SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF: 4 ) Kk a cae Ucar aclaie THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent(s) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE THE -against- JUDGMENT C.P.L. §440.10 be — j L. pomenl Hoe Ind.No. SAS AKAD Defendant(s). ier elec eee ote perc reed eee eeninese ttre STATE OF NEW YORK _ ) )ss.: COUNTY OF SULLIVAN |) ; LPC. Z Ne wont as "2.0: 7’ being, duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled proceeding. | make this affidavit in support of a motion, pursuant to section 440.10, subdivision / / a / , to vacate the judgment of conviction herein, upon the grounds that: ’ ; 4 @ £46 fe J Be ee 4 rent 0 fect! ef Xr.2 Sunitd: Aen □□ cay acta ee 2. I was, indicted for: ’ = pe wf (a) Lut ae Leb LOE shee eee © A thenyatod parse a Lb beat! alerrne (c) Letina L pLOLL Mp PR. a 4. □□□ flee 3. At arraignment I entered a plea of “not guilty” and posted bail in the, amount of f . □□ $ ————— _.. I was, tried in this court before Hon. thle ren ct Magn the day orersueronm—n! fo ih f tAbvtrndel” a/R The case was, submittedto VW C4 ___ ; 4. tn ore aLlaMt ors, centered 2S peette oF Cert C 0H LEC ES □□□ ty
5. The evidence adduced at my trial] may be, summarized as follows: Ze. CL 2 7 ;
6. 7. [If applicable, include:] Among the evidence gathered by the State in its investigation of the crime and admitted at my trial [or] but not admitted at my trial was LL a 4 is relevant to proof of guilt in that cence i LEE _. My conviction occurred prior to January 1, 1996, to wit, ON 9, LU, 8. The ground(s) for relief raised upon this motion has (have) not previously been determined on the merits upon a prior motion or proceeding in a court of this state, or upon a appeal from the judgment, or upon a prior motion or proceeding in a federal court. 9. WHEREFORE, | respectfully request that my conviction be vacated on the a r fy “th fe @iunké perbonad M&K □□□ □ thar Liga ihe sa HZ ex JD , and that this Court grant such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper [or if applicable]; 10. WHEREFORE, | respectfully request an Order of this Court pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law a YQ fi a and granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. fle te Ff Dated: /““¥ & 2020 ee Défendant, Pro-se Sworn to before me this □ lat □ —— Pt.
~ NOFARY PUBLIC RICHARD P: WISSLER Rotary Public, State of New Yorks No. 01W16397622 Qualified in Orange County My Commiesion Expires on September 9, 2023
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK __) ) ss.: COUNTY OF SULLIVAN ) seat! aah I, Oo YPYOPIL 4.4 err 7. being duly sworn, deposes and says: lam the ax OKLA AS G72 4 in the enclosed action. I have on this-Z j day of a Y . 20_22%. placed and submitted within the institutional mailbox located at Sullivan Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 116, 325 Riverside Drive, Fallsburg, NY 12733 the following: Lek 89a. ty ore
to be duly mailed and delivered via the United States Postal Service upon the following party|s]: Sysrepe Corfe f LE Char Cau Clee he fice neem Lai tft Set □□ COS fEl "SIE Seth FE. □□□□□ PP eset My Lops / peerage gesting easiest Maat, Abe tpor he □□□
Respectfully submitted, Ale [Signature] LL A, \ | ap [Print Name] _— 4%*& et bigs A PP, \ read Sullivan Correctional Facilfty P.O. Box 116 Fallsburg, N.Y. 12733-0116 Sworn to before me this tdayof_ Atay .202°
NOTARY PUBLIC CHRISTOPHER E BARRETO NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK Registration No. 01BA6382056 Qualified in Orange County My Commission Expires October 15, 2022
Ground One: The felony complaint that was used to commence a criminal
action against me is jurisdictionally defective because it never established reasonable
cause which is the equivalent of probable cause the constitutional prerequisite for a lawful arrest. C.P.L. 120.20. I say this because in my felony complaint which is based-on information and belief failed to establish the witnesses bases of knowledge of information and the grounds of belief. There was nothing said in my felony complaint stating the witnesses observed me the defendant committing any criminal
act and nothing was stated that the witness identified me as the suspect. The basis of
knowledge and reliability of the witnesses was never shown. Therefore, reasonable
cause was never established. Which is a violation of the United States Constitution
Fourth Amendment because it states in essentially identical wording:
The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. And no warrants shall issue- but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.” Reasonable cause must be demonstrated on the face of an accusatory instrument in
order to confer jurisdiction of the criminal action and control over the liberty of an
accused person which is a United States Constitutional requirement which was never
established in my felony complaint. See Fitzpatrick v. Rosenthal, 809 N.Y.S. 2d 729.
