American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago.

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho! what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain,” quoth he;

“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

We View Death Penalty Problems and Solutions Differently, Depending upon Our Experiences, Incentives and Views

Furman v. Georgia eliminated the single phase trial in death penalty cases and planted the seeds for bifurcated trials

Gregg v. Georgia sanctioned bifurcated trials in death penalty cases

If we read the case law, we clearly understand that death penalty trials are bifurcated with one phase on the merits of guilt or innocence and the other phase on punishment.

The trials before Furman v. Georgia were unified, the trials post Furman are divided into two segments; however the life or death decision making process is still unified and must be litigated in an integrated fashion. Life or Death decisions are generally made during the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, while the legal fiction is that these decisions are reserved for the second phase of the trial.

The process which determines if someone lives or dies for the degree of deviant conduct that the individual commits most realistically begins at their birth.

Counsel for the Accused is Highly Relevant in the Death Decision Making Process

The Method of Compensation for and Selection of Counsel Determines Many Factors

The Economic Models of Representation

The economic models of representation can be broken down into the following designations.

   The Privately Engaged Attorney
   The Court Appointed Attorney
   The Public Defender Provided Attorney
   Private Interest Provided Attorney

Each of the descriptive categories in the Economic models of representation present constitutional problems that pose threats to justice and equality. Without a detailed explanation of the variation on each of these categories, we will briefly identify the scope of these classifications.

The Privately Engaged Attorney    This once predominate method of compensation of attorneys has almost fallen into obscurity in major cases involving violent crimes. The cost of engaging competent private counsel is out of financial reach for most persons in the criminal justice system. Persons with relatively small amounts of financial resources usually attempt to engage attorneys who offer representation at an affordable price. Often the services provided by this type of attorney are in keeping with the cheap price. Naturally, persons with good judgment in engaging counsel and adequate financial resources step to the head of the line when justice is administered. Often privately engaged counsel are not compensated adequately to engage in a sustained attack on the fairness of the entire criminal justice process.

The Court Appointed Attorney    Attorneys obtained thought this method of compensation vary greatly as to both competency and commitment to the accused person. When the government selects the attorney who is to determine if the government is providing a fair tribunal or if the government is only providing an arena for a bullfight, there are immense constitutional problems. What happens to the attorney that attacks the government? Does the attorney receive full compensation for the time spent on the attack?

The Public Defender Provided Attorney    Many dedicated attorneys work as public defenders. Do these attorneys work with a glass ceiling over the attacks that they are permitted to make against the process of the government?

Private Interest Provided Attorney    Many private interest organizations provide invaluable services to persons who could not have good representation otherwise. Like all of the various economic models, this model has a great potential for a conflict with the best interest of the client.

By identifying these economic models, we identify a myriad of conflict of interest issues that are not adequately corrected in the criminal justice process. Are these conflict of interest issues being litigated, or is the economic interest and absence of understanding of the conflict issue of attorneys deterring this type of litigation?

Some persons involved in death penalty defense are attached to public defender offices, some work with or as appointed counsel, some work with or as pro bona counsel and occasionally some work with with or are privately compensated counsel.

We are all in this together

The Client is due the ultimate commitment

Toughest Challenge in Death Penalty Representation is Often Funding the Litigation

Tennessee's Rule 13 Compensation is Draconian for Private Counsel

There is also a draconian difference in the funding and staffing of the various public defender offices throughout the State of Tennessee. This often occurs with local supplements to some offices. The issue of adequate funding and the draconian consequences of Rule 13 is ripe for litigation in every forum possible, as many times as necessary to change these constitutional violations.

Tools for Enhancing Your Skills

Click Here to Hear Tom Lehrer's Song about "Research"

Note, you must have Media Player to hear this. The relevant words are as follows.

