Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Current § 1983 RE: Suing State Judges

Expand Messages
  • originalfrogfrmr
    ... Based upon these two paragraphs, traffic tickets were accepted (they waive many rights). At the arrests, immediate appearances before magistrates do not
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 3, 2013
      > On 6/2/2013 4:04 PM, jai mann wrote:
      >> I disqualified the Judge on a lack of a constitutional oath but she
      >> went forward any way. Every thing is on the record and she lacked any
      >> jurisdiction to act at any point even if she had a valid oath. If
      >> getting them to step aside was so easy then perhaps this judge didn't
      >> get the memo.
      > Alas this has been my experience on last 4 traffic court encounters -even
      > to
      > point of objecting to 'judge' presenting States case when prosecutor shown
      > to have not oath then thrown in jail for objecting while specially
      > appearing.

      Based upon these two paragraphs, traffic tickets were accepted (they waive
      many rights). At the arrests, immediate appearances before magistrates do
      not appear to have been demanded. The right to a real court via rejection
      of the infraction process (and election to have the case tried as a
      misdemeanor) and acceptance of the "traffic court" may have something to
      do with the outcome. The lack of a separate disqualification proceeding
      with another judge and subsequent appeals may give a clue to the results.

      > Its depressing to present proper pleadings on jurisdiction elements and
      > due
      > process breakdowns being rail roaded over in courts and then get flak by
      > posters we were too ignorant or backed down too easy. One interesting
      > thing I discovered on last two traffic ct face off was 'judge-magistrate'
      > will not and does not look at anything you may have recorded in record
      > before arraignment - Only the docket sheet.

      This proves that the first time the magistrate was seen was at
      arraignment, so rights were already waived. Were all required elements of
      the arraignment present? It's hard to get that here in California.

      > I asked two judges about
      > that and both said until arraignment gotten they did not have reason or
      > duty [jurisdiction] too. Twice last month I was told my charges did not
      > rate a jail sentence if convicted.

      That is proof of the infraction process. to get full rights, you agree
      to a possible jail sentence and treatment as a misdemeanor. It's in our
      state codes. What state has a different process?

      > I brought up lack of verified
      > complaint,

      ...which is waived by acceptance of a notice to appear or "traffic ticket".
      The real verified complaint if it ever could exist could have been made to
      appear if an immediate appearance before the magistrate had been required
      and the complaint demanded then and there IF the arresting impersonator
      could have fooled the magistrate (impersonator).

      > then told not to speak and if I didn't let him enter not guilty I'd be
      > put in jail.

      In California, the accused can demand time to answer, up to seven days. I
      explain my need to have this time to show the fake arraignment documents
      to an attorney and ask his opinion as to how I should plead to them in
      light of the other missing arraignment components. Sometimes I'm jealous
      of all you folks in states where everything is done according to the law,
      where judges and cops have oaths, and arraignments have the required
      elements, where complaints are verified and signed (which never gets
      revealed if a ticket is accepted first).

      > Already tested two judges in two counties at this point objecting
      > to them acting in my behalf w/o my permission to have
      > spent time in their two jails. So I guess I'm not worthy of those who
      > get success every time ahead of time. hobot

      "Testing two judges" implies going through two disqualification processes.
      See California law at Code of Civil procedure 170.3

      (c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or
      fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified
      statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting
      forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the
      judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable
      opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for
      disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or
      his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the
      judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that
      the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.

      (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose
      impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may
      request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his
      or her place.

      (3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the
      judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall
      notify the presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a
      replacement of his or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the
      judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all
      of the allegations contained in the party’s statement and setting forth
      any additional facts material or relevant to the question of
      disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge’s
      answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the

      (4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed
      shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the
      clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a
      replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).

      (5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon
      his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or
      otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that
      case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by
      another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the
      event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the
      judge’s answer [FF NEVER AGREES!!!], by a judge selected by the
      chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to
      act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of
      the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be
      made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this
      subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to
      decide the question of disqualification.

      (6) The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the
      question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and
      any written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the
      matter for hearing as promptly as practicable. If a hearing is ordered,
      the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be
      disqualified to argue the question of disqualification and shall for good
      cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of fact. If the judge
      deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is
      disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding
      judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the
      disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a).

      (d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge
      is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate
      from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the
      proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10
      days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order
      determining the question of disqualification. If the notice of entry is
      served by mail, that time shall be extended as provided in subdivision (a)
      of Section 1013.


      and then, if all goes against you, you still have the peremptory
      challenge, which nobody has mentioned using, by filing the required
      affidavit listed in section 170.6.

      It's obvious to me that rights have been waived from the IMOC on. you
      cannot count on people treating you nice. You must take any step offered
      to you by the law that helps to derail your prosecution. Failure to take
      a step may result in outcomes we don't like.

      If you go through the codes carefully, you might find 100 things you
      could require them to follow. They know my agenda sheet has over 100
      lines. They do not want to discuss even a fraction of them. How many
      steps do you guys plan to take in your next case if they don't release you
      at the scene of the arrest? Can I guess?

      1. Accept the ticket
      2. show up on the date on the ticket
      3. Make various verbal objections
      4. Fail to require elements of an arraignment
      5. Fail to ask for time under section 990 or its equivalent
      6. Fail to initiate formal disqualification proceedings
      7. Pay a fine despite claiming to know the money issues


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.