husband about the accident report that I was making. I wanted to know how to properly address Mrs. Allsop, and asked to speak with her about the accident. Her husband refused to let me speak with his wife. I asked if he knew that I was cited in the incident? He told me that the police had called them and asked them not to talk with me. Then I asked Mr. Allsop to have his insurance claim handler call me I had some important information to talk to them about.

5/07/01
Mon. Jeff Zepp tells me that Rich’s wife was the woman who was driving the vehicle right behind the elderly gentleman and in front of the harassing pickup truck driver. He said that Rich needed to discuss this matter with me.
Dispatch tells me that Chief Bickle called to talk with Jim Nyce.
I went to talk to Rich after work and tried to explain what was going on and ask his wife to testify on my behalf. He stated her position of what she thought she saw and heard and his dislike of testifying against the police. I asked if he would discuss the matter and let me know what the answer would be.

5/09/01
Wed. That morning I gave dispatch a copy of my report on the situation to give to my employers’.
I saw rich leaving for his 1st delivery; I flagged him down and received a flat out no to receiving help from his wife. I tried to tell him that I had a document for his wife to read.
On my first delivery I discussed the matter with Kenny who was there making a delivery also and I asked him to make sure Rich knew about this document I had for his wife.
Latter in the day Jarrod (My Employer’s Son) mention very strongly that I should not discuss this situation on company time or with other employees that he felt Chief Bickle was a nice guy and that he didn’t want to cause bad feelings between the Police Department and his company. At that time dispatch told me he had not yet turned the document over to my employer’s, I requested that Jarrod look at the document and Jarrod agreed he would and latter he did read it. After reading the document he came down to see me while I was working in the yard he suggested that I should not pursue the woman witness in this matter at their request (the Woman and her Husband (Rich and Michelle Townsend)), and that the conversation between the Chief and his father was about my mental health?

5/10/01
Today just before 8:00 A.M. I tried to call the office of the J.P. and no one picked up the phone. My question for them was to find out if my hearing for Disorderly conduct was moved to correspond with the hearing of the charges that I filed against Detective Floyd.
At 9:00 A.M. Jim came out to take me aside he told me of his conversation the other day with the chief and complimented my work abilities. He told me of being questioned about my mental health. He asked me to consider dropping my suit against the Detective. He also told me that the chief would quit his job if I won my suit? I told him to let his friends know that I would like the accident report reopened and that charges be drawn against the man that crossed the stop line.
At 4:00 Jarrod made mention that I could drop my suit up to the day before the case. I told Jarrod about the conversation I had with his dad.

5/11/01
Fri. Today I woke up at 3:30 A.M. and felt a little more at ease about the process that things will work together for truth and justice. There were some thoughts I felt I needed to write down about 4:00 A.M. I went back to bed, sleepily I awoke, and after adding to my thoughts from earlier, I went to work. I arrived at work about 20 minutes later than I wanted to.

5-15-01
Cody Myers (My neighbor across the street a boy in 4th grade where my daughter goes to school) accidentally falls out of his upper bunk bed and strangles himself on some loose clothing. Cody’s family invited my family to a Christmas train ride up north by their summerhouse. Their family also went through the receiving line for the Wieder’s memorial service with my family, where I had the opportunity to explain to Cody why we were there. I was able to explain about the respect we were showing to his sister, and my daughter’s teacher and wife.

5/17/01
Thu. 10:42 A.M. I clocked out from work. I saw that the Souderton Police had pulled over a red and white Ford P.U. on Rt. 113 just south of County Line Rd. I really wanted to see if this might have been that individual who was using derogatory and profane language; to bad they had both disappeared by the time I got to their location. I prepared for my court hearing, after changing and then getting to court at about 11:00 A.M. I was informed that the hearing had a continuation and I did not have to appear today. The court secretary (Barb) told me that as soon as she found out a phone call was made and a message was left on my answering machine. The date I was to be informed was either the 8th or the 9th of May, when I was supposed to have received this information. I returned to work at 11:85 A.M. after making a couple of phone calls and changing back into work clothes. This was about 1 hour and 15 minutes.
5:05 I took a couple of minutes to speak with Jarrod about the issue of the chiefs’ comment to his dad (how I should drop the lawsuit) and how that tore me up because after all the chief was the one to tell me that maybe I should file charges against the detective as per our conversation on Wed. 4/25/01.

5/24/01 Thu.
Mary told me about receiving a letter from the district court about a new court date and also I saw that there would be a new judge handling the matter.

5/25/01 3:55 – 4:15
Fri. How odd? Somehow I pulled an unexpected delivery to Telford Borough at first and as soon as I realized where I was going I wasn’t to sure if I wanted this particular delivery but as always I do my job for any body and or every body without any bias to perform my duties and make profit for the company. As dispatch gave me instructions I would learn that the borough manager would be instructing me as to the placement of the ordered material. When I met Mark I introduced myself and he was pleased to put a face to the name that some of his discussions were about. I discussed with him a lot more than he probably wanted to know, he told me of his concern for where the Insurance Company might take this matter. We also discussed the matter of the two recent funerals and he shared with me that his neighbor was a little boy named Nick and how Nick’s mom was distraught to explain to her son about Cody’s death. He also told me of his concern that I acted out not listening to the detective and using profanity. I assured him that that was not the case as my credibility as a good witness would then be compromised. I shared with him that this case was about an incident that happened 13 years ago, when I received a warning from the Warminster police officer. In that matter I was told to contact my councilman or senator to enact legislation about the use of the stop line since there was no law regarding the use of stop lines. I certainly hope that he takes another look into my conduct and the information on the accident report and the charges recorded on the citation, as they do not match his version.
About 5:45 – 6:00 I called Dave (My dispatcher) after work to thank him for setting me up with that delivery. He informed me that it was not intentional that I received that job. I told him that I did get a chance to speak with the borough manager. I explained that I wanted to thank him at work but we were all so busy.

6-17-01?
At some point around this date I made a delivery to the Telford’s police chief’s house, the delivery went well even though he didn’t want to talk about the current problem I was involved in. I asked to make sure he would be at the hearing, and I tried to assure myself by repeating his comment to me in a previous phone conversation where he said the truth would come out in court. In leaving I parted with the thought that I didn’t like seeing cars crash behind the truck that I operate.

6-22-01 Fri.
Finally the day of the court case this took about 4 hours from my workday. I met Mary at the door when she finally arrived. I had an uneasy feeling when I saw Detective Floyd. What perjury from the police and the witnesses that they brought. How depressing I sure hope GOD is in control.

6-24-01 Sun.
I left a message on Lowenthal and Abrams answering machine about needing a lawyer. I worked on the computer a little went to church, where Aldo Carmona suggested that I should leave it go, and worked on the computer some more. In the afternoon I was shuffling through some papers and realized that I had some documents with the Detectives false testimony written. I called the Lowenthal and Abrams back to leave another message to this fact.

6-25-01 Mon.
Before going to work Mary and I discussed some of the events that occurred in court. I would ask if she would object to my pursuing this matter and she agreed. She admitted that if she wasn’t there to see the judge; appeal to me, to appeal the case, and apologize to find me guilty, that she would have thought I was making that part up. She gave me her approval to take this matter further.
After working all day and leaving just before 5:00 I gave Mary a call to see if the lawyers had called back. Since they hadn’t I called and spoke with the secretary, (Carolyn) I gave her some details but not much she asked how I had heard about them and I explained that I heard about them from their advertisement on WBYN 107.5 Alive. This evening I spent some more time on the computer.

6-26-01
This afternoon after work I called Mary to see if the lawyers had called back. I went home and called the Lawyers, I spoke with a paralegal (Debbie) who was then finally was able to put Jeff Lowenthal on the phone and he then referred me to a Bruce Hoffman. Jeff told me Bruce was a criminal lawyer and a good one and to make sure I mention that Jeff referred me to him.
I immediately called Bruce Hoffman and when finally getting through (the phone # Jeff gave me was not current) I left a message with some details about the case.

*6-27-01
Bruce Hoffman called back and, Mary left the message, to call him from work.
I called Bruce back and made an appointment to see him July 3rd at 11:00 AM

6-29-01
While out on my first delivery I see that there is what appears to be a security guard at the job. I ask the man to help spot the truck as I pull the truck close to the customers’ truck. The man somehow relinquished that request right back to my customer. As this individual stood there just watching me make my delivery he was just close enough to hear what was being said and I was even able to make some comments in his direction. Then later he approached and said how impressed he was with the delivery. While cleaning up the truck and getting ready to leave he came to the other side of the truck and I read the badge on his uniform. He was Detective Gehman of and I’m not sure if it was Upper Merion or Upper Moreland P.D. He after listening described Detective Floyd as a bad cop and encouraged me to appeal my case he said that he was sure I had a winner. I asked Dave (My Dispatcher) when I got back if he knew anything about a Detective looking into how I make my deliveries. My Dispatcher told me he knew of no meetings set up for me with anyone, I didn’t ask any more questions about the issue.

*7-03-01
I took off from work at 10:00 AM. As I headed down the road to my meeting the first thing I knew I would have to do was to gas up. While merging onto the highway I noticed my car coming down the highway at the same time. I flagged my wife to stop at the gas station and as I prepared to gas up the bike my wife and children wished me well with the Lawyer, they told me about going shopping for a Jr. brides maid dress for Valerie. This was an opportune time to give everybody a kiss and a smile and get on our way. The motorcycle ride went well going to the Law office of Bruce Hoffman, It was about 10 minutes after 11:00 when I got there and my appointment was at 11:00, fortunately he was still finishing up some other business, and after all that chance encounter was well worth a couple of minutes.
In speaking with Mr. Hoffman I was surprised he didn’t want the information that I had already written up. We verbally discussed some of the situations that brought us to this juncture. In the end Mr. Hoffman looked at me and said it appears that some of my civil liberties have been violated. Mr. Hoffman immediately suggested that I go to the Montgomery County Court house and appeal the judgment against me. He suggested that I stop talking to others about this case stating that it would not, benefit me to talk about it. I knew and told Mr. Hoffman as much that it would be hard for me not to discuss this matter. I told him of the General contractor to whom I spoke that morning and of the Detective on the job site the past Friday. I left his office in a hurry to get over to the courthouse as we weren’t sure when the courthouse would close.
Getting over to the courthouse wasn’t very hard there were some problems with the typical merges communication, was probably the biggest issue. Every body wants the same piece of the road. While driving I had time to realize that my purpose to see a lawyer was two fold in as much I wanted to follows up the phone call to the D.A’s. office. The D.A. told me to send them my problem in writing, and before I submit anything to any body in writing I want my lawyer to approve it. I know we talked about much and not talking to people but I had a loose end and maybe I could find out more about the chance encounter with a Detective. As I arrived at the court house and paid the parking fee. To park in the garage, I found the attendant infatuated with my rig that is so neat almost everybody marvels at my motorcycle with its man and a half sidecar. The man in the garage had me park off in the far corner and I was able to hide the motorcycle along side of a minivan. I grabbed my lunch box and attaché, walking into the courthouse security was very high, metal detectors and x-ray scanners for my things. The security team confiscated my toenail clipper. I then asked security for directions and they asked me what I was there for and sent me to the clerk of records to start. I then asked if the D. A’s. Office was in this building. They told me that office was located on the fourth floor.
In the office of the clerk of records I noticed that it wasn’t that crowded and was surprised at how fast I was in and out we filed the form right there and paid for the appeal. And there at the same time I was recalling that phone call to the D. A. As soon as the appeal was successfully entered I asked for the location of the nearest pay phone. Hoping to still catch Mr. Hoffman at his office I called to see if anything needed to be said or given to the D.A. they had left I was on my own. So I went upstairs to share my problem with the D.A. the office on the fourth floor sent me over to an office across the street.
Across the street and into the office of Dick Marsch I found him talking to several people in his waiting room. So I went out in the hall to eat my lunch. When the first group of people came out I went in to take a seat. Listening as I waited I learned that this D.A. was very familiar with the Hatfield area and the man had a great respect for the Hatfield Detective Sergeant. When it became my turn to speak with the man he asked me what he could do for me. I told him I was there because of the phone call I made to his office two Friday’s ago after I lost my court hearing. I told him about not mailing him my written statement because I’m doing everything through legal counsel. He was a bit confused as to the part where I was to mail in my statement he claimed he had not requested that of me, we concluded then that one of his associates must have spoken with me. He then asked what this was all about. I told him of my problem and he listened to me for a while and asked me again what he could do for me. He explained that the detective driving his car in the matter as he did was an issue of conduct his Chief would have to address. And then I asked about the perjury in court? Mr. Marsch explained to me that the penalty for an officer committing that offense carried a jail sentence but he said the officer would have to perjure himself in the court of public record. I questioned that maybe the other officer who perjured himself in my case had some other impropriety in maybe in the case of the wrongful shooting. I said a man just acquitted of something like that shouldn’t give false testimony. It was pretty obvious that I didn’t know how the D.A’s. office could help me and after Discussing the matter about the Detective on the job site from which Mr. Marsch was very surprised he concluded, and had me pretty convinced, that was just happenstance. Mr. Marsch then asked the name of the Detective and I gave it to him. He to was confused about the detective being on the job site. I shared with him my thought about some other internal investigation. I apologized for taking his time. He asked me to let my lawyer handle things. He started to walk away and I stated that if he was to assign someone to my case that I wouldn’t object to Detective Gehman. He walked away saying, “things don’t work that way.”
I left the courthouse area and started heading back for work. Stopping at the Wawa to call work from which I noticed I didn’t have enough change typical! I got a hold of Irv; he told me that he didn’t have any more work to get out so I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went to see dad. We went over to Grammy’s to do a little yard work and to console her a very close friend of hers had just passed away today.

7-05-01 Thu.
A woman driving 40 in the 45 mph. zone started to play games in front of my truck and then called into dispatch to complain about my driving I was simply trying to go back to the shop to get another delivery. I recorded her license DAL-9679 and noted she was driving a small red car.
Just after dealing with her a SUV Making a left turn onto a street must have decided at the last minute to use this side road just on the other side of the train tracks. I almost got caught stopping on the train tracks. This was, because of the sudden stop of the SUV in front of me. First they stopped and then they used their turn signal.

7-06-01 Fri.
On my first delivery I was getting the driveway prepared as I had the truck positioned to back into the driveway when a motorist pulled up to the front of the truck. The motorist used his horn and I went over to his car to explain that it would take just a couple of minutes to get the truck into the narrow driveway. I suggested that if he was in a hurry it might be quicker for him to go around the block. The operator of the car became belligerent complaining “what a pain in the ---.” I apologized and the operator gave me some more lip saying, “sure I’ll bet you’re sorry”.

7-10-01
Another stop line violation, a black woman in Hatfield driving a small silver car I wait for her to back up so I could complete my turn. She just sits there I motion for her to back up. She shakes her head no she is not going to move her car. She finally gets the green light for her direction and moves her car enough for me to go. As she starts past the truck she starts cursing at me saying that if she were late for something I would pay.

7-12-01
A customer (Tony Fusca) tells me about a situation involving Detective Floyd and the judge in Perkasie (I believe this would be the Sellersville JP). She recognized that Detective Floyd was lying in her courtroom and noted the fact, in the case file as such. That was so strange to learn that.
On the return back to the yard late in the evening I was driving through a particularly congested part of the area. At a point in my travels I recognized an area for which I wanted to be in the right lane due to a side street that receives a lot of left turn traffic. I didn’t want to be caught behind traffic stopped and waiting for a left turn. I signaled early to make a lane change and I saw a Red corvette with a white convertible top slow down to allow me to accomplish my lane change. I was thinking how considerate. Later it would prove that she was to be the only considerate person on that return trip. There was a particular incident from which I was forced to make a decision because of the strange, courteous, and dangerous maneuver by the vehicle in front of me. (The vehicle was a Black Chevy pickup truck with dually tires, and the truck was taking what I perceived as a risk by trying to allow me room to go past. The operator of the truck was positioning his vehicle north bound in the southbound lane of Rt. 309.) The choice I made was to slow the truck down and or even stop if I had to, this would enable the driver of the pickup truck an opportunity to get back into his proper lane of travel. This choice was my second choice as the driver gave me plenty of indication that he was going to turn I tried first to change into the right lane which would have been my preferred lane of travel on that stretch of highway anyway. Later being in the left lane this time by choice (due to the major bump in the right lane just up ahead, I noticed that I was passing the woman in the Red Corvette I thought it would be a nice gesture if I could tell her how much her letting me change lanes in front of her meant earlier. I saw an opportunity to say something nice and she began acting weird. And finally much further up the road and once again behind her sitting at a red light I hopped out of the truck to go up and personally and sincerely thank her. She became very belligerent she flipped me the bird and she was very derogatory with me. I had not thought of how my actions were to be viewed and I was hoping that she didn’t have a problem with letting the truck change lanes in front of her. I guess I found out that she did have problems with me.

7-13-01 Fri.
The husband of the woman who was so upset with me the night before comes in to complain about me. She told her husband that she felt threatened.
My boss approached me and told me that if he gets one more phone call he will fire me for not representing his company properly. After some discussion with my boss about the two phone calls that he had just received in the past two weeks, we came to realize that there might be more going on here that meets the eye. It seems in both instances the term, “Road Rage” came up. Now I know that there has been more than enough police activity around my truck since this accident situation, I’ve been observed, followed and it is rather odd that since the incident there has been an increase in police presence around me driving the work truck and I believe that if I was doing something wrong I would have known about it.

7-14-01 Sat.
While at work in the Lansdale Div. of our company I apologized to the dispatcher for the couple of complaints that he received and explained the circumstances for which they came about.
Later in the day I noticed a Black Chevy pick up truck with dually tires sitting out front at work. It looked very much like the truck driving on the wrong side of the road for which I slowed down so hard two nights before, when no one would allow me to make a lane change. I asked about the truck and found out that it belongs to the loader operator at that division of the company.

7-16-01
I had told dispatch at the beginning of the day that I felt it was necessary to talk to Jim Nyce my employer and later I was told that it might not be a good day to approach Mr. Nyce. So I spoke with Jarrod Nyce at the end of the day. He lambasted me for getting out of the truck and speaking to that woman after listening to him I finally got to a point where I could tell him of Steve’s truck he said he didn’t even care about that. Just before I left I offered to write the woman a letter of apology. Jarrod said to just let the incident alone.