Plagiarize! Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

Dealing with Documents, i.e. Getting Organized to Rescue Time for the Real Necessities

File and Document Numbering System ― Example a41008

File Folders

Contacts

Letters

Timeline

Inserting Hyperlinks and Bookmarks in Documents

Bates Numbering of Documents

Programs that Electronically Bates Number

Searching for In-house Documents

In an organized office the cheapest and best search tools are the free search engines in Windows XP. This XP search engine can be modified to also include words within PDF files, if you do not wish to use the Adobe search for words within PDF files. Office also has a search feature. In a helter-skelter office it may be necessary to purchase expensive proprietary search engines, which are great, but expensive. Google sells an expensive private search engine for large offices, a comprehensive list of other proprietary search engines is here. A small helter-skelter office might try one of the following relatively cheap search engine. WizDoc

Sharing Word Documents - Remember to remove, “Hidden Data”

Paragraph Heading to Summarize Content

Paragraph Numbering System

See the Index that follows for a numbering system example and Index example

Example of the Summary Type of Index

INDEX

Preface

1. Factual Analysis

1.1 Summary of Facts

1.2 The [CLIENT]'s Case

1.3 [CLIENT'S COUNSEL] Began Representing [CLIENT]

1.4 [CLIENT'S COUNSEL] Filed A Motion To Withdraw

1.5 After the Hearing on the Plea Withdrawal, the Court Began A

Secreted, Ex Parte Investigation

1.6 [CLIENT'S COUNSEL] Next Appeared Before the Court With

[CLIENT], Expecting a a Ruling On His Motion

1.7 [CLIENT'S COUNSEL] Was Held In Contempt

1.8 [CLIENT'S COUNSEL] Had No Opportunity For A Hearing On

His Contempt and Was Not Afforded and the Contempt Finding

Was Otherwise Devoid of Protections Afforded by the Local

Rules, the State Statutes and both the State and Federal

Constitutions

2. The Legal Issues

2.1 Sources of Applicable Legal Standards in General in Contempt

Adjudications

2.1.1 Overview of these General Legal Standards

2.1.2 The Local Rule Controlling Contempt Adjudications

2.2 Contempt Adjudication Issues Relevant to this Case

2.2.1 The Indirect, Direct and Summary Contempt Issue

2.2.1.1 Rule of Practice 13.01

2.2.1.2 Illinois Law

2.2.1.3 The U. S. Constitution

2.2.1.4 The Prosecution Should Admit or Deny the Following

2.2.2 The Absence of Notice Issue

2.2.2.1 Rule of Practice 13.00

2.2.2.2 Illinois Law

2.2.2.3 The U. S. Constitution

2.2.2.4 The Prosecution Should Admit or Deny

2.2.3 The Hearing Issue

2.2.3.1 Rule of Practice 13.01

2.2.3.2 Illinois Law

2.2.3.3 The U. S. Constitution

2.2.4 The Issue of a Jury Trial

2.2.4.1 Rule of Practice

2.2.4.2 The U. S. Constitution

2.2.4.3 The Prosecution Should Admit or Deny.

2.2.5 The Excessive, Unjustified and Unauthorized Punishment Issue

2.2.6 The Selective Prosecution, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Issue

2.2.7 A Constitutional, Statutory and Commonsensical Analysis of the

Alleged Contemptuous Act.

2.2.8 The Independent Adjudicator and Judicial Misconduct Issue

2.2.8.1 The Ex Parte Hearing Reason for Another Judge

2.2.8.2 The Bias or Prejudice Reason for Another Judge

2.2.8.3 The Rule of Practice 13.01(c)(4) Reason for Another Judge

2.2.9 The Prosecutorial Misconduct Issue

2.3 The Duty and Obligation to Disclosure

2.3.1 The Constitutional Duty to Disclose

2.3.2 Statutory Duty to Disclose

2.3.3 Ethical and Expediency Reasons to Disclose

2.4 The Timely Need for and Use of the Disclosure Materials

2.4.1 Pre-briefing Disclosure Is Necessary

2.4.2 The Disclosure Material Could Be Used For

Impeachment

2.4.3 The Required Scope of Disclosure

2.4.3.1 Definitions and Directions

2.4.3.2 The Following Persons Have Information And

Therefore Are Covered By This Disclosure

Request

2.4.3.3 The Information that is Needed to be Disclosed

2.4.3.3.1 Materiality of Disclosure Demand

2.4.3.3.2 Disclosure Demand Relating to Possible Misconduct

2.4.3.4 The Method to be Used in Obtaining Disclosure from

Judge [Circuit Judge]

3. Conclusion

Prayer for Relief

ATTACHMENTS [Note: All Attachments are omitted from this Example]

Attachment 1 [Client's Counsel]`s Motion [filed earlier]

Attachment 2 Report of Dr. [________]

Attachment 3 Transcript of Guilty Plea

Attachment 4 Copy of Sentencing Transcript

Attachment 5 The following documents

• Notice of Appearance;

• Notice of Filing;

• Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal In Order To Hear[CLIENT]'s Fitness Petition;

• Motion to Stay Mittimus Pending Disposition of [CLIENT]'s Fitness Petition;

• Affidavit of [CLIENT's mother];

• Motion for Fitness Hearing;

• Notice of Motion;

• Order Staying the Mittimus;

• Notice of Mittimus;

• Affidavit of ____________;

• Motion to Attach Affidavit of __________ to Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea;

• Memorandum of ____________;

• Affidavit of ____________;

• Notice of Motion;

• Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty; and,

• Certificate of ___________.

