CLICK HEER DOT COM
Guy P. Felton III
Reno, NV 89509
March 29, 2008Judge Fidel Salcedo
Reno, NevadaRegarding: RCV2005-023211
Your Honor:
After listening to the recorded transcript of a trial held in your court on August 19, 2005, it is my opinion that the accused, Mr. Michael Weston, was wrongfully treated and wrongfully convicted.
You are reminded of NRS 197.190, Obstructing public officer, which states:Every person who, after due notice, shall refuse or neglect to make or furnish any statement, report or information lawfully required of him by any public officer or who in such statement, reports or who shall make any willfully untrue, misleading or exaggerated statement, or who shall willfully hinder, delay or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of his official powers or duties shall, where no other provision of law applies, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
This letter is intended as an instrument of relative good faith and treats information which I believe to be factual. However, I ask that you correct any misunderstandings on my part in writing within a timely manner.
Of special concern is the use of an EDITED audio-video tape shown to you by the prosecution ~ and affirmed by the involved Nevada Highway Patrol Officer as being a factual presentation of events which transpired on June 19, 2005.
A copy of the alleged, original, full-length audio-visual tape shows irregularities in the count-down time stamp which displays top-right on a monitor. The involved incident on I-80, east of Reno, begins at Hour 5, Minute 11. Hour 5, Minute 9 does not display at all. Neither do Hour 4, Minute 59; Hour 4, Minute 51; and Hour 4, Minute 45. Hour 4, Minute 59 displays twice ~ separated by Hour 4, Minute 58. Other minutes display for as long as 95 seconds and for as little as 15 seconds.
Note the chain of custody of the alleged, full-length audio-video tape includes, at least, the Nevada Highway Patrol, court employees, and the prosecutor.
In the interests of truth and justice for Mr. Weston, I request that you personally review the alleged, original, full-length tape and note the irregularities described above. Said irregularities raise these questions:Was the original full-length tape edited to produce an altered "full-length" tape?
Who altered the full-length tape to produce the short tape shown to you in court?
Is there a problem with felony evidence tampering?
Can the short tape shown to you have credibility if the long tape was feloniously doctored?
Was recorded evidence tampered with for the willful and criminal purpose of deleting material friendly to Mr. Weston?
Does the tape document that Mr. Weston reported to the officer that he, Weston, had just been run off the Interstate by persons driving two vehicles at extremely high speed and that such reckless drivers posed a clear and present danger to other drivers on the road?
Does the tape document that the officer forced Mr. Weston to stand in front of the camera a second time to "reshoot" an earlier verbal exchange? How is it that the reshoot appears on the tape and the earlier exchange does not?
Was the prosecution's case on August 19, 2005, skewed, nullified, and criminalized by employment of tampered evidence?
Are audio-video tapes employed as evidence in ALL Nevada courts ALWAYS carefully examined by a qualified expert to certify that they have not been tampered with by any person or persons having willful intent to bear false witness against any accused person or persons?Further questions:
When Weston first approached the officer, why did the officer not immediately order Weston to return to his car if he, the officer, was already involved in a dangerous situation?
During court proceedings in Mr. Weston's case, was it proved to your satisfaction that the involved NHP officer gave due notice to Mr. Weston in a timely manner prior to citing him for obstruct and delay?
Does the tape document that the officer gave Mr. Weston due notice?
Was it also proved to your satisfaction that Mr. Weston had conscious intent to willfully obstruct and delay the officer in any way to any extent?
Does the tape document that Mr. Weston failed to respond immediately to instructions given to him by the officer?
Did Mr. Weston act as a responsible, concerned citizen in reporting to a highway safety officer a clear and present danger to drivers ahead on the Interstate?
Does the tape document that the officer said to Mr. Weston, "Do you remember me? I'm Mr. Bowers whom you complained to and everybody else about our department?" Mr. Weston is adamant in now reporting that words very close to the foregoing were spoken in front of the camera and should be documented on the tape! Why are they NOT documented on the tape?