7-17-01
As the day went along earlier in the day I had a chance to speak with Jim Nyce. Jim told me of Jarrod’s little boy suffering an injury to his leg, and then he said he was very concerned. I asked about the little boys leg. He said, “no about you” I then shared with Jim about Steve’s pickup truck possibly being the truck that was in a bad position on the highway on the Thursday before, he asked what time this might have happened. I told him about 5:30 P.M. He said that it was possible that it could have been Steve and that he was going to check in to this.
After work I came home and my wife greeted me with quite a story about a phone call she had had with my employer Jim Nyce. This came about just after she prayed for me. The pastor said Sunday sometimes we have to wait on the Lord for prayers to be answered, not this time. They discussed my emotional well being, she apologized to tell my boss that the only thing he had to worry about was that I would probably hurt myself, and the truck, before I hurt someone else. She told him of my finding out about Detective Floyd’s reprimand in court. (That is something that I held back from my employer because of their position on how I should not pursue these proceedings. I only mentioned to Jim that an appeal was in the works. I didn’t go into detail about why.) Mary suggested that maybe I should get out of the orange truck. Jim told Mary that he already ordered a new truck, and that since talking to her my job is now quite secure. Jim also mentioned that his phone call to her was the result of a conversation that he had with the Chief of police once again, (Thank you Mr. Bickle)

*7-19-01
My second meeting with the Lawyer went well he feels that he can have my charges dismissed and it would only cost about $500. But then he listened to the bit about the reprimand in court and he said he would take my case further if that reprimand could be verified. Bruce told me that all he needed was Tony’s phone number and address. I heard, that I needed to talk to Tony, which was ok with me because earlier I did ask permission to give Tony the phone Number to Bruce’s office. And this was so easy everything was coming together just fine. I asked how much it would cost if there was a judgment and what kind of judgment we could be looking at. Bruce told me he gets 40% and if we prove perjury then we would go back after the Local municipality, County, and State. I left work at 2:40 P.M. this cost me about 2hours and 20 minutes, and tolls of $1.00.
Leaving the lawyers office I went back to Lansdale to see if I could catch up with Tony in person at his job site. As I passed by Nyce Crete I stopped in to see if Steve was still there I figured he left for the night, and I was right. I spent a few minutes talking with Jack the dispatcher and went over to Tony’s job. No Tony I asked the homeowner if I could have Tony’s phone number he said he didn’t know it. He said he expected Tony to be working Sat. or Sun. Home I go, once at my house the first thing I do is look up this mans phone number in the phone book, there it was. Next I call Tony and tell him that my concerns about him calling my lawyer were unfounded. Now he is concerned he isn’t so sure he wants to cooperate, with my problems he’s afraid of getting caught up and losing his job? Why would he lose his job? I’m mailing Tony, Bruce Hoffman’s business card. I hope he calms down and of course I called Bruce back and left a message that I would call him back tomorrow. I’m done talking to people I think.
I called pastor Troxel to let him know how things went I told him that I’m not on a roller coaster ride I’m riding the back of a serpent first my emotions go up everything is going great and secondly I’m going down and getting spun in all directions.

*7-20-01
I called Bruce Hoffman and he seemed less concerned with the information that he requested for Tony, his address 519 Edgemont Ave. Lansdale, and phone number 215-362-1185. Bruce sounded very upbeat in talking with me after I told him that Tony didn’t want me to give my lawyer Tony’s information. I explained about Tony going away for a little while and he was trying to decide if he wanted to call before or after going away. I explained that I was reluctant to give Tony, Bruce’s phone number and that now Tony was reluctant to call because he didn’t want to get involved in my case. Bruce said that he could wait for Tony to call him. I asked Bruce that if anything would happen in my case that he should please keep me informed? Bruce said that he would.

7-21-01
I worked for Landis Concrete a few hours. After I completed my duties, I had the opportunity to talk with Jarrod about the issues that I am facing. He shared concern about the event should I lose it could cost me. I told with him not to worry that I am not taking this forward on my own, we discussed the fact of how I found my Lawyer and as he left I sensed that he understood what and why I was doing what I had to do.

7-23-01
Jim comes over to me to say hello, he mentioned that he talked to Mary. And then he showed me a schematic of the new truck.

7-24-01
First thing in the morning I’m crossing route 63 heading south on route 113 and the traffic light malfunctions. Of course this would happen to me. After waiting through three cycles of the light and finally getting across the intersection I pull over and make a phone call to 911 to report the malfunctioning traffic light. After reporting the light I enter the snack shop where I happen to meet my neighbor Rocky. We talk for a little and a police officer pulls up to check out the light. Naturally like trying to tell your mechanic that there is a problem with your car; nothing goes wrong with the light while we discuss what happened to me. At least the complaint is on record this time. I’ve had problems at this intersection recently on a Saturday delivery for Batesville Logistics Inc.
At the end of the day, my last delivery the Lady of the house shows me where to put her material, and a conversation develops. She shares with me an incident her husband had. It seems he also is a truck driver and had a problem with an individual who passed him on the right shoulder and cut the truck off getting in front of the truck and causing the truck to stop. The aggressive driver has to stop at a traffic light and the truck driver comes up from behind. The truck driver gets out of the truck and yells at the aggressive driver for almost causing an accident. The aggressive driver being yelled at calls the police for assistance. The police arrive on the scene and give the truck driver a written warning for being the aggressor because he got out of his truck (typical).
As I am sitting on the couch being a typical potato, I watch a Mercedes Benz commercial, where did they get the idea for thanking people for allowing them to make a lane change? That was the whole premise behind the commercial. That was way to close to an incident I recently had.

7-25-01
I’m thinking it is time to give Lowenthal and Abrams a call to question the 40% thing with Mr. Hoffman and update them on what might be going on in my situation. I want to make sure that they don’t want any parts of this matter, (I would feel more comfortable if it gets as involved as it could that Christians are involved).

8-28-01
I went to the Library and found a book from which I could copy the violated statute from and researched and copied a few more state statutes that could have been or were violated by others. I added the photocopies to my documents. After reading and re-reading the offending violation I became more convinced that the Judge erred in handling my case.

8-31-01
I spent some time recording some thoughts stating; I didn’t have intent, going into court, I believed my case was about my conduct. In the courtroom I found that the case wasn’t about my conduct (violating 5503 subsection 2). In defending my conduct for making a loud noise, I was only defending myself from the harassment and profanity coming from an individual who had provoked me once before. I only gave a retort not to cause public harm but rather to explain. The detective changed the case and lied about my use of profanity (violating 5503 subsection 3). I don’t use profanity! Not in public and not when issues that bother me from past events would have only the slightest chance to be corrected (going back to the warning 13 years ago). Why would I ruin my credibility as a witness by using profanity? In the past another police officer abused his position of authority, he took advantage of my naive respect for the men that are to help. He took advantage of my inexperience to give argument in describing how much room would be needed for the vehicle I was driving to negotiate and complete a turn.
What gave the detective the right to assault me with his vehicle?
That night while watching T.V., I heard a question asked that gave me insight in my case. What is worse a crooked cop or a lazy cop? I found first a lazy Detective who was annoyed his path to a meeting was interrupted (as sorry as I am that looking into this accident and dealing with a harassing individual might interfere with his plans, as a former emergency services volunteer and dealing with the police stops as a commercial truck driver, I know that nobody has exclusive right to the highway.) Courtesy and consideration should be given to all, identification immediately would have given me the chance to explain about the previous harassment and current harassment from the individual in the pick-up truck. In that event the Detective could investigate or determine the value of my retort.
Then at the court hearing I found that I had a crooked cop and not just one but two. These men who work together came up with a scheme to confuse me and it almost worked. I still want my chance to pull at the strings of these lies. I hope and pray someone remembers the truth and professes the truth.

9-07-01
At about noon I called the clerk of courts (610-278-3346) to determine how much longer I would have to wait to gain a court hearing for my appeal. The secretary I spoke with told me that there was a 10 to 12 month backlog of appeals. She recommended that I call the secretary in charge of scheduling Joann Mancini (610-278-3090) but that I should wait until she gets back from her two week vacation ending (9-14-01). At this time I realized that I should probably call my Lawyer in the event I should be able to schedule sooner than expected.

9-10-01
Wanting to call my Lawyer I didn’t get the opportunity.

9-11-01
8:35 A.M. While getting my paperwork I noticed that there was a group of people in the lunchroom watching T.V. I looked in to see what was going on. (OH! NO!)
You can’t imagine! There is only prayer.
This is not a time to worry about my problems when the country is in peril.
Delivering to a customer in Solebury I would learn that he had a customer that he was working for and that his customer worked in one of the World Trade Center Towers. My customer explained that he was trying to call his customer and wasn’t able to get through and that he was concerned for his customers safety. As I’m sure the world was concerned for the safety of all in and around those buildings. There is only prayer.
I come back listening to New Life Ministries and they put into perspective some of my immediate feelings to recognize that GOD uses all events for good many would ask how could GOD let this happen if only the many would come back to the LORD. I had a new sense of realization that we should not become like the terrorists but let the LORD take vengeance on those for their actions. Dave understood but Kyle well he has such a worldly view.

9-12-01
The day after disbelief, a country once divided would be united God separated would become the center of all.
The question for us all why does the FAA allow an access door to the cockpit from the passenger compartment? Can’t the airlines give up some rows of first class seating and make the cockpit crew a lounge and restroom? Who knows who you transport why even take a chance that someone could take control of another plane?
I asked that question to the wife of an airplane pilot only to find out there were other issues about the doors? And her husband was part of the other crew. They would fly the other days of that particular flight that was videoed and aired around the world. (An image we won’t forget)

9-13-01
I had a weird feeling I was associating the date and having a slight superstitious thought that maybe there would be some sort of retaliation on this date. Every one was quite quiet in and around different kinds of places.
Truck troubles the slave cylinder blew apart.
That day 10 people would become detained as possible terrorists while trying to board airplanes as we tried to reopen our airports. That night the three New York airports would be closed again. Security is tightened.
Mary and I went over to the school for a parent teacher conference we spoke with the teachers of both of our children.

9-14-01
A national day of prayer or an international day of prayer
A Day of Walking
Almost at work my pickup truck stalled and would not restart so I walked to work of course in the rain.
On my second delivery I would come to a weight restricted bridge I would think not to far from the job site probably about a mile and a half to two miles from my work truck that I would not take across the bridge. I would have to walk the long driveway a second time waiting for the dump truck to come out of the job site.
That night I talked with Valerie for a little while and we watched as the world shared in an international day of prayer. How the Lord is using these events to bring all of us as Christians together.

9-15-01
Time to write events in my journal. From (8-18-01) - (9-15-01).

*9-20-01,4:00 PM.
I called the Montgomery Court House to request a court date for my appeal hearing a date was given to me Thursday 10-25-01 at 9:30 A.M.
At 4:10 I called my Lawyer and spoke with his secretary “Dee”. I explained about calling to inquire about when we could go to court, and that I received a court date and time.
That night we had a safety meeting for work from 7:00-9:20 P.M.
At the safety meeting we heard how the court would hear both sides of an event and how one’s perception or their truth could be different from another’s.
We were told that if anything happens you are to write everything down, that is something that I have done.
I felt the meeting was “Very Basic” it didn’t address in detail the problems we face as drivers today some of the reasons I’m involved in the situation I’m in.
It was discussed that the stop and go action at intersections was a leading cause for accidents and that most people do not judge a proper following distance properly. This is an issue I would have liked to discuss more in depth I don’t believe you have to stop at each and every intersection if you can slow down in advance. Instead of driving up to and having to stop at each red light slow down in advance and drive through the green light.
Other Topics to Discuss were:
1. Being passed from behind while entering onto a highway from an entrance ramp.
2. Avoiding a reckless driver who cuts right across the highway within 10’ of your vehicle, while either making an illegal U-turn or not yielding the right of way and making a left turn right across the front of your vehicle.
3. What happened to the Law that states it is unlawful to cause an accident?

9-21-01 *(11-22-01), as written into my notebook 9-22-01 8:05 PM.
I called Dad and we had a very lengthy conversation he played Devil’s Advocate with me.
In reflection that night I came to realize that FEAR is not RESPECT as I described before we should hold the police in the highest esteem and respect them as heroes and men to help in our everyday struggles. Unfortunately I felt terrorized by the Detective and lost all respect for the men of this police department who would conspire to lie, and to lie to gain a conviction in this small incident. These men are supposed to be the people I am to tell my children to run to when they feel there is danger but now I wonder if these police officers would try to run down my threatened children or worse?
As a Federally licensed commercial driver “My Character” comes into question. In the past I had to own my own shortcomings in any of my errors in public or in the employ of others. – In this situation I didn’t do anything wrong and it is time for someone else to own up to their shortcomings.

9-23-01 *(11-22-01), as written into my notebook 9-23-01 9:40 PM.
What charges against the detective do I know of?
A. Witness Tampering (5/4 or 5/5) I called Mr. Allison
B. Perjury
C. Defamation of Character
D. Dereliction of Duty
E. Unsafe Operation of Vehicle
F. Failure to use warning devices
G. Discrimination

9-25-01 *(11-22-01)
No work this day.
I called to speak with Bruce about how I arranged a court date time and hearing for my case, and he set up a meeting with me for 9-26-01 at 11:30 AM.
I called work and I requested off due to the mid morning meeting the next day, this was permitted as work was slow.

*9-26-01
Meeting with the Lawyer 11:30- 12:00 we discussed the need to pay an agreed amount of $500. This would cover my defense against my intent, as there was no verification by anyone to prove of the detective’s perjury. My job became clear prove myself. I needed someone to verify that I was speaking truthfully at least to the best of my knowledge. This time I used route 309 and the tolls for both directions were $1.70.
I was hoping that the Local J.P. would provide the verification that my lawyer needed and that my lawyer would confirm this through contact with the reprimanding Judge. As I questioned that with Bruce he explained that he knew the information would not be made available as public knowledge and this whole conversation took me by surprise.
That night I took my family to the EZO activities in Hatfield. Following that event I came home disgruntled with my lawyers lack of effort I tried to E-mail a new law firm to handle my case as my lawyer said maybe I should have somebody affiliated with the ACLU at least then I might not be so surprised with a lack of effort. I had no response from that Philadelphia Law firm. So my resolve became focused on gaining the verification that Bruce was looking for, I started with just trying the reprimanding Judge to see what she would say. Is her no really no? Would she be surprised by the continued perjury or the fact that it wasn’t the first time that the Detective lied in court and his actions are causing distress?

9-28-01,1:05 P.M.
I called J.P. Ruth Dietrich at 215-257-5181. I spoke with her secretary and she told me to call back on Monday the J.P. was not in.

I had been reading the BIBLE and listening to the words of ministers, all of them available to me.
The words that describe the detective’s actions and perjury are:
1.Unconsionable
2.Detestable
3.Abomonation

Why reprimand the detective?
a. He idolized his vehicle and showed blatant disregard for public safety.
b. He drove his vehicle to become a participant and to antagonize.
c. He had plenty of opportunity to immediately identify himself as an officer of the Law.
d. He showed an abuse for his authority and power.
e. He discriminated against the truck driver with disregard for harassments directed at the truck driver.
f. He perjured himself in court.
1. To gain the conviction.
2. To attain immunity from the charges I filed against him.
g. He conspired to his perjury with a fellow officer.
1. To confuse the defendant.
2. To gain the conviction.
3. Why would a man just acquitted of a wrongful shooting perjure himself in such a small matter?
h. His immunity was acquired improperly, through his perjury, to cover up his participation in the situation.

Why are the witnesses afraid to testify on my behalf, I know we are to respect our police officers, but Fear is not respect and without respect there is not high esteem.

3:00 P.M.
A woman yells at me while slowly approaching a school bus with yellow flashing lights. It was clear that the bus was waiting for the woman to come to the bus stop to retrieve her child and the bus driver was not going to hold up the truck traffic while waiting for the mother to come to retrieve her student. Sometimes this happens and I was watching to gain confirmation from the bus driver, while getting yelled at by the pedestrian.

9-29-01,4:30 A.M.
On what authority did the detective use to have the right to drive in the manner he did. He stated in court that he saw from a distance that I had a problem negotiating the turn. He saw something happened after pulling the truck off to the side. He avoided immediately identifying himself and after asking me questions he never gave me the opportunity to answer and explain what he saw.
After all he was reprimanded!
I did try to talk with the chief and I did manage to explain to the borough manager.

Later in the day
“Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can’t hurt you”- what a lie!
An officer of the law can ruin your good name, defamation of character.
So far I have over $1,300 + emotional suffering.
WHY?
He lied to gain a conviction.

*10-01-01,2:10 P.M.
I called back to J.P. Ruth Dietrich.
She could not talk to me about the reprimand and suggested that as her secretary did on Friday I should talk to the Chief of police.

At 3:10 P.M. I called the Telford police department and requested to talk to the Chief Bickle. Detective Floyd answered the phone and put me on the phone with Chief Bickle. We set up an appointment to talk between 6:30 and 7:00 P.M.

At 3:15 P.M. I called my councilor Bruce Hoffman he told me in no uncertain terms to not meet with anyone he recommended that I call the Chief back and cancel the appointment. Bruce Hoffman asked me, “if I wanted to get shot?” I told him that I wasn’t really trying to become a martyr before we get into the courtroom.

10-03-01,6:00 P.M.
Once again I would try to convince Tony Fusca to call my lawyer that if the detective was practicing lying to gain convictions that this is wrong there is enough problems in our society we don’t need to fabricate the truth. But I was told that Tony was not home.
At 9:25 I tried again and so I spoke to Tony’s wife. I thought I did a very good job of explaining the situation to her and that she would help convince Tony to help me.

*10-09-01,3:25 P.M.
I called to speak with Bruce Hoffman I explained that I was not happy just going in to defend myself with a legal loophole such as intent. And he said that it was only a chance that the case would be dismissed on those grounds. I explained that I wanted to expose the perjury used against me.
At 4:15 P.M. I spoke with Rich Townsend asking to speak with his wife. I had heard that she had some misperceptions about what I was trying to accomplish at the scene of the accident. He told me that I could subpoena her but her testimony would not be helpful to my case. He wasn’t sure she could help me at all. He said he lives locally and that his information would be easy enough to find.
At 5:20 I used the Internet to locate the address of: at a cost of $3.00
Rich and Michelle Townsend
103 Country Side Lane
Telford PA.

10-11-01
I was remembering some of the statements made in the first hearing one that bothered me was that I was seen walking backwards, which I did. It was after hearing and identifying the source of the profanity yelled in my direction by a harassing individual. It was then that I took a couple of large steps to get into the center of the travel for the lane I would be standing in, not in the direction of travel but across the lane. I moved backwards and into the center of the lane so that nobody would attempt to drive by endangering my presence while traveling the narrowed street where my truck was parked. I could see that traffic was not coming and I even checked for traffic before giving my retort. Maneuvering in this manner would give me a clear view, and plenty of distance. I could make a retort to show that: I was offended by the language I had just heard, and observe that the harassing individual would not jump out of his vehicle turning his verbal abuse into physical abuse. The act of walking backwards seemed to be important to the detective as though I would walk backwards into his car. As close as his car was pulled up to my person, there was no way I could have walked backwards into his car. I would have fallen onto his car had I tried to walk backwards. I did however plant my foot behind me so I could pivot and turn around. It was then I got to see why the woman yelled a warning in my direction the detective’s car was so close that I could kneel on his bumper. I even wobbled as I almost fell my balance was thrown by the close proximity of the detective’s car. His very suggestion was ridiculous and he accused me of this by yelling at me for doing so. He then yelled at me a question for standing in the street yelling at people and he never let me explain as he pulled off in front of my truck asking yet more questions.
I didn’t try to reprimand the individual but I gave a retort in a manner to show that I was offended by the harassing individuals’ obscenities. In the first court hearing the detective said he observed me speaking obscenities and pointing and gesturing. I did point my index finger at the one, who harassed and offended me I made no obscene gestures. I wanted to point out the individual who was making obscene comments.

