NOW COMES the defendant, by pro se, to amend her previous motion for competent prosecution and states:

1. That on February 17, 2000, the prosecution attempted to place another charge against the defendant in a wrongful manner, which the Court had to correct and which the defendant does not view as a frivolous error, but quite substantive.
2. That on February 17, 2000, she had an additional charge placed on her that could have been avoided had she ever received a Bill of Particulars and Discovery from the State detailing whom she can and cannot contact when the Judge on November 18, 1999 and on February 10, 2000 told her specifically to have no contact with the complainant, Adam Maclean, which order the defendant has obeyed, because the defendant does obey court orders and is a law-abiding citizen. This doesn't mean she will allow the state to dictate her freedom of speech rights in any matter, but most certainly in a matter where very wealthy, conspiring and thieving businessmen have harmed her, and she appreciates the Court's clarification of this on February 17, 2000. However, once again the defendant had to pay a punishment price to get this clarification where if the State had done its job per its rules of conduct and law, the defendant would not now be facing a further charge for she would have had clear instruction and documentation from the State and would have obeyed them. A second charge on her cannot be deemed a frivolous matter by any reasonable person.
3. The State's asking for finger-printing and I-Bonds is another example of over-zealous prosecution and is quite serious and substantive.
4. The State's mentioning of a prisoner writing Adam Maclean is over-zealous. The defendant accepts no responsibility for others who write Adam Maclean. She directed no one's hand and makes it a matter of pride, honor and religion to never direct anyone else's hand in any matter whatsoever. God gave man free will and she lives by His commandment to do the same.
5. Many, including people unknown to her, have so publicized Adam Maclean's inequities against her and other of us little people on the internet; in underground zines that do reach any number of people around the world, including but not limited to prisoners, prison and/or death penalty moratorium activists and abolitionists, social activists of many stripes, the homeless, tribal communities, etc.; in the mainstream media, with law enforcement agencies from top to bottom and in between -- that at this point the word is out on Adam Maclean and Wrox and Active Path beyond anyone's control -- no matter what happens to the defendant or to the disposition of this case or any other case involving this matter -- and if Adam Maclean doesn't like that, well he should be encouraged to assume damage control in this matter and stop stonewalling, be a law obeyer like the defendant in this case and be a contract keeper, as he is commanded by his God and fellow citizens to be -- since the law enforcers seem to want to wink at him, at least so far -- or maybe he should just stay on his U.K. isle and avoid places of guaranteed freedoms such as the United States of America since he seems very content to be an exploiter and bringer of pain, suffering and injustice upon his fellow human beings in lower classes than himself whom he calls "little people" while he claims to own Christian values -- Christ being a judge he himself will have no choice but to one day face.
6. That on February 17, 2000, the defendant asked the prosecutor his name and was told, "Have a seat." She later found it was Jeremy Brenman but is unsure of the spelling and the State's Attorney office refused to provide it.
7. That on February 17, 2000, the defendant asked the prosecutrix her name and was told, "I don't have to tell you that." The defendant later found it was Patti Eshaei. Again, the defendant is unsure of the spelling and the State's Attorneys office refused to provide it.
8. Whereas these responses seem to the defendant unprofessional and unfair and that they reflect an arrogance of unaccountability and the defendant wonders why the prosecutors are reluctant to tell her their names -- what's next, black hoods? -- when they know her name and when as representative of the whole court, why she cannot know their names. The defendant realizes that they have nearly total immunity but if she feels she has been treated unfairly and wrongfully by them, she will not hesitate to turn their names over to appropriate governing boards and higher-up law enforcers as is her right. The judge of the court assumes responsibility and even has a name plate bearing his name. While the state has told by word and action to the defendant that their representatives do not bear responsibility and accountability -- which the defendant senses is illegal and if it is not will take further action to help assure that it does become illegal so that we do not see the day in these United States when prosecutors are indeed wearing black hoods. After all, the well known MIT scholar and luminary Noam Chomsky has stated that the United States is on a Third-Worldish fast track and those with positions of power in these United States have an obligation to protect its citizens and this country's posterity against such a happening of authority abuse.