8883Re: [tips_and_tricks] challenging bona fides
- Jul 4, 2005At 10:09 AM 6/29/2005, you wrote:
Back in March Frog Farmer replied to a post saying:
From: Frog Farmer
I challenge everyone's bona
"If they do not decide to voluntarily recuse themselves, then I use the
statutory procedures for disqualifying them. I've never had to proceed
through to the end of those procedures, as they have always bowed out
gracefully when given the opportunity."
In a traffic case I tried to do this with an ad hoc judge and he went into a rage entered a plea on my behalf and ended the hearing over my objections. Yesterday, I was ordered back to court, refused to discuss motions and tried to disqualify all humans calling themselves part of the court. I ask the prosecutor for one shred of evidence that he represented the state as he alleges. Tried to do likewise with the clerk and was intending to do the same with the judge. Such was not permitted. The Judge got violent and ended the hearing when I ask if he was an elected judge or appointed judge. He was not responsive. He said " my dear sir you have a judge." I may have made a mistake but I said until I receive a responsive answer this court is not properly set. I still have another shot at challenging their bona fides but could use more on how I should do it. Should I send anything to the prosecutor/judge about everyone being prepared to be examined as to their bona fides at the trial set for August 30? I could request they produce their oath and challenge it. I could really use some input as this Judge is a real dictator.I tried to assert:Ryder v. United States (1995), 515 U.S. 177, 182,132 L.Ed.2d 136, 143 wherein it said: The United States Supreme Court held that one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case is entitled to a decision on the merits. I take this to mean all officers and not only the Judge. I could use questions to ask to challenge their bona fides and appointments. Help!
May I suggest that you may be saying far more here than you should. Be prepared now to defend against already having defaulted to the defects to the extent that you have participated, although I think you have taken the correct approach. Do not fail to appreciate the importance of how you deliver your argument; it is usually a critically overlooked element.
You do not have 'another shot at challenging their bona fides' at all and shouldn't suggest that you do. That comment alone is enough to invite the conclusion that you have abandoned your first attempt which, in itself, may disqualify you from the second. You have already questioned the judge's credentials by doing nothing more, necessarily, than saying that you are not persuaded of the validity of his claim to the position. Your reason need be nothing more than that you cannot find a basis upon which his claim can be established or verified. At that point the burden is conveyed to whomever has the responsibility of defending his claim, and the challenge remains in place and a bar to proceeding until it is countered. Anything less effectively defeats any conclusion from the proceeding. I'm not really sure of who would have the proper responsibility for validating the judge's authority to sit, but you would do well to insist that it come from the appropriate source and no one else. Do understand that the judge may be in the position of simply declaring the validity of his own authority. That may be enough to authenticate the proceeding, but given that his authority truly is illegitimate, he would be personally vulnerable and subject to punitive action. There should even be criminal implications here, if you care to be aggressive.
It is not often easy, but being able to take a well constructed position that stands properly on its own can enable you to respond to a raving judge with silence, often a powerful and formidable tool. You just have to make sure that you are well enough schooled in what you are trying to achieve that you don't get caught with your britches down. That is most a matter of thoroughness, as a rule.
I'm guessing that there is a fair chance that your judge will take you to trial and conviction (or its civil counterpart) irrespective of just about anything you say. You may find yourself in a position of not participating at all simply to sustain your challenge. Really, a pretender to a judgeship has no proper access to judicial immunity and his decisions are not enforceable, but be prepared for a fight. You might find that often the optimum formula for success is to put the system at such risk that the system itself will abandon this character.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>