10-12-01
It came to me that if I would first take the stand that maybe I could shake out the truth of this whole mess the Detective made and then corroboration could come from those individuals that either I was speaking the truth or not. The logical procession would be my testimony then Michelle, and Tony followed by officer Ritter. At least this way the people that have misperceptions might gain some understanding as to why I reacted the way I did. I believe that all things considered I did a good job of maintaining control of a situation that turned against me rather harshly.
After work I went to the flower shop where the accident happened. I was expecting to find the two young ladies the Detective pointed out to me that were standing along the curb. The Detective made it clear that in his opinion my questionable conduct may have offended these bystanders. I figured that the young ladies worked in the flower shop. I entered the flower shop looking for the young ladies and ended up talking to the proprietor who had a vivid recollection of the accident. He talked of things in ways I couldn’t even put into words. The anger in the voice of the man harassing me, and he recalled the man driving off making a harassing comment of which I recorded. He even spoke of the color of the vehicles.

10-15-01
I looked up the phone number of J.P. Borek 215-393-7534 I asked his secretary to question him as to my persistence of following up on the perjury that was blatantly used to gain a conviction in his courtroom. The conversation was pretty much ended there Mr. Borek did not want to discuss this matter with me. So once again I’m on my own doing what should be right.
While looking for the number for Judge Borek I ran across the number for the ACLU 215-592-1513.
When I got home Mary told me that Tony called in the morning she said he wanted to talk to me and that I could call him between 7:30 – 8:00. He then told her he was going to meet with Detective Floyd?
At 7:50 P.M. I called to talk to Tony but once again he was unavailable.

*10-16-01,12:20 P.M.
I called to speak with Bruce he wasn’t available so I left a message with his secretary about my conversation with the proprietor of the flower shop and left his information with her.
Jon Hwang
300 south Main Street
Telford, PA 18969
215-723-2299
At 5:05 I called back to touch base with Bruce personally and explained the conversation that I had with the owner of the flower shop I then discussed contacting Michelle Townsend that I felt she had important information to the case. I fumbled looking for her address and had to call back with that information. I offered Tony’s information even though it goes against his wishes, after all he told me of the Detective’s reprimand, confirming a practice of perjury that others had told me of.
Bruce then told me that he would once again have to meet with me when we get a new court date. He explained that he had been contacted by the D.A.’s office and a cop was going in for retraining something that was scheduled a while ago? So now we have time and he told me that I did my job and I should stop pushing my case. Finally!

10-18-01,9:00 P.M.
I called dad to tell him that we are off for the court hearing on the 25th and to let him know that I do not know now when we will go forward.

11-08-01 *(11-22-01)
That night a message from the president was aired and some thoughts.
A. Courage and Optimism
B. The Lord’s Prayer
C. Lets Roll
D. Freedom and Opportunity
I thought of how my civil liberties were taken from me and how my prosecutor had choices. He abused his authority and power. As a result I will hold him accountable. I will allow my self to be a tool to protect the public well being.

11-09-01
I asked Andy Kramer (A fellow employee who told me of a conflict between himself and officer Fox. Andy told me how officer Fox entrapped his wife to gain a DUI charge). I asked Andy if he really wanted to clear up the situation concerning his wife? He indicated it was his desire to clear up the matter. Then I asked Andy if he and his wife would like to come forward in my case and he told me they would like to.

11/10/01 12:05 PM
I finished writing up the information from (11-04-01) – (11-10-01).
This morning I woke up to thoughts of how the court case might go and how to express my concerns for being wrongfully charged of violating a statute that I knew I didn’t. Then being able to describe how the participation of the Detective caused him to be full of pride, and how he decided he could get away with lying. He involved his fellow officer in conspiring to the perjury. He knew how he was going to convict me in this small matter already when he spoke to my dispatcher the next day after the accident, (4-20-01) which is when he decided to file the charges against me. He advised my dispatcher to let me know that it would be better for me to just pay the fine.

11-15-01 *(11-22-01)
About my conscience it was working well on the day of the accident, I let no impure thoughts corrupt my words as a conscious decision. My intentions were pure and just.

11-16-01 *(11-22-01)
Vocational profiling why is it so hard to be a Christian and a Professional Driver? We the drivers get to see the worst that society has to offer. Yesterday I was shown yet another perfect example of the selfishness of those before me in my truck. I got severely cut off by nearly a hundred cars and one young lady really messed me up. She felt the need to put her car in front of me in such a tight manner her car was at a 45-degree angle to get into the space in front of me.
This morning I found my self behind a car that was going slowly this car would cause me to have to stop at several traffic lights, by not keeping pace you can miss the timing of the green lights. Or if the distance is too great the light will change to red and this does happen as well.

11-21-01 *(11-22-01)
This morning as I arrived at my first delivery I was asked to move my truck by a person who at first I thought might have been his brother but he was actually Charlie Hepler. It was our 20th high school reunion when I saw him last and after moving my truck for him and his co-worker as I did have the driveway access blocked. I would go down back to talk with Charlie, his father and mine used to be co-owners of property in the mountains. He and I were in the same grade in school, I told Charlie of the court case I was involved in with the Telford Police. He then turned to me and would be yet another individual to inform me that they are bad cops. He then stated that he knew the police would sit outside of the bars and wait for people to come out and then pull them over to charge these people with DUI. I told him that was not the first time that I heard that story. I believe there could well be an opening for some injustices to be corrected in this matter.

11-22-01 11:15 AM Happy Thanksgiving!
Time to write up a few notes I found in a separate notebook some of the dates were back around September 22nd and I marked the dates with an *(11-22-01).

11-27-01
I was remembering the phone conversation I had with the Chief of Police. I can now recall with better clarity that he said, “I did everything that he would have done.” And then I asked, “Did he have any problems with disciplining his Detective?” He then answered with, “According to the account that his Detective gave him he doesn’t see that his Detective did anything wrong”. It was then that he explained that his detective is only human and that if I felt that the detective did something wrong I could file charges against the detective.
I know I had no intention to cause fear or terror unlike the detective, who used his car to provoke me in some absurd way. I didn’t succumb to the attack from any direction every thing that I said was pure, without profanity. I am aware that people observing from a distance may have received the wrong idea, but of all people to jump to conclusions, the man who would cite me did. Not only did he jump to a wrong conclusion about me he is willing to lie to convict me, and not only him but he would have his friend help.

12-07-01
At work I read an article about the Quakertown borough approving a ban on Jake brakes. This was upsetting to me.
I came home to find that the computer was repaired, it seems that the anti virus program was causing problems for us.

12-08-01
I called the Borough manager to tell him that I am opposed to the ban on Jake brakes I cited safety concerns and economic cost savings for deliveries. I asked him to oppose the ban. I found a Q-town web site and I registered to enter a message about the ban on Jake brakes.

12/9/01 2:36 PM
Listening to the radio everyone is talking about Christmas and placing Gods sovereign grace as pointing back to the very beginning in the book of Genesis (I never thought of Genesis as having a connection to the Christmas story before.). And I have to tell you every ministry is discussing this including our pastor at Church. And another pastor on the other radio station that I am listening to, (in an attempt to find that song again) he also had a similar message, that he referenced the book of Genesis.

12/10/01 5:24 PM
This morning I was thinking about why I am so convinced about the officer involved in my court case as the one to perjure himself on the stand. He said to me on the stand that it was not him to say that I was there as a witness. I remember being so surprised by this testimony in the courtroom. I didn’t know what to make of what he said, I started to think that maybe my recollection might have been askew and this morning I realized there was a perfectly good reason to remember officer Fox saying what he said. See it could have only been him or officer Ritter and I remember being just a little concerned about officer Ritter taking my statement, I was thinking of the advocate I sort of wanted officer Fox to take my statement. I could have asked officer Ritter to testify but I would have, only been hoping, that officer Ritter would tell the truth. I had seen enough lies in the courtroom I didn’t want to give anyone else the chance to lie.
At the end of the day today I learned that Kyle Smith was laid-off apparently on moral issues, I found this very strange because he was 2nd in seniority, I thought that the last one hired would be the first to be laid-off, as company policy. I hope my employers’ decision makes an impact on the rest of us employees to do our work more proficiently.

*12/13/01 9:54 PM
What a day? I started the day with a random drug screening, first thing in the morning and giving the required sample was a virtual disaster. Two hours later and a sample was finally ready to be processed. That is a little embarrassing.
When I get home I find that my court date had been selected, hmm this is going to be interesting. I thought that the Lawyer told me that there would be plenty of time. Mix that date in with the holidays I can see that this is going to be fun! January 3rd is coming faster than I expected.
I called my Lawyer, Bruce about 4:10 PM and he set a meeting for Tuesday the 18th at 11:30 AM, then I asked him if he wants Andy’s information. Bruce answered with a “yes”, I had to call back around 4:15 to reconfirm the time.
At 4:20 I called dispatch and gave Irv the dates and times I would require off.

Tue. At 10:30 for the Lawyer.
Dec. 28, 11:00 AM for the dentist.
Jan. 3rd, all day.

After making some important phone calls to family and friends I tried to catch some news on the T.V. I forgot that today of all days the media was to receive a tape of the Sept. 11th expressions of the terrorist leader Bin Laden. There was a time when it was said that Friday the 13th was a bad day, that maybe so but I am really confused by all of the strange things happening on Thursday’s.
I know that fighting terrorism overseas is a justified act that our country is entitled to pursue, but how is that different than calling attention and fighting the terror in our everyday lives? Our country began to fight terrorist on Sept. 11th; my struggle against terrorism began April 19th.
While talking to my Grandmother earlier I mentioned how everything read from the bible seems to come in and touch my life in a deep and personal way. I found it so strange that in watching T.V. that when jeopardy came on they would have several bible verses tied into their game. The first one I took notice to was, Mathew 10:34 when I turned to that passage I immediately saw a very important message for me. Strange that at this time of the year when everyone is thinking in terms of bringing peace for the World, Jesus words brought to me would speak, “that in following Jesus, “he” would cause distress, turning members of a house against each other.” The passage said that, “Jesus doesn’t bring peace he brings a sword, those that follow him will have Devine tools to use.
With all that is going on I wrote a phrase that has so many different meanings, “Where ever you go, and where ever you turn, you will see me.” I see the creator in all that is good.

12/15/01 9:35 AM
Yesterday was interesting; one of the first things that I did at work was ask Andy for his information for the Lawyer.
Andy & Tammy, Kramer
3125 Main St.
Green Lane, PA 18054
Andy was one of the first to tell me of improprieties of this particular police department, he described an event involving his wife, himself, and the officer. The officer that at the time Andy had told me this, I thought was my advocate, so I disregarded what Andy was telling me thinking that it was not important.

*12/18/01 4:15 PM
Another interesting day at work, I started out with having to drive a little offensively it seems the Taxi behind my truck wanted to pass and get into the left turn lane, while I was getting ready to get into the left turn lane myself. Then on approach to the traffic light with a pretty good head of steam from the slight push I was receiving coming down the hill, the light changed from a green left turn arrow to a red, before giving a green light situation. What is up with that? While completing the left turn a police car pulled up behind me, I thought I was in trouble. The police officer passed me by, Thank Goodness. Then there was the possibility of not being allowed out of a job site where I was making a delivery. The local inspector was watching that I didn’t drag mud out onto the street and mess up the borough roadway. This is a very common problem and the general contractor had a crew to work with me to clean off my tires, of which I am very thankful. I was all prepared to go into detail about the meeting that I had to go to and why I had to have a Lawyer represent me. If these people would have done anything to violate my civil liberties, I was prepared to ask if they wanted to meet my Lawyer?
Then I went to the meeting with my Lawyer, which once again was an experience that opened his eyes again and again. We talked about my trying to quit my second job and that they wanted to keep me on the books for emergencies. Bruce looked at me and smiled saying they must like you. This conversation took place because of a novelty’s he had sitting on his desk and the shirt that I was wearing. He had three Novelties on his desk; an urn that had written on it “ashes of disobedient clients”, the Judge, and an angel holding a book and as I looked closely to see what the title of the book was I read, “1000 Legal Loopholes”. Wouldn’t that just figure? This man just keeps getting more and more into this case, now if everything holds together, and I think it will. We discussed what he would like to do, and the obvious where I think this is going to go. And he read the information that I gave him. He marked what he read, he told me how he wanted to discuss a few things with the Chief and the detective. The meeting took about ½ hr. I think that the sell is complete and I can say I have a good feeling about this meeting. I left with the words that he should put this case in the hands of the almighty that I have faith.
Coming back from the Lawyer’s office I stopped in at my old employer, Sun Building Supply and I spoke with Bruce and briefly in front of Chuck. Bruce was another person to say that he can’t remember my using profane language. Then I went back to my employer and I talked a little with my dispatcher and received a bonus check from the Boss. I went back and talked with Eddie and then into the garage to talk with Andy right under Leonard’s nose in an under the cuff kind of way I let Andy know that the Lawyer was going to contact him and his wife. When I left the shop I went down the road to do some Christmas shopping for the family. And again I let it be known that my Lawyer would be contacting Jon and that I had a tentative court date for Jan. 3rd.

*12/27/01 3:33 PM
I just called the Law offices to talk to Bruce I spoke with the secretary Dee and I explained that I was curious about the case. I told her that I didn’t want to be a mushroom.” Dee told me that Bruce would be in tomorrow and she would tell him of my inquiry and have him call me tomorrow.
One of the things that I was thinking about, with regard to a problem I am having with a coworker is that, he may want to live his life with out care for others, and he may want to act anti socially or lead an immoral life style. But if I see it as a problem I have aright to identify the problem, I believe I am called to get in and help resolve the problems of society.

*12-29-01
I received a card wishing me a Happy New Year from my Lawyer.

1/3/02 7:04 AM

Yesterday 01-02-02
At work I spoke of my situation to a Dump truck driver from G.A. Peak and he say’s I really know how to stir up a Hornets nest, my reply to him is am I good enough to do it with out getting stung?

This morning;
I heard about the tractor-trailer accident and then there seems to be many more accidents occurring in the area, that isn’t odd is it? The strange thing is that the sun isn’t up yet it is just dawn.
I heard about the earthquake reported in Kabul at 6:00 AM, with a magnitude greater than 6pts.
What is up with the earthquakes today already I have heard of two? A second one was reported in the south pacific and it was only said to be very strong.

1/5/02 6:57:23 PM
On 1-3-02 I had a day in court and not a good one. The Judge found me to be a Liar I said “excuse me” and he repeated that he thought I was a Liar. Then he charged me an additional $100.00 to the fine. Well that is our justice system, READ MY document that I wrote about the situation.

*1-4-02
At 5:30 AM or there about I called My Lawyer and asked him to get me a copy of the court transcript, I told him to look through the document and turn it over to Dick Marsch, the D.A. in the department of public complaints. I feel the perjury I was looking to prove from the detective was in the court transcript.
1. The detective corroborated my testimony.
2. The detective contradicted the testimony of his own witnesses.

I went to work and forgot to take along my radio, I don’t know if it was better to have the radio or not. At work I had my head in the clouds all day I definitely had a hard time staying completely focused. I almost decided not to come into work because I could be considered mentally disqualified. For this reason I am so thankful nothing went wrong on route to my deliveries, and back.
When I came home I was able to write up or start while waiting for everyone to come home, after gymnastics. Before they left Mary left me a message on the answering machine that she called the Veterinarian to have the cat put down. The appointment was made for 1-5-02 at 11:00 AM. I can’t say much for the timing of this event.

1-5-02
Well I started the day with being accused of not showing enough sympathy for my grieving family and being to focused on myself. The car needed gas and while at the gas station I couldn’t close the car door, I was listening to the song on the radio and I have to wonder how the radio announcers happen to know which songs to play. I drove everyone down to the Veterinarian and back. I tried to keep a little disconnected so I wouldn’t become overly emotional. Upon coming back I went back to the grind or so I tried.
Later Mary and I had a bad row. Between the cat and the court case we were in trouble. Afterwards I called the Law firm of Lowenthal and Abrams to report the wonderful job that Hoffman did and to place an impassioned plea to please help as my marriage is suffering.
After the call to the Law firm I called Dad once again he blasted me for getting into the position I am in, another I told you so! And then I explained that Mary and I were having troubles. It was just too much happening in our lives at one time.
Then while listening to the radio I heard of a report. A police Chief was just suspended, by the city manager. The Chief arrested the manager or owner of a restaurant over a disagreement about a cheeseburger. I pray that justice is served in this matter.
Then I was able to share the cheeseburger incident with Mary. I expressed concern for the probable injustice and she was also concerned.
I think we will be OK, but I’ll let the message to the Lawyer stand.

*1/6/02 1:02 PM
I went to the Church information meeting and shared my thoughts and Documents with those individuals that were interested, after the meeting I stayed for Church the message was on Church leadership. After talking and explaining more of what happened in court I picked up my son and we went home. On the ride home it came to me! The detective did testify that he told me to be quiet and to calm down. The question came from, I don’t remember. Then later the detective was recalled to the stand and he testified that I didn’t tell him or identify the person who interfered with my progress. Time to recall Bruce (My Lawyer) and apologize for the questions that he will receive from Jeff Lowenthal. And to explain that my wife and I were having some difficulties because of the decision to put the cat down, added to the stress of the loss of the court case.
Tonight on the news I hear about how the FBI put a man in jail for 30 years and let two agents run amuck committing at least 19 murders. It was claimed that the FBI did this deliberately and our president is about to play along with this injustice. I pray that our President hears the cry for justice in our land and brings America back on track not to be an abomination unto our LORD. This was really more appalling than the hamburger incident we as Christians need to stand up and speak out against this kind of injustice it is time to clean house.
While listening to Max Bickford, they closed the show with a statement, “that in the end have left no sense of decency Sir!”

At the end of the night Denise Myers called to talk about a sewing machine that she found in a catalog, the discussion soon turned to injustices, and how any further action could affect my relationship with my family. We talked about several things and I was able to share my strong faith and convictions through this. I even shared some of the important scripture verses that are seared into my heart through all of this.
1. 1 Peter 1: 3-16
2. 1 Peter 2: 6-8
3. 2 Corinthians 10: 2-5 I should have added verse 6 as well.

1/7/02 5:50 AM
Is it not strange that these reports of injustice keep appearing on the news broadcasts?
It snowed this morning and I have much work to do before I even go into work.
In thinking about that court case I have to wonder while being told that I must have been frustrated, and if my Lawyer really understood my case he would have understood that my frustrations would have also been from the Death of my daughter’s teacher! So I show signs that I have emotions and that I am human that doesn’t make me guilty of anything.
Have a good morning America! And may God Bless our World!

1/8/02
3:35 PM
I called Montgomery County Court criminal division at 610- 278-3346 and I spoke with Carmella, I asked to talk to Dick Marsch the D.A. the man who I spoke with on the day of I appealed my court case. Carmella told me he would not be in his office until Thursday at 8:30 AM.

1/31/02 12:24 PM

1-14-02 through 1-28-02
What an experience I have never been so scared and so convicted as when my wife thought that I was having a nervous breakdown… She with help from my Mother the self proclaimed WITCH and so admitted. They had me involuntarily removed by the Police and committed for psychiatric evaluation. Now that I am home I am recording some of the events the traumatic removal, just because I stayed up too late on the Internet Chat room sites for Religion and Spirituality and the other site Politics. I was definitely tired as I tried to explain to everyone whom my wife had to come over and oh, how each and everyone wanted to have me committed. I was just tired… The 302 report written by my Mother was packed full of lies about me, my wife’s distress was real and she agreed to the lies because she thought that she was going to be able to help me through medications.

