The Compassionate Coalition

BUTTE'S GOT A RAT: KEITH MORRIS

This guy, KEITH MORRIS, thought he had defected from a
position as assistant D.A. in Crescent City, CA. For the
record, he was DEFECATED, rather. Seems he had written
one of his "briefs" in the course of a court proceeding. It
was pointed out that his work was so shoddy, incorrect,
without merit and full of deliberate malfeasance and lies,
(as the 2 LETTERS, below), that suicide should
have been his destiny. To save himself the embarrassment of
being fired, we suspect he engineered to leave
the area shortly after the 2 letters below were faxed to him at
the D.A.'s office in Crescent City. He neither sought to
correct himself nor apologize. Nearly a year later, his
lies, "work," are still floating in the court procedural
system, unchecked, as exhibits, brought
to no one's attention. Included, uncorrected, in ongoing
court documents and exhibits.
Morris is hell bent to destroy the innocent
and all people by these exhibits.
This is just to show you what this
rat WILL DO against the people. He speaks for no people, at no
time.
You don't need this rat, Butte,
rest assured. In any form, let alone as taking up another
D.A.'s position.

Re: People's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Gilligan.

LETTER 1: (faxed to Keith Morris, dep. D.A.)
To: Mr. Phillip Schafer
Date: Sept. 13, 2004
Re: People's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Gilligan;
CRM 04-7833; Part 1 of 2 exhibits:

Mr. Schafer:

We give consideration to all the following possibilities:

We've no doubt you pondered upon the Motion to Dismiss, Gilligan, with
Andy Stonefeld writing for Gilligan, and the People's Opposition to same,
Keith Morris writing for the D.A.

You may have wavered from time to time during ponder, as to
which direction the motion should attain.

It is not to our surprise that any waverance on your part resolved to
a pro-police stance; i.e., we guess your position as "Where in doubt,
certainly 'no harm' in going that way...."

We need to present you with the fact, that in the D.A.'s "People's Opposition to Motion
to Dismiss," in order to
effect and lure the anticipated waverance to his side, the D.A. has chosen to
boldly ensconce an outright, provable, can-not-be-in-dispute, lie, in what he
has written to you.
Please note on his page 6, two quotes: 1."...fit of anger...." and 2.
"...Defendant became enraged when a police officer did his job
and cited defendant. This led directly to the post...."

As you read the whole of the D.A.'s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, coming across
these 2 quotes, above, in context, you at once see the D.A. has
chosen to mislead you 100% on the facts. There is no other way to
read what he wrote than that he is attempting to transmit to you,
an investigative court body, the exact opposite of the truth. The truth is there has never
been a parking ticket or ticket of any kind associated with this entire case. Mr. Gilligan
has lived in Crescent City for 15 years and never gotten a single ticket or
threat of same. Additionally, Crescent City has not had a $5.00 parking ticket
for at least a decade, precluding no such instrument could possibly even have
been issued! (Note: He leaves out the "$5.00" exhibit when talking to you
to further dull obvious questions by you that might arise were you to see this.)
If he imagines it would serve his position better to lie, one can precisely show how. He
has chosen, or simply created, for whatever reason, to mislead you, and it has
2 important consequences to this case:

1. That he chooses to lie.

2. That, could he be accorded his lie, it would suggest, (what we presume he
is trying to falsely portray here to 'bolster' his side) that this (Gilligan) was a
bitter man, a real case of enrage, a real
threat, one of those caught by the system for not examining the other
avenues after "feeling unfairly cited"--who now has to suffer the
consequences (a feigned, counterfeit, sadistic, "too bad that's life," from the D.A., here).
Unfortunately, nothing could farther from the truth. Gilliganl was
in no wise mad, has faxed to Plack since many months ago that his post, among several
other extremely benign considerations, expressed his
lampooning of the processes of deputization. Such lampooning, however read,
though appearing boisterous to some, should be allowable under the 1st amendment.

Apparently, the D.A. would find it more effective, and have you fall prey to same, to lie
for his side at this point.

If catching him in same, we hereby move for complete dismissal.
END LETTER 1
++++++++++++++++++++++
LETTER 2: (faxed to Keith Morris, dep. D.A.)

To: Mr. Phillip Schafer
Date: Sept. 13, 2004
Re: People's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Gilligan;
CRM 04-7833; Part 2 of 2 exhibits:

Mr. Schafer:

OK, so let's take a look at the D.A. maybe coming back to you
on the substance I described in Part 1 of 2 exhibits, saying, "I
just didn't know there wasn't a ticket. I thought there was. Sorry."

