UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
vs. Index No. 5:03-M-73 (GJD)
Affidavit in Support of Motion.
JOHN MURTARI, being duly sworn, deposes and states:
- I am the defendant in this action, and I make this statement in support of my motion dated March 13, 2003.
Dismiss Counts one and two of the complaint.
- The complaint references New York Penal Law 140.05 (Trespass) and sections of the United States Code which allow prosecution based on violation of a state law.
- In the history of this activity I have had approximately 29 charges dismissed in state court by three different City Court Judges. The majority of those were �trespass� charges (140.05) and these were dismissed because in a public area there has to be an allegation of wrong doing.
- The complaint makes no such allegation other than failure to obey a lawful order to leave.
- It is my belief the government will concede the fact Federal Officers were using the building rules to justify their order.
- During the trial of October 29th, I was found not guilty of any violation of building rules. There exists no basis in the building rules for their order to leave the building.
- I believe the government will also concede the fact I am not claiming any absolute right to be in the building. On at least 3 recent occasions I did comply with requests by Federal Officers/Security Staff to leave the building because of unique activities that day.
Dismissing Counts three and four of the complaint.
- During the arrests that occurred on December 30th and January 6th there had been a stay away order issued by the Court on December 13th.
- Without repeating here, I include the original argument made in a Motion dated 12 February 2003 to have that order vacated.
- There was no lawful basis for an order to leave the building.
Dismiss all counts on the basis of double-jeopardy.
- I was charged for Trespass in City Court for each of the dates in the complaint. City Court Judge Kevin Young dismissed the charges.
Assigning counsel for the defendant
- There has been no significant change in my financial status since I filed my original statement with the Court.
- I am under a tremendous debt burden and it is difficult to meet basic family obligations. There are other more urgent matters I wish to pursue in Family Court, but simply cannot afford counsel and a retainer.
- I cannot pay for counsel to represent me in this matter nor in any appeal process.
- Certainly the tone of the proceedings have established this matter is not a �traffic ticket� and there are significant Constitutional questions involved.
- Assignment of counsel would insure an orderly and effective trial.
- My motivation in the underlying matter is Civil Rights for parents and their children. Certainly there may be personal sacrifice involved as this effort continues � but not having effective counsel can only aggravate the situation. In the long run, no money is saved.
- In the state court system I have been assigned counsel in these matters. I hope discretion will allow the same in the Federal system.
Sworn to before me this
13th Day of March 2003.