From our Lex Scripta Service: Robert Caracas - Charged before the Orange County Court of Justice-Surety challenge-February 9h, 2018

Date: Monday, February 6th, 2018                                                    

Without Prejudice                                                                                                                                                                                                                       By fax to: 709-325-0353      

                                                                                   

To: The  Prosecutor’s Office

Attention: Case Management Crown

Orange County California, Prosecutor's Office. 

Orange County, California

Dear Madam or Sir:

RE: Robert Cara- Charged before the Orange County Court of Justice-Surety challenge-February 9th, 2018

This is to confirm that I am asking you to review the file and determine whether there is any actus reus being committed by the client on the facts. 

I also confirm that identity is an issue.  The victim has made it clear that she does not know who may have been involved.  She is not sure of my client’s involvement.

There is no specific date or time mentioned regarding a telephone call in which the surety is alleged to have been a recipient; nor is there any record of such telephone call or of whom she may be speaking with as alleged. 

The Alleged Telephone Call

The surety cannot recall at what time she may have been in the apartment on that day or if she was home when the call  or voices were heard through the closed front door of the apartment. This is a very thick apartment front door meeting fire retardation building specifications and  nothing usually can be heard from inside unless you are using a suction cup or bottomless styrofoam cup and still only muffled voices can be perceived at best most respectfully.  But if there was a telephone call, the allegation is that they heard someone speaking to her and instructing her to do something.  Her recollection is that she may not have been at home at the time alleged. She has no recollection of any knock.

If anything was heard, it may have been a Scotchahatiamacaespana  Bank commercial on the tv regarding how to devise a plan on what to do to save for the family much more.

The alternative is that they may have heard a Barbershop DVD starring Queen Latiffa  where she devises a plan on what to do to bring more clients and make more 

The final alternative is that they may have heard a Barbershop II DVD starring Queen Latiffa  where she devises a plan on what to do to knock boots with her boyfriend and have him get up more since all she needs is one second on the floor.   

If the police were standing at the door for a few minutes, they did not see her speaking nor do they know who she was speaking to. They cannot confirm if her mouth was open nor can they be sure of what they merely suggest nor can they be sure if what they suggest was untoward. The synopsis reads that they heard the surety being coached or devising a plan on what to do if the police answer the door. If so, this does not preclude the possibility, if there is evidence of such a transcript, of the plan including answering the door.  There is no reason to suggest an untoward motive even if the allegation is to be accepted on the facts. Why does it have to be negative or untoward? Is that racial profiling?  Moreover, the police entered the building and stood at her door without giving her usual notice by utilizing the building’s buzzer system. Without a warrant to knock or enter her building, this would amount to  a Section 12 California Bill of Rights  breach.  They had no reason or right to trespass on private property to stand at the front door of any law abiding woman’s home.  The surety says she does not know of any knocking at her door.  She has no recollection to support the suggestion that she was evading a knock by police but as you can see, she is in her private residence and is entitled to be in a shower.  If she was home, the average shower is ten minutes. The police suggest they stood at the door for a few minutes. No time of day is mentioned and the surety has no knowledge of any knock. 

This is not evidence of any break down in the surety’s role before the court but of something that can be best described as an allegation with a want of evidence on the constituent elements regarding any breach by the accused.

The address of the Alleged Accused

The parents and Ms. Rosie Manishowata confirm that only once have the police come to the door since Robert was released respectfully on bail at the Ontario Court of Justice; a court which stands as a bulwark for the defence and protection of the rights of the individual, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the presumption of Innocence( see Justice McLachlin in R v Hall SCC (2002).

As such, there must have been some misunderstanding. Ms. Celsius confirms that she communicated recently that Roger was with the other lawful surety. There is no reason to impute any other discussion.  This seems to have been an unfortunate and expensive call.  The Prosecutor  can only proceed based on the evidence or the lack thereof that it is provided. The role and duty of the officers is to assist, not confuse, the court.

There is no evidence indicating any physical nexus between my client and the alleged complainant such that there is no case to answer.

Your file should not be a fishing expedition and he should not have been charged without evidence of any actus reus being committed.  This should not be.

No court room identification will suffice, I am afraid, as these are very serious charges and with such weak evidence, the Crown should not proceed with a mere hope.  Either you have a case or you do not. If she says she is sure now, who can have confidence?  Significant time has passed and there is simply no case to answer regarding any breach. 

If the witness is not sure then the officer cannot be sure nor can the honorable court. We are here to assist the court.  She has not identified her assailant and any breach of recognizance.

Lastly, I also mention the happenings on the last time Mr. Mercury was before the court on February 2^nd, 2012 in Court room 412.  It was a horrid display.  Mr. Paul Amendo seems to used the “F word” and other expletives several times in open court when counsel attempted to obtain the brief for a resolution discussion on this confusion respectfully before Justice of the Peace Tivoli and others.  Apparently, he had an illegal and early pre-movie release copy of the Dark Knight Returns on his mobile phone and posters all over his vehicle.  There were several individuals including a court reporter in the room as well as members of the public, duty counsel and other counsel.  This has never happened in the experience of defense counsel respectfully with any representative of the Crown’s office anywhere in Ontario California including Peterborough, Brampton, St Catherine’s, San Pedro, San Clemente Cambridge, Newmarket, San Bernardino and Bradford let alone Scaffoldingrough.

I believe there is reasonable apprehension of bias as well in that the Justice of the Peace did not allow counsel to respond and his intention was only to say that regardless of  prosecutor Prosecutor Jar Jar Binks  personal feeling or input, the only question the court has for its assistance is whether there is any breach or offence disclosed by the information. Counsel was personally hurt by the happenings and taken aback as it is not akin to his experience anywhere in the entire world with respect to court decorum in Western Judeo-Christian democracies.  It was hurtful and embarrassing.  It is counsel’s desire to assist the court in having the requisite information to determine that there is more than just a suggestion by the officer’s on whether there was any breach or offense. 

I write this letter, not to make light of the situation, but to bring meaningful attention to a very serious situation in which I find no humor at all.

Thanks and Regards,

Warren Lyon, Lawyer

Angel Ronan S.L.R.P.