petition in juvenile court to get J328423

Update: filed this in Juvenile court, got a hearing date!

The results of the hearing: turns out, after all the filings I did in the courts on the issue amounted to that there is nothing in the record about me or Amanda's (alleged) statements to the Sacramento Police Department.

But something possibly even more important from the record shows that Amanda was actually charged and plead guilty to violating curfew.

Observations can be made from this seemingly minor charge:

Procedural history:

1) Below shows the curfew guilty plea occurred on September 12, 2012. It appears Amanda was held in juvenile detention for a week from the arrest on September 3.

2) About 3 weeks later the kidnapping arrest warrant affidavit against me was written by detective Clarkson on October 8, 2012.

3) On January 4, 2013, I had my preliminary hearing, which was waived.

See below for analysis and curfew reference from detective Clarkson's marijuana arrest affidavit:

At the last sentences of the affidavit Clarkson stated:

"A records check was conducted when (sic) revealed that Douglas is on probation for sex [related?] offenses with a minor and Alsarraj was found to be a runaway juvenile out [of} California and out past curfew along with Salaam"

There is the mention of curfew and runaway.

Amanda is a runaway from California, but the concern is only curfew? Also, in my arrest warrant, Clarkson replaces "runaway' with "missing" for obvious reasons.

From this affidavit, it could not be known that Amanda was going to be charged for violating curfew.

See analysis and my next court action on the matter at subpage :

For reference,

Clark county ordinance, municipal code:

"12.12.015 - Curfew—Prohibited locations.

(a) It is unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen to be in or upon the following streets or sidewalks adjacent thereto and all parking lots, driveways and walkways which are open to the public and located on properties that adjoin such designated streets between the hours of nine p.m. on Friday, Saturday and legal holidays and five a.m. of the succeeding day, and between six p.m. on December 31st and five a.m. of the succeeding day:

(1) Las Vegas Boulevard South between Sahara Avenue and Sunset Road;

(2) Harmon Avenue between Las Vegas Boulevard South and Koval Lane;

(3) Dunes Road/Flamingo Road between I-15 and Koval Lane;

(4) Spring Mountain Road/Sands Drive between Vegas Plaza Drive and Koval Lane;

(5) Stardust Road between Industrial Road and Las Vegas Boulevard South;

(6) Convention Center Drive;

(7) Riviera Boulevard;

(8) Circus Circus Drive.

(b)

It is unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen to be in or upon the following streets or sidewalks adjacent thereto and all parking lots, driveways and walkways which are open to the public and located on properties that adjoin such designated streets between the hours of six p.m. on the last Wednesday and Thursday in the month of April and the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday immediately following those days and five a.m. of each succeeding day:

(1) Casino Drive, in the unincorporated town of Laughlin, from block number 1500 through block number 3000."

Excellent statute language: "child under the age of eighteen" as opposed to those "child over the age of 18", so infused with prejudice: a 17 year old is exactly the same as a 6 year old.

Right, so a victim of kidnapping, who is held absolutely against their will pleads guilty to the above. The most fundamental contradiction of my criminal case.

A non-legal informal analysis of kidnapping to curfew relationship.

Here is what was filed:

Earlier failure (see below **, it was not a failure after all):

I attempted to get access to J328423 directly through the juvenile court by filing the following : Motion p1, motion p2, petition p1, Petition p2. The Juvenile Court fails to respond, then I filed a mandamus petition in the Nevada Supreme Court, the Court filed its order. Blocked by the nsc, just for the record.

Reference statues :

NRS 62H.170 Effect of sealing records; inspection of sealed records in certain circumstances.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if the records of a person are sealed:

(a) All proceedings recounted in the records are deemed never to have occurred; and

(b) The person may reply accordingly to any inquiry concerning the proceedings and the acts which brought about the proceedings.

2. The juvenile court may order the inspection of records that are sealed if:

(a) The person who is the subject of the records petitions the juvenile court to permit the inspection of the records by the persons named in the petition;

(b) An agency charged with the medical or psychiatric care of the person who is the subject of the records petitions the juvenile court to permit the inspection of the records by the agency;

(c) A prosecuting attorney or a defendant in a criminal action petitions the juvenile court to permit the inspection of the records to obtain information relating to the persons, including the defendant, who were involved in the acts detailed in the records;

NRS 62H.030 Maintenance and inspection of records.

1. The juvenile court shall make and keep records of all cases brought before the juvenile court.

2. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 217.110, records of any case brought before the juvenile court may be opened to inspection only by court order to persons who have a legitimate interest in the records.

**

It turns out during the telephone hearing the Court acknowledged the petition was filed in the docket but "didn't get on the court's calendar"! Not a matter now, but clearly indicates plain court corruption. I will able to use this to support any arguments regarding my "due diligence", if any court tries to challenge me on it.