----- Original Message -----
From: Janine Bertram
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Marsha Katz ; Mark Johnson ; Kelly Buckland ; Larry Wanger ; Fran Fulton
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: perjory
Hi Joe,
We do care but accept that law enforcement staff regularly perjure themselves.
The Road to Freedom Bus Tour team would be happy to provide your attorney with
a statement about the bus being Tom's home. Have him send us instructions of
what he wants via my email.
Free Our People
Janine
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2015, at 10:45 AM, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone care that the MSP perjured themselves and that they continue to
persecute PWD?
Does anyone care that the Road to Freedom Bus has been defamed and abused in
such a manner?
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Michael Steinberg ACLU
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 9:16 AM
Subject: Fw: perjory
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Janine Bertram
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 9:15 AM
Subject: Fw: perjory
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Egan, Paul
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:52 AM
Subject: perjory
No one including me came off the road to freedom bus. It is an outright lie.
The bus is a rolling museum of disabilities rights and not that sort of bus as
the State Police lie about hhere. And as if coming from the bus is some sort of
"crime" to begin with in the first place!
This whole thing was a violation of First Amendment rights and the State of
Michigan including the Mich. Dept. of Civil Rights and the Lt. Gov. are up to
their ears in this fiasco with the collusion of the MSP.
Doesn't anyone care if police lie under oath and the fact the lies are
documented lies?
Joe
STATE OF MICHIGAN
54-A JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CITY OF LANSING)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
v File No. 15-04387
PAUL HARCZ,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LOUISE ALDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
Lansing, Michigan – October 16, 2015
Courtroom No. 3
APPEARANCES:
For the People: CHARLES KOOP (P75188)
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
303 West Kalamazoo Street, Floor 4R
Lansing, Michigan 48933
For the Defendant: MARK KAMAR (P35038)
Attorney at Law
1010 North Washington
Lansing, Michigan 48906
RECORDED BY: Tami Marsh, CER 5271
Certified Electronic Reporter
(517) 483-4421
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WITNESSES: PEOPLE PAGE
EDWIN HENRIQUEZ
Direct Examination by Mr. Koop 7
Cross-Examination by Mr. Kamar 15
Redirect Examination by Mr. Koop 26
Recross-Examination by Mr. Kamar 27
WITNESSES: DEFENDANT
None
EXHIBITS: MARKED RECEIVED
PX#1 – CD of bodycam 28 29
Lansing, Michigan
Tuesday, October 16, 2015
At 2:24 p.m.
THE COURT: We’re on the record in the matter of the State of
Michigan versus Paul Harcz, H-a-r-c-z, 15-04387-FY. Today is the date set for
preliminary examination in this matter. I’ve had an opportunity to meet with
counsel. I understand there are, like, nine or so bodycam videos of this
incident. I have preliminarily told the parties this is a probable cause
hearing; not a trial. Each party is to pick out their particular video they
want me to see. They only get one each. And I left it to the parties to
figure out which ones they use as they think best helps their case.
Is that an accurate statement of what took place in chambers, Mr.
Koop?
MR. KOOP: It is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kamar, you’re here for the defendant?
MR. KAMAR: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that an accurate statement of what took place?
MR. KAMAR: It is, Your Honor. And I would just put for the record, and I
understand the cumulative court rule, but I think some of these are a little
bit different, but I certainly understand the Court’s ruling, and I think we’re
gonna, for todays’ purposes, although I object, we’re gonna use, um, I believe
video 15 and 17; is that correct?
MR. KOOP: Video 15, which is approximately 24 minutes long, Your Honor, and
video 19, which is 35 seconds long.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KAMAR: And, also, he has agreed to sequester the witnesses,
and I have done the same. I’ve gotten his possible witnesses down the road.
THE COURT: I see a sergeant from the State Police here. I assume he’s your
witness?
MR. KOOP: He will be my witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Who are the people in the back of the courtroom?
MR. EAGAN: Paul Eagan, Your Honor, from the Detroit Free Press.
THE COURT: Did you submit a document to me, a media request?
MR. EAGAN: I thought it was a public courtroom, sir?
THE COURT: It is a public courtroom, sir. You’re not taking any pictures
or anything, are you? MR. EAGAN: No.
THE COURT: Okay, you know the drill. You know people come in and they
submit a media request. Okay. I’m not trying to keep anybody out. If you’re
not taking pictures, that’s fine.
MR. EAGAN: Thanks.
MS. SULLIVAN: I’m Terry Sullivan. I transported him down here
from Mt. Morris.
THE COURT: Okay. And did you transport him on the day in question?
MS. SULLIVAN: I transported him, yes, I did, and dropped him off. I was not
here at the time of the incident. I dropped him off to the group that he was
down here with for the event.
THE COURT: Okay. All witnesses or potential witnesses are ordered
sequestered.
MS. SULLIVAN: I wasn’t there—-
THE COURT: Ma’am, ma’am. I’m sorry, you can have a seat.
MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Pursuant to the request of Defense, all
witnesses or potential witnesses are ordered sequestered. What about the lady
back there?
MR. KAMAR: We do not intend on calling her. There’s a number of witnesses
that we intend on calling, and she’s not one of them.
THE COURT: Mr. Koop.
MR. KOOP: I’d ask for a mutual sequestration. I’m not going to
call her, and if Mr. Kamar isn’t going to be calling her, I have no problem
with her staying in here.
THE COURT: She may remain in the courtroom. Just make sure we have her name
preserved so at some point if she becomes a witness, if this case survives
today, the People would know that she was present in the courtroom and is
certainly free to take whatever they choose to do down the road. Anything else?
MR. KOOP: Not from the People, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Call your first witness.
MR. KOOP: People call Sergeant Edwin Henriquez.
THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm
the testimony you’re about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole
truth, so help you God?
MR. HENRIQUEZ: I do.
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated for a minute. Once you
get him settled, I need that court file. We need to put a waiver on from this
morning. We’re going to call his lawyer up on the phone. Apparently, I looked
at the date for the conference and not the arraignment, so my point of
reference in that was wrong, so we do need a written waiver.
MR. KOOP: That’s fine.
THE COURT: Or an oral waiver of the 21 day for that, so we’re
gonna get his lawyer on the phone as soon as I get the file in here. So at
some point we’re going to interrupt and take care of that, okay. For now we’ll
let him sit here and get some fresh air.
MR. KOOP: That works.
THE COURT: Sir, state your name for the record, please, and spell your last
name.
THE WITNESS: I’m Sergeant Edwin Henriquez. It’s spelled H-e-n-r-i-q-u-e-z.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Koop.
MR. KOOP: Thank you, Your Honor.
EDWIN HENRIQUEZ,
At 2:28 p.m., called by Mr. Koop and sworn by the Court; testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. KOOP:
Q Good afternoon, sir.
A Good afternoon, sir.
Q Where are you currently employed?
A Michigan State Police, Capitol Security.
Q In what capacity are you so employed with the State
Police?
A I’m a sergeant there, sir.
Q How long have you been a sergeant with the Capitol
security?
A Since January of 2015.
THE COURT: How long have you been with the State Police?
THE WITNESS: Ten years, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q Sergeant, were you duty on or about September 17 of 2015?
A Yes.
Q And what role were you fulfilling that day?
A I was asked to come in to help supervise the event going
on that day.
Q And what event was going on that day?
A Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the American with Disability
Act.
Q To your knowledge is that a reserved event?
A To my knowledge, yes.
Q And at some point on September 17th, 2015, did you
confront a group of individuals on the Capitol lawn?
A Yes.
Q And where did that take place?
A Around the Austin Blair statute, which is just off of
Capitol Avenue. It’s on the state property.
Q That’s the statue right in front, correct.
A And tell the Court what occurred at that, I guess for
lack of a better word, meeting?
Q What occurred at that meeting is we had
information--State Police had information that a counter-protest was coming to
that event to protest the ADA. This group was identified as that
counter-protestors. I approached them and I told them that while they are more
than welcome to be on state property, they can’t actually disrupt the event.
So we asked them if they were going to protest that can’t pass this statute
right here.
THE COURT: That they couldn’t go past the statute?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q And was there anything done to prevent this group from
going past the statute?
A Yes, initially we had about five or six officers just
line up in front of them to prevent them. As time went on the group got a
little more agitated, so we thought it would be safer to get out metal
barricades. So we placed metal barricades in front for everyone’s safety.
Q Between the officers and this group?
A That’s correct.
Q All right. And at some point did you identify an
individual later named Paul Harcz, Jr.?
A Yes, I did.
Q And if you saw Mr. Harcz-—am I saying that correctly, Mr.
Kamar? Harcz.
MR. KAMAR: That’s correct.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q If you saw Mr. Harcz again, would you be able to identify
him?
A Yes.
Q And do you see him in the courtroom today?
A I do. I see him right here.
Q And you’ve identified-—can you point to something he’s
wearing?
A Yes, a blue sweater.
MR. KOOP: Your Honor, I’d ask that he’s identified the defendant.
MR. KAMAR: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Without objection for purposes of preliminary
examination, the record should reflect the witness has identified the defendant
who is seated at the counsel table with a blue, he said sweater, it’s actually
a blue vest, with a light blue button-down shirt under it.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q Now, Sergeant, at any point in first coming into contact
with the defendant to his ultimate arrest--prior to his ultimate arrest, did
anyone either yourself or another member of the Capitol security, State Police
identify yourselves as the police?
A Yes.
Q Was that orally?
A Orally, yes.
Q And prior to putting up the metal barricade had the
defendant tried to break through the, I guess, wall of officers?
A Yes.
Q How did that occur?
A He came with his walking stick, and he was feeling around
the officers, hitting them on their legs, hitting between their legs,
attempting to go through. At one point I went up to him and told him to stop
that because he’s hitting my officers and he needs to calm down. At that point
he did step back.
