Motion to Dismiss based on Failure to Disclose Necessary Discovery Evidence
Written In Arrest Warrant

First I will address this omitted piece of Discovery Evidence that was written to exist within the Arrest Warrant.
In Section 14: Paragraph 6 of the Arrest Warrant quote: V-1 stated “On 9/18/2018 I received a text message from Mrs. Lawrence, James’ mother, asking about the locked basement hatchway. I can only assume that James came by and found it locked and reported this to his mother. I replied to her in an Email that stated in part ..., “I am again writing, I want nothing to do with him and now maybe you both. I will clean the apartment and leave the keys on the kitchen counter, text you the evening of the 30th that I am gone. I want nothing to do with whatever comes of him, for he’s not going to stop harassing women and/or writing his rants. Just leave me be as I just want the peace I deserve while renting these last few weeks. I wish you both peace as well, for I guess you won’t get it until you are both back in Fl. …”

So I ask for this Discovery evidence and am entitled to it because it is within the logic and chain of alleged Emails written in the Arrest Warrant that I was allegedly harassing via an Email, for it is attempting to show that Complainant wrote some kind of warning to me before my 9/18/2018 Email that stated “Ana advice. Do not cause my beloved parents any unnecessary stress whatsoever. Take this advice”.  The actual facts are this “Email” she sent was not on 9/18/2018 but was sent by Complainant via a text to my mother on 9/20/2018. Yes we have a transposed text message here masquerading as an Email. It gets worse. The “stated in part” ..., before the selected part of the quoted text, the … is the entire first 3/4 of the text that was omitted. Yes the first 3/4 of the text is missing! Since this is mentioned in Arrest Warrant as a chain of evidence warning me, this must be immediately handed over – the entire text – now that well over 75 days and 4 deadlines for BASIC discovery has been violated again. This text with a transposed date and truncated contents omitted necessary material. It is not legal to partially quote a text and transpose it, for this entire text is absolutely part of necessary and basic Discovery. Why is this 3/4 of the text omitted? In this text you will find that Complainant AC is 1: admitting my 77 year old mother is irritated with her, 2: advocating violence against me twice saying quote; “he deserves a beating” and “he needs a quick swift kick in the ass”, and 3: mentions her dislike of my blogs/websites/politics to which she shows one of her real motives to attack me for what she calls “harassing women and/or writing his rants”, because there is no evidence of me writing “rants” in Emails to her as indicative in Discovery. She is referring to and attacking my First Amendment rights as a writer. Where is this transposed and truncated text masquerading as Email on the day I wrote my innocuous Email asking Complainant to stop disturbing my parents? I respectfully ask that now with well over 75+ days since Motion for Discovery, and obvious efforts by Complainant and /or police to conceal this Discovery evidence, that the case be dismissed.


ARGUMENT:

You can harass through a third party so logic dictates you can communicate/respond to alleged harassment through a third party.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT STATE IS COMPELLED TO TURN OVER THIS MENTIONED/PARTIALLY QUOTED TEXT WITHIN ARREST WARRANT at Section 14: Paragraph 6.
FOR MY MOTHER/PARENTS AND I
BEING THE CO-LANDLORDS/CO-WORKERS AND LIVING TOGETHER AT THE TIME, ETC…
MAKE MY PARENTS A THIRD PARTY,
HENCE THE COMMUNICATING THROUGH A THIRD PARTY INDICATIVE WITHIN THE ARREST WARRANT THAT IS A CHAIN OR STRING OR THREAD OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.

The Arrest Warrant’s Section 14: paragraph 6 transposed truncated text masquerading as an Email omitting essential and complete details is being shown in Arrest Warrant as a kind of warning to me before the one (ONE) alleged Email harassment by me -
In Section 14: Paragraph 7 of the Arrest Warrant:
“Shortly after sending that email (text) I received an email from James that said
“Ana Advice. Do not cause my beloved 77-year old parents any stress. Take this advice.”
After repeated requests (where are they?) for him to stop contacting me … I fear for my safety and I want him arrested.”