Include Dragnet Treatment

Use Concentric Circle Concept

It is relevant that you understand Banks (Banks v. Dretke 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1621, 124 S. Ct. 1256; 157 L. Ed. 2d 1166;72) and the questions left open in Banks

It is relevant that you understand Crawford (Crawford v. Washington 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838,124 S. Ct. 1354) where Justice Scallia opines that Confrontation is necessary for reliability

It is relevant that you understand Baldwin (Baldwin v. Reese 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1835,124 S. Ct. 1347; 158 L. Ed. 2d 64) where Justice Breyer opined for the Court that the state courts did not have a fair opportunity to assess respondent's federal claim. A state prisoner must exhaust available state remedies.

HIPAA Motion HIPAA Order Article Explaining HIPAA Issues

Sources

Electronic Access to Court Records (Trend)

PACER (Federal Courts)

LexisNexis CourtLink

Tennessee (TACDL) 2002 Seminar

Lexis One (Free, All Jurisdictions, for last 5 years)

Ninth Circuit Capital Punishment Handbook

Cornell Death Penalty Resources

Capital Defense Network

Death Penalty Information Center

Website of Frank Einstein, a mitigation expert

Software for documenting genealogy for use in mitigation GenoPro

Helpful Web Services

GoToMyPC for a 60 minutes free trial, within 45 days, click the Radio Listener tab on right side of webpage and enter WSB in the blank box or enter Neal

MyDocsOnline This is a web based document sharing system

Reasonably Priced Internet Hosts

Suggestion One

Suggestion Two

VoIP

Vonage http://www.vonage.com/

Helpful Newsletters about Computer Issues

Subscribe to the Langa List newsletter (free)

WOODY's OFFICE WATCH (free, also consider his other free letters)

Karen (Free tools plus newsletter by best computer writer)

Scot's Newsletter

Computer Equipment How to purchase quality equipment at the best price

Scanners

OCR Software

FoxIt (Free PDF Fast Reader)

Selling Cotton Candy Under the Big Top

Supreme Court Practice

Certiorari

Strategic Subpoenas

Without presenting evidence, there can be no Action MotionsY2K5. The strategic subpoena is one of the ignition systems necessary for Action Motions Y2K9. Catchy titles for motions, innovative subject matter for motions and even favorable publicity cannot assure the proper ignition for Action Motions Y2K9.

The strategic subpoena begins to tell the story and accomplish the goals. An important element of the strategic subpoena is the production of documents portion of the subpoena.

An example of a request for documents is the following request used in a post-conviction hearing.

ITEMIZED ITEMS SUBPOENAED

1. All documents relating to the televised CNN Presents segment, “Amazing Grace.” This segment was recorded, in part, in the residence of xxxx on or about February 28, 1994 and was first broadcast on April 9, 1995.

2. All documents relating to Court TV's involvement in the trial of xxxx. These include interviews and segments in which you appeared or were depicted between April 7, 1993 and the present.

3. All documents relating to the WSB-TV newscast which showed you strutting (walking in an animated manner with exaggerated movements of upper and lower extremities) down the hall of the Fulton County Courthouse very soon after the verdict in the trial of xxxx.

4. All documents relating to other TV broadcasts, between April 7, 1993 and the present, in which you appeared or were depicted.

5. All documents in which you appeared and/or were recorded and/or were depicted or described relating to or appearing in radio broadcasts and/or audio recordings, between April 7, 1993 and the present.

6. All documents in which you appeared or were depicted relating to or appearing in newsprint or other print media, between April 7, 1993 and the present.

7. All documents relating to legal seminars or oral presentations, between April 7, 1993 and the present, in which you participated or presented information.

8. All documents concerning any communications between you and xx or concerning xx, including, but not limited to, any interactions between you and xx between April 7, 1993 and the present.

9. All documents concerning any communications between you and xx or concerning xx, including, but not limited to, any interactions between you and xx between April 7, 1993 and the present.

