PDA

View Full Version : APROX. 1/3 of US Deprived Of Critical Pro se right-secret revision of local court rules




Christopher A. Brown
04-02-2015, 07:03 PM
As far as I know, circuit court rules are consistent. But, I'm really only sure about the rules for the Los Angles area. So if you are in the 9th circuit, and care, check your district court rules.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

I did just try a site search for this with keywords that were in the missing section that was on top of the local court rules in 2005.

"pro se" "civil rights" "co-plaintiffs" assignment of magistrates and judges site:cacd.uscourts.gov

No results.

The rule provided a new magistrate and judge to a civil rights case that was filed, dismissed, then refiled with new co plaintiffs. The rule was create in perhaps 1885 during the post reconstruction area. Blacks in the south could not get a fair trial. Judges were prejudiced against them.

The supreme court wrote the rule to provide justice where, obviously, the lack of it caused an expansion of complaint.

I found the rule online in 2005. Then filed with 3 grandmothers with a civil rights suit that had been filed 3 times previous always going to the same magistrate and judge.

I am not an attorney and forgot to cite the rule. I depended on the judges to do their job. I do have ADHD. The suit was about getting treatment for alcohol and drug addiction. I've lost about 60 friends to this problem and the grandmothers have children and grandchildren that are afflicted. One died during appeal.

We were assigned to the same magistrate and judge and the case was dismissed. In 2006 I went to the Roybal building where the law library is and the 15-20 page section that was separate from the main body of rules was gone. The librarian had no idea it ever existed, There was no note of revision.

Online there was a note of revision for about 2 months. Then that disappeared.

A copy of the suit, which really had no legitimate defenses, was given to a reporter at a local paper. Two weeks later she was fired. Six weeks later 16 other reporters and editors were fired or resigned and were gagged. Here are scans of the paper and other articles related.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

It appears the case filed dealt with a VERY sensitive and important subject. So important that yanking these rules was justified within the agenda of those destroying America from within.

There are links back to the pleadings and product of the district court, the 9th circuit court of appeals, and the results of an application for a writ of Certiorari. Basically it appears that only the supreme court can write rules, and these rules were revised at some point that put them in a separate section. This facilitated great ease in unconstitutionally removing them.

All that needed to be done was remove the thin section and a page of the main body of rules that referred to them.

The public defender, a necessary defendant, was served my opposition to the county counsels motion to dismissed. Three days later he resigned.

I've tried for years to find a pre 2004 copy of the local court rules printed from online sources or obtained from the law library with no luck.

This revision is purely against the law. It is unconstitutional. It is a direct violation of the Administrative Offices of the US District Courts regulation which states that any change in court rules that has a significant effect on civil rights must have public notice for a considerable time wherein the public comment upon the proposed is taken. Then the public comment is used in the final change.

Not only was that not done, there is no note of revision. Judicial councils can abrogate rules, but only if there is no significant effect on civil rights.

There are going to be civil rights suits filed that no attorney will ever represent. And the people who need the justice will not even have enough money to tempt one. Those missing rules are going to perhaps cause the end of free America, one way or the other.

Who has a copy of the pre 2004 rules?

Weston White
04-03-2015, 04:53 AM
I am uncertain which courts you are referring to; however, generally, the courts within each venue possess rule-making powers over their procedural requirements (including federal court circuits), see: http://www.courts.ca.gov/rules.htm; http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf; http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/frap.pdf. The courts have great equitability on such matters and in their findings of awarding damages and making orders, which may be restricted only by public statutes (state or federal), as applicable.

Generally, you can motion for one recusal of the trying judge at your trial (CCCP170.6(a)(2) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=170-170.9)), but after that the burden falls upon you for prove cause for further such recusals.

There is a procedure known to lawyers as “forum shopping”, where they research the background of judges and attempt to learn of the most favorable venue to file their case, or when to best calendar their case, considering the judge’s past rulings on related issues and whatnot that would likely be most favorable to their case.

Here is great information about federal disqualification and recusal:

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law (http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicialdq.pdf/$file/judicialdq.pdf)
Recusal: Analysis of Case Law Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 (https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/fjc/recusal.pdf)

Also to note:


28 U.S.C. § 47 provides that “[n]o judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.”

And some more information that is really helpful: Judicial Disqualification & Recusal in California (http://www.judicialrecusal.com/california/)

Christopher A. Brown
04-03-2015, 01:52 PM
I just did another search of Oregon US district courts to see if the section titled "assignments of magistrates and judges" existed there. No.

"assignments of magistrates and judges" site:www.ord.uscourts.gov

What that means is that it is very likely that this vital prose civil rights rule was removed across the 9th circuit, depriving potential pro se litigants of a vital right of access to fair and impartial courts.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap_01.jpg

Christopher A. Brown
04-03-2015, 01:52 PM
Weston White, thank you for that information, I will study it. I will also try to source other local courts for their rules. My guess is they yanked them all to be consistent.

Here is an effort of mine to disqualify in state court. It shows how bad it can be when a court cay stem gains a prejudice against a litigant.

Hmmm, disqualification of judges. Maybe "forum shopping" is a technique some can afford, not me. Some friend disqualified a federal court judge in a mortgage fraud case based on a failure to disclose investments in a finance company creating a conflict of interest.

It's pretty hard for a pro se litigant when an entire states court system colludes with gubernatorial sanctioning for the purpose of depriving a threat to the dominant secrecy of justice, impeding disclosures of treason.

To support that assertion here is a motion to disqualify a commissioner in a family law case that was used to impede my disclosures of treason.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/famlaw/209449mo.disq.12_11_07.html

Four years without a drivers license in California between 2005 and 2009 seriously impairs disclosure of treason relating to 9/11.

The disqualification was sent to Imperial county to be head by Jeffery Johnson who appears to be a serious "climber" in the California judicial system, like Sterne. The commissioner. Sterne was rewarded with appointment to a sitting judge for the deprival of justice against me by Schwarzenegger after a libertarian having a public access TV show asked me for an affidavit (http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/famlaw/209449.affi.abuse8_5_09.html) regarding the commissioners gaucheries and deprivation of right in court.

This declaration falsely states a motion for estoppel was heard and denied. False statements are reason to strike from the record.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/famlaw/209449.dec.sterne.disq.ans.html

Notice that these face pages are stamped "received" rather that "filed". I demanded the clerk stamp them as filed, and Nancy Spicer, the family law clerk refused.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/famlaw/famfaces/209449mot.strik.dec.face1.jpg
http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/famlaw/famfaces/209449mot.evid.hear.face1.jpg

Judges have no duty to use any pleading not stamped as filed. The motion to disqualify was denied whereas if they both would have been filed, one or the other would have to be granted.