SO WHERE IS THIS TEXT WARNING ME?
THROUGHOUT THE ARREST WARRANT COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH MY PARENTS – THIRD PARTY.
For example, her wicked attempt to feign a ‘harassing” narrative yet with no actual harassing going on in any form.
In Section 15 of Arrest Warrant:
“I AM TERRIFIED OF you (oddly yet appropriately in written small letters) AND HAVE ASKED, TOLD, AND BEGGED YOUR PARENTS TO KEEP YOU UNDER CONTROL…”. (all feigned hyped up nonsense given the fact I never went near her or wanted to go near her nor had any reason to go near her outside of ascertaining my belongings).

WHERE AND WHEN IS THIS “ASKED, TOLD, BEGGED”?
IN ARREST WARRANT IS PARTIALLY QUOTED/MENTIONED ONE TEXT AND IT IS IMPERATIVE IT BE TURNED OVER IMMEDIATELY.

So since this transposed truncated text masquerading as an Email omitting essential and complete contents is said to be advising/warning me of something it must be turned over IN ITS ENTIRETY by police/D.A/State as Discovery of Email/text communication because it is quoted/mentioned within the Arrest Warrant as a chain/string/thread of communication. Chains of communication are part of proving the authenticity of Emails, and throughout Discovery there is no proper or included chains of Emails for the day or even time of day of alleged Emails at issue.

WHAT WAS SAID TO ME????
Hence the proper EMAIL CHAIN or Email communication.
Stimulus – response.

I ASK JUDGE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE OF THIS TRANSPOSED TRUNCATED TEXT MASQUERADING AS AN EMAIL
IN CAMERA.


You also might want to look up the word “Advice”
and compare it to the language of the Second Degree Harassment Statute.

The Section 14: paragraph 6 transposed truncated text masquerading as an Email omitting essential and complete details is being shown in Arrest Warrant as a kind of warning to me before the one (ONE) alleged Email harassment by me -
In Section 14: Paragraph 7 of the Arrest Warrant:
“Shortly after sending that email (text) I received an email from James that said
“Ana Advice. Do not cause my beloved 77-year old parents any stress. Take this advice.”
After repeated requests (where are they?) for him to stop contacting me … I am in fear for my safety and I want him arrested.”

SO WHERE IS THERE ANY DANGER?
English: Advice - guidance or recommendations offered with regard to prudent future action.
THIS “recommendations offered with regard to prudent future action”
IS NOT ALARM as mentioned in the Second Degree Harassment statute.
English: Prudent - wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.

Sec. 53a-183. Harassment in the second degree: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when: (1) By telephone, he addresses another in or uses indecent or obscene language; or (2) with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he communicates with a person by telegraph or mail, by electronically transmitting a facsimile through connection with a telephone network, by computer network, as defined in section 53a-250, or by any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (3) with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.

English: Alarm – a warning of danger.
The Email is a call for prudence.
THERE IS NO THREAT NOR IS THERE ANY WARNING OF DANGER.
Especially since my ultimatum had to do with me visiting the police to make a complaint about Complainant, an attempted complaint from me to police that is documented within the Police Reports and on tapes yet outrageously kept out of the Arrest Warrant.

AND there is no repeated, persistent, nor multiple Emails that most often are part of a typical Email harassment case.
THERE IS NO PROPER CHAIN/STRING OF EMAILS SHARED IN DISCOVERY.
What we have here is an opportunistic attempt to get me arrested.


REDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 901 – authenticating and identifying evidence.

Because of the spontaneity and informality of e-mails, courts seem to think people are “more themselves” for better or worse, than other deliberative forms of written communication.36 Thus, e-mail evidence often figures prominently in cases where state of mind, motive and intent must be proved.37 E-mails are often authenticated under Rules 901(b)(1) (person with personal knowledge), 901(b)(3) (expert testimony or comparison with authenticated exemplar), 901(b)(4) (distinctive characteristics, including circumstantial evidence), 902(7) (trade inscriptions), and 902(11) (certified copies of business record).38

In Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co ., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007), United States Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm refused to allow either party to offer emails in evidence to support their summary judgment motions, finding that they failed to meet any of the standards for admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The emails were not authenticated but simply attached to the parties' motions as exhibits, as has become common practice. Magistrate Judge Grimm opined: "If it is critical to the success of your case to admit into evidence computer stored records, it would be prudent to plan to authenticate the record by the most rigorous standard that may be applied."
As a result, now more than ever, organizations have a much greater obligation to ensure that their electronic records are secured in their original state without alteration. Courts are requiring organizations to prove, irrefutably, that their electronic evidence - including trade secrets, legal documents, accounting records, emails, IM logs and image files - and its associated metadata were never deleted or altered any time during the life of the document. The problem is that electronic records, including imaged files, can be easily deleted, altered or manipulated by anyone with motivation and minimal tech-savvy.

