View
295
Download
2
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
This is a Motion to Disqualify the judge, which I helped write up. This Motion was summarily dismissed by the judge. This is the Motion that the Complaint for Mandamus was based on. This stems from a case involving Jeffrey Dean Saxon who was fined $4000 by the city of Warren, Michigan based on civil citations for his property. More information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByE2lWEiEu0
Citation preview
STATE OF MICHIGAN
37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF MICHIGAN
CITY OF WARREN,
BUILDING AND ZONING DIVISION
(EVERETT MURPHY)
Plaintiff,
VS.
JEFFERY DEAN SAXON,
(an obvious fictional person of the State created
by the STATE and not real party of interest
“Jeffery-Dean: Saxon”)
Trustee – Sui Juris
Defendant in error,
Case numbers: T003166W / T003167W
DATE: 10/13/2010
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B), et al.
1
Comes now Defendant in error, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, a sovereign free white man over 21
years old, who has the rights to which all free men are entitled, who is not under the power of
another, such as the implied jurisdiction of any Corporation or Government to move the court to
disqualify Judge John M. Chmura per the rules laid out in MCR 2.003(B).
JURISDICTION
It has been and remains the position of the defense that this court surrendered jurisdiction
through due process violations and structural errors. However, in order to seek the intended
relief, this court must hear this Motion, at arm’s length and by special appearance, by the
Defendant. Furthermore, the Defense does not wave, nor has it ever waved these violations or
errors. The Defense stands fast.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, is not learned counsel.
2. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, is not schooled in law.
3. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, appeared before Judge John M. Chmura on September 29 th,
2010.
4. Judge Chmura summarily dismissed Defendant's Petition to Set Aside and Dismiss the
Complaint and Summons without reading it.
5. Judge Chmura allowed the prosecution to proceed without answering the Defendant’s Petition.
6. Judge Chmura found in favor of the State, but did not provide an account nor lawful backing for
his findings.
2
DISCUSSION
From the Michigan Judicial Institute:
The moving party has the burden of showing grounds for disqualification. A party
challenging a judge on the basis of bias or prejudice bears the burden of overcoming the
heavy presumption of judicial impartiality. Cain v Dep’t of Corr, 451 Mich 470, 497
(1996), and In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 151 (1992). One who
challenges a judge on the basis of the constitutional right to an unbiased and impartial
tribunal also bears a heavy burden. Cain, supra at 498–99 n 33.
Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B), “[a] judge is disqualified when the judge cannot impartially
hear a case.” Michigan Court Rule 2.003(B) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of
circumstances in which a judge is disqualified, including instances when a judge is
personally biased or prejudiced against a party or attorney. MCR 2.003(B)(1).
Bias or prejudice is defined as an attitude or state of mind belying an aversion or hostility
of such a degree that a fair-minded person could not entirely set it aside when judging
certain persons or causes. Cain, supra at 495. For purposes of disqualification, a judge’s
bias or prejudice must be actual and personal. Id. Unless the alleged bias or prejudice
displays such deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that a fair judgment would be
impossible, a judge’s favorable or unfavorable disposition must arise from facts or events
outside the current judicial proceeding. Id. at 495–96, 513. The mere fact that a judge
conducted a prior proceeding against the defendant does not amount to proof of
disqualifying bias. People v White, 411 Mich 366, 386 (1981), and People v Koss, 86 Mich
App 557, 560 (1978). A judge who sits as trier of fact and finds the defendant guilty is not
automatically disqualified from acting as trier of fact at the defendant’s retrial after
reversal on appeal. People v Upshaw, 172 Mich App 386, 388–89 (1988). A judge who
presides over a plea proceeding, during which the defendant provides a factual basis for a
3
guilty plea but then decides not to plead guilty, need not sua sponte disqualify himself or
herself from conducting the defendant’s subsequent bench trial. People v Cocuzza, 413
Mich 78, 83 (1982).
Motions for disqualification may also be based on an alleged violation of the due-process
requirement that a decision maker be unbiased and impartial. Cain, supra at 497–98, and
Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 350 (1975). It is only in the most extreme cases
that a judge will be disqualified for bias or prejudice on due-process grounds. Cain, supra
at 497–98. Examples of instances in which the probability of actual bias may be too high to
be constitutionally tolerable, and in which a judge may therefore be disqualified
notwithstanding the absence of a showing of actual bias, include situations where a judge:
1) has a pecuniary interest; 2) has been insulted, slandered and vilified by a party; 3) has
revealed deep prejudice against the defendant’s profession and has recently been a losing
party in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the defendant; or 4) might have prejudged the case
because of prior participation in the case as one who personally conducted the initial
investigation, amassed evidence, and filed and prosecuted the charges, or as one who
made the initial decision which is under review. Crampton, supra at 351–55, and Cain,
supra at 497–502, 514. Due process is violated when full- time law enforcement officials,
charged with responsibility for arrest and prosecution of law violators, sit as adjudicators
in law enforcement disputes between citizens and police officers. Crampton, supra at 356–
58. MCR 2.003(C)(1) states as follows: “(1) Time for Filing. To avoid delaying trial and
inconveniencing the witnesses, a motion to disqualify must be filed within 14 days after the
moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. If the discovery is made within 14
days of the trial date, the motion must be made forthwith. If a motion is not timely filed,
untimeliness, including delay in waiving jury trial, is a factor in deciding whether the
motion should be granted.”