The Police abuse that I received, they forced their way into my house without first identifying themselves and stating that they had a search warrant for my arrest… (Based on the Lies in the 302 report) My father was in my house at the time and he can confirm what the police said and did! While getting dressed I recognized as a cooperative individual that putting cuffs on behind my back would cause a very uncomfortable ride to where ever we were going. I asked to be cuffed out front this gave the police cause to throw me on my bed, put a gun to my head and quickly remove the gun replacing said gun with an index finger, this pointed out to me as they lifted me off of my bed and carried me out of my house. I noticed my Pastor watching and smiling with intent at the whole situation. The rest of the night reads like a nightmare.

1-31-02

4:30 AM I woke up I went down stairs where everyone else in my family was sleeping for the night my wife did not force my daughter up to her room and later my son must have come down. These sleeping routines bother me and they always have. These routines are not a sign of a healthy family. Anyway I started in on my wife about the lies in the 302 report, and after some discussion, which we took upstairs to get away from the children, she finally spilled out that she was afraid I was having a nervous break down. That would be the motivation for her actions the fear that she felt. She then described her fears and I reassured her that I was only tired, that day. She sat up in bed and prayed and I assured her that I was concerned; she even came close to the point of accepting that there are lies in the 302 report. I comforted her and we ended up making love together. Darn that medication I was not so quick to jump the gun before being forced to take those medications. Not that my old self which is what I feel like was not quick to jump the gun I cannot wait until these medications wear off and I hope that is soon.

12:00 PM I called Jay Allen Sekulow show to see if they could help with my legal needs. They are the American Center For Law and Justice or the ACLJ for short. After talking to the interim person they pointed out that they the ACLJ could not help me and they told me to contact a local Lawyer.

12:18 PM Heading the advice of the ACLJ I called Roland and Schlegel Attorneys from Reading. After speaking with their secretary and describing some of the events that had occurred she said she would have one of their attorneys contact me latter. So here I am waiting yet again. I should add in my conversation when and if this Law firm calls, that I am also a Truck Driver.

Back To:

The Transcript Edited for Readability

2005-10-15T23:32:00.011-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 4630-01

vs.
GARY JAMES LANDIS

SUMMARY APPEAL

Courtroom 6
Thursday, January 3, 2002
Commencing at 2:00 p.m.

Paula Meszaros,
Official Court Reporter
Montgomery County Courthouse
Norristown, Pennsylvania

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN, JUDGE

COUNSEL APPEARED AS FOLLOWS:

REEVE SWAINSTON, ESQUIRE
Assistant District Attorney
for the Commonwealth

L. BRUCE HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE
for the Defendant

Date: Clerk of Courts:

la
INDEX

COMMONWEALTH’ S EVIDENCE
Witness Direct Cross Redir Re c

Carol Allsop 3 12 --

Mike Dran 20 27 --

Randolph Scott Floyd 29 45 --

DEFENDANT’ S EVIDENCE
Gary James Landis 54 61 69

COMMONWEALTH’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

Randolph Scott Floyd 71 71

EXHIBITS

COMMONWEALTH’ S

Number Marked Rec’ d

C-1 Citation 31 45

C-2 Polaroid Photograph 44 45
2

(The proceedings were commenced)
With the Court, Reeve Swainston, Esquire, L. Bruce Hoffman, Esquire, and the defendant being present.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, we are ready. This is going to be a hearing. We have three witnesses to offer for our case. They are Officer Floyd, Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop. They are all here today and we are ready to proceed.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, respectfully, since there’s two civilian witnesses, I would respectfully request sequestration.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. SWAINSTON: I would ask for mutual sequestration. I don’t know if there are any defense witnesses, but if there are --

MR. HOFFMAN: There’s no defense witnesses.

MR. SWAINSTON: -- I would ask for sequestration.

THE COURT: All right. It is granted.

MR. SWAINSTON: All right.

CAROL ALLSOP - DIRECT

(The prospective witnesses left the courtroom.)

COMMONWEALTH’ S EVIDENCE

MR. SWAINSTON: I will start with Carol Allsop.

CAROL ALLSOP, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. SWAINSTON: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. I want to direct your attention to April 19th. 2001, that’s a Thursday. Do you remember that day?
A. Yes, I do very well.

Q. At about 4:40 in the late afternoon, were you in the area of Main and Reliance in Telford Borough?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. All right. Were you driving an automobile?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. What kind of automobile were you driving?
A. A 2001 Impala.
Q. Okay. And did there come an occasion at that intersection on that date at approximately than time that you came in contact with somebody that you see here in the courtroom today?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you identify that person?
A. Mr. Landis.

MR. SWAINSTON: Indicating the defendant, Your Honor, by name and pointed finger.
MR. HOFFMAN: So stipulated, if that’s necessary.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Ma’am, what happened on that day that brings you to court today?
A. It was late in the afternoon; and with the rush hour traffic, Mr. Landis was driving a concrete truck with the concrete blocks on it, not the mixer type. He was in front of me at the light.

Q. Was he directly in front of you?
A. Yes, he was directly in front of me.

Q. Were you -- let’s take it one step at a time.
A. Yes.

Q. Were you stopped
A. Yes.

Q. -- behind him?
A. At the red light.
Q. Okay.
A. There was a red light and we were stopped at the red light. I was directly behind him.
Q. All right.
A. When the light turned green, he proceeded to make a right-hand turn onto County Line Road and because of the traffic he could not make his right-hand turn. He stopped and I stopped.

Q. You said it was rush hour traffic?
A. It was busy.

Q. So there was a lot of traffic at that time?
A. Yes, it was busy.

Q. What were the weather conditions?

A. It was a fine -- it was a nice rain-free afternoon.

Q. Sunny, clear?
A. Yes.

Q. The road was not wet?
A. No.
Q. What happened then when he was trying to make that right-hand turn?
A. Well, the gentleman behind me completely not attached to what happened here at all bumped into my bumper - -

Q. Who - -
A. - - which was completely separate.

Q. Who was that?
A. Mr. Dram. *((Sp? Should be Tran.))*

Q. Okay. Is he here today?
A. Yes, he is here today.

Q. He is the other gentleman?
A. The other gentleman, yes.

Q. Okay.
A. And that was completely - - I got out of my car. I went back to Mr. Dran’s car to make sure was okay. He had a small child with him. Again, separate to what happened.

Q. So just so we are clear - -
A. Yes.

Q. - - what happened between you and Mr. Dram, you are saying that was separate - -
A. Right.

Q. - - from why you are here today?
A. To why I am here today.

Q. Okay.
A. Mr. Landis, when I had turned back to do that it was just a few seconds was in the intersection.

Q. You were out in your car at this point?
A. Yes, I was out of my car. He was using obscene language with the car that was on the other side of the road to him.

Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court.
A. Yes.

Q. Sorry to interrupt you.
A. That’s okay.

Q. Let’s paint a picture for the Court for a minute. Where was the defendant? Was he still in the truck?
A. He was out of his truck standing in the middle of the road.

Q. Okay.
A. Was the light green or red at that point?

MR. HOFFMAN: Objection. Which light?

THE WITNESS: Well, the light at

THE COURT: Wait a minute. What’s the objection? *((We have a discrepancy in the actual quote... not a real big deal, the idea is still conveyed and at least this text was not omitted.))*

MR. HOFFMAN: I don’t know which light we are talking about?
THE WITNESS: The traffic light.

MR. SWAINSTON: The traffic light - -

THE COURT: At the intersection.

MR. SWAINSTON: - - at the intersection.

THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I couldn’t tell you if it was green or red when I turned, because by that time it probably changed several times. The traffic was stopped because his truck was there and he was standing in the middle of the road.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Well, let’s establish a time frame then. How much time passed between the time that the defendant went in to the intersection and you observed him out of the truck after you bumped by Mr. Dran?
A. Less than a minute. *((So how many times could the light have changed?))*

Q. Okay. Now, you described the defendant in the intersection. Tell His Honor what you saw the defendant doing?
A. He was speaking obscenely, gesturing obscenely. Road rage was what came to my mind when I was observing this in the middle of the intersection. Traffic was being held up. He was clearly out of control and then - -

Q. Did you talk to him? Did you address him?
A. No, did not talk to him at all.

Q. Why not?
A. He - - actually, I take that back. He did come up to me and at one point just to make sure that everybody was okay. Then I backed right off because he was out of control. It was unsafe. Officer Floyd, who I did not know was Officer Floyd at the time, was coming through the intersection going straight through, also asked Mr. Landis to please be quiet and to get out of the middle of the intersection which he would not do. And then he pulled - - Officer Floyd pulled in front of the truck and got out of his car, showed his badge at which point I was very relieved to see there was actually a police officer
in the right place at the right time. I had my cell phone. I was about to call the police and Officer Floyd took care of that and called for other officers.

Q. Now, you mentioned that the defendant was engaging in some conduct you said was obscene. Do you remember specifically anything about that conduct?
A. He was using obscene language. He was waving his arms around. He was just obviously - -

Q. Do you know who if anyone - -
A. Ranting and raving are the words that come to my mind.

Q. Do you know who, if anyone, that was directed towards?
A. Everybody and anybody who was in the intersection at the time.

Q. Was there any traffic coming the other direction?
A. Not while he was standing in the middle of the road. There was traffic to come, but it couldn’t get by until - - because, A, his truck was trying to get around the corner this way. It was stuck; and if anybody had tried to go through the intersection, they would have risked hitting him.

Q. Okay. Was any traffic able to get through the intersection while he was in the middle of the intersection?
A. Not until Officer Floyd had him pull his truck clear of the intersection and park it on the side of the road.

Q. Okay. Did anything else occur after the officer showed up regarding the defendant, that you recall?
A. Yes, Officer Floyd asked him to be quiet and it took him three times and he finally did say, sir, if you are not quiet, that he would have him arrested; and he finally stopped.

Q. At any time did you see Officer Floyd use any kind of language
A. No.

Q. - - that you described - -
A. None whatsoever.

Q. - - that the defendant used?

A. None whatsoever.

Q. Would you describe the demeanor of Officer Floyd?
A. Very professional, very courteous, very much in command on what was going on. He did what he had to do.

Q. Okay.

MR. SWAINSTON: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Sir.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Good afternoon, ma’am?
A. Good afternoon.

Q. As I understand it, there was a fairly large truck trying to make a right-hand turn that was in front of you; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

Q. And he could not navigate the turn for what reason. Do you know?
A. Because of the size of his vehicle and the traffic that was on the road at the time. It was busy time in the afternoon.

Q. Well, was there something that was preventing his truck - - I mean, why did he not complete the turn? Was there something that prevented it that you were aware of?
A. I did not have a clear view of what prevented him because I was behind him.

Q. All right.
A. The traffic in general - -

Q. All right.
A. - - prevented him from making his right-hand turn.

Q. So as a consequence, you came to a stop and the vehicle behind you did not and it struck you, struck the rear of your vehicle?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. At that point, is that when Mr. Landis got out of his vehicle?
A. I got out of my vehicle and he got out whet I turned back he was out of his vehicle, yes.

Q. Okay. So you don’t know exactly when he got out of the vehicle?
A. The same time I got out would be fair to say.

Q. Okay. And was he walking toward you or away from you? Where was he going when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. The fact that I got bumped had nothing to do with what we are here for.

Q. Okay. I am not asking about that.
A. Okay.

Q. All I asked you was was he walking away from you or toward - - or back toward where your vehicle was when he got out of his vehicle?
A. He was in the intersection. He was standing in the intersection.

Q. He was standing there?
A. He was in the intersection.

Q. And you said that he was obscene?
A. Yes.

Q. What was he saying? I am - - this Mr. Landis?
A. The exact terminology at this time I could not relate exactly word for word. He was using obscene language. He was - -

Q. Well, what language was he using, is what I at trying to get at?
A. Fuck you, God dam, et cetera, et cetera.

Q. And who was he saying that to?
A. There was a car parked - - there was a car in the intersection that he was - - as I said to the
District Attorney representative, anybody and everybody who happened to be standing there.

Q. Were there other people standing there?
A. Well, the crowd that draws attention, what have you.

Q. He was yelling
A. He was out of control. He was ranting and raving and just anybody who is in a fit of temper is just going to rant and rave.

Q. And this all happened within less than a minute, is that what you said on direct examination?
A. The attorney had asked me how quickly it started happening, yes, within less than a minute.

Q. And there was a crowd that gathered within less than a minute?
A. You know, people standing around, people going home, it is a very busy intersection.

Q. Okay. But I mean, was he angry at you?
A. He was just angry at the situation.

Q. Okay. He didn’t come up to you and ask you if you were okay?
A. Very briefly, yes.

Q. Okay. And he was concerned about the driver of the other car, whether that driver was okay?
A. I would not say so.

Q. Didn’t he ask if everybody was okay, that’s what he was asking you?
A. Yes, I think he said everybody okay.

Q. So he was concerned about that?
A. Yeah.

Q. And he was ranting and raving and cursing at whom? I seriously don’t understand.
A. To the situation. To everybody else that he was angry because he could not get his truck around. He was angry at the whole situation.

Q. Okay.
A. What had happened with my car and the other gentleman’s car.

Q. I understand, that’s clear. J Know if he do you know if he thought perhaps that another vehicle hit his vehicle, also?

MR. SWAINSTON: Objection.

MR. HOFFMAN: Does she know, that’s all I am asking.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know if he did but I certainly - - he was not hit.

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Well, so he was not directing any anger or obscenity toward you?
A. Yes, by being there and making you feel afraid to be in a situation.

Q. Officer Floyd came upon the scene. Were ther any other officers on the scene before Officer Floyd came upon the scene?
A. No.

Q. How did Officer - - is it Detective Floyd, I’m sorry?
A. Yes.

Q. I’m sorry. How did Detective Floyd come upon the scene? I mean, in what manner, did he drive upon the scene?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was he in a marked vehicle or unmarked vehicle?
A. An unmarked vehicle.

Q. Was he in uniform or not in uniform?
A. He was dressed the way he is now.

Q. Okay. When he came upon the scene, where did he come from? I mean, what direction, on what road?

A. He was on County Line Road proceeding south.

Q. Okay.
A. I think that goes north, south.

Q. Okay. And is that where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. Yes.

Q. Where did his vehicle come to a stop with reference to where Mr. Landis was standing?
A. In the middle he proceeded into the intersection and then Mr. Landis came up to his car.

Q. When his car came to a stop, that is Detective Floyd’s car came to a stop, how far was it from Mr. Landis?
A. Mr. Landis walked up to his car when Detective Floyd

Q. I appreciate that that’s what you are trying to tell me. I am asking you, though, when Detective Floyd’s car stopped moving, where was Mr. Landis? How far away from it was Mr. Landis?
A. A foot, a couple of feet, maybe more.

Q. All right. That’s what I am asking. When Detective Floyd came up to within a foot or two of Mr. Landis, did he arrive quickly or did he come up very slowly in his vehicle?
A. Cautiously.

Q. Okay. I understand cautiously, meaning he was being careful. But his speed, did he just coast
or did he come upon the scene quickly because there was a scene?
A. He had been stopped at the red light and he had proceeded into the intersection.

Q. He proceeded into the intersection?
A. Just up to him. He could not go anywhere else.

Q. Okay. And he came within a foot or two of him?
A. He came up to ask Mr. Landis to please - -

Q. Well, you did not know that until he - - you did not know he was even a police officer, did you,
when he came upon the scene?
A. No, not at that time.

Q. Okay. And do you know if Mr. Landis knew he was a police officer when he came upon the
scene within a foot or two from him in the vehicle?
A. No, I do not know if he knew that.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, maam. I have nothing further.

MR. SWAINSTON: No redirect, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That ‘s all.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Mr. Dran, briefly.

MIKE DRAN, after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. SWAINSTON: May I proceed, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Good afternoon, sir.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand me? Do you speak English well now?
A. A little bit.

Q. Okay. What language do you speak?
A. Vietnamese.

Q. Vietnamese?
A. Yes.

Q. Will you understand me if I speak slowly?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you don’t understand me, tell me.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you understand that - - and if anyone asks you questions in this room and you don’t understand, make sure you tell that person. Okay?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. I am going to direct your attention back to April of 2001. Do you remember that month?
A. Yes.

Q. And specifically on April 19th, were you involved in a car accident?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was that car accident with Miss Allsop, the woman in court right here? (Indicating.)
A. Yes.

Q. Were you alone in your car or with anyone else?
A. My car?

Q. Yes
A. Yes

Q. Did you have anyone else in your car?
A. My daughter.

Q. How old is your daughter?
A. Maybe one year and six months like that.

Q. Okay. So eighteen months old?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you at the intersection of Main and Reliance in Telford Township?
A. From - -

Q. From Township Line?
A. Yes.

Q. Sir, do you recognize anyone other than Miss Allsop in the courtroom from that intersection on that day, that you see here in the courtroom?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I will stipulate my client was there that day.

MR. SWAINSTON: Very well.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Did you see that man right there?
A. Yes.

Q. At the intersection?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you try and tell the Judge what happened?
A. From that day, I had my daughter - - my work in a company and from him, truck driver.

Q. He is a truck driver.
A. He had indicated right.

Q. Indicating a right-hand turn?
A. Yes. And him get on to turn on and her behind a truck and behind her.

Q. You hit her?
A. Yes. Let’s him stop it and for her stop, and I behind and hit from - - for her in the back from her car.

Q. Okay. Can you tell the Judge what he did, if
anything
A. Yes.

Q. - - brings you to court today?
A. Oh, I heard him and have an accident and for him to come in.

Q. The officer?
A. Yes, him come in and him tell him to move the car in the parking lot. And for him tell the guy move the car and the truck go on the side.
Q. Let’s take it slowly. You saw the detective
A. Yes.

Q. - - tell him to move?
A. Move the truck, go on the side and

Q. To go away you said?
A. No. Him say for her to move the car in the parking lot.

Q. In the parking lot?
A. Yes. From him and move her car, move her truck on the side.

Q. Okay.
A. You know.

Q. When he said move - - listen to, when the Detective said to Mr. Landis move - -
A. Yes
Q. - - what did you see him do? What did he do?
A. He was mad. Him say to - -

Q. He was mad?
A. Yes. Him say that guy, who are you.

Q. To the detective?
A. Yes. And him say, him a police at Telford and him say where your I.D.

Q. Stop. He said, I’m a police officer from Telford?
A. Yes.

Q. And he said where is your I.D.?
A. Yes.

Q. What happened then?
A. And him to in a wallet from I.D. from police

Q. Indicating the detective holding a badge?
A. Yes. And him flipping from from the

Q. Indicating putting it in the breast pocket?
A. Okay.

Q. And then what did he do?
A. To him?

Q. Yes.
A. And him get have a fight with some people on the other side

Q. Who was having a fight?
A. Him.

Q. The defendant?
A. Yes.

Q. With people on the side?
A. Yes, some people had to stop.

Q. How many people?
A. I think ten cars, something like that.
Q. Ten?
A. Ten cars had stopped, you know what I mean, and long lines. Some people move it.

Q. Was he out was he walking?
A. Yes. Him move, go out of the truck. Him walking and talk a lot.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I will object. I know that there’s a difficulty but I am going to object to the leading nature of the questions.

THE COURT: I will give him some lead way. Go ahead.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. So he was walking by those cars?
A. Him out of the car and the back of the truck and him fighting

Q. And fighting with him?
A. Yes. And fighting with some people half stuck in car.

Q. Okay. Were those other people in their car
A. Yes.

Q. or out of the car?
A. In the car.

Q. They were in the car
A. Yes.

Q. still. Do you remember anything that the defendant said?
A. One car go away him say you, you, you, you. Him yell and the truck and the guy stuck the car. Have him move it and him follow you. You, you, like that. Him yell at a guy driving.

Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. Excuse me, and after that, a couple of weeks and him call my house a lot of time. He say him a witness from my accident or something like that.

Q. The defendant was calling you at your house?
A. Him call my house a lot of time.

Q. A lot of times?
A. Yes. Him call say him had a witness from my accident for her, something like that.
Q. Okay. Thank you. This man right here is going to ask you some questions.
A. Yes.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Was he trying to help at the accident scene?

MR. SWAINSTON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Was he concerned? Was he worried about you and about Mrs. Allsop at accident scene?
A. I don’t understand what you talking.

Q. The cars that were lined up on the other street
A. Yes.
Q. - - were they preventing him from turning his truck, from finishing his turn? Were they in the way?
A. I don’t understand.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Step down.

MR. SWAINSTON: Sir, thank you very much for coming in. Sorry it was so difficult

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: I call Detective Floyd, please.

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD, after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - DIRECT

MR. SWAINSTON: May I, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Detective Floyd, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. Sir, I am going to ask you a few questions regarding this matter involving this defendant. Were you on duty as a police officer in Telford on the date of April 19, 2001?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you were actually a detective; is that correct?
A. Yes, I was. In fact, at that time, I was on my way home from work, but I take my borough car home with me and I am technically on duty until I arrive at home.

Q. Well, in any event, you are a sworn police officer in Telford?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you have your badge with you?
A. I had it with me, yes.

Q. Were you in civilian clothes?
A. I was dressed very similar to what I am today.

Q. As a detective, so you were not in police uni form?
A. No.

Q. Did you have occasion to come in contact with the defendant on that day?
A. Yes.

Q. That was late in the afternoon sometime after 4:30?
A. About twenty of 4:00 or twenty of 5:00.

Q. That was at what intersection?
A. The intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road. Main Street just for some clarification in this case is often referred to as County Line Road because it is the divider between Bucks and Montgomery County. This was in the Montgomery County side.

Q. So it was in Montgomery County?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you have occasion to issue a citation to the defendant?
A. Yes, I did, I filed it.

Q. And what was that citation for, specifically the charge?
A. Disorderly conduct for all four subsections of the violation.

Q. All right. Do you have that citation with you in your case folder?
A. Yes. I believe you have my copy.

Q. All right.
MR. SWAINSTON: May I approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SWAINSTON: Can I have this marked has C-1.

(Citation, marked as Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-1, for identification.)
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Sir, I will hand you what purports to be the citation for disorderly conduct. I have marked that as Commonwealth’s Exhibit-1. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes. That’s this copy, Xerox copy of my citation I issued to Gary Landis.

Q. All right. And would you describe to the Court, you can read from the citation if there’s no objection, what it is that you cited the defendant for?
A. Okay. In that the defendant did with intent to cause public inconvenience and annoyance and alarm, yell and scream, block traffic and cause a disturbance in a public place, and additionally, a the bottom block traffic Main and Reliance during rush hour, yelled and scream belligerently and continued after warning, children and others in the area, alarmed a number of persons.

Q. Now, you issued that citation as a summary; not a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. But you said you had warned the defendant. Can you describe to the Court what you did to warn the defendant from this behavior?
A. Yes. I was traveling southbound on Main Street approaching Reliance Road. Our police station is approximately three blocks from that location. I left the police station; and as soon as I left the police station, I observed up in that intersection a very good line of sight that traffic was all backed up and there appeared to be some type of problem at that intersection.

Q. How far away were you?
A. About two or three blocks. As I got closer, it appeared that there may have been a traffic accident. And as I got closer yet, I saw that there was a large orange truck, nice clean truck which I am familiar with the company. It’s a company affiliated with Landis Block Company which is right outside of our town.

Q. Describe that truck and where it was.
A. Initially, when I was further back soon after I pulled cut of the police station that truck was heading east into the intersection from Reliance Road; and then as I approached and arrived on che scene, the truck had pulled right around the come and was on south Main Street, right on the -- riqh on the intersection.

Q. You say right on the intersection -- in the intersection between the two?
A. Just off the intersection, along the street there, but it is a no parking zone and the traffic is very tight there. It was and it worsened the traffic problem. Fortunately, all the traffic in front of me made either right or left-hand turns which enabled me to get up into the intersection. As I was probably a half a block away, I saw Mr. Landis get out of the truck and go down to

Q. You actually saw him exit the vehicle?
A. I saw him get cut of the truck. Immediately saw him enter into an argument or a shouting match with a motorist that was parked in the line of traffic at the traffic light.

Q. Heading what direction in relationship to the t muck?
A. That would have been opposite heading north on Main Street. The traffic was blocked up. I believe Mr. Dran was pretty accurate when he said there was about ten cars there. I believe the car were backed up, ten to twelve in length. There was a man

Q. What was blocking those ten cars?
A. At that - - on that side of the road, only the red light. However, there was traffic that was blocked up all around due to the truck being parked where it was. It slowed everything down. The southbound traffic did not get through. Northbound traffic was blocked up. Everybody was slowing down to look at what was going on, and the other traffic was also blocked up.

Q. When you came on the scene then, did you feel the need to ask the defendant to move his truck?
A. Actually, I had to ask the defendant to move himself. He had stepped out into the traffic.

Q. But did you -- did you feel that the truck also needed to be moved?
A. Initially, yes.

Q. Did you express that to the defendant?
A. At some point I believe I did.

Q. But - -
A. I am not positive at which point in the incident it was.

Q. But it was done?
A. It was done, yes.

Q. So prior to getting to that point, though, yet just stated that you asked the defendant himself to move. Why did you do that?
A. Well, as I mentioned everything, was all blocked up. The traffic was all tied up at the intersection. Mr. Landis was himself blocking traffic standing in the road. Nobody could get through him.

Q. Could you describe what you mean by that? There were vehicles actually getting through intersection?
A. Yes. There is -- going northbound on Main Street it is a straight ahead lane and a left turn lane. He was walking in the left turn lane which kept traffic from being able to pass through if they wanted to make a left-hand turn. The truck was parked in the southbound side, which is a no parking zone, which only enabled - - well, the northbound traffic would have to move over a little bit in order to let the southbound traffic get passed the truck. He is standing in the intersection - - standing in the roadway, not directly in the intersection, but up further and he is yelling and screaming at a man that was parked in the northbound traffic. They are having a verbal argument. The man was in his car. I was never able to identify that person. But Mr. Landis is standing in the road at this point facing south, his back towards me, yelling. His arms are in the air, shouting and screaming at this man. He is walking backwards towards where I am coming approaching him. As I get close to Mr. Landis, he turns around. I am creeping. I am moving very slow. I am getting up as close as I can. At this point, he turns around and he sees my car there, starts yelling and screaming at me saying, you know, what the fuck, are you trying hit me. And he comes up to my driver’s window. As soon as he approached, he is yelling and screaming. I said to him, you better knock it - - I believe my almost exact words were, if you don’t knock it off right now, you will be arrested. At that point he says, well, you call the fucking cops, because I want the fucking cops here. simply replied, you got one; and I pulled off to the side of the road. At that point, Mr. Landis - - I pulled up in front of the truck, up on to the sidewalk as close or up to the sidewalk to not block traffic any worse; and as I am walking up, he approaches me a second time. This is about the time that I meet Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop.

Q. Were you in or out of your vehicle?
A. At this point, I am out.

Q. All right.
A. And Miss Allsop says to me something to the effect - -
MR. HOFFMAN: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay. She was here to testify.

THE COURT: Is that - - I did not know it is hearsay.

MR. HOFFMAN: I understand. would argue it’s just in any event he is on the scene of an accident.

MR. SWAINSTON: It is not

THE COURT: It is not offered for the truth.

MR. SWAINSTON: - - offered - -

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.
THE COURT: Of course not. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: She made a statement something to the effect, boy, I’m glad you’re here. I could see in her face and I could see in Mr. Dran’s they were alarmed. They were upset with what was going on. I could see this is a main intersection, people were stopped, they were looking out of their cars. There’s several residents - - people came out of the residence. It drew - - it was a major disturbance.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. How did they know that you were a police officer?
A. At that time, around that same time I approached and Mr. Landis approached me again and he said, if you are a cop, I want to see some I.D. There’s profanity mixed in with that at which time I was already pulling my wallet - - my badge wallet out from my pocket and pinning my badge on to my coat which displayed - -

Q. Detective, you are an officer you testified before, right?
A. Yes.

Q. You said there’s profanity involved in that conversation. Describe for the Court exactly what he said, if you remember?
A. The exact words I cannot tell you, but the word “fuck” was used many times. Dam, fuck, of course, stood out. There was children in the area. I got very firm with him. I told him, I am telling you right now, knock it off, or you are going to be arrested. When I meant being arrested, I meant being taken in to actual physical custody because of his conduct around everybody. After he realized that I was a police officer, then he did finally settle down an~ began to vent about the way the traffic patterns are and how difficult it is for him to maneuver truck around the intersection. I simply told him - - I said I lived in that community all of my life. I know how bad the traffic can be, but this is not a time to stand out in the middle of a public place with children and other people using profanity to express your views and that was stated to him. I told him at the time he was going to be receiving a citation because of his disorderly conduct.

Q. So did you not arrest him on the scene then?
A. No. I could have and I believe his conduct certainly went beyond the summary level. I believe it was definitely misdemeanor level, and I could have taken him into custody and removed his truck. We chose not to do that simply to get the intersection cleared and get him moved on.

MR. HOFFMAN: I am going to object to the legal conclusion that the witness is drawing.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. What happened then?
A. All right. At that time, I had my cell phone
with me. I contacted our patrol officers who were on duty. I had them respond. I simply told them was at the scene of an accident. There was a disorderly subject and I needed their assistance right away. They came. They - - at this time, the officers arrived almost simultaneously. I learned at that time - - that at the same time the officers - - the patrol officers did that Mr. Landis was not even involved in the accident, that it was solely Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop and he had no reason to be there. He was in front of the accident. Simply got out of - - his conduct had nothing to do with the accident. He was just upset about other things.

Q. Would you describe any of the conversations that you had with the defendant? Did the subject ever relate to the welfare of the two individuals in the accident?
A. Not to me, no. I know from talking to Mrs. Allsop that he asked about them, but there was nothing indicated in my presence.

Q. How many warnings did you give the defendant to cease this behavior?
A. I warned him at the car initially my first contact with him. I warned him a second time and then I warned him at least a third time to settle down and stop being disruptive.

Q. How many other people on the scene whether it be in the vehicles or outside of the vehicles were there?
A. I would guess there’s 15, conservatively stating that there was 15 to 20 vehicles in the intersection from all directions. It was a warm day. The windows were down. There were people who came out of their houses nearby. The parking lot, which is right at that intersection where we stood, the business -- people were in and out of that business. I did note that there were several young teenagers or even younger children who appeared at the intersection drawn to the yelling and screaming that was going on. In addition to, of course, Mr. Dran and Mrs. Allsop who were already there am Mr. Dran’s young daughter who were present during the whole incident.

Q. Did the defendant eventually cease that behavior that you described?
A. He quieted down. He did not cease the swearing. I would say he was still agitated, but it was more refined and that he slowed down and then I - - after he was calmed down, I actually left and the other officers appeared at the scene. Mr. Landis left with his truck.

Q. So he was sent on his way - -
A. Yes.

Q. - - and received a summons.
A. Yes. And the summons was sent to him by mail.

Q. You brought pictures, I see?

MR. SWAINSTON: May I approach, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: I had prepared exhibits. We had a leak in our evidence vault which made them unusable.
BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. And what do these pictures purport to be?
A. Those Polaroid photographs are simply taken of the intersection where this incident occurred. This is the intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road, basically, from all the directions.

Q. Can you pick one of these pictures and pull one out for the Court to get an idea of what the intersection looks like?
A. Probably will depict the best.

MR. SWAINSTON: Can I have thi.s marked as C—2.

(Polaroid Photograph marked as
Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-2, for identification.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I don’t believe there’s an objection. I would ask to publish this photo just as a demonstrative aid to the Court. Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:
Q. Officer, can you describe that photo that the Judge is looking at right now?
A. Yes, that’s this intersection of Main Street and Reliance Road looking from the north to the
south down Main Street. To the right, Your Honor, on that photo where the businesses are located is primarily where the incidents took place.

Q. And that photograph depicts a fair and accurate representation - -
A. Yes.

Q. - - of that intersection as it existed on the date in April?
A. Yes, it does.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I would ask for admission of C-1 and C-2. I have no further questions of this detective.

MR. HOFFMAN: No objection.

THE COURT: They are admitted.
(Exhibits C-1 and C-2, received into evidence.)

CROSS - - EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Officer, do you know what the defendant was upset about?
A. He was upset about he cannot make the turn for truck.

Q. Why could he not make the turn?
A. I don’t know. I believe he told me that somebody was pulled up beyond the turn mark. I didn’t witness that and I certainly believe what he said. It is a problem that happens at most intersections.

Q. Okay. And he drives a large truck?
A. I would say it’s a large truck. It is not a fifty foot trailer.

Q. I don’t mean eighteen wheeler?
A. Yes.

Q. He drives a significant vehicle?
A. Yes.

Q. And did he tell you he has this problem and you say you are aware of this problem?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So who -- and there was an accident caused as a result. Is that your understanding as well?
A. There’s an accident at the same time, whether it had, you know, again, I didn’t witness the accident; but from what I learned from Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran, yes, he was making - - trying to make the turn and Mr. Dran drove into the car.

Q. Okay.
A. Because she had to stop.
Q. Did you observe him at any time angry with Mrs. Alisop or Mr. Dran?
A. No, not at all.

Q. And who he was waving his arms at or whatever, his activity was related to was the vehicle who was up above that strip?
A. No, that’s not what I observed.

Q. All right. What did you observe?
A. I observed him having an argument with a guy who was about seven, eight, ten cars in the back line of traffic.

Q. Okay.
A. That had nothing to do with him not being able to get around the turn.

Q. All right. So you don’t know what happened - - you don’t know what that was about?
A. With the argument that I witnessed?

Q. Yes.
A. It was just shouting. The man said to him something - - I heard the man in traffic yell something about moving the truck, you are blocking traffic up. At which time he responded by yelling, shouting back to him.

Q. Now, do you know why he stopped his truck and left it there? I am talking about before you arrived on the scene.
A. Not particularly, no.

Q. Did he tell you that he thought that his vehicle was struck, too, or that he was involved in an accident?
A. He may have said that, I don’t know. I initially thought he was involved in an accident. I didn’t know until later that he wasn’t, so he may have said that, yes.

Q. So it was reasonable to assume that he was involved in an accident on his part and your part?
A. Yes.

Q. And it would be correct not to move your vehicle if you were involved in an accident, would it not, especially a commercial vehicle?
A. He did move the vehicle, though. He did. He moved it around the turn and he parked it where it obstructed the traffic even more.

Q. I mean, removed your vehicle from the scene?
A. (No response.)

Q. In other words, to leave the scene of an accident?
A. Yes. No, that would be improper, certainly.

Q. So if he were involved in an accident or if he thought he was involved in an accident, his behavior was not only legal but required, that is to leave the truck there?
A. Yes. But that had nothing to do with the disorderly conduct citation that he was cited for.

Q. I am not - - I’m just asking you this one question now. Would you agree with me that it would be appropriate for him to leave the truck there?
A. If he was in an accident, to stop and move hi2 truck and get out and exchange information, certainly.

Q. All right. So now, you come upon to the scene. He is not even out of his vehicle yet; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You see him get out of the vehicle?
A. I see him get out of the vehicle.

Q. How long of a time elapsed between the time when you saw him get out of his vehicle until you arrived at the scene?
A. I would say it was within a block or two. I was driving probably 30 seconds.

Q. Okay. About 30 seconds?
A. Yes.

Q. So that’s when you saw this behavior going on; is that right?
A. It continued. As I got closer to the intersection, it was going on. So I observed him for probably a minute acting disorderly.

Q. Okay. His back was towards you, as I understand?
A. Yes, it was.

Q. And you drove your car how close to him?
A. I would say I creeped up. I was moving up until about maybe five, eight feet. Then I stopped and he was moving back towards me. In fact, I thought he was going to walk into me. We were close but I saw him walking. I got up as close as I could to the incident without striking him.

Q. Let’s think about this. For whatever reason - - from his point of view, for whatever reason, either he is walking backwards or you are coming forward, there’s that feeling that he is going to be struck by a vehicle, both by him and by you. You were afraid you were going to hit him or he was going to walk into you.
A. No, I was not afraid I was going to hit him.

Q. You were afraid he was going to back up into the vehicle?
A. Exactly.

Q. You were that close?
A. He was not paying attention to what he was doing. He was walking towards me. I stopped.

Q. I understand that.
A. And I did not - -

Q. I understand your testimony. I am not trying to say that one way or the other. All I’m trying to say it would be reasonable from his point of view as he turns around and finds out he is within inches of a vehicle to think he was just going to be struck by a vehicle?
A. That’s possible, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, the vehicle is not marked. You have not identified yourself as police officer and there’s no way to identify yourself as a police officer; is that accurate?
A. That’s correct.

Q. He is upset. And you tell him two or three times to quiet down?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Then he quiets down?
A. Right.

Q. All right. Any further difficulty from him o anything like that?
A. He was agitated the whole entire time. After I finally laid it out for him that if you don’t knock it off right now, I am going to take you into custody. Then he finally settled down. I actually had one of the other officers talk to him while I talked to Mrs. Allsop and Mr. Dran.

Q. Okay. How long would you say - - how long a period of time elapsed from the time you identified yourself as a police officer until the time when, you know, he quieted down, so to speak?
A. A minute.

Q. Okay. So this all took place within a minute’s time?
A. No. That’s not right.

Q. After you identified yourself as a police officer, I mean?
A. Yes.

Q. What was his purpose in being there? I mean, was he - - he is a truck driver, he is on the road all of the time?
A. Right.

Q. And there was a motor vehicle accident which may or may not involved him. But in his mind we don’t know that yet. But is he - - there were no other police on the scene?
A. No, not at that time.

Q. And he was not wrong for not moving his vehicle from the scene if he was involved in an accident?
A. Right.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further. Thank you.

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, the
Commonwealth has no further evidence. The Commonwealth rests for the purpose of this hearing.

THE COURT: Very well.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I call the defendant to the stand.

DEFENDANT’ S EVIDENCE

GARY LANDIS, after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

GARY LANDIS - - DIRECT
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Mr. Landis, did you ever use profanity at the scene of this situation?
A. I had a reason not to.

Q. First answer me if you ever did?
A. No, I did not.

Q. And why would you - - why did you not - - what reason did you have not to?
A. Thirteen years ago I received a warning for making a stop line violation. The officer observed me sit a traffic light out three times.

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I will object to this. Anything regarding anything that happened three 13 years ago I don’t believe is relevant to what happened on April 19th of last year.

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. My question is: You said you did not use profanity at the scene?
A. I did not.

Q. Tell us if that’s -- this - - you stated you did not use profanity at the scene. I ask you why? How do you know that?
A. I wanted to be a witness to this accident.

