Committee on Judicial Responsibility

Honorable Judge;

This last October 28,2008, in Department two, I went before Judge Moskowitz and officer
Wiseman regarding a traffic ticket. Both the administration of the ticket and the court-
room proceedings were unethical and wrong and I’ve been advised to write you about rect-
ifying the situation. I believe the judge overstepped his authority in finding me guilty
of a violation that I was not even cited for. In fact I was found not guilty of the
citation I appeared for; a charge of violating turn markings at the intersection of Elm
and Congress in downtown Portland, Maine in June of 2008. I showed photos that proved
there were no discernable markings due to heavy rains which delayed painting then as
well as newer photos of the same intersection recently, freshly painted. Judge Moskowitz
explained that I could not be held accountable for actions that were not properly marked,
that I could not know about the requirments or possible violations under the circumstances.
The courtroom was suspiciously vacated of the other two dozon defendants who showed up
leaving only me, the officer and the judge and clerk, bailiff and prosecutor to witness
what happened in those two hours. I’ve never seen anything like that in my life. I don’t
know if the others had their cases dismissed or what but I was the only case heard that day.
In what was explained to me as a pre trial conference I showed my evidence to the prose-
cutor and the officer who tried to suggest that my photos were enhanced. They were
processed at Target from a disposable camera and were not enhanced in any way.
Early into officer Wiseman’s testimony he made new claims that I had made other vio-
lations at other intersections not listed on the citation or presented to me, ever, in the
form of an ammended complaint. I immediately objected to these false charges being con-
sidered as I was appearing on one citation that had nothing to do with these new accusa-
tions. In fact, I committed no violations in the course of officer Wiseman’s observations, not
even at Elm and Congress. The officer made all his claims up from thin air. He even lied
about how he came to follow me saying he passed me in opposite traffic and noticed that
I had a California plate that he wanted to inspect for registration. In fact he was 80 yards
away from me when I first became visible to him and he was driving south to my west.
He could not possibly have seen what state my plate was from. In fact, I was rousted
several hours earlier by other officers who responded to a suspicious vehicle call while
I was overnighting it in my van at night.
I am the activist with logoed on my van; I can prove, unlikely as
it may seem, that Nixon and Reagan arranged for horror novelist; Stephen King, not Chap-
man like we were told, to kill John Lennon. Chapman was a decoy who never stood trial,
after. I was tormented in Bangor, in 1992, by police over this and the fact that King was
born in Portland may have something to do with this matter. I, in fact, made verbal mo-
tions to dismiss because of discriminatory prosecution and for a change of venue due to
an inability to get a fair trial in Portland. This latter motion I made after witnessing how hos-
tile the officer and prosecutor were behaving in the pre-trial conference. I was denied.
Officer Wiseman saw me from a distance and, admittadly, made a U-turn to follow me. He
tailgated me for four turns until after I rentered Congress, a circumpheral block later,
at which point he turned his lights on. He said I made an illegal turn at Congress and
Elm. I said I did not, that I obeyed all laws and did nothing wrong. He said that I almost
turned left illegally while on Congress as well. He said nothing about the intersection
at Preble. I explained to the court and the officer, at the time, that I momentarilly
thought that Elm might be a two way street, but did not turn left just in case it wasn’t.
I showed, with photos that there was no paint at all on Elm Street to describe otherwise.
Officer Wiseman only mentioned anything about Preble at trial and after seeing my photos
of Congress, bereft of markings. I objected immediately to this new charge being admitted,
arguing that it does not bear relevence to the ticket at Elm and Congress and wasn’t true.
During trial the prosecutor stepped in to coach Wiseman and I also objected to that.
At one point I had to run out to my van to get a photo of Preble Street to bolster my
argument that Congress was not marked. In fact this photo showed no lane stripe at Preble.
Wiseman tried to argue that my photos might be enhanced or otherwise not representative
of the facts. The judge argued, as I said, that I needed to see the arrows and lane stripes
and had to have forknowledge of any possible violation to be found guilty. He found me not
guilty of the citation I was issued but then blindsided me with a guilty find at Preble be-
cause there was a partial arrow marking there. I objected to any find of guilty not listed
on the citation I appeared for. I explained that I was not prepared for any new charges.
When asked for evidence to mitigate disposition I, again objected to his find on a new
charge that I was never informed about before trial. I was unaware that I was appearing
for anything other than the listing on the citation at Congress and Elm and I believe if
an ammendment to the complaint is made the defendant has a right to know about it be-
fore trial to allow for preparation. I was not given any notice of an ammendment to
the origional complaint, ever.
I hope you will investigate this matter for me and see if any wrongs were committed.
My appeal is pending.
I declare, under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct;
Sincerely, Steve Lightfoot
Dated November 14, 2008