10. All documents concerning any communications between you and xx or concerning xx, including, but not limited to, any interactions between you and xx between April 7, 1993 and the present.

11. All documents concerning personal funds supplied by you to assist in the investigation and/or prosecution of xxxx.

12. All documents concerning funds and/or services provided by other than governmental entities for the prosecution and/or investigation of xxxx or any facts relating to the fire at the residence of xxxx.

13. All documents received by you from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation or other law enforcement agencies relating to the case of State of Georgia v. xxxx.

14. All documents concerning information relating to the date of any test for accelerants in the residence of xxxx and the date of receipt by the office of the District Attorney of Fulton County of the report for any tests relating to these accelerants.

15. All documents concerning any compensation, reward or benefit which was provided any persons testifying at the trial of xxxx.

16. All documents concerning any compensation, reward or benefit provided to any person related to the case of State of Georgia v. xxxx.

17. All documents concerning the supposed “beatings” Ms. xxxx received at the hands of Mr. xxxx.

18. All documents concerning other cases on which you worked between the night of April 7, 1993 and the day of closing arguments in the case of State of Georgia v. xxxx.

19. Copy of your W-2, W-4 and 1099 forms and federal income tax returns for the past four years.

20. All documents reflecting gifts, contributions, or donations, rewards or awards you have received from April 7, 1993 until the present excepting only gifts from persons related to you by blood or marriage within the 7th Levitical degree.

21. All documents reflecting gifts, contributions, or donations, rewards or awards you have made from April 7, 1993 until the present excepting only gifts given to persons related to you by blood or marriage within the 7th Levitical degree.

22. All documents reflecting terms of compensation to you by any entities other than the office of the District Attorney of Fulton County from April 7, 1993 to the present.

23. All documents relating to any complaints about your conduct as an attorney or about your conduct as a prosecutor in any case during the time you have been employed by the office of the District Attorney of Fulton County.

24. All documents relating to any application you have made seeking any judicial position during the time you have been employed by the office of the District Attorney of Fulton County.

25. All documents relating to any application you have made seeking employment within the last five years, including, but not limited to, employment at Georgia State University.

26. All documents related to classes you have taught or are currently teaching at Georgia State University. This includes, but is not limited to, lesson plans, course materials, and lecture documents.

27. All documents you have written about the case of xxxx that are not a part of the official record of this case.

28. All documents related to written or oral communication with persons who testified during the trial of the case of State of Georgia v. xxxx from April 7, 1993 to the present.

29. All documents related to written or oral communication with persons about xxxx since April 7, 1993 to the present.

30. All documents that relate to any justification for you questioning Dr. Joseph Burton about being called “Lying Joe Burton.”

31. All documents relating to any persons entering the residence of xxxx from April 7, 1993 to the present.

32. All documents depicting any view of the scene of the residence of xxxx from April 7, 1993 to the present.

33. All documents depicting any view or reflecting any test, test results, experiment or simulation that in any way relate to the case of the State of Georgia v. xxxx or the fire at the residence of xxxx, including, but not limited to, the video made during the presence of the CNN crew at the residence of xxxxand the test by xx made before the trial of xxxx of the Neat-Lac burning against a board.

The strategic subpoena is most often accompanied with the following attachment that demonstrates to the court the courtesy you are extending to the witness. The following is an example of this type of attachment.

ATTACHMENT 1 to Subpoena

NOTE: Counsel for xxxx are coordinating the subpoenas and documents subpoenaed for the hearing in this case scheduled to begin Thursday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. through the office of Millard Farmer, P.O. Box 1728, Atlanta, GA 30301, telephone (404) 688-8116; fax: (404) 577-0643. Someone at this office will be available to discuss your attendance and your production of documents pursuant to this subpoena. Please inform the person answering the phone that you wish to talk with someone about your subpoena for this case. There will be someone available from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons who are subpoenaed are requested to call as soon as possible with scheduling or document production problems. The purpose of these calls is to arrange for a schedule, not only for attendance, but also a time to produce the subpoenaed documents. The same documents, in some instances, have been subpoenaed from more than one witness. It is not intended that each witness be burdened with production of the documents or items subpoenaed if there can be an agreement as to the person who will supply the document or item subpoenaed. Persons who wish to be on call for attendance may make this request and everything possible will be done to accommodate both personal and professional obligations and schedules. Please note the time and date on your subpoena; not everyone is subpoenaed for the same time and date. Please call as soon as practical or have your counsel call promptly so that this hearing can be facilitated without a number of people being inconvenienced by last day and hour requests for accommodations. It will be difficult to adjust the scheduled time for your appearance close to the hearing date. Please call promptly for the convenience of all involved; however, please understand this requested call is not required by the court.

