That’s what she said when Chris questioned the prosecutor about why his parking ticket was being tossed out of court.
As a good technique of investigative reporting, as we do here at the No STATE Project, Chris inquired about the specific reasons why they chose to dismiss the ticket. Here is a collection of some of her whimsical responses within the call:
- “Basically I got tired of fighting back and forth with you about this…”
- “…you know, its not really worth my time, so I just dismissed it.”
- “Because its foolish.”
- “I left it to my discretion and didn’t bring it to the chief’s attention…”
Despite the ticket being dismissed, Chris continues to question whether they [the prosecution] had any facts that the code applies to him, as that’s one of the main issues addressed in the motion to dismiss and key in how effective damage control works by just sticking to the facts. The prosecutor responds by reading the citation back to him citing the code, which is circular to the question of what facts exist to prove the code applies? Needless to say, it seems that bureaucrats are in desperate need of training on what facts and evidence actually are so they can begin to respond to people asking for production of such facts and evidence responsively.