>I am writing this to show the facts that I use to base my opinion of Judge Com Scott on. There are two separate instances of him being biased against me. The reason for this bias is that I am poor, but reasons aside what follows are factual accounts of how he has mistreated me.
The first instance was when Com Scott denied my request for a provisional drivers license for work. In October 1998 my license was suspended for a MIP(minor in possession). I was not driving at the time of my arrest, but the penalty for a MIP is a fine and the loss of your license. When your license is suspended you are told that if you need a license to 'perform the duties of your job' then you can be issued a provisional license. Prior to the start of summer 1999 I was offered a job provided I could obtain a provisional license. So I wrote a letter to the court and was denied the license. The court denied me the chance to obtain a job. Judge Com Scott wrote me a letter that said "He did not see a need for me to have a license to perform the duties of the job." I understand my letter may not have conveyed the necessity of having a license on the job, but it was very clear that if I did not have a license I would not get a job. Com Scott essentially stole money from me. It is almost as though he was making a deliberate attempt to prevent me from getting an education.
The second instance involved an infraction for a new public ordinance. I received an infraction for an open container because I briefly walked onto the street with an open bottle of beer. The public ordinance had been instated for less than two months, and as it turns out, I was not in a place where the ordinance was valid. I argued the case in court and the infraction was upheld. The officer who issued the citation committed perjury during the trial. It was completely biased and unfair.
Here is the story: I had some friends coming over for the evening and I had just moved to a new apartment. They drove by my house so I ran out to the street to wave them down, right at the same moment two bike cops showed up. I was not drinking on the street, but just went to the street briefly to flag down my friends. As I mentioned the ordinance was new, and one of the cops told me that if I hadn't known about the ordinance they would not give me a ticket. Pretty lame that they gave me a ticket for knowing the law, if any of us had known it well enough to know that I was not in the jurisdiction of the law it would have been better. So they write me a ticket and set the beer down on the sidewalk and ride off. They left a partially full beer on the sidewalk, which I had to remove, so essentially I could have gotten another ticket. I argued the case in court. I did not know the extent of the new ordinance when I attended court, because if I had I would certainly have been let off. Presiding Judge Com Scott upheld the ruling without knowing the extent of the new citation. During the trial the officer claimed that he smelled the beer bottle and poured out the contents. He did neither, when I pointed this out he claimed he was certain that he performed those actions. The officer committed perjury in court. I have witnesses, especially in regards to him pouring out the contents. I made a point of the situation afterwards, that I needed to move the partial full beer bottle.
The fact that Judge Com Scott upheld the ticket while the police officer lied in court demonstrates that he is a biased crook.