1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Roy Warden, Publisher Common Sense II 1015 W. Prince Ave. #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705 roywarden@hotmail.com TUCSON CITY MUNICIPAL COURT

THE CITY OF TUCSON Plaintiff, Vs ROY WARDEN, Defendant, in Pro-Se

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. CR 9006068 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY & DECLARATION ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED The Hon. Thomas Berning

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, Roy Warden, with his Motion to Compel Discovery and Declaration in Support, as set forth below: STATEMENT OF FACTS
1

On August 09, 2012 Municipal Court Judge Thomas Berning held a hearing to determine the status of the above captioned case, Defendant and several attorneys (Mike Spriestersbach and Todd Vick) for the City of Tucson in attendance. The trial date was set for October 29, 2012. Defendant, upon reading the Pretrial Statement and Order, informed the Court that as of August 09, 2012 he had not received any of the Diagrams, Photographs, Property, Accident Reports, Certified Prior(s), (or) records and files on prior acts, certified copies of court orders set forth on the Pretrial Statement by the attorney for the City of Tucson, Alan Merritt.

2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Judge Berning then invited Defendant to make such a request to attorneys Spriestersbach and Vick. Defendant accepted Judge Bernings invitation, and then, based on previous experience with the City Attorney, informed Mssrs. Spriestersbach and Vick that, as an indigent, he would not be paying the State to provide him with the documents the State intended to use against Defendant at trial. Mr. Spriestersbach then made some sort of rude utterance to the extent that Defendant didnt follow the same rules others had to follow. Judge Berning then admonished Mr. Spriestersbach, whereupon Defendant, by way of explanation, informed the Court, in sum and substance, that City Prosecutors were angry that Defendant had amended his ongoing federal complaint against Tucson City Officials for violations to Defendants expressive rights otherwise secured by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to include an action for Malicious Prosecution against Tucson City Attorneys Alan Merritt and Pat Meherhoff . Mr. Spriestersbach made another unintelligible, angry utterance; then he informed Defendant, in sum and substance, your discovery is waiting upstairs (in the prosecutors office). You just have to ask for it. At the conclusion of the hearing Defendant went up to the Office of the Tucson City Prosecutor and asked one of the several recaptionists for the documents promised by Mr. Spriestersbach. After making inquiries and a diligent search, Defendant was informed, there are no such documents provided for you here. DECLARATION OF ROY WARDEN I Roy Warden, under penalty of perjury, do herein declare, swear and affirm as follows: I am the Defendant in the above captioned case.

10

11

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

13

Ever since April 10, 2006 when I burned a Mexican Flag in Armory Park in protest of the Mexican Government and Tucson City Open Border Policy, I have been subjected to a number of retaliatory acts by Tucson City Officials, including excoriation in the local media, resulting in the loss of my livelihood as an Arizona Certified Legal Document Preparer, the depletion of my savings, and occasional homelessness. I have also suffered numerous arrests and prosecutions for the commission of otherwise lawful political acts protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. During the course of my numerous prosecutions I have personally witnessed Tucson City prosecutors withhold lawful discovery, produce false documents and make false allegations to the court. Moreover; in my capacity as Publisher of Arizona Common Sense, I have been informed by members of my attorney readership that such conduct is the common practice of Tucson City Prosecutors. On August 09, 2012 Mr. Spriestersbach intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made a false statement to the court when he stated that my discovery (was) waiting upstairs. Defendant respectfully opines: Mr. Spriestersbach may think his prevarications and angry comments are simply manly characteristics of an otherwise aggressive and successful prosecutor, but Defendant assures Mr. Spriestersbach and the Court: the public doesnt pay Tucson City Prosecutors to lie and deceive and otherwise demonstrate their manhood. Defendant respectfully submits: the publics confidence in legal institutions is eroded by Officers of the Court whenever they engage in prevarication and other shameful, or unnecessarily aggressive behavior. PRAYER

14

15

16

17

18

19

Defendant herein prays the Court to:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I.

Order the Office of the Tucson City Prosecutor to provide the documents Mr. Spriestersbach asserted were available on August 09, 2012;

II. Order Mr. Spriestersbach to issue a written apology to the Court and the Defendant for his shameful conduct as set forth above , and III. Provide such other relief the Court deems proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of August 2012 BY __________________ Roy Warden

State of Arizona County of _____________ On this ____day of ____________________, 2012, before me the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden, known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. My Commission Expires:____________ ____________________ Notary