The strategic subpoena is accompanied by a list of descriptions much the same as descriptions used in notices to produce documents in civil cases. An example of this attachment of descriptions is as follows.

ATTACHMENT 2 To Subpoena

DEFINITIONS RELATING TO SUBPOENAED ITEMS

The following definitions are an integral part of these requests for documents and are applicable throughout this request.

"Document", either singular or plural, is defined as any and all originals, or if not available, true copies of all memorandum, reports, appraisals, evaluations, correspondence, receipts, payment vouchers, accounting records and books, communications, interoffice communications, intra-office memorandum, inter-agency communications, electronic recordings including computer generated and/or preserved recordings, video recordings, audio recordings, summaries of conversations, summaries of memorandum of meetings or conferences, list of persons attending meetings or conferences, diaries, records or summaries of interviews, investigation or reports, summaries of negotiations, agreements, contracts, agency rules, agency policies, office manuals, invoices, canceled checks, journals, ledgers, file cards, index cards, indices, deposit slips, data processing cards, computer or business machine printouts, electronic recordings, work papers, statements, financial statements whether audited or unaudited, leases, speeches, information provided to the media, press releases, advertisements, pamphlets, circulars, professional letters, annual and other reports, documents filed with government agencies, reports of experts and research personnel, draft and preliminary copies of any of the foregoing, marginal comments appearing in any document and all other writings and data compilations, including any written, printed, recorded or graphic matter, photographic matter or similar reproductions, however produced or reproduced or tangible things upon which words or phrases are affixed.

The effective use of subpoenas in litigation is a little used skill. The requirement to bring documents aspect of the subpoena should be written much as the concentric statements concept in Action Motions Y2K9.

In fact, the subpoena should be a modified motion. It should command the person being subpoenaed to bring numerous items with him/her to the Action Motions Y2K9 hearing to be used as Energized Evidence.

Defusing the Political Benefits of Dispositional Unfairness to the Prosecutor and Judge, with Representation Skills

Civil Litigation in Support of Leveling the Forum Used in the Defense to Criminal Charges

Remember, it was those who stayed out of the ring in the coliseum that were not eaten by the lions in ancient Rome.

Taking the Power

Using the Web, as a Defense Tool

Martha Stewart Utilized the Web in Her Defense

Draper v. Reynolds Docket for 04-443

No. 04-443 Title: Stacy Allen Draper, Petitioner v. Clinton D. Reynolds Docketed: September 29, 2004 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.: (03-14745) Decision Date: May 17, 2004 Rehearing Denied: July 6,

Click Here to View the Video of Stacy Allen Draper being shot with a Taser

This video is stored on the web by Streamhoster, one of the few reasonable priced host for streaming video.

Excerpts from a State Court Motion to Dismiss follows.

A Simplistically Stated Narrative of the Pretextual Tag Light Violation Arrest Follows

Before reading further, everyone should view the video tape. If you do not have a copy, call the lawyer for Stacy Allen Draper at (404) 688-8116 and you can obtain a copy.

Graylin C. Ward, an Attorney at Law in Newnan, did the early investigative and legal work for Stacy Allen Draper. He strongly supports Stacy Allen Draper. Graylin C. Ward obtained a copy of the video tape that is also available for viewing at his law office in Newnan, GA. (770) 251-1289.

The video tape shows the abusive conduct of this Tag Light Enforcing Coweta Sheriff (or, “C. S.”) in dealing with the apprehension of an African American person who was an out-of-state truck driver. Deputy Sheriff Clinton D. Reynolds, long after Stacy Allen Draper had been electrically shot and physically abused, concocted the pretense that Stacy Allen Draper was a tag light violator.

Like most simplistic narratives, each description in this section is not intended to be taken literally, but this section is intended as crib notes, or maybe a light, comical short story version of a book from the Dummies Series entitled, “Understanding the Apprehension of African American Out-of-State Truck Drivers for Dummies (Using the Pretense that They are Tag Light Violators)”.

