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”.