The truth about John Lennon's murder. By Steve Lightfoot

Appeal # 797163312-9

Declaration continued from previous page;

I showed photo of "fogged up" meter and explained it was taken at time of ticket. Hear-
ing officer tried, repeatedly, to get me to change my reason for dismissal but I main-
tained the meter was unreadable. Officer, based on no reliable facts, concluded that he
didn't think my photo of the fogged up meter was taken at the time of the violation.
Nothing presented or said by me could indicate that it was not taken then. In fact, I
explained that I met the officer just minutes later up the street and told her my meter
was fogged up and unreadable. The hearing officer asked what she said to that. I replied
that she initially said it was not but admitted that it was after I exclaimed to her that I
have photos of it as I showed her my camera. Her name is Y. Thomas and she should
remember our conversation for corroboration. I took a photo of her too and show-
ed it to him. I also showed other photos of the same meter taken three hours later (Ex-
hibet 2) and two weeks later (Exhibet 3) to show that the meter is not always foggy and
even out of order, weeks later. Rust markings and taped paper prove it's all the same meter.
I said that in the five months I have been in New York City I have never received a
single parking ticket I am so obsessively obedient about parking. I don't know what the
officers notes show but it's the truth as the only one I ever received was found not
valid due to a machine that wasn't working. If he concluded that I wasn't truthful and
therefor not credible then he is wrong. If he believes officer Thomas's initial denial
about the meter being fogged up based on my testimony it is hearsay. I also explained
that she changed her story to saying;"Then why didn't you park somewhere else? Admit
it, you're just taking advantage of a broken meter." That she admitted the meter was fog-
ed up, after all. She can be questioned as to when I said the meter was fogged up; just
minutes after the issuance. There is no valid reason to conclude that the meter wasn't
fogged up at the time as I said. The officer can show no evidence that it was otherwise.
He would not deny that my argument that I have the right to know how much time I have
left or that the meter was defective. He admitted it was unreadable and fogged up. There
is no explainable reason to presume I was lying about what happened. My photos showed
a fogged up meter with my ticketed windshield in the backround, two other photo's taken
hours and weeks later fot evidence of erratic behavior concerning the meter; that is is
sometimes fogged up in the morning, as was the case with me, or clear in the late after-
noon. None of any of this disputes my claims. The fact that I substantiated the fact that
the meter maid was nearby and had a conversation about the meter being fogged up just
minutes after issuance suggests only that the meter was fogged up then or how would I
know to mention this at the time to the present officer?
I appeal the finding of guilt in this matter. No reason or evidence was given to suggest
I took the fogged up meter photo at any time other than the time of citation. No valid
reason can be given either.
See exhibets 1 through 5; 1) fogged meter at time of ticket;2)same meter hours later;
3)same meter weeks later, broken;4)time of ticket photo of location and vehicle'5)Photo
of meter maid Thomas minutes after ticketed.

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct;

Dared; November 14, 2008

Steve Lightfoot