State's Criminal Case Against Me Collapses an Hour into the Trial (I)

choi

(1) Massachusetts officially identifies itself as a commonwealth, nota state. (I looked into it, but see no difference between the two terms). Other commonwealths in US are Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Virginia (eg, Virginia Commonwealth University).
(2) As a result, the criminal case in Massachusetts is titled "Commonwealth v _" rather than "People v _ ."
(3) Today I am on a criminal trial. After an hour's worth of testimony by prosecution witnesses (just two), the case collapsed.
(a) I have been confident from day 1 that I will be found not guilty.
(b) I insist in representing myself, mostly because there were a lot of surveillance cameras where my alleged crimes were committed.
(c) I encountered Suffolk County deputy sheriffs in front of county jail. I went in to complain about the duo (the lobby of county jail is always open to the public, and has the first of the double door open). The duo followed me in and pushed me out just beyond the double door of the lobby (so that I could not complain) and arrested me. They took five and a half hours to make up -- invent from the thin air -- charges. That was Mar 23 this year.
(4) The duo knew nothing about (state) law, so the four crimes I was accused of fell apart.
(a) The four crimes are: trespass, being a disorderly person (or committing disorderly conduct), resisting arrest, and assault a police officer.
(b) In all jurisdictions of United States, separation of power means, among other things, a legislature makes law and a court interprets the law.
(c) Massachusetts highest court, Massachusetts Supreme Court, has said what I was charged with are no crimes. Yet I can not file a motion to dismiss, because the prosecutor would not say what I did, except handing over the police report, which tracks statutory language of the four relevant statutes.
(d) I am entitled to, under the Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution more details than that. But the prosecutor has colluded with various state court judges to hinder my defense, including my bill of particulars.
(5) The case go to trial today. That alone is surprising, because the prosecution has no case, because there many surveillance tapes.
(a) One would think that no colleagues of the duo would be dumb enough to file a false report about my arrest -- for no other reason than that they knew the cameras were there, too. In fact, about a dozen of colleagues, all sheriff deputies, said I did committed those crimes. (Then again, two Chicago police officers filed false reports to support the colleague who actually fired the shot, despite existence of a dashboard camera in the patrol car.)
(b) I want all those presence to testify. It is hard to have all agree on a pact to lie, and the prosecutor keeps delaying the trial, over my objections.
(6)
(a) The videotape shows that I did not hit anyone, I did not flail my arms or yell. But even if I did, case law absolves them all -- the way my crimes were described. The following are state law of Massachusetts.