Return to the Courthouse On 1-11 when I reentered the front of the courthouse, I go to the same court clerk window as before to see about requesting deferred; she says I have a courtdate already but let me go ask a supervisor. She returns and tells me if you go to court 9 in room 411 tell them you probably cant make it to the court date, and they will probably grant you deffered. Upon exiting the elevator, I see the admin judge at the end of the hallway, rounding the same corner of the hallway leading to what I would discover was the off-docket courtroom. He intercepts me as I begin to round the corner and asks me what it is I am looking for. Since I didn’t know who this was, I ask the man for identification, whereupon the man identifies himself as Judge S. I tell him, “Oh, I had talked with you the other night over the phone from court #3. I bet you’ve had a chance to see my motion (dated 1-9) already, huh?” “Probably not”, laughing, “we don’t get things that fast around here.” “What’s your motion about? I pause. Is it asking for a continuance?” No I say. The judge repeatedly presses me to go into the details and merits of my motion. What’s the basis of your motion? Is it a dismissal? I knew (but he probably did not think I knew or most unrepresented defendants would know) that discussing the merits of a motion outside the presence of the other legal party is wrong. But I obviously knew why he was doing this. I refuse to go into the particulars of my case beyond the fact that I think the court was biased against me (i.e., because I was unrepresented and had been without an attorney). I tell the admin judge he can respond to my motion normally in writing. He barks, “That’s too complicated!” I fire back, “No it’s not,” and then he asks, “Just tell me what it’s about”. I say Im not going to say. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I knew responding in writing or on open records to motions is the normal procedure for doing things. I also knew he couldnt claim responding to my motion would be too compliccated if he hadnt seen it; so it was a lie for him to give the impression he hadnt seen my motion when he clearly had. I knew the judge believed that I didnt know there had been no witness--as this was NOT brought up in my motion. But he knew that there had been no witnesses, and the judges and prosecutors had engaged in organized behavior that the legal community and broader public would not approve of, namely, they had on account of my status as pro se and believing i wouldnt know if a witness was available, engaged in and condoned actions to achieve reset that would not have occurred but for my status as pro se. The reason the admin judge stopped me in the hallway, a total stranger to him, was because he wanted to get me to talk to him about the merits of my motion outside legal councils presence again, and in an off THE record setting, get me to go into the particularls of my motion so he could jump at the off the record chance to fish for any more information I might know about my case and try to convince me, in setting where arguments would not be on the record or checked for accuracy by a defense attorney, that the basis of my motion was moot and should be forgotten--especially if I didnt mention anything about there not being witness available. I had already seen the judge use his position to take advantage of my inexperience in the law to get me to agree to a reset that never would have occurred had the judges known legal counsel were by my side. I was not inclined to once again allow the judge to take advantage of my inexperience in the law by giving him another opportunity to “convince” me I was wrong outside the presence of an effective legal representative. Even so, the judge knows ex parte communications on the merits of motions are ethical violations—of the very kind of misconduct I had seen take place at trial, no doubt on account of my status as pro se as well. That the judge was willing to engage in this activity showed the judge assumed that, on account of my status as pro se, I would NOT be able to identify ex parte communications. It also showed that because he thought I didn’t know what ex parte communications were, he was willing to engage in this misconduct to try and exploit my lack of legal knowledge for his own personal gain—just as he, the judge and the prosecutor had all taken advantage of my inexperience in the law on 1-8 by engaging in acts to coerce/strong arm me into a reset--which never would have happened had I had legal counsel. I know the judge did not want to reject or approve my motion in writing--given the fact that doing so would have implicated two judges and a prosecutor in staging a coup that deprived me of my due process right to be released from court as soon as a witness was not present. But if the judge believed that the legal community would unanimously applaud the judicial and prosecutorial actions 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. ---------------------------------------------------- Disgusted, I turn and start walking toward the door of the off-docket court #9. The admin judge says, “Where are you going?” raising his voice each time. “Where are you going?” I knew the court judge didnt want me going and talking to the prosecution about my motion in an on-the-record setting or it getting out he stopped me in the hallway to try and cover up the issue there. He was clearly upset that he was loosing his opportunity to immediately resolve and cover up for this misconduct on the part of the court. I said if you dont want to listen to me judge thats fine. “I’m going,” I say, “to where I was told to go” and I entered the courtroom to see a prosecutor. Little did I know at this time that because my motion did allude to a conspiracy of wrongdoing on the part of the court, it ultimately did not matter that I went and talked to the prosecution. The court had made plans to withhold this document as long as possible from the very moment I filed it in order to keep them from incriminating themselves.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:48:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015