This section hopefully with be helpful to understanding what happened on the night that Stacy Allen Draper was initially cursed, later electrically shot, physically abused and mistreated by the Sheriff’s Department of Coweta County as he was apprehended using the pretense that the trailer owned by Texas Express had a tag light violation.

It is difficult to understand how any law enforcement officer could be as low down, gutless, prejudicial and chicken as the crew of rouges from the Sheriff’s Department of Coweta County that arrested Stacy Allen Draper on the night of July 19, 2001. The plot of this arrest is based upon the fact that the apprehension was made under the pretense that the truck driver had a tag light violation. This performance stars a real C. S. and his trusted assistant, Deputy Story (or, “Bull”).

On a dark, hot night in July of 2001, the pistons in the diesels running 85 heading north were all red, in a glow.

The engines were hot as the truckers were skeeting their pistons with a mighty flow.

The crank shafts and the twin screws were accepting the call, and off to markets the rigs did go.

Like a witch on a stick, in kakhi pants and black top, C. S. sits in his cruiser dreaming of a stop, but hoping for more.

C. S. is all pumped for excitement, as the evening has been slow.

The ego and evil motives of C. S. require that he have more.

Hungry for excitement, C. S. conjures up thoughts that in every rig, there dwells a desperado.

The excitement of his Game Boy was not enough for C. S.; he needed more.

C. S. had strapped on his leg more toys that cost the County a lot of dough.

The High Sheriff supplies the high priced toys for his Costumed Crews, who everyone knows are decorated with hardware that the High Sheriff does adore.

These crews don’t a have dispute resolutions skills in their head and use these high priced attack weapon toys in these skills’ stead, ’cause, with their psychological deficiencies, they can’t do more.

With visions of high tech M26 Air Taser guns all dancing in his vacuous head,

the goal of C. S. is all set.

That C. S. can create some excitement with his high powered electrified toy is a good bet.!

Without a good head whopping or strong electric shocking during the night

C. S. will go home feeling all psychologically deprived and stove up with fright,

’cause C. S. must exert force or he feels that he has failed to show his mighty might.

With midnight approaching, C. S. knows the dispatcher’s announcement of last call nears.

It’s the loss of his Rambo reputation that C. S. dearly fears.

“Targets up, Tarrrr getttss upppp!”-- an African American truck driver nears.

Maybe this one will have an out-of-state tag.

With a Texas Tag in view, C. S. knew that this would be an easy one to snag.

Goose this cruiser and let’s get on the go,

The message ran across the marquee of an empty theater in which,

C. S.’s brain was once in sto’.

Let’s go! Petal to the metal, let the cruiser tires all squall,

There’s the pretense of a tag light violation that is about to kill all.

C. S. tells his cohorts that the chase is about to begin.

About C. S.’s crazy conduct even his equally dumb friends all wondered,

will [this] C. S’s crazy conduct ne’er end?

In retrospect, we all know C. S.’s conduct will not change until he does time in a Federal Pen.

The abuse of this good citizen, and C. S’s tampering with the Interstate bill of lading by taking it to his home, just might get C. S. a ticket that will allow a federal investigation to begin.

For those with a brain, as C. S. pursued the tag light violator, their eyes did roll[1].

Without some excitement, C. S. can’t allow the evening to fold.

These scribes must go; ‘cause to describe all the whopping, bopping, shocking and electric shooting by C. S. as observed by Bull, the poetry will not flow.

For sure, there is more, as previous readers of these scribes all know;

so now to a retired, third grade “My Weekly Reader” writer, we must go.

There is one more reason these scribes must now take a rest,

‘cause even though they have given it their best,

they well know they are not and never will be poets;

and many paragraphs before now, all else did know it.

As this, “My Weekly Reader”, writer picks up the story, we are on Interstate Highway 85, with Deputy Sheriff Clinton D. Reynolds beginning his pursuit of Stacy Allen Draper’s Tractor Trailer, which is headed north.

Stacy Allen Draper, on the evening of July 19, 2001 was driving a tractor belong to him and leased to Texas Express.

Stacy Allen Draper was pulling a trailer that belonged to Texas Express under a contract that he had with Texas Express.

The tractor trailer rig of Stacy Allen Draper had about forty-two lights, all of which were burning at the time he was stopped by C. S.

C. S. was looking for an excuse to stop a truck with an out-of-state tag driven by an African American person.

C. S. once heard in law enforcement kindergarten, where he later mentally dropped out of school, that out-of-state trucks carry illegal drugs.