We would like to point out, were this what he, the D.A., comes to say or now
do when confronted with Part 1, there should, the same, we will show,
absolutely be no forgivable 'innocence' as pertains
to his affecting Mr. Gilligan's situation and time per his 2 quotes on pg. 6 of
his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.... We will show that were this
statement ("I didn't know") to now be his stance, we post the
following evidence as to the irreparable harm to Mr. Gilligan this has caused,
and that his indicating now he "is hiding behind that moment of ineptitude we all
have" should in no wise be allowed in his case:

Your Honor, in this case we believe that an unheard of huge, hugely substantial
quantity of deprivation of Gilligan's rights has gone forth. Gilligan
indicates that prosecution has wallowed upon Mr. Gilligan's quiet and lengthy suffering
for nearly *1/2 of a year, clearly refusing to peruse
evidence that Gilligan submitted respectfully
to the D.A., delivering same in person, directly within about 2 weeks past April 8, 2004,
and in good faith that his evidence would be viewed, and that by doing such, Mr. Gilligan
could continue shortly with his life and his stock's trading. As turn-turn, rather, the D.A. has
preferred Mr. Gilligan's life damned, acting out his command
as an utterly repulsive brute, an earless, deaf, wrecking gorilla in D.A.'s costume let daily
loose in Gilligan's soul. Gilligan's new sunrise in the months that ensued after arrest became
very readily and visibly an immovable wall of smirking denial designed to make one just weep
at injustice. You see, by the D.A.'s utterance of "knowledge
of a citation involved," where this is not an established lie
we have already suggested as possible in Part 1, the D.A. is SHOWING HE REFUSED TO
LOOK AT ANY OF Gilligan'S SUBMISSION, and chosen willfully to trample upon Gilligan's
rights, and right to be heard which Gilligan sought in good faith, trampling utterly without
mercy. This may in part be due to the interest of
his client, Plack, with whom he may seek
the expected favors, or is fastened to imbroglio in
a kind of silent cohort/coworker trust of sorts, for
similar. It is now mid-September. One of these
"deposition/affidavit" items of evidence Gilligan submitted within about 2
weeks past April 8, 2004, was entitled "Sammy J.
Speaks for Author." In it is a careful expose of the indisputable fact
that THERE WAS NEVER AN ACTUAL CITATION, NOR EVER SUCH ANIMAL AS A
$5 PARKING TICKET ASSOCIATED WITH CRESCENT CITY.
Below are excerpts from "Sammy J....":

"...author had thoughtfully constructed his post somewhere in the
unreal dimension, virtual, by throwing that
$5 parking ticket thing into the mix. There hasn't been a $5 parking ticket
in Crescent City since maybe the early '90's or even earlier! The lowest
parking ticket you can find is for
around $25 in these times in Crescent City....{author did not incur such, therefore}"

"...The $5 thing
is a dead giveaway; the author can't
be "worked up" by something that doesn't exist!
And the cops knew the $5 ticket didn't exist; in fact,
they knew Mr. Gilligan didn't have ANY parking tickets....{author did not incur any
parking tickets, nor has he ever in his 15 years in Crescent City}"

In addition to twice having made the facts clear, as above, 5 cassettes tapes
were given to the D.A. at the same time, which, in several instances throughout,
carefully draw attention to the same thing as
the Sammy J. excerpts, above. All in all, THE D.A. WAS, THEREFORE,
INSTRUCTED AS TO THE EVIDENCE POSSIBLY 4 TO 6 FULL TIMES ON THE FACTS
THAT THERE EXISTED NO ACTUAL CITATION WHATSOEVER
associated with the case. Also, that
Crescent City parking fee schedules have no such animal for the past decade,
minimally.

Mr. Schafer, whether he attempts to hide behind
contentions of his ineptness or not, the resulting occurrence is still the
same as in Part 1, in that he factually misleads you in his brief. He has mislead
you therefore, and it has 3 important consequences to this case:

1. That he is oblivious-by-design to submission of affidavits and evidence
submitted in good faith as described herein, Part 2, submitted now nearly *half
a year ago, resulting in his making
espousements even *1/2 year later that are opposite of the truth, effecting lengthy
and tortuous denials and obstructions to the right to be heard. There could be
no greater mock of reasoning justice than his ignore of evidence and affidavits
submitted in good faith.

2. That such as in number 1, above, has usurped and destroyed *1/2 of a
year of grey Gilligan's agingly precious time, had he but
taken the trouble to look at the evidence and affidavits
submitted. For, obviously, had he taken the trouble to understand
there wasn't a ticket anywhere in the picture, he would not be attempting
in his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss to convey his
apparent major 'reasoning,' contention, or 'central theme'
that this web post was "a real threat 'shoot out' ." In fact, nothing was farther from the
truth, and we see him just shutting his eyes, for *6 months now, to all of it. It was nothing of
the sort, and a brief description in Part 1 evinces the post as a lampoon of the processes of
deputization, among other things.