Q. Mr. Landis, is there any way you would have used profanity at the scene of this accident?
A. I’m not a perfect person. I could but not in this instance. I am a Christian. I made a promise to myself not to use profanity in public.

Q. Okay. You were trying to make a right - hand turn. What prevented you from making a right -hand turn?
A. A vehicle that crossed the stop line in front of me, I had to wait for him to back up.

Q. Okay. So your vehicle came to a stop and there was a motor vehicle accident. Did you feel you were involved in the accident?
A. I thought I was struck from behind, the car was so close behind me.

Q. So what, if anything, did you do at that point?
A. I wanted to testify as a witness that the man who crossed the stop line caused the accident.

Q. Okay. The man who crossed the stop sign which was not Mrs. Allsop or not Mr. Van Dran; is that correct?
A. No. This was another individual who was approaching a red light and failed to stop in an appropriate place at the intersection for the large vehicle to clear the turn.

Q. Okay. So he was the man that was preventing you from completing your turn. Was that man still at the scene?
A. Yes, he was. I asserted myself to have him stay at the scene.

Q. All right. That’s the person who you were in contact with or talking to when the detective came upon the scene?
A. No. The detective had to be further back. He may have observed me talking to that individual. I had still not moved my truck off from the scene off to park it to the side of the road. At that point nobody was there.

Q. All right. So you were in your own mind involved in a motor vehicle accident. There was a vehicle that you -- a driver of a vehicle who you felt was a probable cause involved in this accident and you wanted to get that man’s identity?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Your back is to the approaching traffic including the detective?
A. After I cleared the intersection with my vehicle to allow traffic to move past, I exited my vehicle to go back and help the individual who I just asserted to stay at the scene. I was walking in that direction when from over my shoulder I heard harassment and profanity coming in my direction.

Q. From whom?
A. This was the vehicle - - it would be the third car in line. We had the man that crossed the stop line, we had another vehicle in between and there was this guy in this pickup truck who I recognized to have cursed at me on another occasion.

Q. And he was the one yelling and cursing?
A. Again.

Q. At you?
A. Yes.

Q. Because - -
A. And the man that crossed the stop line who was not moving his vehicle because I told him to stay put until the authorities so that he could exchange information with the people who just had the accident.

Q. What happens next?
A. Well, when I heard the profanity and the harassment coming from in my direction, I took a couple of steps back in the middle of the road; and from my firefighter training, I recognized that if I stayed close to the cars I would be a hazard. Somebody could try and slide by between the truck and the traffic. I took two steps back to get in the center of the traffic, so that I wouldn’t be a threatened. So I turned to the individual and I yelled at him, so that he would stop yelling at me and the other people.

Q. All right. And Detective Floyd’s car comes from where?
A. He comes from behind me. At this time I had my back towards the direction of traffic.

Q. That’s what I am trying to get to. And did you recognize Detective Floyd as police officer?
A. Not at all.

Q. What did you think rightly or wrongly was going to happen when Detective Floyd’s vehicle was approaching you from the back?
A. I thought Detective Floyd was another motoris that was trying to get through and was interfered with in his progress of day to day routine. As a truck driver, I suffer harassment from that direction many times.

Q. Okay. And when Officer - - Detective Floyd identified himself as a police officer, what, if anything, did you do?
A. That was awhile later. When Officer Floyd first pulled up on the scene and he drove his car up behind me, I had only put my foot back to turn around as a pivot maneuver not to walk backwards; and when the lady in between - - the guy that was harassing him for profanity and the guy that was crossing this stop line, she warned me about Officer Floyd’s approach.

Q. Like watch out?
A. Yeah, hey, watch out.

Q. All right. And so what, if anything, did you do at that point?
A. Well, I turned around and squared up on Officer Floyd’s car to realize that he was so close I could kneel on his bumper.

Q. You had been walking backwards?
A. Not at all. I just pivoted.

Q. When Officer - - when Detective Floyd identified himself as a police officer, did you stop talking to him as though he was an outsider on the scene?
A. Well, he didn’t offer himself as a police officer. In fact, I wasn’t - - I calmed down and I cooperated with him immediately once I saw his badge. He offered his badge and he offered it to everybody else and nobody wanted to see his badge. I said, yes, I want to see the badge. I didn’t use profanity then. I asked to see his badge because I couldn’t believe that he was a police officer when he approached me. He never used his four ways, his headlights, his horns, the things that professional drivers is supposed to do when approaching a situation.

Q. What was your intention, the intention of you activities on the scene?
A. I wanted to remain on the scene. I wanted to be a witness to the guy. I wanted to give a statement to the police and get on my way. I just wanted to tell him, hey, the guy that crossed the stop line I felt he was the primary cause of how this accident enveloped, that the state needs to move those lines back a little further and then they need to enforce people staying behind those lines.

Q. Okay.
A. I had the intersection cleared if everybody would have parked where they were supposed to. I would have been able to get that particular truck through the intersection. It is tight.

Q. How long have you been driving a truck?
A. Fifteen years.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing further.

CROSS - - EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Mr. Landis, you testified just a few moments ago, it’s fresh in my memory, I will ask you abouE that first. You testified a few moments ago that as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge you calmed down; is that correct?
A. I was calm with anybody who was calm with me.

Q. Just answer my question. You testified a few minutes ago that as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge you calmed down?
A. I would say I was calm even before I saw Detective Floyd’s badge.

Q. That’s not my question and we will try it one more time. You testified a few moments ago when your lawyer asked you the question as soon as you saw Detective Floyd’s badge, you testified in front of His Honor that you calmed down, correct or not correct? We can read it back.
A. Yes, I was upset, and - - but I was calm.

Q. All right.
A. Even at the scene, Detective Floyd - - when he offered his badge, I had already calmed down. It wasn’t a matter that I was out of control the whole time. There was only two people that I was assertive with.

Q. I understand that. But I am just talking about what you testified to a few minutes ago. We will move on now. Is that okay?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you testified just a few moment ago that after you saw his badge you calmed down. What did you calm down from?
A. I was upset from hearing the profanity from the individual who was harassing me.

Q. That’s the guy in the pickup truck, right?
A. And also from Detective Floyd yelling at me for almost walking backwards into his car and wondering why I was standing in the middle of the street yelling.

Q. Okay. You did not testify on direct that Detective Floyd used any profanity to you, did you.
A. I never said Detective Floyd used profanity.

Q. But you were upset because you say you had two people yelling at you?
A. Detective Floyd and the individual in the pickup truck.
Q. Let’s talk about the guy in the pickup truck for a minute. You said that that guy used some profanity at you. He did use some profanity at you, right?
A. He used all kinds of profanity, yes.

Q. Tell us what he said.
A. Said that I was to tell the - - I don’t like t use profanity, sir.

Q. Now, this is a court of law, sir? You will have to tell us what he told you if I ask you that question, so tell us what he told you?
A. He said tell the fucking old guy to get his car moving. Tell that guy to get out of the intersection. Tell that fucking old man to go.

Q. Okay. And who was he referring to? You?
A. He was referring to the man that crossed the stop line that I told to stay put?

Q. That’s the guy who you were concerned about causing that accident or who you - -
A. Correct.

Q. - - thought might have caused that accident, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And that individual was driving what kind of car? Do you recall?
A. I believe it was a Lincoln.

Q. Did that man use any profanity at you?
A. No, he didn’t.

Q. No. But you were upset with him because you thought he caused an accident?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And, in fact, you were upset with him because you thought that he caused an accident that you were involved in, correct? Because at this point you did not know you were not involved in the accident?
A. That’s correct.

Q. You testified that you thought that Detective Floyd - - his demeanor in telling you to stop or get out of the intersection or whatever it was he said, you said that you felt he was suffering from the same kind of interference, the day-to-day interference that people suffer on daily routine? Is that what you testified to or something like that?
A. I have noticed that in my 15 years of driving a truck, that people are getting more and more irate with large vehicles that seem to be in their way.

Q. Okay. And you testified that after that, after you - - after you showed a concern for the interruption of Detective Floyd’s day-to-day routine, you testified that as a driver of a truck of 15 years that you are used to having your day-to-day routine interfered with by other drivers; is that correct?
A. Me, personally, I just go out there and drive. I am - - whether I am used to it or it is what I get paid to do, drive safely and slowly.

Q. Well, once again, that’s not the question that I asked you. I asked you you testified earlier that as a truck driver of 15 years you are used to your day-to-day routine being interrupted by other drivers, correct or not correct?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I think that’s a mischaracterization of what he said.

THE COURT: Let him say so.

MR. HOFFMAN: All right.

THE WITNESS: But it works - - he can say that. I can say that is true because the guy that crossed the stop line in front of me it is a commonplace occurrence where I have to stop the truck and wait for people to back up.

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. So that guy interrupted your day-to-day routine on that particular day, correct, on April 19th?
A. That’s the fourth or fifth time that day.

Q. Fourth or fifth time that day, that very day?
A. Not by that same individual, but by other motorists.

Q. You must have been frustrated by that point, this was the fourth or fifth time your day-to-day routine had been interrupted by other drivers?
A. But that doesn’t mean I am going to blow my top and use profanity when I don’t normally use profanity.
Q. And you don’t use profanity, if I am correct, because on this particular day you testified that you had a reason not to; is that correct? You testified that you had a reason not to?
A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. Okay. And you testified that you are not a perfect person, correct?
A. I’m not.

Q. And when we were talking about the use of profanity you said, I’m not a perfect person and that you are a Christian? Is that what you testified to?
A. That’s correct.

Q. Okay. And is it because you are a Christian, Mr. Landis, that you choose not to use profanity?
A. It was a decision I made as a child a long time ago.

Q. As a child.
A. I have lived up to that promise to myself and everybody at work will tell you I don’t curse and they never heard me curse. In fact, my previous employers would tell you that. Previous people that I have worked with. It is rare to hear me curse.

Q. I’m sure it is. I am sure it is rare. But on this particular day, you were upset, weren’t you?
A. Not so much with the incident. I wanted to be a witness to what had happened because of the incident that happened 13 years ago.

Q. And as a Christian, have you also promised yourself to tell the truth?
A. I do tell the truth, yes.

Q. Do you think or do you want this Court to believe that the two witnesses that were called to testify about the events that took place lied to the Court?
A. The two witnesses, which two?

Q. We’re talking about Mr. Dran and Miss Allsop, the two witnesses right here?
A. I would say that some of their testimony was misconstrued.

Q. Okay. So when they testified that you used words like fuck, dam, et cetera that they were lying?
A. They may have been confused by the profanity heard from the other person. They testified they first heard me - - that I first got out of the truck and had the interaction with the person in the pickup truck.

Q. That’s not my question. They testified and they pointed to you and they used your name and they said that you used those words. Are they lying or are they not?
A. They are lying.

Q. Do you know them?
A. No, I don’t.

Q. Have you ever met them before?
A. No.

MR. SWAINSTON: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, sir.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Mr. Landis, you are saying they are intentionally telling an untruth or you use the word misconstrued before or mistake?
A. I believe they are making an honest mistake. Mr. Dran never said that I used profanity here. Mrs. Allsop did, but Mr. Floyd, that’s a different story.

Q. All right.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have nothing further, sir.

THE COURT: What’s a different story?

THE WITNESS: The way he talks about my profanity. I think he is deliberately telling a lie.

THE COURT: All right. Step down.

(Witness excused.)

MR. SWAINSTON: Your Honor, I have one question of Detective Floyd on redirect.

THE COURT: All right. This is in the nature of rebuttal?

MR. SWAINSTON: Yes, Your Honor, on rebuttal.

COMMONWEALTH’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD, having been duly sworn previously, recalled for further testimony, was examined and testified as follows:

RANDOLPH SCOTT FLOYD - - DIRECT/REBUTTAL

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SWAINSTON:

Q. Detective Floyd, after all of this conduct took place after you instructed the defendant to calm down, after you identified yourself as a detective, did the defendant ever express any concern whatsoever with the other driver that he talked about on his direct testimony with his attorney?
A. He said there was a problem with the guy crossing the stop line, never indicated that the guy had stopped there at the scene. I had never seen anybody. He never pointed anybody out to me, no, whatsoever.

Q. Did he have an opportunity to do so?
A. Certainly. I was standing there talking to him. And, you know, he had more than plenty of opportunity to tell me that there’s never anybody pointed out or indicated to me at all.

MR. SWAINSTON: Thank you. Nothing further.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Well, Detective, how did you become aware he was concerned about this fellow who crossed the stop sign?
A. After he calmed down a little bit, he started to tell me about the problems with the stop line and all of this and the problems that he has all of the time driving, people crossing the stop line.

Q. All right.
A. That’s when I told him -- as I testified earlier, I told him that’s fine. I have problems with the traffic, too. But you can’t stand out in the middle of Main Street at rush hour and make a spectacle of yourself over it.

Q. But you said he had an opportunity to talk to you about this guy that had done this or in his mind caused this accident?
A. Yes, yes. In fact, he talked to two other officers as well.

Q. So he was talking to everybody about it.
A. No, no, no. I am saying he had the opportunity to tell them more. There was nobody -he did not say to me the guy in that Lincoln Town Car there is the guy who caused this accident. There was nobody ever identified.

Q. Was that car still there? Do you know?
A. I didn’t see a car, and he didn't say anything. This is the first I learned that it was even a Lincoln.
Q. All right. But he did discuss it with you at the scene; and to your knowledge, he did discuss it with other officers at the scene?
A. Not specifically. Only that somebody had crossed the line and that’s what he was upset about.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nothing further, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

(Witness excused.)

THE COURT: Do you want to say anything in closing?

(Closing argument by
Mr. Hoffman.)
(Closing argument by
Mr. Swainston.)

*((Omitted text needs to be inserted here...))*

THE COURT: What’s the maximum fine here?

MR. SWAINSTON: Three hundred dollars.

THE COURT: The Court finds the Commonwealth has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Gary James Landis, committed the crime of summary offense rather disorderly conduct by engaging in tumultuous behavior making unreasonable noise, using obscene language and he created a hazardous or offensive condition by his acts on that occasion. He is sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and costs.

(At 3:25 p.m., the proceedingswere concluded.)

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me in the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of che same.

Paula D. Meszaros
Official Court Reporter

Received and directed to be filed this

day of 2002.

THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE A. BROWN

*((text))* added by GJL

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

Two Key points about the County Court Transcript

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Back To:

About the Transcript

2005-10-15T23:31:00.007-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

About the Transcript

In two sections of the transcript there are two points of concern besides the obvious lies and the denial of a defense. Your defense can be denied when the judge refuses to listen to and for the truth.

First: I would like to ask the reader why did the judge not understand about the objection Mr. Hoffman made on page 7 and continues on page 8? This is where the judge had to take his attention away from the book that he was reading and start to pay attention to the case that was being heard in his courtroom.

Second: On page 73 just before the judge asks about the amount of the maximum penalty for this fine, the judge asked or proclaimed in a very odd manner. The judge said, "So you think you are a Christian? Well, you are a liar!" To which I responded, "Excuse me?" and the judge affirmed, "You are a liar!"

After sentencing there was one more conversation that took place between the detective and the judge. The detective said, "I'm sorry for my appearance in court." The judge looked at the detective and laughingly replied, "You look like a cone head." and the detective gave a rejoinder, "I suffer from tremors."

My lawyer and I promptly left the court room where he decided he didn't want any more to do with this case.

Reconsider what I wrote within three days of the court case. One point to be made is that upon being recalled to testify the detective testified earlier that he didn't allow me to speak, he told me to calm down and be quiet at the seen as he was introducing himself. On this cross examination a key point brought out was that I didn't discuss with him about, and identifying the man that crossed the stop line. Now how if I was told to be quiet could I have identified a misgiving of another individual? As the detective took control and he knew everything he released the individual from the scene.

a. The head dressing that he was wearing was a really interesting touch, self applied with wires sticking out the top.

b. The judge and the detective had a giggle as they talked about his attire and the judge called the detective a cone head.

c. The strange part about this is I made up a signature that said, "When the Rafters Rock and the Timbers Shake, I would stand firm on my God's Grace". (It seems that the detective has been suffering from tremors.) Isn't that strange? (And how about, those two earthquakes, earlier this morning?)

d. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that his tremors were just a ploy.

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Back To:

Complaint filed in Eastern Federal District Court

2005-10-13T22:53:00.019-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Gary James Landis

Vs.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

This complaint starts with the Plaintiff (Gary James Landis) trying to perform the duties of his occupation. At the scene of an accident a Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd) derelict in his duties and with reckless abandon did violate the civil liberties of the Plaintiff (Gary James Landis) This complaint has several parts and within each part several issues have occurred as one cascading event.

First

Part A. An accident and the Witness is charged with Disorderly Conduct on false pretenses.
i. In this section my 1st, 6th, and 8th Constitutional Rights were violated.

A.1. An accident and charges made up against the witness.

You have a Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd) filed false information against a witness to an accident and gaining a conviction through lying to everyone, the Detective lied to his superiors and the lawyers that would aide him in District court #38-1-17 Case Docket # NT-189-01 Citation # A68666 where the Defendant in that case (Gary James Landis) had his Civil Liberties violated by the Judge Harold Borek. The Defendant (Gary James Landis) in that case was charged with disorderly conduct while being the witness of an accident, accident report number 20010419M4 Date of accident April 19, 2001. The Judge (Harold Borek) refused to hear the testimony of the defendant, and the Police department refused to allow access of important information to the defendant, to provide a defense to the accusations of the lying Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd). The Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd) lied in this case and it is known to the Plaintiff of this case and the Defendant in County Court hearing, Docket #4630-01 on January 3, 2002 (Gary James Landis) that the Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd) has lied in another court case for which he was reprimanded. The police department headed by Police Chief Douglas Bickel violated my rights to information to bring forth people with important information relevant to a defense. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was also notified and attempts to access information through the State Police or the Department of Transportation as well as the District Attorney’s office for Montgomery County all proved fruitless. My requests were denied, ignored or obfuscated.

In finding me guilty the Judge Harold Borek tried to appease me by apologizing to find me guilty and appealing to me three times to appeal my case and hire a lawyer.

A. 2. Hiring a Lawyer and being misled.

Upon hiring Esquire L. Bruce Hoffman I was told to file an appeal that my Civil Liberties were violated, at the time I wasn’t sure which of my Rights were violated but having a lawyer tell you to do this or that was something that I wasn’t about to question. It was July 3, 2001 and 9 days later I would learn about Detective (Randolph Scott Floyd) lying in another case. I gave all of the details that I had to my Lawyer who responded with if we can prove that the detective has lied and is lying we would sue the; Borough, County, and State. As the date of the hearing for appeal would draw closer, my Lawyer failed to perform his part of the case by calling and filing subpoena’s for witnesses for my defense.

A. 3. The County Court Hearing.

In the County Court hearing, Docket #4630-01 on January 3, 2002, the Judge Lawrence A. Brown came into the court room with a book to read. Judge Lawrence A. Brown would read his book while clearing his docket of cases that didn’t show and that had settled out of court. Then Judge Lawrence A. Brown continued to read his book while my Court case proceeded. My Lawyer made an objection about a traffic light the Judge had to stop reading his book and question what the objection was about. Later a comment to me from the Judge was not included in the transcript. The Judge said to me, “So you think you are a Christian? You are a liar.” To which I replied, “Excuse me?” And the Judge reiterated to me that, I was a liar! He said, “You are a liar!” to me a second time. Then he increased my fine to the maximum penalty of $300.00 from the $200.00 that I had been charged with. At the end of the hearing Detective Randolph Scott Floyd apologized to the judge for his appearance in court. He came into the court room with the top of his head all taped up as though he applied the bandage to his own head. He used little pieces of tape about an inch long to cover every piece of hair on the top of his head he even covered his side burns, he also had two wires protruding from the bandages up through the top at the, center back area of his head. One red wire and one Black wire. The judge commented that the Detective, “looked like he was a cone head.” The Detective then stated that he suffered from tremors.

