- The Washoe County District Attorney admits that the Nevada Highway Patrol edited dash cam video of Trooper Ed Bowers to falsely accuse Mike Weston of obstructing a peace officer.
- The Nevada Supreme Court recently decided obstruction citations are unconstitutional in 2015 SCOTT (WILLIAM) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) case # 67331.
- The Washoe County District Attorney (represented by former Carson City DA deputy Travis Lucia) had no objection to the court vacating and expunging the wrongful conviction and the refunding of fines, fees and costs to Mike Weston.
The Court Pleading that won the case:
Comes now Michael Weston in proper person to move the Court to reconsider and have an oral hearing on the matter or in the alternative alter/amend the signed March 08, 2013, and oddly filed on March 07, 2013, order denying motion to vacate by Judge Scott E. Pearson since the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled obstruction and delay laws/ordinances unconstitutional in 2015 SCOTT (WILLIAM) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) case # 67331 and the State does not oppose the relief requested by the Defendant and they also concur with setting an oral hearing on the matter.
Memorandum of points and authorities
The Nevada Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (“NJRCP”) allow the court to reconsider and/or alter and amend an order pursuant to NJRCP Rule 59(E).
On December 31, 2015 the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled obstruction and delay laws/ordinances unconstitutional in 2015 SCOTT (WILLIAM) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE) case # 67331.v
The March 08, 2013 order denying motion to vacate by Judge Scott E. Pearson is based on the erroneous notion that the Plaintiff filed a legal “Opposition”. No “Opposition” was ever filed by the Plaintiff in this instant matter in the timeframe allowed since Plaintiff filed a late answer dated March 06, 2013. The Plaintiff instead missed the time deadline by filed the Opposition as the record clearly shows.
The Plaintiff belatedly responded to the Defendants motion on March 06, 2013 and they make several concessions and concede to the Defendants requested relief. The Plaintiff states “The State would not oppose the sealing of the Defendant’s record. Thus, if the relief granted is limited to that requested by the Defendant, namely vacating his conviction and returning his fees paid by the defendant without findings of fact or conclusions of law, the State would not oppose such relief. However, the Court may oppose the return of the fine.” This concession by the Plaintiff/State clearly conveys to the Court that the State does not oppose the primary relief of VACATING HIS CONVICTION that the Defendant is requesting! The Plaintiff/State also concedes to returning the fees to the Defendant and they do not oppose returning the fine and instead leave that decision to the Court and even concurs that in may be appropriate for the Court to set this matter for a hearing to seek justice. See line 19-26.
In the Plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 late Opposition they admit to editing the Nevada Highway Patrol (“NHP”) dash camera audio/video on page 2 line 20-12 where they state “Deleting portions of a video and leaving a timestamp to reflect such was done in not misconduct, let alone fraud.” The Court must understand that the timestamps show missing minutes and minutes that are longer and/or shorter than sixty seconds indicating intentional fraud. The edited dash cam video also shows a superimposed timestamp with no time stamp inconsistencies in an attempt to fraudulently show that there was no editing of the said audio/video. Clearly the NHP audio/video was intentionally edited to remove exculpatory evidence in an egregious and fraudulent effort to deny the Defendant his due process. See the submitted DVD video.
The Defendant disagrees and asserts that the deleted portions of the audio/video were malicious and fraudulent. The Defendant was disenfranchised during the original proceedings when the Plaintiff only showed 2 minutes and 8 seconds of the said dash cam audio/video. Furthermore, the Defendant was never given a true and full copy of the said dash cam audio/video prior to his hearing.
The Defendant was also denied due process when he timely filed his appeal.
Defendant respectfully requests the Court to have an oral hearing on this matter and set a date.
Defendant respectfully requests the Court to vacate the original order upholding the charge of NRS 197.190 and reimburse Defendant his $300.00 dollar fine, court fees and court costs in this matter. Defendant further requests that his record in expunged of this matter.
The Plaintiff states “The State would not oppose the sealing of the Defendant’s record. Thus, if the relief granted is limited to that requested by the Defendant, namely vacating his conviction and returning his fees paid by the Defendant without findings of fact or conclusions of law, the State would not oppose such relief. However, the Court may oppose the return of the fine.” This concession by the Plaintiff/State clearly conveys to the Court that the State does not oppose the primary relief of VACATING HIS CONVICTION that the Defendant is requesting! The Plaintiff/State also concedes to returning the fees to the Defendant and they do not oppose returning the fines to the Defendant.
Congressional Testimony: Mike Weston to Bill Windsor of Lawless America in Carson City, Nevada
On June 19, 2005, Weston was run off Interstate 80 near the Keystone exit in Reno by two vehicles traveling at extremely high speed. When he returned to the road, he soon came upon a Nevada Highway Patrol cruiser on the shoulder of the highway. Its driver, Officer Edward Bowers, had stopped a large pickup truck and was in process of issuing a citation to the truck’s driver.
Weston stopped his car behind the trooper’s cruiser.
After waiting at least three minutes to observe the officer’s situation and to determine that the officer was not engaged in a threatening scenario, Weston approached Bowers to report that he had just been run off the road by two reckless drivers who posed a clear and present danger to other vehicles. Significant dialogue discussed during this exchange is not included in an audio-video tape as played during Weston’s trial; this proves that evidence was altered to undermine truth. The tape was shot by a camera onboard the NHP cruiser.
Moments later, Bowers recognized Weston as a person who had previously criticized him. Bowers’ focus shifted to Weston being a critic and he, Bowers, indicated no concern with Weston’s close avoidance of what might have been a fatal accident ~ nor with the clear and present danger to other vehicles posed by the two speeding vehicles Weston reported to him.
Without issuing a warning to Weston, as mandated by law, Bowers issued a citation to Weston for “obstructing and delaying a peace officer”. The audio-video tape mentioned above proves that Bowers did not issue a warning as required by law. Weston was fully cooperative with Bowers; the tape documents this.
On August 19, 2005, Weston found himself in a kangaroo court with “Judge” Fidel Salcedo presiding. During this scenario Weston was victimized by editing of the audio-video tape, complete with a doctored timestamp, and by Officer Bowers lying under oath (perjury). TIME STAMP IRREGULARITIES DISPLAYED ON ORIGINAL TAPE
Minute 11 Incident begins
Minute 09 Does not display
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
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 46 25 seconds
Minute 45 Does not display
Minute 44 25 seconds
Minute 43 55 seconds
Minute 42 25 seconds
Minute 41 Incident ends