UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
States of America,
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.
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
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
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
Dismiss all counts on the basis
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
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
Assignment of counsel would insure an orderly and effective
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