190 cross examination questions.
for shelly gupta.
9 duty to supervise:
10 federal crimes.
11 where does he live?
12 does he reside in irvington at the (old building) on downey avenue?
13 has he been reported for any federal crimes?
14 how many?
15 to what agency?
16 how did your agency respond?
17 what was his training and supervision?
18 did he receive any instruction in the rights of the people he was in specting?
test
ok, i think i can multitask from here at work. as long as i don't hit update. it saved ok when i got home.
1. under the federal constitution?
2 what was his training as to the first second and third amendments if any?
3 what was his training as to the 4th amendment?
4 what was his supervision as to the 4th amendment?
5 did he swear to uphold either the state or federal constitution?
6. what is the appearance of impropriety?
7. what is recission?
8 what is disgorgement?
= so the plan is get 200 questions ready.
this is the character assasination part of the episode.
19 on december 12th she was a witness in my case. different lawyer.
21 she falsely testified as to the key fact in the case - whether or not there was a person living in a trailer with no electricity.
22 there was of course electricty in the trailer. she either knew that or was willfully blind. the parking lights are on and visible 24 hours a day.
23 then you called her as the key witness in my case later in december, it might have been the 30th.
24 did you participate in denying me a jury trial on that date?
25 is there a right to a trial by jury under sections 19 or 20.
26 were the proceedings against me quasi-criminal?
27 quasicriminal in an aspect?
28 does an attorney who is involved in quasicriminal proceedings have any heightened ethical duties?
29 i think you have some expertise in that area that i don't have.
30 you've been a prosecutor?
31 what ethical duties did you have as a prosecutor, above and beyond those of all lawyers?
32 does any of that carry over to your current job?
33 at trial, was there an allegation that you were trying to use the wrong standard of proof?
34 if the wrong standard of proof were used at trial, would that implicate the plaintiff's lawyer's ethical duties?
35 how far does zealous advocacy go?
36 can it go too far? where's the line, how do we know where that line is?
37 are you a hostile witness
38 can i ask you leading questions?
39 by the way, do you happen to know about any murders?
40 that is, do you have any evidence relevant to an unsolved murder? 41 not that we think you do, but how often do you get someone under oath, might as well ask, right?
42. Similarly, do you have any previously undisclosed knowledge or awareness of any unsolved felony or serious crime?
43 do you understand the allegation that you may be conspiring to
proceed under the wrong standard of proof, implicating constitutional values under due course of law?
44. would it be ethical for a plaintiff's lawyer to proceed like that, in that way?
46 what is weaponized candor?
47 in retrospect, do you still think it was a good idea to file a suit against me without talking to me first?
48 let me ask you the same question in a more general way. would you again sue a lawyer without talking to them about it first?
49 [if yes] what's the upside of doing it that way?
50 is there any potential downside?
45: list the 19 issues plus taking, or including taking. so i need to come back to those. but i can start here.
1 taking - 5th A
2 taking - state constitution
3 disproportionate - 8th amendment timbs v indiana
4 disproportionate - state constitution is it
5 right to trial by jury 19, 20.
6 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. gave written notice, once. not 58 times. so right to hearing not waived.
so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
7 due course of law - wrong standard of proof
8 due process wrong standard of proof
9 search and seizure issues - art I sec 11
10 search and seizure issues - 4th A.
11 witness not sworn. recission, disgorgement.
12 witness testified falsely, but they called her again anyway - due course of law violation. appearance of impropriety, corrupt, crooked.
13 duty of honesty to the tribunal?
14 due process violation
15 the internet connection, the volcano ovens, the forsythia bushes, the 3 trash bins, the chanel number 5. the book about tenzing somebody. spoliation of the evidence by destroying the trailer.
91 are you a homewrecker?
92 were you alleging there was a woman living in the trailer without electricity? her name was michelle. of course there was electricity.
93 you could see that anytime by looking at the 4 running lights, which wer ealways on.
94 that was her home.
95 until you wrecked it.
96 did you give her adequate notice?
97 when she was living in a tent in the yard did you give her adequate notice?
98 is it fun for you to go around taking the few posessions of people who hardly have anything?
99 are you evil ,or stupid, or what's your deal?
100 you got into law school. you must be at least book smart.
101do you have a heart?
102 are you a sociopath, or a psychopath?
104 do you have any sense of shame? when, why?
103 how do you feel about mr trump?
105 are you aware that there are some disputes between the republicans and the democrats about land use regulation,
106 democratic socialism, replacemen t theory, private property, etc.
107 and that your agency tends to be run by the democrats, while mr stewart is a local republican leader. or at least candidate maybe spokesperson. what is an appearance of impropriety, in this context?
108 have you seen the video where they wont let me vote?
109 how do you feel about that?
110 one of the things they took from my yard was a sign that said robbin stewart for township board vote tuesday. would you agree that sign is protected speech under at least one of the constitutions?
111 was it proper to remove it?
112 is there anything we can do to improve our civility going forward?
113 would you be willing to bury the hatchet?
114 i should warn you my people have a long tradition of breaking every peace treaty they make. white man speak w forked tongue.
16
17
18
19
51 is it ethical to deny people a hearing without telling them how to invoke it?
52 is it ethical to deny people a jury without telling them how to invoke it?
53 would it be ethical to proceed against an unrepresented party if they lacked the capacity to adequately represent themselves?
54 what is the current status of the counter
claims in the proceeding litigation at 4015 e washington st?
55 who was named in the crossclaims, and why?
56 are there are any ethical problems or concerns with being a plaintiff in a quasicriminal matter if the court were unconstitutional, for the reasons brought by nick carter in his pending lawsuit. rephrase.
9 52 a m monday jan 12th (bill's birthday.)
3 58 pm.
57 what is an ex parte contact?
58 when chip jefferson came onto my land, was that an ex parte contact?
59 does that raise any ethical issues for you?
60 if there had been an ex parte contact by a chip jefferson or someone else, would it have been necessary and proper to proceed in the case, the same as if that had not happened?
61 what is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree?
62 do you know mr jefferson?
63 did you communicate to him the message to not trespass?
64 did you have a duty to communicate to him the message to not trespass?
65 i have heard that currently i am the only one in the state with an order as severe as mine. is that true, do you know?
66 what is the appearance of impropriety?
67 what was the job that you were hired to do?
68 what training did you receive?
69 what training did you receive about how to train and supervise nonlawyer staff members?
70 did those staff members take an oath to support the state constitution?
71 and the federal constitution?
72 did those staff members receive any training as to the rights of defendants under the state constitution?
73 same supervision?
74 did you have a professional duty to make sure that your witness, the inspector, was not knowingly or recklessly violating the state constitution?
75 hypothetically, she might have said, "you can't come after me, i'm a professional".
76 would that be consistent with her training and supervision?
77 would that implicate any core values under the indiana bill of rights?
78 do you think that i received a fair trial?
79 do you know about the 5 volvos?
80 can you explain what role habitat for humanity had in this conflict?
81 and are aware of the time that you guys tried to bill me $13,000, and tried to sell my house at auction for $13,000, but no one wanted it.
82 And I didn't have to pay the $13,000, because I didn't owe it, because I hadn't been offered a fair trial. 2013? 2012?
83 But I did have to pay the expenses of its going to auction, when it shouldn't have, so I am owed around $400 plus interest.
84 Also, I experienced mental distress at the prospect of losing my house.
85 This was not merely speculative. They took my houses on Talbot Eastern and Tacoma Streets.
86 Can you understand that I experienced mental distress over their seizure or destruction of my houses on Eastern and Tacoma and Talbot?
87 It had taken me 3 years to scrape together the 7000 I had paid for the shack. I donated plasma and did medical experiments. At the time it was vacant and open and being used by vagrants. I've worked hard to try to restore it, without putting more money into it.
88 How many
88 have you heard of the hatfields and mccoys? have you heard of the feud between the stewarts and the campbells?
89 were you trying to start a feud between the stewarts and the guptas?
if so, a warning letter is part of the protocol.
90
i'm not a very good lawyer. i don 't claim to be. but as a lawyer, i am likely to be at least somewhat of an opponent in the courtroom, more than might be obvious from looking at me.
so as such it was incumbent on me to give a warning before she stepped in it by proceeding unlawfully against me.
so that's what the letter was about: a warning that they had engaged counsel. at the same time, it was carefully not the usual boilerplate, but designed to convey a sense of urgency.
5 0 7 pam 12th. bill's birthday.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17