Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
STATE OF INDIANA, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
KAY KIM, )
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
TO STATE'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Comes now the Defendant, Kay Kim, Pro Se filed her Defendant’s Response to State's
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Filed on April 28, 2009 on this 29th Day of April 2009
“Rule 2….. the court to quash or modify the subpoena…. and it is unreasonable
1. Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Wignall failed to state what exactly he wants the court
to quash.
Page 1 Of 2
IN CM4 Def RESPONSE to State's Mot to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum CM254608 FILED-28APR09 29APR09 urgent
URGENT
line 1 & 2, his reciting of Rul2 or 2000 does not matter as to MOOT.
4. There is no law allow in any levels courts the way Deputy Prosecutor Andrew
WHEREFORE, Defendant Kay Kim, Pro Se respectfully requests that the Court to take
appropriate action against the Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Wignall with its own motion.
Respectfully submitted
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been delivered to the
court F8 and prosecutor (‘box by F8 clerk) either by U.S. First Class Mail, FAX or server.
IN CM4 Def RESPONSE to State's Mot to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum CM254608 FILED-28APR09 29APR09 urgent