3. Had he not deceived himself, by either lying or unacceptable extreme ineptitude,
costing Gilligan his stock's, world market trading PC tower decapitated for *1/2 year
now, also deceiving or attempting to deceive others along/down with him, this case
might have been resolvable long ago.

We feel his refusal to look at presented evidence continuously for *6 months,
submitted in good faith nearly *half a year ago by now, to have about
the same intent, force and effect, as lying.

In any case, we find his behavior, should he cite ineptitude or "innocence of omission," as
in Part 2, described herein, not acceptable to reasoning
justice, or human rights, and move for dismissal.

(Additionally, in the court's discretion, we posit the following consideration:
If it please the court, it may
produce a warrant for the seizure of, or a true copy
of, the "Sammy J. Speaks for Author" from
the offices of the D.A., which relevancy may become ultimately
proprietary and clear, as exhibits, in this protest of severe, ongoing rights
violations against Gilligan by the D.A. This document may potentially be discoverable
with stamps/dates associated with prosecution's offices. It should seem reasonable
that per insights I am evincing, D.A. might wish to destroy same document. In the
interest of justice, I ask, in the interest of the case, that the court consider
to avoid that possibility.)

(At this point we would like to note also that we would neither find it admissible that the
D.A. could cite his own "extreme slovenliness in phraseology" as an excuse. For 5
reasons we note that his "phraseology" "just happened" to coincide in describing
evidence to a judge, and, THAT, it "just happened" to match all that his client, Plack, would
prefer, AND, that it "just happened" to be the exact opposite of the truth, AND that it "just
happened" to have been stated succinctly (as a lie or mislead), without other slovenliness
evinced in and about his 2 quotes on page 6--i.e., without other syntax and grammatical
slurs nearby that might give some credibility to his contending "slovenliness." We believe he was
willing, and has been of this obstruction-to-justice mind all along, to risk a lie for his client, Plack.
The 5th reason is that the likelihood of making the phraseology error TWICE on the same
page, but grammar and syntax being yet correct nearby, (while professing,
were he to, his own rampant slovenliness) is next to none. Probably 1 in
10 trillion.

A further note on the lie possibility: Where one might become satisfied that the D.A. told a
lie, we would offer to guess his motive to surround deciding to throw a monkey wrench in the judicial
gearbox, to "f--- Gilligan up," waste the court's time, a last minute/ditch decision to throw it in
because it began to visibly loom that the original post, "Chris, Elks Lodge," was allowable
under the 1st amendment. We guess, further his motive,
he is "well bent" (from "hell bent") to strive for respect
and limelight from a chief, wanting to appear as a pro-police sort, regardless that a lie would
trample on Gilligan in that quest. If, when throwing in his lie he had some notion he could
"mumble his way out of it later, if necessary," or that defense might lack the energy to chase
down assaults of this sort, we believe we have the D.A. well cornered in Part 1 and Part 2, and
that won't be found possible for him. Unfortunately for him, our electron
microscopes were up and running, and we view his
statements, with quotes, from every angle, and analyze it to comprise a type of "malicious mischief"
designed to promote disorder to a judicial body, (whether a lie,
Part 1, or extreme malfeasance which is primarily described
in Part 2), especially designed to trample on the rights of the defendant. We summate our
guess further as to his motive, suggesting he is attempting to promote a kind of pro-police-brag
to the chief, with whom he courts respect and favor, without regard to the means, the interest
of justice, or tortuous cost to the defendant.

TO SUMMATE BOTH LETTERS:
IT IS BLATANTLY APPARENT, SIR, FROM WHAT HE WROTE, THIS BEING
THE CRUX UNDERSTANDING TO ALL DISCUSSED NOW IN LETTERS 1 AND 2, THAT HE
EITHER THINKS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH AND EVIDENCE, AND SUCH WOULD BE
PRECISELY DUE TO HIS EXTREME MALFEASANCE DESCRIBED IN PART 2, OR HE IS LYING, AS
DISCUSSED IN PART 1.

Mr. Schafer, we believe we have the D.A. cornered on all points to the matter
discussed. He risked that we would overlook it, or tested us and the court on his
ability or "right" to lie or obstruct justice, and that's just too bad that he's been
blatantly caught. We don't see this behavior as anything we should have to
tolerate and move for dismissal.
END LETTER 2

footnotes:
*running now into 2 years as this is finally being sent to the
Appeal Panel, Del Norte, in June, 2005.
_______________
I might suggest, Butte, getting your new rat some gopher
gassers--one in each ear and up his nostril, too. Or whatever
works.