My lawyer seeing all of this took me outside and promptly quit this case.

Part B. The Involuntary Committal, Malpractice and Police Abuse.
i. In this section my 1st, 4th, 6th, and 14th Constitutional Rights were violated.

B.1. The Involuntary Committal.
Three days after the Court hearing I had written up my experience in County Court, that evening January 6th, 2002 I would find message boards on the internet. I concluded that the people participating on the message boards had to have their lives together maybe teachers and people with access to lawyers. I knew I had only 30 days to file an appeal about the County Court Case. I wanted to take the case further because what was happening to me was wrong. A week later I would spend all night on the computer after a busy weekend. On Friday I had properly asked my Employer if I could have Monday, January 14th, 2002 off. My request was granted. On Monday morning my wife became upset that I wasn’t going to work and scheduled me an appointment to meet with the pastoral staff of the East Swamp Mennonite Church of Quakertown the Church that we had belonged to. While meeting with me the Senior Pastor (Burge Troxel) and the Youth Pastor (Andrew T. Gysi) offered to provide me with a councilor, I thought legal they were supplying a mental health councilor; a non-licensed psychologist (David Bigoney). After that there was an intervention with; my wife, and parents, and pastoral staff. They were seeking to have me commit myself; I was extremely tired from a very busy weekend with many preparations being made for my brothers wedding the following month (February 2nd, 2002) and my staying awake all Sunday night. My wife was uncertain about what to do, and was told to leave our house. She was instructed to, go to the hospital where she was greeted by the Crisis intervention worker (Carol Bamford). My mother stayed at my house for a while trying to convince me to go to the hospital when all I wanted to do was to go to bed. Unfortunately; I was in a house full of people that normally don’t frequent my home and they were all asking me questions and intruding on my ability to go to bed, and acquire the much needed rest that I needed. My mother would then leave my house and go down to the Hospital where my wife was and she would dictate to (Carol Bamford) the Crisis Intervention worker, words that would have my home town police respond unreasonably. My local police reacted to the fabricated report conjured up by my Mother (Nancy E. Shafer) and the Crisis Intervention worker (Carol Bamford). The two women then convinced my wife (Mary Christine Landis) to sign the fabricated 302 report to involuntarily commit me, to prove that she (Mary) loves me. Under pressure my wife signed the report.

B.2. Abuse by the Quakertown Police.

After my mother left my house, I charged my father with the rules of the house (I told my father that we keep the front door closed and locked), if he wanted to stay that was fine with me, I wanted the Pastoral staff to leave, it was getting dark out side and I was really tired. The Pastoral staff refused to leave insisting that my wife had invited them in and they had a right to stay because of that fact. I told everyone that I was going to bed to rest, and tried to get some sleep. Next there was a knock at the door, and my father called me back down stairs. The front door was open by an inch and a half or more and the pastoral staff was not present. Four police officers were at the other side of the door and barged into my house when I tried to close the door. I wanted to figure out what was going on. I didn’t know why the police were at my door I had done nothing to bring the police to my front door. The police had barged in pushing me backwards the lead officer grabbed the upper part of my left arm and squeezed it real hard. My arm bruised from being tackled and man handled. Everything calmed down I was not giving a struggle and the police took me upstairs to get dressed. They told me that they were taking me out of the house using the police car. After giving me my clothes they asked me to put my arms behind my back at which point I asked to be cuffed out front, and I demonstrated that by placing my arms together in front of me, prepared to be cuffed. With that request the police grabbed my arms and pulled me face down onto the mattress of my bed. While the officers held me in that position one of the officers forced my face into the mattress where I found it hard to breathe and then I felt the cold barrel of a gun placed to the back of my neck to which I yelled. “Please Don’t Shoot, Don’t Shoot, don’t shoot!” The gun barrel was removed from the back of my head and neck area while a finger was put in its place. With the cuffs on the officers then stood me up on my feet where the one that had his finger on the back of my neck lifted the finger to my face and said, “See it was just my finger.” I was not shown why the police were removing me from my house upon what pretenses and this was further collaborated as I was taken to the hospital where the fabricated 302 report was filed.

B.3. Malpractice.

Arriving at the hospital (the Grandview Hospital) I wasn’t sure why I was brought in. 9 years prior to that event I had an emotional affair with a woman, this would be brought back to my attention in the few moments of discontent that my wife and I occasionally experienced. She said that I was forgiven but would mention things about this past person in my life. My wife was severely abused by her father, her mother died of breast cancer when she was only ten. At the hospital I mentioned that this other woman of my past (Lori) was the reason I was brought to the hospital. I was put in a room of seclusion with out a bed and what I needed most was sleep. I was monitored and not permitted to sleep. I was injected with a medication and transported to another hospital (the Doylestown Hospital). There I met a doctor James Burkins who read the 302 report and made a diagnosis based on what Carol Bamford had written. Dr. James Burkins said, “Based upon what is written here, I am diagnosing you with Bipolar disorder. I don’t have time to figure out what your problem is I am prescribing these two medications I hope this cures you.” I didn’t feel that our first meeting I was getting treated properly and I reacted badly to the medications that were being administered. After changing medications a couple of times and several tests that I was told were inconclusive because the human mind is so complex. I was put through the 303 process and they were trying for a 304. Dr. Burkins finally agreed to try one medication to figure out which medication I was reacting badly to. On the evening of the change of medications the night nurse came in and calling me over to take my medications, proclaimed that I was refusing to take the second medication. I had explained to the nurse that she might want to check with the doctor that the Chart should have been changed to reflect that I was to only receive one medication and not two as per the conversation between Dr. James Burkins with me and my wife earlier in the day. The night nurse told me that she didn’t have to call no Doctor that she had four orderly’s waiting outside the door to tie me into a bed if I didn’t cooperate and take the second medication as an injection. After 20 days in the Doyelstown hospital, my case was transferred to a Dr. Carl Benzio. Dr.Carl Benzio was the former head of the Doylestown psychiatric ward prior to Dr. James Burkins taking over. At our first meeting Dr. Carl Benzio told me that he couldn’t force me to take medication that I felt I didn’t need. That would set the stage for my mother to once again attack me. She came over that night after my meeting with Dr. Carl Benzio. My mother (Nancy Shafer) who was upset because I was not going to take the medication that she determined I needed, proclaimed that all men over 40 need to be medicated. She told me that her friends’ husband was medicated; and then… My mother decided that she could file another report to the police, by punching herself she would report to the police that I became violent and assaulted her and that would force me to take the medication that she thought I needed. I directed my mother down stairs announcing to my wife what my mother was scheming to do. My wife called Dr. Carl Benzio. I went into the living room while my mother proudly explained to my wife, in the parlor, what she was going to do to force me to take this medication. In the living room I turned on an audio recording device and recorded several very stressful minutes of conversation. The recording includes the phone ringing and conversations can be heard of people talking with the caller who is Dr. Carl Benzio. You can hear my wife Mary talking to the Dr. first and then my mother, and then I get a chance to talk to Dr. Carl Benzio. Click on this link - - | To read about a captured moment in time.| - - Unfortunately; nothing would change for me, I was ordered not to go back to work for 13 weeks even in the knowledge that people would lie and make up stories about me, I would still suffer the stress of not being able to pursue a living and gainful employment. I tried to share my recording with the Youth Pastor Andrew T. Gysi, he did not want to listen, he was not interested in knowing the Truth.

At the appointed time I again would have another meeting with Dr. Carl Benzio who felt I could return to work and he approved me to go back to work part time after a partial return that lasted only a couple of weeks, I was permitted to return full time. My employment was disrupted for some 18 weeks.

On a side note, at the hospital I heard the nurses talking about my situation and they determined that my marriage was bound to fall apart; some speculated that it would only last 6 months; unfortunately, about a year later I felt compelled to leave the house due to extreme stress that the whole family had suffered. Shortly after leaving the house, the Youth Pastor Andrew T. Gysi contacted me to discuss my value to the Church as a member. I was called in for a meeting where I was told that I was no longer permitted to be a member of the Church. At the meeting my motorcycle was sabotaged outside in the parking lot the radiator cap was loosened.

C. Out of the House, struggling for custody, trying to rebuild the life I once had.
i. This part involves Landlord Tenant law and going back to court.

C.1. Furthering my Education

Out of the house I enrolled into a criminal justice program, just to figure out what I had done wrong in my own court problems. This would be a chance to socialize and gain information and grow. After several semesters I was comfortably holding a 3.62 GPA.

C.2. The Divorce proceedings.

When my life; took a turn for the worst. I rented a house for me and my children, my wife filed for divorce against me and I wanted to take custody of the children. During the divorce action my lawyer requested a competency hearing for which parent should have custody of the Children. During the course of the counseling sessions held by Diana Rosenstein she heard testimony by my wife that she was forced to sign the fabricated 302 report. Fortunately for Diana Rosenstein she did not have to file a report on this matter as I was able to reconcile the marriage with my wife. This was not acceptable to me as I wanted a report or any notes that she had on the sessions that we had attended with her, I fully understood that she didn’t have to make a determination of who would be more appropriate to take custody of the children, I just wanted the notes that pertained to our sessions. My request was ignored.

C.3. The Landlord (Girish Amin) and Tenant dispute.

When I moved out of the small apartment and took possession of the House that I would rent at 336 Edgewood Drive, Hatfield PA 19444 I was requested to provide surety of $1,000.00 for security of the property of Girish Amin and his wife. I was also requested to pay the last months rent at the time of signing the lease. During class in Business Law, one of my assignments was to research Pennsylvania’s Landlord Tenant Laws. The surety that is given as security is to be placed into an escrow account and any money that would not be repaid to the tenant is required to be accounted for in writing. I made improvements to the property while living there and received no report of causing any damage to the property from which my security could not be returned to me. There was also a matter of one month’s overpayment of rent. These losses account for $1,900.00 and as I understand the improper handling of security could double the award of damage.

C.4 The RE/MAX Realtor (Rich Markel) that confused the Landlord and misrepresented facts to me and my wife.

In trying to get my money back that I am owed. My landlord arranges a meeting with the selling agent Rich Markel at the RE/MAX office he works out of on December 12, 2004. At the meeting Rich Markel mentions that he feels Mr. Girish Amin doesn’t owe me anything. The sale of the house was to be on September 30, 2004 and because the property didn’t sell until after October sometime he feels that Mr. Girish Amin has the right to keep the money he owes me because the lease was broken before the sale of the house. The lease that was written for a year from April 1st, 2004 to March 31st, 2005 was broken prior to the sale of the house at the request of Rich Markel and Mr. Girish Amin. I was asked if I could leave the property at the end of August, due to a mid September settlement date. I had paid rent to the end of September, and I was completely out of the property and returned the keys by the fourth of September. I did not receive full access to all of the services that I paid for. I was offered an apartment that would cost less than the rental of the house, this I refused because on August 8th, 2004 my wife and I decided to reconcile our broken marriage. We are doing well, but there are issues that need to be corrected as for what has happened to me and money that I am owed. In an attempt to bring attention to the wrong doing of Mr. Rich Markel, I contacted the people at RE/MAX and had several conversations with Mr. Scott Kelley the Harleysville franchise owner or manager. I have recorded two conversations that were left on my voice mail. The first is a message by Rich Markel that indicates while feeling Mr. Girish Amin doesn’t owe me anything, he might be able to convince my former landlord to return half of the money that I am owed. The second is the last message received concerning this issue from Scott Kelley. Mr. Scott Kelley insists that Rich Markel had nothing to do with my obtaining my lease, and nothing to do with the lease, he advises me to obtain a lawyer and have my lawyer contact people from RE/MAX, that I should not contact them personally.

D. Why am I filing this matter in this venue?

As you notice this matter is a complicated case that started a while back, under normal circumstances the statute of limitations might prevent me from gaining access to the courts about this matter. I also recognize the real relevant issue is the Landlord Tenant dispute, of $1,900.00 Double indemnity for the $1,000.00 security that was not handled properly. The problem is that I would have to file this Landlord Tenant dispute in the District Court #38-1-17. That is correct; I have a complaint to file in the Same District Court that set all of this mess in motion. Consider that this is a matter of Vocational Profiling by Detective Randolph Scott Floyd, and that the Department of Transportation could correctly mark the intersection for the safe egress by large vehicles through the intersection frequented by the commerce of a local business. Unfortunately; many complaints of misconduct in this matter have fallen upon deaf ears, and accessing the Department of Transportation to make a complaint for safety’s sake is almost impossible.

In summary:

I the plaintiff (Gary James Landis) am seeking reparations to my reputation and the defamation of my character, also; the physical abuse that I had to endure, and the trauma that I and my family have suffered as a result of all the wrongful treatment by those involved in aiding and abetting the grotesque miscarriage of justice. Clearly the time that I put forth in trying to correct the wrongs has a value, it is terrible that people should suffer for such atrocities that can be so easily and clearly exposed, if only people are willing to listen and read. The sum of damages is great; my expectations of an award exceeding over 8 million dollars should be considered minimal in light of the offenses. We have filing a false report and perjury by a Detective Randolph Scott Floyd and culpability by the judicial system, and others involved in consequentially becoming involved in further filing of false reports with my local police becoming participants in the further violation of my civil liberties. Followed by another court action to retrieve money owed to me in a bad real estate lease where my surety and overpayment of rent was not returned to me.

Who to file against: (Chronological order)

Detective Randolph Scott Floyd
Telford Police Department
100 Penn Avenue
Telford, PA 18969

Telford Police Department
100 Penn Avenue
Telford, PA 18969

Chief Douglas Bickle
Telford Police Department
100 Penn Avenue
Telford, PA 18969

Borough of Telford
Penn Avenue
Telford, PA 18969

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Harrisburg PA 17120

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA 17120

The Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street
Suite 403
Harrisburg, PA 17101

The disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
820 Adams Avenue
Suite 170
Trooper, PA 19403

The Pennsylvania State Police
Bucks County Barracks
Dublin, PA 18917

The Pennsylvania State Police
Skippack Barracks
Skippack, PA 19474

Lawyer Referral Service of Bucks County
135 East State Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Esq. Scott L. Feldman
103 Mechanics Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Mrs. Carole Mary Allsop
10 Dogwood Court
Souderton PA 18964

George Heller
42 North Fourth Street
Souderton, PA 18964

Judge Harold Borek
Montgomery County District Court 38-1-17
66 County Line Road
Souderton, PA 18964

Montgomery County District Court 38-1-17
66 County Line Road
Souderton, PA 18964

Siana and Vaughan, LLP
941 Pottstown Pike
P.O. Box 630
Exton, PA 19341

Bruce Lee Hoffman Esq.
Two Neshaminy Interplex
Suite 204
Trevose, PA 19053

Lowenthal and Abrahams Law firm
BalaCynwyd, PA 19004

The Court of Common Pleas in the County of Montgomery
Norristown, PA 19401

Judge Lawrence Brown
The Court of Common Pleas in the County of Montgomery
Norristown, PA 19401

Paula Messaros
Official Court Reporter
The Court of Common Pleas in the County of Montgomery
Norristown, PA 19401

Montgomery County

Pastor Burge Troxel
2405 East Swamp Road
Quakertown, PA 18951

Youth Pastor Andrew Gysi
2405 East Swamp Road
Quakertown, PA 18951

The East Swamp Church of Quakertown
2405 East Swamp Road
Quakertown, PA 18951

David Bigoney;
Christian Counseling Services
Dublin, PA 18917

Carol Bamford
700 Lawn Avenue
Sellersville, PA 18960

Mrs. Nancy Elaine Schafer
243 North Main Street
Trumbauersville, PA 18951

The Quakertown Police Department
Quakertown, PA 18951

Chief James McFadden
The Quakertown Police Department
Quakertown, PA 18951

The Grandview Hospital
700 Lawn Avenue
Sellersville, PA 18960

The Staff of the Grandview hospital
700 Lawn Avenue
Sellersville, PA 18960

The Doyelstown Hospital Psychiatric Department
595 West State Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Dr. James Burkins
595 West State Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

The nursing staff of the Doylestown Hospital
595 West State Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Ellen Fanning Esq.
Bucks County Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
600 Louis Drive
Suite 101
Warminster, PA 18974

Bucks County

Dr. Carl Benzio
800 State Street
Doylestown, PA 18901

Dianna Rossenstein
Court Conciliation and Evaluation Service
900 Town Center
New Britain, PA 18901

Court Conciliation and Evaluation Service
900 Town Center
New Britain, PA 18901

Girish and Rashmika Amin
2007 Valley View Way
Lansdale, PA 19446

Richard A. Markel
RE/MAX Realty Group-Harleysville
439 Main Street
Harleysville, PA 19438

Scott Kelley
owner/manager of the Harleysville RE/MAX office
RE/MAX Realty Group-Harleysville
439 Main Street
Harleysville, PA 19438

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

Court Case Denied

Time Lines and convergence of separate events

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

Evidence and Confessions

Back To:

An excerpt From the Hearing on 3-13-09

2005-10-13T22:53:00.007-04:00

Page 22

The court: Very well. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the

Page 23

courtroom today that wishes to be heard with respect to these petitions for allowance?

Mr. Landis: I have a request to be heard.

The court: Does it concern these petitions?

Mr. Landis: It concerns this whole business.

The Court: Mr. Landis, we are here today just on the basis of the petitions for allowance of these fees and costs as to whether they are reasonable. We’re not here today to address other general matters and the guardianship in general.

Mr. Landis: This is to address the integrity of the system. I have here some documentation. You were a prosecutor at one time and –

The court: Yes.

Mr. Landis: -- you had prosecuted a case against me. I have documentation of that.

The court: I was not aware of that.

Page 24

Mr. Landis: May I give this to you?

The court: Certainly.

Mr. Landis: Would you like to read this? There is also a police report in there, Your Honor. That police report was from a visit that I went to go over and visit with my grandmother the day after our last court hearing on the 24th (should have been the 26th) At that time, I was threatened and the police were told about the threat. I was not allowed to visit with my grandmother.

Mr. Jaskowiak: Your Honor, just let the record reflect, I don’t know about Mr. Shelly, but I have not been provided with any documentation prior to today, so I have not had a chance to review anything.

The Court: All right. I will just note for the record that, Mr. Landis, you’ve handed me a document headed Commonwealth versus Richard F. Kramer in which apparently in 1980 as an Assistant District Attorney perhaps I was present at a proceeding where there was a placement of someone on ARD as well as a guilty plea.

Page 25

And how is this relevant to this matter?

Mr. Landis: This would be my concern about continued punishment from you, because I was punished for coming over to visit with my grandmother and we had correspondence where I wrote you a letter, and our correspondence in trying to follow proper procedure and let you be advised on what was going on as Mr. Jaskowiak had indicated in the last hearing that I needed to follow proper procedure.
I was trying to follow proper procedure so I contacted you in requesting for protection from abuse from my stepmother and you told me that my contact with you was inappropriate, and then I had subsequently later realized or became aware of the fact that you had been this prosecutor and now you’re the Judge on this case.