THE COURT: He did what?
THE WITNESS: He did step back after that.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q And after he stepped back is there more protesting
occurring; is there more chanting?
A Yes.
Q How long does this go on for?
A The whole thing last maybe for, just before his arrest,
about a half hour.
Q And then you said at some point some metal barricades are
put up, correct?
A Yes.
Q And after the metal barricades are put up, is there any
further contact from the defendant with officers?
A Yes.
Q How?
A At one point the defendant walked up to the barrier and
with his hand felt it and was heard saying he’s going to go through. He
doesn’t care the barrier’s there, he’s gonna go through.
THE COURT: He said that?
THE WITNESS: He said that, yes.
THE COURT: What did he say?
THE WITNESS: I can’t state verbatim, but he pretty much said that
he’s gonna go through this barrier and he doesn’t care if he gets arrested.
MS. MORRELL: Judge, she can’t hear him.
THE COURT: What?
MS. MORRELL: She can’t hear very well.
THE COURT: Can’t hear who, me or him?
MS. MORRELL: Him.
THE COURT: You gotta keep your voice up. That’s nice you want to
turn and look at me, that’s fine, but just talk right into the microphone. I
can hear you. Okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So he turned to you and said he was going—-words to the
effect of going through, didn’t care if he got arrested?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q And did he, in fact, attempt to go through the metal
barricades?
A Yes.
Q And did he get through the metal barricades?
A We prevented him from getting through it.
Q You prevented him from entering?
A Initially, yes.
Q Okay. The metal barricades?
A Well, like I said, he felt his way with his hands along
the railing, and when he got to the end of it, we only had about two barricades
up, so when he got to the end of it, he attempted to go around it.
Q Okay.
A And at that point Officer Brian George tried to
physically stop him, stood in front of him and told him not to, you know, you
can’t go through. And he pushed—-tried to put his body-—tried to push his way
through. When I saw that, I approached to help Officer George to prevent him
from going through the barricade. And at the same time I was also asking the
defendant to stop it, because he’s not gonna get through and we will not allow
him to disrupt the event. He insisted on pushing through.
Q Okay. And both officers are wearing body cameras at the
time, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And those were subsequently turned over to the
prosecutor’s office; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Okay. And the defendant was ultimately arrested that day?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Were you instructed by anyone specifically to
prevent this defendant or his group from attending the Capitol further than the
statute?
A Yes, I was.
Q Who was that?
A My lieutenant, Lieutenant Jason Williams.
THE COURT: And what was he doing?
THE WITNESS: He was in command of the event.
BY MR. KOOP:
Q Were you in uniform that day?
A Yes.
Q Again, you had at least yourself or other officers
identified yourselves as State Police?
A Yes.
Q Orally?
A Yes.
Q And this all occurred at the Michigan State Capitol, City
of Lansing, Ingham County, State of Michigan?
A Yes.
MR. KOOP: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Kamar.
MR. KAMAR: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Now, Officer, obviously, let’s go back to September 17,
2015. There was an event there; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And that event was for the American with Disabilities; is
that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And there was a number of blind people there; is that
correct?
A That is correct.
Q And there was a number of blind people who were allowed
to pass through the barrier, which was I believe the statute of Austin Blair?
A That is correct.
Q Okay. And you indicated your sergeant indicated to you
to stop a certain group?
A That’s correct.
Q How could you identify that group?
A Well we identified them as being protestors by the blow
horn and the protest signs they were carrying.
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. Are you talking-—let’s get some
things straight here. So you have an ADA event and you have some people who
were visually impaired or blind who are there supporting this anniversary,
correct?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: And I believe you indicated there was-—you had gotten
word that there was going to be a counter-protest?
THE WTINESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: So when you speak about the people who are allowed to
go through, how do you know they were not counter-protestors?
THE WITNESS: These individuals came off a bus that was parked
across the street. It was a big marked bus that we saw and they came off the
bus.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, you gotta just talk into the mike. I won’t
take it as rude. And keep your voice up.
Now, Mr. Kamar is saying how did you identify the protest group. I
assume this would be the counter- protest group?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: And it’s your testimony the defendant was part of the
counter-protest group?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
THE COURT: And how do you come about that decision--or how did
you draw that conclusion?
THE WITNESS: He came off the bus that was identified to be
carrying the protestors, and when they crossed the street they were carrying
protest signs and a bull horn.
THE COURT: Well, how did you know this bus was for
counter-protestors?
THE WITNESS: We had information from Sergeant Held and Lieutenant Jason
Williams. They had information from the intelligence division of State Police
that a bus, that markings that were on the bus that day would be carrying this
group of protestors. So we were expecting them to show up.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kamar.
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Isn’t it true you never saw anybody get off that
particular bus?
A I never saw anyone? No, that’s not true I didn’t see
anyone get off that bus.
Q Okay. Isn’t it true you never saw Mr. Harcz come off
that bus?
A I did see him come off that bus.
Q All right. Where was the bus located?