See also, Giordennello v. US, 357 U.S. 480 (1958).
In this case, //linois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), where a petition for certiorari filed by the State seeking review of a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, 85 Ill. 2d 376, 53 Ill. Dec. 218. 423 N.E. 2d 887, which affirmed decision of lower state court, 82 Ill. App. 3d 749, 38 Ill. Dec. 62, 403, N.E. 2d 77, which upheld order granting motion suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, held that: (1) rigid two-pronged test under Aguilar and Spinelli for determining whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause for issuance of a warrant would be abandoned and a totality of the circumstances approach that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations would be substituted in its place.
But at the same time in section *230 agrees with the Illinois Supreme Court that an informant’s “veracity, reliability, and bases of knowledge are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report. Then it goes on to say in section *233
that there are persuasive arguments against according ¥ these two elements such independent status. Instead they are better understood as relevant considerations in
the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations. A deficiency in one may be compensated, for in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability.
In my felony complaint which I attached to this motion, marked as Exhibit “A,” did not set forth neither the basis of knowledge or the reliability prong because
my felony complaint which states the grounds for the deponent’s belief are as follow: deponent states based upon official investigation which it never explains what the investigation revealed and then it says witnesses known to the police department in which no information was furnished to the court concerning whether the witnesses accounts came from an anonymous or a paid informant, in which event an independent showing of reliability would have been required, or whether those
accounts came from an identified citizen informant; in which event there would be
no need to furnish further evidence of reliability. In the case of Giordenllo v. US., 357 U.S. 480 (1958), states the language of the Fourth Amendment, that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the persons or things to be seized ***, of course applies to *486 arrest as well as search warrants. Therefore, a warrant for my arrest should
never have been issued as result of my felony complaint which never established probable cause. Also see State v. Chaplin, 191 Vt. 583 (2013).
Ground Two: My Fifth Amendment due process clause of the United states Constitution was violated because the court lacked jurisdiction over me at the time of my trial and having jurisdiction means that the court has the power to hear my
case which it did not because my felony complaint which was used to commence a
criminal action against me is jurisdictionally defective because it did not establish reasonable cause. I say this because my felony complaint which was based upon information and belief, never established the witness’s sources of information and the grounds of belief. There was nothing stated in my felony complaint that the witness observed me the defendant committing any criminal act and nothing was stated that the witnesses identified me as the suspect. The basis of knowledge and reliability of the witnesses was never shown. Which is a United States constitutional right that reasonable cause must be demonstrated on the face of the felony compliant in order for the court to confer jurisdiction of the criminal action and control over the liberty of an accused person. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a trial let alone, convict me. See Butler v. King, 781 F. 2d 486, 490 (5" Cir. 1986); Lowey v. Estelle, 696 F. 2d 333, 336-38 (5" Cir. 1983).
Respectfully on □□□ 74, Raymond Mayrant 16-A-0232
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Mayrant
(List the name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) 20 Civ. 09324 ( GBD) (BCM)
- against - AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE Keyser
(List the name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).) I, @rint your name) Cynthia A. Carlson , declare under penalty of perjury that I served a copy of the attached (list the names of the documents you served): Letter motion joining stay application
upon all other parties in this case by (state how you served the documents, for example, hand delivery, mail, overnight express) Mail to the following persons (list the names and addresses of the people you served): Raymond Mayrant, 16-A-0232 Sullivan Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 700, Fallsburg, New York 12733
on (date you served the document(s)) March 5, 2021 .
March 5, 2021 ( chin A. Carleen Dated ignature 198 East 161st Street Address Bronx, New York Citys State 10451 Zi (I 8) 838-7095 Telephone Number carlsonc@bronxda.nyc.gov E-Mail Address
Rev. 01/2013