Do you doubt that Mr. Weston's life had just been endangered by being forced off the road at high speed by the unknown, reckless drivers of two other vehicles and that said reckless drivers may have been intoxicated or under the mind-altering influence of drugs?
Does the tape document that the officer gave due and responsible concern to Mr. Weston's life having just been threatened by reckless drivers?
Does the tape document that the officer immediately called to other NHP officers to alert them to reckless drivers heading in their direction? If not, does this suggest that the officer ignored Mr. Weston's report of clear and present danger to other drivers on the road?
Did the officer, instead, not call other officers to assist him in dealing with Mr. Weston who posed no danger or problem to anyone? Or is it your position that Mr. Weston DID, somehow, pose a threat or problem?
In previous interactions with NHP officers, did Mr. Weston report nonsensical or unimportant concerns? Was it nonsensical or unimportant for Mr. Weston to report cars speeding on a section of Interstate that was covered with black ice? Was it nonsensical or unimportant for Mr. Weston to report an overturned vehicle?
Does the citing officer's service jacket indicate a pattern of dealing rationally or irrationally with situations arising in performance of his duties?
Is NHP supervision of front-line officers so ineffective as to permit them to believe they can escape accountability if they willfully exercise retribution against members of the sovereign people who have previously criticized them in any way?
Are public employees who are empowered to kill in certain situations permitted to have and exercise an adversarial, condescending attitude toward the sovereign people? Is it not a fact that a "sour" attitude can cause serious problems?
Do the sovereign people of Nevada not deserve a state police force staffed only by mature, mentally-healthy, well-trained, responsible adults?
Does the NHP now suffer from low morale resulting from poor management and/or inadequate funding and/or understaffing? Does the Weston situation have a genesis of the Nevada Legislature failing to properly support and appreciate state police officers?
Does the audio-video tape document that the NHP officer was involved in a threatening situation ~ OR ~ that the officer was involved in a situation "relaxed enough" for him to take time to ask for, wait for, and look at Weston's driver's license?
Having to do with a different topic bearing on your legitimacy as a judge: In that Nevada's electronic voting machines have been proved to be highly susceptible to tampering ~ thereby permitting the throwing of elections ~ can you prove in a meaningful manner that you were honestly elected? If you were not honestly elected, are all of your court decisions not null and void? California has decertified its voting machines of the exact-same type as Nevada's. Why are you not calling for our corrupt machines to also be decertified? Are you engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the sovereign people of Nevada?You may want to call the California Secretary of State's Office at 916-657-2166 to get information directly from the horse's mouth regarding that state's decertification of its dirty voting machines which, again, are just like Nevada's dirty machines.
This letter will be displayed on www.ClickHeer.Com and other websites.
Sincerely,
Guy P. Felton III, Publisher
www.ClickHeer.Com
www.NevadaCorruption.Info
www.CleanElectionsLawsuit.Com
www.JusticeForPallas.Info
www.HarvardCollegeOnline.Com
TIME STAMP IRREGULARITIES DISPLAYED ON ALLEGED ORIGINAL TAPE
Hour 5
Minute 11 Incident begins
Minute 10
Minute 09 Does not display
Minute 08
Minute 07 75 seconds
Minute 06 55 seconds
Minute 05 15 seconds
Minute 04 68 seconds
Minute 03 45 seconds
Minute 02 25 seconds
Minute 01 55 seconds
Hour 4
Minute 59 40 seconds
Minute 58 15 seconds
Minute 59 Displays again / 40 seconds / Different content
Minute 57 85 seconds
Minute 56 70 seconds
Minute 55 25 seconds
Minute 54 55 seconds
Minute 53 23 seconds
Minute 52 95 seconds
Minute 51 Does not display
Minute 50 80 seconds
Minute 49 40 seconds
Minute 48 40 seconds
Minute 47 55 seconds
Minute 46 40 seconds
Minute 45 Does not display
Minute 44 25 seconds
Minute 43 55 seconds
Minute 42 25 seconds
Minute 41 Incident ends