A The bus was located on Capitol Avenue.
Q Capitol facing south?
A That’s correct.
Q And where were you, sir?
A I was on Capitol Avenue facing east.
Q All right. And they would have, obviously, the bus door
would have opened facing east; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q Okay. Where were you at that location at that time?
A I was on Capitol Avenue facing east.
Q All right. And how many people did you see come off the
bus?
A Maybe ten.
Q All right. And what signaled there was something up with
these folks was because they had signs and bull horns?
A And because of the bus that was marked Freedom Bus, or
something to that effect, and that’s the bus that said they were going to show
up in.
THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible)
MR. KAMAR: Okay. Please don’t say anything.
THE COURT: Mr. Kamar.
THE DEFENDANT: I’m sorry. I was coughing.
THE COURT: No, sir, you weren’t. You were doing a little more
than coughing. Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: Knock it off. Thank you.
THE DEFENDANT: All right. Sorry.
MR. KAMAR: You know all you’re doing is ruining my train of
thought. Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: Sorry.
MR. KAMAR: All right.
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q All right. So a bus by the name of Freedom Bus goes to
the State Capitol to protest; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And you never had any information, isn’t it true, sir,
that these people had any weapons or anything of that nature, correct?
A No, no weapons that we knew of.
Q No weapons, no explosives; is that correct?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q And so is it your opinion that it’s illegal for people to
protest or anti-protest at the Capitol?
A Absolutely not.
Q All right. And this is a protest for-—this is a
celebration for the American with Disabilities Act; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q All right. And so we have Mr. Harcz, who is, as far as
you know, is completely blind; is that correct?
A As far as I know, yes.
Q All right. And so he is disabled, correct?
A Correct.
Q And did you have any clue that he was invited to this
thing?
A I do not have any clue about that, no.
Q All right. And isn’t it true you never asked him?
A No, I did not ask him.
Q All right. And, then, isn’t it true that he was one of
the individuals that helped organize the event?
A I’m not aware of that.
Q And you didn’t ask him that?
A No.
THE COURT: Mr. Kamar, which event? The celebration or the counter-protest?
MR. KAMAR: The celebration itself.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Now, when I saw the video, it appears, and I think the
Judge is going to be seeing this one, and Mr. Koop will correct me if I’m
wrong, when I saw the video it indicates that a sighted person was handed a
brochure from your sergeant; do you recall that?
A I do.
Q Did you hand that brochure or did somebody else?
A Somebody else did.
Q All right. And that person is sighted; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And isn’t it true that brochure was not in braille?
A That’s correct.
Q So you guys gave the rules and regulations to individuals
where they could go and where they couldn’t go in print, correct?
A Correct.
Q And not in braille, correct?
A Correct.
Q All right. And so he goes there, my client, Mr. Harcz
goes there, and there is no barricades, correct?
A Correct.
Q All right. And he has, as far as you know, he has no
clue where the Austin Blair statute is, correct?
A Correct.
Q He can’t see it, correct?
A Correct.
Q And isn’t it also true he had no clue the barricades were
being put up?
MR. KOOP: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection.
MR. KAMAR: I’ll rephrase it.
THE COURT: Thank you. When you say he had no clue, I mean he has
other senses.
MR. KAMAR: Okay. I understand.
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Where was he, if you know, when the barricades were put
up?
A He was standing right in front of us.
Q All right. Did you tell him we’re putting barricades up?
A No.
Q Okay. And how close was he to the barricades?
A Less than three or four feet.
Q All right. And how are they placed out? Are they
carried out?
A Yes.
Q Who carried them out?
A We had people who work at the Capitol carry them out.
Q So machines don’t come and lay them down?
A No.
Q All right. And then he goes forward with his cane, right?
A Not immediately, but yes, he does eventually.
Q All right. He goes forward and then you say he felt the
barriers?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And describe the barriers to the Court?
A Thin metal barriers, about three feet high, maybe. Four
feet at the most.
Q Okay. And you observed him feel the top of the barriers?
A I did.
Q Okay. And did he try-—did he feel his way around the
barriers?
A Yes, he did.
Q And let’s go back, and I think I skipped this—-strike
that. I didn’t skip that. Did you feel it was illegal for certain people to
protest this event?
MR. KOOP: I’m gonna object to that; calls for a legal conclusion,
Your Honor.
MR. KAMAR: Well, I think he’s being arrested or stopped for
protesting, and I think that’s very unconstitutional.
MR. KOOP: That’s not the charge. He’s charged with resisting and
obstructing, Your Honor. He’s not charged with illegally protesting.
THE COURT: What’s the question?
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Do you think it’s improper for somebody to go on the
Capitol and protest if they don’t like something?
A No. It happens all the time.
Q Happens all the time?
A Uh-huh.
THE COURT: That’s all right.
MR. KAMAR: Let me see if I have anything else, because I think the videos
speak for themselves. I don’t believe I have anything else, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Any redirect, Mr. Koop?
MR. KOOP: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. KOOP: But we will have the video.
THE COURT: Right. Officer, you may step down, but I’m going to
ask that you stay in the courtroom in case we need you for the video.
Actually, sir, have a seat. I have a couple questions for you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: These metal barriers or barricades that you put up.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do they just cover the sidewalk in front of the Blair
statute or do they extend the entire front of the State Capitol?
THE WITNESS: Just on the sidewalk.
THE COURT: The bus with the counter-protestors that you said the
defendant got off of, it was parked on Capitol Avenue?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Capitol Avenue runs from Ottawa Street to Allegan.
It’s about two or three blocks along Capitol Avenue. The bus that the
counter-protestors got off, that you say include the defendant, where on
Capitol was that?
THE WITNESS: Just off Michigan.
THE COURT: So the bus is actually parked on Michigan?
THE WITNESS: No. It’s parked on Capitol just before the
intersection of Michigan Avenue.
THE COURT: Okay, so it would have been-—
THE WITNESS: Just in front of the courthouse, actually.
THE COURT: So it would have been north of-—it was parked pretty
much right there out in front of City Hall?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct?
THE COURT: Towards the corner?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: What about the bus with the celebrants or the people
who were there to celebrate the anniversary of the ADA; where was that bus
parked on Michigan?
THE WITNESS: There were not a lot of buses, but the participants,
they came on their own, most of them. There was one bus parked, I think, on
Ottawa. It was for the equipment, everything brought up.
THE COURT: The bus that the defendant got off of, did it have a
sign or something identifying-—how did you know that was the bus or was going
to be the bus with the counter-protestors on it?
THE WITNESS: I was informed by my lieutenant.
THE COURT: Yeah, but you know, it didn’t have a sign on it, did it?
THE WITNESS: It actually did. It had graphics on the whole bus.
THE COURT: And what did it say?
THE WITNESS: Something Freedom Bus or Freedom Riders, something to
that effect. I couldn’t tell you exactly what it said.
THE COURT: All right. Any other questions of the witness, Mr.
Koop, as it relates solely to my questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. KOOP:
Q Besides there just being a bus arriving, was there
further intelligence about this group?
A Yes.
Q That they would be coming to this event?
A Yes.
Q Was there intelligence that the event organizers did not
want this group to disrupt the event?
A Yes.
Q So it wasn’t just a bus you were looking for; is that
fair?
A Yes.
MR. KOOP: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
MR. KAMAR: Just one question based upon your question.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Kamar.
MR. KAMAR: Thank you.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. KAMAR:
Q Isn’t it true that there really was no counter-protestors
at this event?
A No counter-protestors?
Q Yes.
A The defendant’s group was protesting, yes, there was.
Q Because you wouldn’t let them in, correct?
A They were still protesting. They were close enough to
the event to be able to be heard.
Q They said let us in, correct?
A That’s what they said, yes.
Q That’s the only protest that you heard, correct?
A They were protesting, yes.
Q Yeah, because you wouldn’t let them in; is that correct?
A I don’t what they were protesting for, sir.
MR. KAMAR: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down. We’re gonna take a
moment here and get Mr. Silverthorn.
(At 2:51 p.m., off the record)
(People’s Exhibit Number 1 marked for identification)
(At 2:58 p.m., back on the record)
THE COURT: All right, we’re back on the record in the matter
of the State of Michigan versus Paul Harcz. Mr. Koop, do you have another
witness or are we going to look at the video?
MR. KOOP: No other witnesses, and we would move for People’s
Exhibit 1, which is 15 and 19 contained on a disc.
THE COURT: Is this TV on?
MR. KAMAR: And there’s a stipulation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this off? Is this the long or the short one?
MR. KOOP: This is the long one.
THE COURT: All right, a 24 minute video. By stipulation, it’s
admitted.
Okay. We’ll stay on the record because I might have a question,
but I’m gonna come down so I can see it better.
(At 3:01 p.m., video begins)
(At 3:01 p.m., video stops)
THE COURT: I guess it’s good we stayed on. Just for
identification purposes so I’m clear, there’s an officer in what appears to be
a State Police uniform, with a shadow it looks like he may have sergeant
stripes, but he’s got on a fluorescent colored vest. Would this be Sergeant
Rodriguez?
MR. KOOP: Henriquez?
THE COURT: Henriquez, I’m sorry.
MR. KOOP: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. We have a female here with glasses who’s cut
off, I can’t see her, and we have a gentleman that—-
MR. KAMAR: That’s Mr. Harcz.
THE COURT: Excuse me. In a ball cap with a beard and has what
appears to be a walking stick of some type with him; would that be the
defendant?
MR. KAMAR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Just so I know who I’m looking at. All
right.
(At 3:02 p.m., video begins)
(At 3:03 p.m., video stops)
THE COURT: Now, the second officer who appears to be a larger
framed white male, it was a sergeant with glasses, who is this person here?
THE WITNESS: Sergeant Jeff Held.
THE COURT: Sergeant-—
THE WITNESS: Held.
MR. KOOP: H-e-l-d.
THE COURT: Held. H-e-l-d. Thank you. He is talking to the
female that the defendant is with. The defendant would appear to be on her
right. Go ahead.
MR. KOOP: I think, for clarification, the gentleman in the back
was a potential witness that was sequestered prior to the proceeding.
MR. KAMAR: That’s the correct. The gentleman had been sitting in
here all day.
THE COURT: And so we’re clear, when I asked about the other
sergeant who was there, there’s no fence up at this time or barricade; the
parties have walked up as Sergeant Henriquez has testified, and we are at mark
10:59:54 a.m. Go ahead.
(At 3:04 p.m., video resumes)
(At 3:05 p.m., video stops)
THE COURT: We’re at 11:00:58. A few seconds before that defendant
is seen chanting and raising his right fist. I can’t make out what he’s saying.
MR. KOOP: No braille, go to jail, you can’t stop us.
THE COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Kamar?
MR. KAMAR: It says that during the course of these. I wouldn’t
disagree with that opinion.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
(At 3:05 p.m., video resumes)
MR. KOOP: Do you want me to pause it, Judge?
THE COURT: No, I was telling you not to turn it up much louder.
MR. KOOP: Gotcha.
THE COURT: Back that up about 30 seconds, please.
(At 3:20 p.m., rewinds video; resumes video)
(At 3:30 p.m., video stops)
MR. KOOP: At this point he’s already been arrested. I’d like
to play video 19, which is the 24 second clip.
THE COURT: This was which video?
MR. KOOP: This is video 15, body camera 15.
THE COURT: Body camera 15 that we watched for approximately 24
minutes. All right. Now, we’re going to get to body camera 16?
MR. KOOP: Nineteen, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Nineteen. All right.
(At 3:31 p.m., video begins)
(At 3:32 p.m., video stops)
THE COURT: All right. Sergeant, can you take the stand, please.
You may be seated. You remain under oath. In the last video, I believe video
19.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: As it would appear, all I saw were shadows, but it
would appear the defendant was being led away by two officers?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: What I observed, and there was some fencing, not just
barricades, but it looks like six-foot fencing or eight-foot fencing was placed
around the Capitol?
THE WITNESS: That’s right, sir, that’s because-—I’m sorry.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: That’s because the Capitol is under construction now,
so that was construction fence.
THE COURT: So the organizers of the event, were they inside of
this construction fencing up by the steps or were they outside of it?
THE WITNESS: They were on the outside, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. So they would have basically, if I’m speaking
there, my back would have been to the construction fencing?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: And then were there people there, I’m gonna say for
lack of a better term, supporting this, they would have been facing this
fencing?
THE COURT: That is correct.
THE COURT: So the barricade, then, that was constructed along the
sidewalk would have been to separate the defendant’s group at the Blair statute
from the group that was up by the fencing?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
THE COURT: So that would have been the distance of approximately
how many feet from the Blair statute to where the barricades you put up to the
construction fencing?
THE WITNESS: I think that the report actually says how many feet.
Do you want me--
THE COURT: I’m sorry?
THE WITNESS: I think the report says-—because we measured it, and the report
says, I think it was 30 or 40 feet away, maybe.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Koop, any further questions now
that we reviewed the video? And I’ll give you an opportunity also, Mr. Kamar.
MR. KOOP: Your Honor, was your question where were the protestors stopped
from entering from where the event speakers were in distance?
THE COURT: No. I just wanted to know from the barricade to the construction
fencing.
MR. KOOP: Okay. Not from the barrier to the protestors?
THE COURT: Now, I thought I understood what I asked. Now, you’ve managed to
confuse me.
MR. KOOP: Fair enough.
THE COURT: All right. As I come down the steps of the Capitol,
there’s construction fencing?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: On the outside of it to where the protestors were, what
kind of distance are we talking?
THE WITNESS: About 30 or 40 feet.
THE COURT: Okay. I thought I had it right. Go ahead, Mr. Koop.
MR. KOOP: I think I’m correct now, Your Honor. I was wrong. I think I
understand Your Honor now.
THE COURT: Yeah, repeat that one more time.
MR. KOOP: I got it. I think it’s clear on the record.
THE COURT: Wrong was the word you used. Thank you.
MR. KOOP: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything, Mr. Kamar?
MR. KAMAR: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Sir, you may step down.
(At 3:36 p.m., witness excused)
THE COURT: Any other witnesses, Mr. Koop?
MR. KOOP: Not for the People, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Kamar?
MR. KAMAR: No proofs at this time.
THE COURT: Mr. Koop.
MR. KOOP: Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, the People would ask Your
Honor to bind the defendant over as charged. We’ve heard testimony that the
defendant did assault, batter, wound, restrict, obstruct or oppose officers at
the State Capitol, including Sergeant Edwin Henriquez. That they were officers
of the Michigan State Police, Capitol security, and the defendant knew or had
reason to know they were performing their duties.
Now, it is a unique case, but based on the initial interaction with
police, when the police identify themselves, first the defendant confronts the
police when there is not a metal barrier. So at this point he knows or has
been informed that there is—-
THE COURT: I saw the video, Mr. Koop.
MR. KOOP: Fair enough. I think most importantly or most telling
is that the-—after the metal barrier is in place his counterpart identifies
that there’s a bunch of barricades they put up. Defendant says, “You can’t
stop me.” He begins to advance forward. And even at one point says, “I can do
what I want to do. I can do what I want to do.” And that’s when officer-—at
some point in there Officer Henriquez puts his hands on the defendant and says
you cannot be disruptive and he’s taken into custody. In fact, after he-—as
stated in video 19, defendant states himself, “I’m trying to get around your
phony barricade. F-you.”
I think the evidence supports at a prelim standard probable cause
that this defendant did commit this crime and it occurred on or about September
17, 2015, at the Michigan State Capitol, City of Lansing, Ingham County, State
of Michigan. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Kamar.
MR. KAMAR: Your Honor, I look at the statute and the felony complaint. I
never saw an assault. I think the officer testified he may have while tapping
his cane hit somebody on the foot. To me that’s not intentional assault.
That’s an accidental touching. I never saw one batter. I never saw one wound.
I didn’t see any resistance. He walked up, are you the officers, you the
off-—he never got a response. I never saw any obstruction, opposition, or
especially endangering of any of these officers. And I think the only one,
obviously, well, I won’t go there because we stipulated to the report. This is
no felony, as far as I’m concerned, Your Honor, and I don’t think it should be
bound over as the same. You know, maybe keep it as a misdemeanor. I could see
maybe some sort of disorderly or something like that, but to have this as a
felony for what this gentleman did, I mean, he’s with the ADA, he’s invited
there, he goes there, they’re not let in. At the State Capitol we don’t let
citizens in? And he gets upset. Now, yelling is not resisting and
obstructing, so I don’t think the evidence is there. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Koop?
MR. KOOP: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. The Court’s listened to the testimony of
Sergeant Edwin Henriquez. I viewed the video. The testimony is pretty simply
here. There was some type of celebration at the State Capitol, the 25th
Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It would appear these
people obtained proper permits to have that celebration there at the Capitol.
Everybody knows you gotta have a permit, so there’s nothing here saying they
didn’t have a permit. The officers were there to keep the peace. Officer
Henriquez testified that they received information that a counter-protest group
was coming, and they stepped off of a bus that was identified or at least told
to them to be the counter-protestors. Now, they came to the Capitol, they
came, which certainly is their right to do. They certainly have a right to
counter-protest if they choose. The Court notes they were not kept off the
Capitol ground. The Court notes apparently what was going on here is the
officers were trying to maintain a buffer between one group and what they
perceived to be an opposing group. That’s no different than when the Ku Klux
Klan comes to the State Capitol, which they have obtained permits to do.
Fencing is put up. You don’t let a group of African Americans come in there
and intermingle with them. That’s going to be danger, and everybody knows
that. These folks also have a right, if, in fact, they were a counter-protest
group, and I’ll be honest, initially it was kinda hard to tell. I couldn’t
tell if they were a counter-protest group, but it became apparent that that’s
just what they were as this event went on, as the video played. They want to
get past the police officer. There was a female in the group who was trying to
get information from Officer Henriquez about what was going on, why they
couldn’t get in, trying to obtain this information. This defendant was seen
vehemently asserting his rights. Yelling about not violating them, but it was
not because he was denied access to the Capitol grounds. It was because he
could not get into an area on the grounds where he wanted to be for his
counter-protest. That’s pretty simple to me. That’s what this kinda boils
down to. So we’re clear, nobody told them to leave the Capitol grounds.
Nobody told them they couldn’t be on the Capitol grounds. Okay. They were
simply attempting to keep with the group they thought were to be
counter-protestors, which it turned out to be. And I would indicate, I mean,
you know, you can vociferously state your point even to the extent this
defendant was seen and heard using the F-word several times, including screw
you, as well. It became apparent that they were counter-protestors because
even during the singing of the National Anthem, they were disruptive, they were
yelling, they were chanting. I was straining at times, such that, it was
probably from where the officers were that at times I couldn’t hear the
National Anthem, but I was able to pick up words for it, so I know that’s what
was being said, because the one female said, “their damn flag ceremony,” as I
recall the words she said. So it became apparent, and the Court’s convinced
for purposes of this examination that this group was a counter-protest group,
but, again, that’s not to be held against them, because they have every right
to be on the Capitol and to make their views known. If they want to support
ADA, they can do it. If they have an issue with the ADA Act and want to be
heard, they have the right to do that. However, what they do not have the
right to do is to disobey what would appear to be lawful commands of a police
officer. No more than people protesting in Baltimore about somebody that got
shot. They had no right to burn up a Walgreens. They have no right to engage
in the conduct they did in Baltimore, and I don’t believe they have the right
here to disrupt and disobey, and excuse my language, but apparently hell bent
on disobeying the lawful commands of these officers, which was basically,
again, stay in this area. They were having no problem having their voices
heard, but simply to be in this particular location when you’re doing it. And
this is apparently what they were taking umbrage to.
The statute under which he is charged, MCL 750.81d(1), the
defendant is charged with the crime of assaulting, battering, wounding,
resisting, obstructing, opposing, endangering, in this case, a State Police
officer who was performing his duties. Let’s stop there. There’s no question
Sergeant Henriquez and his-—Brian George and the other officer were performing
their duties at the Capitol on the date in question, September 17th, 2015.
That’s what they were doing. There’s no assertion here that the defendant did
not know they were police officers because he, in effect, asked and was told
they were, in fact, police officers. So he knew that. There’s no question
about that. He knew they were police officers. He was-—can be seen in the
video listening to parts of the conversation going on between the female and I
believe Sergeant Henriquez. I keep saying Henrique (phonetic), Henriquez,
which one is it?
MR. HENRIQUEZ: The Z is not silent, sir. THE COURT: Okay, very
good. With Sergeant Henriquez. Close?
MR. HENRIQUEZ: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I gotta work on my Spanish. Okay. So they knew. So
that satisfies that portion of it. Obstruct includes the use of-—the use or
threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply
with a lawful command. And that’s what we have here. He obstructed the
officers by failure to comply with a lawful command. It’s right out of the
jury instructions for this particular charge here. They were asked to stay in
a particular area. The officers apparently thought that they were going to be,
perhaps, disruptive and they decided to erect a barrier, a metal barricade.
You could hear it as he was tapping on it, that it was a metal barricade,
because the officer testified across the sidewalk. Again, they’re not trying
to keep him off the Capitol. Nowhere in the video were they told you can’t be
on the Capitol grounds. They chose to be in an area that they were being kept
from to maintain peace and order. I find that’s what the officers were doing.
That’s what’s in their duty.
Second, the defendant knew or had reason to know that the person in
this case, Sergeant Henriquez, Officer George, and Officer Davis were police
officers. He knew that. He asked and was told that. He had no reason to
believe they weren’t.
Now, while there was no bodily injury, he did disregard-—it’s a
lawful command I find at this stage of the proceedings.
This is a preliminary examination. The primary function of a
preliminary examination is to determine if a crime has been committed and
whether or not there is probable cause to believe this defendant committed the
offense. From People versus Glass, after remand, 464 Michigan 266, a 2001
case. The Court will also cite People v. Redden, 290 Mich App 65, a 2010 case.
The prosecutor doesn’t have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt,
but he has to present some evidence on each element, and, again, that’s by a
probable cause standard. Now, one could look at this and say, well, you know,
they were asserting their rights, and whether or not, I mean, I heard him say
that they were invited. I don’t know who they were invited by. There’s no
evidence of who they were invited by, but even if I were to assume they were
invited, we have here, Counsel, something that is left for a jury to determine.
If they think they were lawfully invited to be there to be a part of the
celebration, then it’s a jury question. If that’s the argument, there’s
equally enough evidence to show they were there to counter-protest and the
officers were engaging in a safety function, to secure the grounds of the
Capitol and the participants involved, and certainly a jury could find that.
But at this point, based on the evidence I’ve heard, the testimony I’ve heard
and the evidence I’ve seen, it would appear that probable cause exists to
believe this defendant resisted or obstructed a police officer. He’s not
following their command. And I can take it a step further. It’s almost as if
he wanted to be in the position that he found himself in.
The defendant is bound over to the Ingham County Circuit Court for
further proceedings in this matter. The bindover date is set for October 28th
at a time and location to be determined by the circuit court.
Mr. Kamar, if your client is going to sign a written waiver of that
arraignment-—
MR. KAMAR: We already have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Very good.
We will include this in the bindover, or in the file with the bindover for the
circuit court.
Mr. Harcz, basically what the waiver means, and I’m sure your attorney has
told you, you don’t have to be in court on October 28th. This waiver that you
signed will take the place of your physical appearance; a not guilty plea will
be entered for you at that time. For all further proceedings in this matter,
your attorney will be notified. I would say to you if you change any of your
contact information, phone or address, let Mr. Kamar know so that he can reach
you. As long as he can reach you and get you to Court when you need to be
there, then you don’t have to worry about your bond being revoked. Okay.
Anything further in the matter?
MR. KOOP: Nothing for the People, Your Honor. MR.
KAMAR: No, thank you, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Very good. I’m going to return those exhibits to the
People. That’s all for the record.
(At 3:51 p.m., off the record)
COUNTY OF INGHAM )
)
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
I certify that this transcript, consisting of 46 pages, is a complete,
true, and correct record of the proceedings and testimony taken in this case on
October 16, 2015.
December 28, 2015 ___________________________
Tami J. Marsh, CER 5271
54-A District Court
124 West Michigan Avenue
6th Floor
Lansing, Michigan 48933
(517) 483-4421