The Court: All right. Now, your particular case, as I mentioned, the Court sheet that I see says Commonwealth versus Richard Kramer, but I do see a related case involving Gary Landis, again, from apparently

Page 26

1980.

Mr. Landis: That’s correct. It was a long time ago.

The Court: Yes. For the record, I will state that certainly when this case came before me I had no recollection of you or having prosecuted you at all, and certainly do not – certainly that was not relevant to any of my actions in this case.

Mr. Landis: At this time, Your Honor, I was required to testify guilty or take a guilty plea. On account of the people that I was running with, they had convinced me that what we were doing was legal and I was so convinced that I got one of my friends to come along with us.
Lying seems to be a big part of the problem between that then and this here today.
When Rosemarie put my grandmother into LifeQuest Nursing Home she had told lies. There were other issues that have come up that I’ve testified to that revealed that something wasn’t right, and when I cam over

Page 27

to visit my grandmother, Rosemarie asserted that she had guardianship and wouldn’t allow me access to visit with my grandmother.
We come up to today. Mr. Jaskowiak had sent me notification of your decision from November 28th –

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Landis: -- when he filed for the petition for this hearing. I had no idea that that decision that you had made on the 28th was made. I have been waiting to hear contact about what the ruling was on that previous Court hearing, and now here we are and I’m trying to reveal to you that, you know, it looks like the integrity of the system might be compromised.

The Court: Well, again, I have stated that certainly I still am not clear from this record whether I was directly involved with you or your case. Again, this was 29 years ago apparently and did not recognize you as someone who had crossed my path some 29 years before in the course of my duties as Assistant District Attorney.

Page 28

Mr. Landis: In the process of that case you were dealing with my legal representation, my lawyer, Mr. Roeger, of, I believe, Roeger, Walker and Bahls. I’m not sure, but at that time my gather had provided for me legal representation, and I’m sure that I didn’t even realize that our first hearing in September that you were there. I didn’t understand until I looked into the case file and saw that myself, and I went oh, wait a second. This doesn’t look right.

The Court: Well, I understand what you are saying, and in that neither one of us in the context of this guardianship case was aware of one another, that we had ever had any prior contact, I certainly, you know, do not believe that it is – there’s any conflict of interest here. And I was not even aware that you had been convicted of any crime when I was dealing with you prior in this case. (UHmmm? Mention of Federal court case and judicial injustice? September 24, 2008 transcript page #32 and November 25th Transcript page #35 both transcripts reference an injustice that I suffered. On page #39 of the November transcript I mention filing a Federal Court Case.)

Certainly with respect to these petitions for allowance, it is important that these monies be allocated today, so I am inclined to grant these. If there are any

Page 29

Further proceedings in this case and you wish, again, another Judge to hear any further proceedings in this case, then certainly you may request that, but as of today, what I am going to do is sign – is allow these expenses, in that they are reasonable expenses, and I think guardians have to do their work here in Lenore Berger’s best interest. And certainly you may – if there’s anything you wish to address with respect to this case such as vacating the guardianship order or something, that can certainly go in front of another Judge.

Mr. Landis: Just one more thing. There was a second document in there, the police report of the incident that happened on November 26th (Yea, I got it right that time) when I came to visit my grandmother, and in requesting protection from abuse or making sure that no harm is going to come to my person – in the process of my father’s suicide, I know that it was very important for Rosie to get access to my father’s – to the weapon that my father used to commit suicide. And, in fact,

Page 30

It was more important for her to get access to that weapon than to turn over the suicide note that she had taken time to show me. I believe within two months she had picked up the weapon from the suicide that was back in December of ’07, so by the end of January she had picked up the weapon, and in September when we started this process she still held onto the suicide note, but that was never given over to the local authorities.
I’m going over to visit my grandmother and she’s telling the police that she wants to kill me. I feel threatened.

***Ms. Landis: Did you tell him why? (Admission of threat to harm)****

The Court: Wait. Wait. Let’s not have a conversation.
Certainly, Mr. Berger (sic), if you have a safety issue, you are always – you should always contact the police if you believe abuse is taking place and can pursue your rights through the local police department.

Mr. Landis: If I come over to visit and I get hurt it’s a little late if I’m feeling fearful that abuse may be about to

Page 31

take place.

The Court: Well, abuse –

Mr. Landis: I’m trying.

**The Court: -- orders may be based upon threats, so you certainly – if you wish to file anything, and I’m not certainly making any finding here today, but if you wish to contact your local police department and have them investigate whether you are in danger or have been threatened, you certainly may do that.

Mr. Landis: I was of the understanding that I had to come to a Judge to get that protection from abuse, and so you hearing this case and this matter being directly related with my grandmother, I was hoping to come to you.
The police did not want to file a complaint against Rosemarie for her threat. She made a threat to kill me and said that if I come in the house that she couldn’t be responsible for her actions, and I was only there to visit.
She complained that it was because of my testimony at the last Court hearing

Page 32

That she was so angry at me, and when I was about to leave the police officer questioned me about why I didn’t feel it ws appropriate that my grandmother should go into an Alzheimer’s institution.

The Court: I see.
Certainly, you know, no one should be threatening anyone in this particular case and you should have reasonable access to your grandmother, and so certainly, again, as long as that access is peaceable and not disruptive, that should be permitted.

Mr. Landis: I would appreciate that. Thank You

The Court: The guardians have heard what I have said with respect to that. That is that.
Now, again, Mr. Landis, we are here on these petitions for allowance matters.
Counsel, do you have anything you wish to say having heard the discussion with Mr. Landis?

Mr. Jaskowiak: Your Honor, a lot of that comes as news to me. I have nothing further to add.

Page 33

I would just ask the court to take into account the testimony and what is contained in all three petitions and that Your Honor rule accordingly so that Ms. Berger can continue to get the best care that she can.

The Court: Very well.
And I do today, again, it is important – yes.

Mr. Landis: One last final thing.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Landis: The court does recognize that I have offered to step in the place of what Rosemarie is doing and I would not charge the fees that Rosemarie is requesting.

The Court: I see. Thank You. Very well.
Mr. Landis -- and, again, this has been informal discussion where you have not been under oath, but -- again, so that is your position, that you would be able to provide the services rather than Rosemarie Landis for a fee?

Mr. Landis: Right.

The Court: And you are Gary Landis for

Page 34

Record purposes?

Mr. Landis: Next of kin, yes.

The Court: Very well. Well, again, I understand your position there.
At the present time, however, I think we do have to make sure that appropriate services are offered to Ms. Berger, and, therefore, I will grant the petition for allowances at this time and sign the orders which have been – form of orders which have been provided.

That concludes this matter.

Back To:

The Prayer of Jabez and the Vision, Climbing the Mountain and getting Kidnapped

2005-10-13T22:53:00.004-04:00

Note that 10 days after the court hearing I was 302'd

How was I involuntarily committed and why?

Another part of the story for another blog.

So much to say and so much to read.

I'm sorry there is so much that happened in a very short period of time and none of the problems were ever corrected.

All of the psychological head games to protect the guilty, the detective and my wife and parents.

In district court I had a mountain top experience, a vision and add to it the Prayer of Jabez.

The Prayer of Jabez, and the will of GOD?

It wasn’t any day that I would compare to any other. What would happen and how it would affect my life I can’t even fathom. Only GOD could control the events, as they are about to unfold. It started with a terrible tragedy (about a week earlier), and then a minor accident to which I wanted to witness, (in witnessing to the accident the next day I would be charged for a crime I didn’t commit!), there would be two terrible impropriety’s involving poor judgment by police, and another tragedy, defamation of character, the belittling of an unprecedented situation in court, vocational profiling (a term my pastor coined as I was describing the events perpetuated against me), the movement of GOD’s hand, finding witnesses (that wouldn’t testify for me, but they could definitely be subpoenaed, I know what they said and saw), and a lawyer who would Go the Distance, I’m Turning the Tide, making a stand against injustice, I feel the mountain tremble.
Recently I was able to take my family to a John G. Elliot concert less than a week ago, at the concert I bought three CD’s a songbook and a little book by Bruce Wilkinson.
It was my pastor who introduced me to Bruce’s writings by offering a challenge to read the book, The Secrets of the Vine, at the concert I picked up the book titled The Prayer of Jabez. Not that I wasn’t listening to its promises as the great speakers of today have discussed this book on their talk shows. My curiosity about this book came from a conversation with a general contractor who shared with me how this prayer was changing his life. At the concert I gave my offering and I put in a note. On the paper I gave to Mr. Elliot I wrote these words and I pray he can use them: The rafters rock, The timbers shake and I’m standing firm on my God’s grace. I describe what I am going through as to be sitting on top of a volcano and the Lord is about to be exalted. Did you feel the mountain tremble?
The Lord reveals his will to each of us in his providence. To me he revealed several visualizations. While sitting in the courtroom I felt so alone as though the Lord wasn’t with me and that is rare I try to abide with the Lord. This was a prayer of mine at a very young age. This could explain the impact my life makes on those around me. The scene I saw was a man myself placed on a path inside two pure white ropes. (The ropes I believe represent the Lords guidance and knowledge of what was happening.) As I was placed on this path the two men that had conjured up false testimony against me were on each side of me. One would reach down and move one leg and the other man would move the other leg. Each figure was placing each of my feet one step closer towards the end of the path. In the beginning I couldn’t see the end but when the hearing was over I was waist deep in the muck and the mire of the twisted testimony against me. I turned around looked up to the heavens and I wondered? How did I get here? I was reaching out my arms wondering where was my GOD? My God couldn’t be in a den such as the one I was apologized to, and also found guilty in this place called a courtroom. It definitely surprised me to be appealed to not once but three times. Not just one of the great commandments were broken that day but several. An officer of the court produced false testimony in order to gain a conviction and immunity; the man dishonored himself and the Lord. He abused the power he was given and if found guilty I’m sure he will have dishonored his parents. My God detests the sin that was perpetrated against his child, but my savior went with me in my heart, and revealed he was in control by guiding my path.
Learning about the little prayer through Bruce Wilkinson was merely conformation for the lesson the Lord was teaching me. It was as I learned of a pattern of impropriety that Satan’s: Dart’s, no Arrow’s, no Tomahawks, no Caber’s, Yes Caber’s Satan was pulling out the big artillery. He almost cost me my employment. At least until I realized what he was doing and I prayed. I prayed that the Lord would keep him away based on the Lord’s Prayer and my prayer was answered. He showed me that Satan was defeated a long time ago and reassured me in my heart. Then less than one week ago I started reading the Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson. Bruce’s book confirmed all that I was praying unknowingly was the prayer of Jabez. In the beginning when the event started, the event that would change my perspective on religion and confirm his presence with us, I dedicated the event in my life to the Lord right at the beginning in prayer and now I sit back in awe as I watch his hand take such a small incident and possibly bestow such a large blessing. (And as I sit here listening to the Radio they play a song by John G. Elliot, How Can It Be)(Filled with emotion tears start to roll down). And even if I don’t get the blessing through the courts, (which I’m confident the Lord will send) I still have this great testimony of how God can work in everyone’s life if they just believe.
That brings me to my final problem I am not a writer or an accomplished theologian and I would really appreciate any help and insight you could give me. I believe that it is about time to turn this book and what I am trying to say over to the Christian media and into the hands of professionals who could really help to get GOD’s message out where it can have the most impact for the people of today.
This message is sent out to a few individuals who might be able to help. I believe that you can see how this is a very important issue for our society today, even though I’ve been very vague. Clearly the message will be understood in the near future. Please keep in mind that this is about active litigation.

Thank You,
God Bless

What I need to know now is; what is the Judas Kiss?

2005-10-13T22:53:00.002-04:00

Court Case Denied

2005-10-13T22:52:00.016-04:00

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

The Federal District court took my motion to proceed and based upon my financial statement, Denied my request.

|<-Back|-|||-|Next->|

Title Page of My ebook --- - Freedom of Speech and Religion, an International Crime for the most minor offense that another person can commit!

Letters and Receipts as evidence and facts for and in Federal Court

An Open Letter

The First Complaint that I tried to file in Eastern District Federal Court in August of 2005

Back To:

The Estate of my Grandmother, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

2005-10-13T22:52:00.007-04:00

A case of Elder abuse, impropriety and conflicts of interest.

In the transcript I take the stand to answer questions about why my stepmother should not be guardian of my grandmother. The lawyer representing my stepmother a Mr. Jaskowiak is going to ask me some questions about a release that I had obtained in order to find more information that would be pertinent to stopping my stepmother from declaring my Grandmother incapacitated. I was given some access to my Grandmother and was able to get her to a notary public to get a formal release signed and notarized so that I could establish facts from the fiction that we and the court have been provided.

----------------------------------

On page 50 of the transcript an exchange begins as I am cross examined by Mr. Jaskowiak.

Q. Mr. Landis, To whom have you provided this release that you've just referenced?

A. I have provided it to the ******** National Bank, to Life Quest, to Dr. Vasta and a few other doctors.

Q. Who are those other doctors, do you recall?

A. Dr. Elaskowitz, I believe her name is, the eye doctor, and there was another issue concerning my father's suicide.

Q. And did you receive any records from any of these entities or individuals?

A. From the ******** National Bank I did receive records.

Q. When did you receive those records?

A. I don't have the date offhand. I could find --

Q. Was that within the last month?

A. No. I believe my access to that information was stopped. They were concerned about -- I'm not sure if Rosie had put a stop to it because Life Quest had contacted Rosemarie to ask if they could give me the information that I was requesting. Rosemarie refused to allow me to have that information. So then when I visited with them, Rosie got very upset with me in my Grandmother's house. That's the episode where she had threatened to leave, but then she had produced for me a receipt of the date when my Grandmother was admitted to Life Quest.

Q. Do you now --

A. Supposedly --

Q. I'm sorry. Do you now understand that request for any information or records of discussion with doctors can only be made by those people that this court appoints and authorizes, do you now understand that as you're sitting here today?

A. I didn't know that prior or at this time has the judge directed me in that direction.

Q. If the court appoints guardians, whoever that may be, if the court appoints guardians, are you willing to abide by the court's directives and only allow those guardians to make those requests for records of information, whether it's about your Grandmother's medical condition or her financial status, are you willing to go through those guardians and go through those guardians only?

A. If there is a need to do that, I would do that through the court. At the time I didn't have any special instruction.

Q. I just want to make sure that you understand that that is the procedure. Do you now understand that is the procedure? I'm representingto you that it is when a guardian is appointed.

A. I am listening and I'm paying close attention.

Q. Do you understand that?

A. Yes.

Mr. Jaskowiak: Thank you, your honor.

The court: Anything else, Mr. Shelly?

Mr. Shelly: No.

The Court: Thank you, sir. you may step down.

The witness, me: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Is there anything else anyone wishes to present at this time?

Mr. Jaskowiak: No, your honor. We've submitted a proposed final decree. I have another copy here which has also been given to Mr. Shelly, it's the same thing.

The Court: You may submit that if you wish, and I will accept it at this time. However, I am going to take this matter under advisement and we'll be issuing a decree at a later time.

Mr. Jaskowiak: I appreciate that, your honor.

The Court: And I believe all the exhibits are in, but just to clarify, P-1 through P-5 are admitted into the record.

Mr. Jaskowiak: Thank you.

The Court: That concludes this matter.

------------------------

Now this is only a small segment of the transcript and for the purpose of clarity I did edit at a couple of spots...

To me this is quite the exchange of words, I would love to take the time to reveal all of the testimony but my point that I am required to follow proper court procedure, me a layman and after all as the transcript and proceeding is titled this is an Alleged Incapacitated Person. How incapacitated do you have to be in order to lose your rights as a citizen and the right to make decisions, if the notary didn't find my Grandmother so incapacitated, how about the restaurant owners and the people who witnessed us dining out?

To what degree does my Grandmother suffer and does depression being ruled by my stepmother have an effect upon my Grandmother. Has my stepmother emotionally abused my Grandmother by putting her in a nursing home and leaving my Grandmother there for a prolonged period of time. What about the lies that my stepmother has been telling to people?

The next day I went to my Grandmother's house where my stepmother called the police to have me removed for according to my stepmother I was trespassing. While talking to the police my stepmother spoke of how she wanted to kill me and could not be responsible for her actions if I was to enter into the house.

Before leaving the police officer asked me if I would object to my Grandmother being put in an Alzheimer's facility? I wonder why he felt the need to ask that simple question? How long until Rosie has my Grandmother once again put into a nursing home for the aged so that Rosie can acquire my Grandmother's estate?

What really bothers me is that Rosie has possession of the gun that my father used to commit suicide and she presented a note to me but instead of handing the note over to the police she thought only of obtaining the hand gun... Do I take the threat that Rosie could cause me physical harm seriously? I sent a letter to the Judge asking for a PFA (Protection From Abuse) the Judge C. Theodore Fritsch Jr. sent me a letter in response to my letter writing to me that my contact with him was inappropriate. So how do I make a request from the court if my contact with the court is inappropriate?

Here is the big problem for the Judge. The Honorable C. Theodore Fritsch, Jr., J. was once a prosecutor and prosecuted the case found at this link.

UJSPortal.PA Courts. US

What happens in this case is I am asked to plead guilty so that Richard Kramer gets less of a sentence. The lawyer providing my defense is William Roeger who actually helps Richard Kramer who happens to be the brother of a Ronald Kramer, I didn't know Ronald at the time, but later found out that Ronald who had lived near my Grandparents had actually committed a crime against my Grandparents tampering with their mail and hiding out on their property. Ronald was later sent to Graterford Prison on charges of assault.

What is key is that the Kramers are really nice people for the most of them. I am employed where Rich's brother and cousin worked and where his father had worked in management until Russ Sr. passed away from battling with cancer. Richie and George were not out to cause harm and get us into trouble, in that case I was guilty because of my association with them, they lied to me and convinced me that we had permission to be on the property that we were on and doing what it was that we were doing. I was so convinced that I managed to convince my friend Bill to join us. I bear the guilt of getting William into trouble.

Notice that all of this took place in Judge Ruth C. Dietrich's court room. The name of that Judge should sound familiar, she was the Judge that reprimanded Detective Randall Scott Floyd for his lying in her court room.

Is this a small world? I made a mistake by associating with the wrong people a long time ago and I fell into the trap of believing the lies that I was told. Now it seems that Judge C. Theodore Fritsch Jr. is also the victim of the same troubles and to boot it looks like I'm being punished 29 years after the fact for a crime that I repented of. The fact is that I paid my debts, fines and have this on my record but I really didn't do anything wrong, at the time we were not told to leave that property as the record indicates we were not defiantly trespassing, we were actually caught in a legal trap.

I would say that the information provided in this link:

MyLot Discussions Exposing Corruption in the Court System

Gives good cause for this Judge C. Theodore Fritsch Jr. to have recused himself from this matter.

I was worried in the November 25th court hearing that the lawyer supposedly working for my Grandmother was not working with me, and that he had a conflict of interest in her best interest by not working also with me. The lawyer Mr. Shelly his wife and my mother might be friends and they had to send my mother a letter to request my property be returned to me that she had removed from my house. Mr. Shelly then billed my wife for his services and would not help me any further. Many lawyers have refused to help me, I am very frustrated with the court system and the injustices that are covered up as innocent people are constantly getting hurt.

Back To: