Posted by Kelli on 2/04/10

More | Report Post

1. On Tuesday, 10-15-02, it was determined a storage
facility was rented by Emma Elizabeth Hawk, A.K.A. Betty
Willis, after a subpoena for records established her name
was solely on the rental contract.

2. On Wednesday, 10-16-02, an affidavit was crafted
with multiple statements that were known to be false by
the affiant, and there is no way around that fact. The
affidavits are impeachable; See STATE V. LITTLE, 560 S.W.
2d 403 (TENN. 1978).

3. The search warrants were issued with Emma
Elizabeth Hawk, A.K.A. Betty Willis, name on them; the
state additionally placed my name, Howard Willis, on the
search warrant, although my name was not on any paper work
connecting it to the contract.

4. The search warrant was not served on either Betty
Willis nor on Howard Willis, the state just opened the
storage. Betty Willis was Howard Willis’ mother.

5. The question is: Since the state had
[knowledge] who’s name was on the rental contract, [but]
also placed Howard Willis’ name on it, does that give
Howard Willis standing to raise issue of suppression of
the search warrants?

6. The prosecutors know the information in the
affidavit is impeachable, and have actively tried to
conceal it from the court.

7. The second question is: Can a Motion to Compel be
brought to force the state, with standing to disclose
their dishonest conduct and withdrawal of evidence
obtained from the fraudulent affidavit as a violation of
the defendants IV and XIV Amendment Rights {[and]
Tennessee Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct,
Rule 3.3(g) and Comment 13 which requires withdrawal of
frequently obtained evidence [withdrawal of search warrant
affidavit] and evidence obtained?

Should I raise issue?

Please answer these questions for me?, 2/04/10, by Kelli.

New Attorneys Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST