Alt+left-arrow to return from a link

 

Full-text: August 25 2003
Protest zones: “No War for Oil” (October 24 2002)

United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division

 

	)
United States of America	)
)
-v-	)
)
Brett A. Bursey	)
	)

Defendant’s Motion to Require Government to Designate Restricted Area

The defendant Brett A. Bursey, through his undersigned attorneys hereby moves the Court for an order requiring the government to provide to the defendant the exact location of the ¶

This information is needed so that the defendant may adequately prepare his defense for trial.

August 22, 2003

By: { Signature }

 

Attorneys for Brett A. Bursey

______________________

{Case caption, omitted}

Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion
to Require Government to Designate Restricted Area

To prove the defendant guilty of the charges set forth in the Information, the government is required to prove that Brett A. Bursey entered or remained in ¶

18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii). The regulations set forth in 31 C.F.R. 408.3 {2002: 3kb.txt, 24kb.pdf; current rule: 3kb.txt, 24kb.pdf} sets forth regulations as to who is an invitee. The regulation provides ¶

The regulations concerning ingress and egress relate only to “invitees.” The plain meaning of the statute, when read with the regulations, is that the government must prove the restricted area in {sic: is} one in which only invitees are permitted to be. The defendant simply request{s} that the government inform the {p.2} defendant of the perimeters of the restricted area.

If the defendant is not informed of the area prior to trial the defendant will be unable to adequately prepare his defense. Obviously, the government must know where the restricted area is or it would be unable to establish its case. The statute and regulations do not give the authority to an individual agent to determine the restricted area. The statement by an individual agent as to the location, in the agent’s opinion, of the restricted area is not sufficient to convict. As noted in the brief previously submitted, the “move along” laws are unconstitutional.

If the government is unwilling or unable to provide the defendant with the location of the restricted area, the case should be dismissed. Without such information, the defendant is unable to prepare his defense and the government is unable to prove its case.

August 22, 2003

By: { Signature }

 

Attorneys for Brett A. Bursey

______________________

Certificate of Service

{No Certificate of Service attached}

 

This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.

Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

Posted Dec. 13 2003. Updated Dec. 13 2003.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bursey-dsc-d43.html