But if the judge believed that the legal community would unanimously applaud the judicial and prosecutorial action that occurred at my trial because of my status as pro se and would agree that reset was completely justified, it would not have at all been too complicated to publically acknowledge my motion and then respond in writing to it. I refused to be participate in being coerced and taken advantage of on account of my status as pro se again. But this didn’t STOP the judge from TRYING to take advantage of my inexperience in the law outside presence of legal counsel again. In fact, the judge knew that in talking to me in the hallway he could provide me with a response that was not entirely honest, in an unofficial, off the record response outside the purview of legal observers, who otherwise might challenge his rationale, whereas I, in the absence of legal counsel in an off-the-record setting, would have no way of verifying whether the arguments that the judge presented would be legitimate. The judge understood this and was hoping that he could use his silvery tongue and prey on my inexperience in the law in secret to persuade me to forget about my motion. And pray that I would forget about my motion the admin judge did--as he nor the prosecutor nor the associate judge wanted anything in the record that showed the set because of a lack of jurors ruling was disingenuous. Little surprise that when I tell the admin judge, “I’m just here for deferred adjudication.” he responds in relief, “Ohhkaay,” “if you want deferred, then you don’t need to go to room 411. You need to go to room on the 3rd floor, get it signed by the attorney there, and then come directly to my chambers, ok? Just go to room, then bring it to me and I’ll sign off on it. Do that! I asked him to repeat his instructions to make sure the judge was actually telling me what I think he was. The judge was aware that there had been no witness on 1-8-13 and the court had conspired to reset my case on jury trial pretexts. Responding to my motion would have implicated the court in wrongdoing and opened itself up not only to dismissing the case and a potential lawsuit but also to the possibility of a loss of jobs and damage to the publics view of the courts integrity--much to the chagrin of the court, its head judge, the prosecution, and the council, not to mention the mayor. By contrast, Deferred adjudication in the judge’s chambers—like trying to resolve my motion in the hallway outside the presence of legal observers—would allow the judge to put my former motion immediately to rest in an off-the-record setting; forgo any chances in the future of an attorney or a defendant discovering that there had been no witness; and eliminate any possibility the court would have to admit that the prosecution and two judges had engaged in a coup against a citizen and engineered a reset that wouldn’t have taken place otherwise. Because Solis was as eager to grant me deferred as he was eager to entice me into a discussioon about my motion, he repeats the instructions.
Posted on: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:10:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015