19454Disqualifying Calif. State Judges
- Jun 8, 2013
>It might be informative for the list to hear about them. So, did you use the process at >CCP 170?Yes. California Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). I recommend every one look up the disqualification procedures, even if you aren't in California, as it can give you an idea of what to look for in your own codes:
>It would be interesting how a final arraignment was concluded and put into the record?They never got past the alleged
arraignment. I tied them up by pointing out procedural deficiencies which I reminded the Judge must be addressed before an alleged defendant had to provide a plea, and before the court could attempt to enter a plea for them. I have seen
evidence of some people who "refuse" to enter a plea and the court simply enters one for them. They clearly haven't read the statutory procedures for arraignment or they would be doing more than refusing to enter a plea. As you point out, criminal/penal procedural codes have many places to trip up these unlawful actors. Really, it behooves every one to examine such procedures, as not every thing applies to each individual, and only one who familiarizes themselves with such code can apply it in their defense of liberty.
>NONE??!! They found one for me! And out of over 40 oaths I've collected,I know at least >ONE was correct!Well those with the appropriate oath are like fabled dragons. I believe you. Again, this issue is one I will try to push further next time. I have one win under my belt and should I be forced to deal with similar problems in the future, I have my foundation in place to work from.
>They'vedisqualified themselves whenever I've said they are disqualified and I prove it. I've >never had them go ahead with the CCP170 procedure.
Excerpts from the transcript on this issue:
Me: OKAY . WELL, ! HAVE GOT ONE OTHER CONCERN THAT HAS COME UP IN THAT TIME.
THE COURT : OKAY.
ME: AND THE CONCERN IS THAT I HAVE A COPY OF YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT IS IN THE LEGISLATED - - LEGISLATURE'S ISSUE OF THE CONSTITUTION --
9 THE COURT : OKAY .
ME: -- WHICH THE SECRETARY OF STATE ' S OFFICE SENT ME, AND HAS THE OATH IN IT, AND THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OATHS . AND THIS IS THE OATH THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN BY EVERYBODY BEFORE THEY TAKE OFFICE, THE ARTICLE 20, SECTION 3 OATH . AND AS ! SAY, THE OATH THAT I HAVE HERE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THAT. SO THAT ' S
THE COURT : I DON' T THINK IT WOULD DISQUALIFY THE COURT EITHER.
I DON ' T - -
ME: MAYBE NOT THE COURT, BUT I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR OFFICE IS CONSIDERED VACANT --
THE COURT : NO .
MR. BIKLE: -- DUE TO -- WELL, THIS DOESN'T MATCH AND THE PENAL -- THE GOVERNMENT CODE 1010 I BELIEVE IT IS STATES THAT THE OFFICE IS VACANT IF THE INDIVIDUAL EITHER REFUSES OR NEGLECTS TO FILE THE ARTICLE 20 SECTION 3 OATH OF OFFICE.
THE COURT : OKAY.
WELL , SIR, HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO TELL YOU . IF YOU FIND -- IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE THE OATH OF OFFICE OF THE COURT, THAT ' S FINE, BUT YOU CAN DO IT AFTER AS PART OF ANY PROCEEDING YOU WANT TO HOLD AFTER THIS MATTER IS HEARD .
ME: WELL, IT'S NOT THE COURT'S OATH OF OFFICE. THIS IS YOUR OATH Of OFFICE THAT i AM CALLING INTO QUESTION. AND ANY PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THEREAFTER WOULD BE IN QUESTION.
THE COURT: THAT'S I AM TELLING YOU. IF I AM IN FACT -- IF MY OFFICE IS VACANT, WHICH I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT' S A PROBLEM. BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT IT iS CORRECT AND YOU TOOK IT UP ON APPEAL AND
YOU SAID THIS JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE ANYTHING IN MYCASE, THEN AT THAT TIME YOU WOULD PRESENT YOUR INFORMATION AND YOUR AUTHORITY TO ANY POWERS THAT BE TO PROVE THAT I DIDN' T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE .
ME : WELL, SEE, AGAIN THIS GETS BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF JUDGE IS EVEN OCCUPIED BY YOU. IF I WAS TO STATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN I WOULD BE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS OATH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE OATH REQUIRED TO TAKE THE OFFICE.
THE COURT : WELL , SIR, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH YOUR CASE AND YOU NEED TO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR CASE. ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, YOU HAVE TEN DAYS I THlNK
FROM THE THME, WITH REGARD TO THE DISQUALIFICATION THAT A REVIEW
ME: I WOULD LIKE ANOTHER JUDGE TO - -
THE COURT: THAT A REVIEW ONLY BY WRIT OF MANDATE SOUGHT 8Y TEN DAYS OF NOTICE THROUGH THE PARTY'S DECISION. AND IN THE EVENT THAT A TIMELY WRIT IS SOUGHT AND AN APPELLATE
COURT DETERMINES THAT AN ANSWER SHOULD BE TIMELY FILED, SUCH ANSWER IS FILED HEREWITH. SO WHAT DID YOU -- i DON ' T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
ME: WELL, WHAT l WANT TO DO IS HAVE ANOTHER JUDGE THAT ME AND THE PLAINTIFF AGREE UPON PER 170.3 EXAMINE THIS. I CAN'T PROCEED IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT .
THE COURT: SIR, WE HAVE TO PROCEED. I HAVE ALREADY STRICKEN THE DISQUALIFICATION AND THAT'S THE ORDER OF THE COURT .
ME : THAT'S SEPARATE. AND I AGREE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DONE THAT AND THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.
THE COURT : WELL, IT IS NOTHING IN WRITING AND I AM DENYING THAT ORALLY . IF YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION ORALLY TO RECUSE ME BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MY OATH -- MY OFFICE IS VACANT , THEN I AM GOING TO DENY THAT AT THIS TIME.
ME: I CAN'T RECUSE YOU, NOT -- IF THE OFFICE IS VACANT, THEN THERE IS NOTHING TO BE RECUSED.
THE COURT: OKAY. IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE OFFICE lS VACANT, THEN I AM TELLING YOU THAT
I AM GOING TO PROCEED ON THIS CASE .
ME: OKAY. AND I OBJECT .
THE COURT : OKAY . YOU OBJECT . WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF FILING THE DATE FOR THE TRIAL DO YOU WANT TO SET IT FOR TRIAL?
That's the extent of my arguments on oath disqualifications. I know I could have done better but it was my second appearance and I didn't quite have my nerves as well under control as on the 3rd and 4th appearances.
Given that she said she was going to proceed any way do you have a recommendation for how I should have responded rather than giving a vague objection?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>