Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defendant's Objection (9!29!10)

Defendant's Objection (9!29!10)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Published by Mark Jackson
This is my delayed objection to issues in my case.
This is my delayed objection to issues in my case.

More info:

Published by: Mark Jackson on Sep 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/30/2010

pdf

text

original

 
1
STATE OF MICHIGANIN THE 36
TH
DISTRICT COURT3
RD
CIRCUIT COURTCRIMINAL DIVISIONSTATE OF MICHIGAN, 
Plaintiff,v
MARK JACKSON
Defendant,_________________________________________________________/
Mark Alan Jackson,
 Pro Se
129 North Lowell RoadWindham, New Hampshire 03087313 478 8061
_________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S DELAYED OBJECTION TOPROSECUTOR’S LACK OF RESPONSE
 Persuant to MCR 2.119 and MCR 6.001(D).
Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to object to the Prosecutor’s lack of response to the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and JudgeChylinski’s efforts to argue the Prosecutor’s position.
FACTSCase No. 00-69257HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI
 
2
1.
 
In August of 2010, the Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss theIndictment regarding a case from 2001, hereafter referred to as the “Motion”.2.
 
The Motion alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and misconduct by JudgeChylinski for not having a valid Oath of Office, among other things.3.
 
On September 24. 2010, the court heard arguments on that Motion.4.
 
The Prosecution, Sunita Doddamani, failed to file a response to that Motion.5.
 
Upon entering the court room, the Defendant could hear the prosecutor discussing theMotion with Judge Chylinski’s Clerk.6.
 
The Clerk asked if the prosecutor had seen the Motion and the prosecutor responded bystating, “No, but she had heard about it.”7.
 
Once the hearing began, Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that he had read theMotion.8.
 
Instead of holding counsel to the standards required by a member of the bar, JudgeChylinkski chose to argue counsel’s position for them and made no mention of counsel’slack of response.9.
 
Judge Chylinski held to the position that he was a viable Judge and that the allegedmisconduct was an oversight, “at best” on his part.10.
 
Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that, “He was talking” and the Defendant wasdeprived of his opportunity to object for the record.11.
 
The Defendant asked Judge Chylinski for Findings of fact and Conclusions of law in hisorder.12.
 
Judge Chylinski responded to the Defendant’s request for Findings of Fact andConclusions of law by saying that it would be “sparse”.
 
3
13.
 
Judge Chylinski denied the Defendant’s Motion.
ARGUMENT
The Defendant was deprived of his rights of due process and Constitutional protections.The Motion heard on September 24, 2010 was an effort to reclaim those rights.The prosecution had a duty to respond to the Motion and had more than a month to makethat response and ask the court for relief. Counsel did not ask for a continuance, but simplyrelied on Judge Chylinski to argue their case. All that Judge Chylinski required of counsel wasto agree with his own position.The Defendant’s Motion alleged that Judge Chylinski was not a Constitutionally viableofficial during the time of the original offense. This was addressed at the hearing and the Judgewas slightly defensive of this issue. Case Law, the State of Michigan Constitution, theConstitution of the United States and Statues are all conclusive on these points.A prudent and intelligent person can only assume that the Judge was “forced” to deny theDefendant’s Motion, not based on law, but rather, based on an effort to cover up his misdeeds.Therefore, counsel was not required to take any position in the matter. This issue could notcome to light if the Judge wanted to maintain his standing as a member in good standing of the judiciary.Whatever the reason for the denial of the Motion, Counsel must be held to a particularstandard. Case Law screams out that a Defendant should not be held to the same standards ascounsel, otherwise the burden would be too great and the whole weight of the system wouldcome crashing down on his shoulders. To further reinforce that point, the forefathers ensuredthat justice should not be denied a defendant because he is not schooled in law. This was never

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->