C. S., who early in his law enforcement career, decided that he must be in a war against African American trucks drivers from Texas, flashed his blue lights at the truck driven by Stacy Allen Draper, and this law abiding trucker pulled to the side of the road.

C. S. went to right side of the truck and shined his bright flashlight in the eyes of Stacy Allen Draper, who was attempting to gather his documents.

Stacy Allen Draper, acting within his constitutional rights, told C. S. to quit shining his bright light in his eyes. At this point C. S. began to violently cuss Stacy Allen Draper. C. S. did not just cuss, but he used his profanity to insult Stacy Allen Draper in the worst ways imaginable.

C. S. continued throughout the entire detention process to use his bright flashlight to harass Stacy Allen Draper.

C. S., in loudly shouted words laced with profanity, told Stacy Allen Draper to get out of his truck and come to the rear of the trailer.

C. S. never at any time told Stacy Allen Draper the reason for the stop.

Stacy Allen Draper repeatedly informed C. S. that he was doing nothing wrong and that he felt C. S. had stopped him to harass him.

Stacy Allen Draper accurately assessed the situation.

Stacey Allen Draper attempted to hand C. S. his driver’s license.

C. S. tells Stacy Allen Draper that he needs his bill of lading and log book, but never informs Stacy Allen Draper of the charges against him.

Stacy Allen Draper clearly tells C. S that he is not “going to kiss his damn ass” just because he is a law enforcement officer. Anyone who has read this far in this motion must have gathered that counsel for Stacy Allen Draper have the same attitude, even thought these thoughts are at times conveyed with poetry.

If this point has been missed, C. S. should consider himself so informed from this point forward. Constitutionally, a person can disagree with a law enforcement office and so inform the law enforcement of his or her disagreement in language other than the King’s English.

C. S. continued throughout the detention to harass Stacy Allen Draper by yelling at him that he must get more papers, which papers had nothing to do with an alleged defective tag light.

Even as Stacy Allen Draper attempted to go back to the cab of his truck and get the requested papers, C. S. antagonistically, continually yelled at Stacy Allen Draper, who was obviously frustrated because of his illegal detention.

Stacy Allen Draper continued to exercise his constitutional rights as C. S. harassed him by refusing to deal with the now alleged purpose of the stop a defective tag light. Stacy Allen Draper offended C. S. by not succumbing to his illegal tactics.

C. S. then, for no legal reason, shot Stacy Allen Draper with a M26 Air Taser gun.

Stacy Allen Draper fell to ground from the blow of the electrical shock.

While Stacy Allen Draper lay on the ground in pain from being shot, C. S. yelled, “handcuff this son of a bitch!” C. S. then pounded his weight on Stacy Allen Draper’s back.

At this point, Bull arrives on the scene and C. S. starts lying to Bull about the conduct of Stacy Allen Draper.

Much like a six year old kid, Bull only asks if the M26 Air Taser gun had worked.

C. S. and Bull then do the Coweta Sheriff brag strut and talk about the C. S. conduct that resulted in an innocent person being electrically shot by a psychologically ill law enforcement officer who possessed negative dispute resolution skills.

Maybe someday C. S. and Bull will learn that the African American Truck Driver with a Texas tag had a tag light, a brain and federally protected constitutional rights.

The only light out on the night that C. S. made the arrest of Stacy Allen Draper was the light in C. S.’s single brain cell.

The reality is that Deputy Sheriff Clinton D. Reynolds does have a brain, but he just doesn’t have a grain of.

Before we go to the law, the first scribes are back to predict an ending to the attempts of Deputy Sheriff Clinton D. Reynolds to impose constitutionally restricted hardship upon Stacy Allen Draper. This ending, penned by the first scribes, sounds mightily like Casey At the Bat –giving new meaning to the phrase, “poetry in [a] motion.”

The sneer is gone from C. S.'s lip, although his teeth are still clenched in hate;

When he ends his shift, he now pounds his fist with violence upon his dinner plate.

’Cause now the Solicitor and the Court hold the case, and soon they must let it go,

And ‘cause now the air is shattered by the force of C. S. 's hot air blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land, the sun is shining bright;

The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,

And somewhere adults are laughing, and somewhere children shout;

But there is no joy in the Cruiser of C. S., all stocked with Taser Guns

– for this old C. S. has struck out.

[1] Those identified here as having brains were other travelers on I-85.