Rule 34 governs requests for production of documents. Under the amendments, parties are required to address the issue of the form in which ESI will be produced (e.g., TIFF, PDF, native, etc.). The requesting party has the option to specify a preferred form, and gives the producing party the option to object to the requested form and suggest its own preference. In the event of a dispute, the court will be required to resolve it. Interestingly, the new amendments provide that if the requesting party does not specify the form for producing ESI, it is incumbent upon the responding party to produce the information in a form or forms which are "reasonably usable" or in which the information is "ordinarily maintained." "Ordinarily maintained" generally means in its "native" format.

Most e-mail systems, for instance, allow a person forwarding an e-mail to edit the message being forwarded. Such alteration wouldn’t be discernible to the recipient. E-mails are also more prone to a kind of hearsay-within-hearsay problem: an “e-mail chain” attaches to an e-mail every e-mail that came before it in a discussion. It isn’t enough to get the most recent e-mail into evidence when that e-mail attaches a string of previous e-mails.

A ‘thread of emails” was mentioned in Discovery yet not provided to me James Lawrence.

All of the prior e-mails may need to be separately authenticated and found admissible. An e-mail often has attached to it the e-mail or series of e-mails to which it is responding, creating an e-mail “chain,” also known as a “string” or “thread.” Some courts have found that each e-mail in a chain is a separate communication, subject to separate authentication and admissibility requirements. A lawyer should thus be prepared to authenticate every step of a chain.

Authentication becomes a critical issue when dealing with native electronic records. Whenever a native file is opened, the metadata associated with that record changes to reflect the time that file was opened and by whom. Technically, the file was altered, resulting in a chain of custody issues. Based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, companies must be able to prove that throughout a record's chain of custody, its intended content and metadata are pristine. If they are unable to do this, the file may not be legally admissible.

What is one to do to try to get an e-mail into evidence when it is necessary to get all the other prior e-mails to be separately authenticated and found admissible?

Trusted time-stamping cryptographically seals native electronic records, proving to all stakeholders, even during the e-discovery and review process, that the file and its metadata were never altered, even when opened. An external or trusted time-stamp is a data-level security control that enables organizations to unquestionably prove the authenticity of their electronic records.

A U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decision granting terminating sanctions against plaintiff after finding by clear and convincing evidence that its president had willfully fabricated emails in the course of discovery and then deleted the native versions to conceal his fraud.

Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
((14) Certified Data Copied from an Electronic Device, Storage Medium, or File. Data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule (902(11) or (12). The proponent also must meet the notice requirements of Rule 902 (11).

The Lorraine court suggested any electronic document can be authenticated under 901(b)(4) using metadata. Metadata is “data about data.” See Netword LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(p) Advisory Committee Note (describing metadata); THE SEDONA GUIDELINES: BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES AND COMMENTARY FOR MANAGING INFORMATION AND RECORDS IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE. “Because metadata shows the date, time, and identity of the creator of an electronic record, as well as all changes made to it, metadata is a distinctive characteristic of all ESI that can be used to authenticate it under Rule 901(b)(4).” Lorraine, 241 F.R.D. at 547-48. Again, pretrial discovery of metadata can be crucial to ensure important ESI gets into evidence.

THUS
The INTENT of the Complainant is within all forms of communication under the statue of Second Degree Harassment that include third party text messages. In this case – Emails and YES texts messages especially text messages mentioned and partially quoted in the Arrest Warrant are to be compelled as Discovery evidence. THIS TEXT REPRESENTS AN ALLEGED CHAIN OR STRING OR THREAD OF EMAILS/TEXTS/COMMUNICATION.