4
The 14-day deadlines for filing a motion to disqualify are mandatory. Cain, supra at 493,
and Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), §2003.8, p 55 (the 14-day
deadlines in the subrule are mandatory, and the “untimeliness” in the third sentence refers
to time requirements other than those stated in the first two sentences of the subrule).
“Whenever a challenged judge has denied a disqualification motion and a request for a
hearing before another judge comes after a trial or hearing has started[,] the challenged
judge should have the option of proceeding with the trial or hearing unless a chief judge or
a higher court orders that the trial or hearing be interrupted or delayed so that the
disqualification motion may be considered by another judge before the trial or hearing is
concluded.” People v McDonald, 97 Mich App 425, 433 (1980), vacated on other grounds
411 Mich 870 (1981). See also In re Contempt of Steingold (In re Smith), 244 Mich App
153, 160–61 (2000) (the juvenile court referee did not err in denying defense counsel’s
oral motion for disqualification on the first day of trial, but the referee did err by not
referring the matter to the chief judge as required under MCR 2.003(C)(3)).
The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit and must include all known grounds for
disqualification. MCR 2.003(C)(2). The challenged judge decides the motion and, if the
motion is denied and a party so requests, the challenged judge must refer the motion to the
chief judge (if the court has more than one judge) or to a judge appointed by the state court
administrator (if the court has only one judge or where the challenged judge is the chief
judge) for de novo decision. MCR 2.003(C)(3).1
ARGUMENT
1 Monograph 6, Pretrial Motions Third Edition5
In this case, the Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, has chosen to stand up for his rights and
has become the target of over-ambitious government agents who wish to persecute and subjigate
him and deny him of protections afforded him by way of Consitutional law and its protections.
From the inception of the United States, the framers and the judiciary understood that men
were “endowed by their creator” certain protections and the Consitution was drawn up, not to
give citizens their protections, but rather, to ensure the governments limitations on infringing on
those protections. Further cases clarified exactly what those limitations were in order to better
establish clarity. The intent, however, is still very much preserved in its entirety.
To solidify these fundamental protections, the founders chose an adversarial system to
advance the path of justice. In this system, noone should be prosecuted by a King or a judge, but
by another party.
In order to be successful, a party must meet the burden of showing:
1. The opposing party (in this case, the defendant) had a duty to perform.
2. The opposing party did not meet that duty.
3. The opposing party caused an articulatable harm, sometimes called corpus delicti.
In some cases, an element known as mens rea must also be shown to prove that there was
intent., futher extending the corpus delicti argument.
Fortunately for the citizens of Warren, the judiciary and its officers have expedited the
process and no longer need to meet such troublesome burdens. City officials simply hand out
tickets to political rivels and people they have characterized as dissedants to bring a steady
monetary flow for its coffers in these troubled economic times. Should a defendant follishly
contest such policies and try and seek out remedy, the judge argues the case for the prosecution.
Also, the prosecution need not be burdened with the unforntunate task of replying to any
annoying Motions or Petitions filed on behalf of the Defendant, because the case is a forgone
6
conclusion and noone will read them, anyway. This is the way of things in Judge Chmura’s
Court.
The prosecution in Judge Chmura’s court has no burden to bear; has no case to meet. When
the prosecution speaks, it is regarded as gospel, despite evidence and statutes to the contrary.
Justice cannot be had in Judge Chmura’s court and it was not had in this case. Judge Chmura
summarily dismissed the Defendant’s Petition to Dismiss, without turning a page.
Furthermore, Judge Chmura heard form the complaining party, who admitted to committing
a crime to obtain evidence against the Defendant and proceeded, despite objections.
Judge Chmura took the prosecutor, at face value, regarding a statue, despite a reference to
that very same statute in the Defendant’s Petition, which would have contradicted the
prosecutions statement. However, Judge Chmura could not have known that the statute was
referenced, because he did not read the petition.
Furthermore, it must be assumed that Judge Chmura understands all laws and case law in
this matter and knew exactly what he was doing, Screws et al. v. US., 325 U.S. 91 (1945), in the
violation of the defendant’s rights.
The founding fathers anticipated corruption. They had faced adversities from the rule of
King George. The laws are based on that principle; the principles of checks and balances. When
these laws are ignored, corruption abounds. They must be adhered to in para materia. If one
element of the law is ignored or forgotten, then justice is lost. It cannot be left up to a king or a
judge’s state of mind or the outcome of a morning cup of coffee, but rather the strict adhesion to
the laws and guidelines laid out in statutes and case law.
The defendant believes that Judge Chmura has shown bias and this bias is fatal or
irreparable and it will not allow a fair adjudication for the defense.
Failure to enforce the law does not change it. Lousville & N.R.R. v U.S., 282 U.S. 740,
759.
7
WHEREFORE, the defendant moves the Court to grant the motion for disqualification or to
dismiss the citation with prejudice. If the Court denies this motion, the defendant moves the
court to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law why this motion should be dismissed in
accordance with MCR 2.613(C).
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________ Notary Stamp Here
Jeffery-Dean: Saxon c/o
JEFFERY DEAN SAXON
ADDRESS
Warren Michigan [48089]
PHONE
Accused in Pro Per
At Arms Length
Restricted jurisdiction
By special visitation - “ special appearance”
To challenge jurisdiction of the Court
8
VERIFICATION
I, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge, in all respects.
Jurat
Signed and sworn before me ________________________________, on this day, the _____ day of _________, 2009.
Notary Signature: ____________________________________
9
Recommended