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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Complaint for Mandamus

Complaint for Mandamus

Ratings: (0)|Views: 265|Likes:
Published by Mark Jackson
This is the Complaint for Mandamus, which I helped write up. 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
This is the Complaint for Mandamus, which I helped write up. 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

More info:

Published by: Mark Jackson on Oct 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

03/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTJeffrey Dean Saxon
 Plaintiff,
v.
John M. Chmura
 De
 f 
e
ndant.
 _________________________________________________________________/
 Jeffrey Dean Saxon,
 Pro Se
A
DDRESSWarren Mi 48089PHONE
 _________________________________________________________________/
 
EMERGENCY COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUSTO DISQUALIFY THE JUDGE
 Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B),MCR 7.206 and MCL 600.4401, et al.
The Plaintiff states:1. Citations were presented to the Plaintiff on
Augu
st 25, 2010, re
g
ardin
g
violations in thecity code.2. The Plaintiff challen
g
ed those citations.
File no.___________________ 
 
3
. J
u
d
g
e John M. Chm
u
ra r 
u
led in favor of the city on September 29, 2010, inc
u
rrin
g
a lar 
g
efine for the Plaintiff.4. The J
u
d
g
e lacked j
u
risdiction to impose fines, not withstandin
g
fines that far exceededconstit
u
tional limitations and lawf 
u
l limitations of fines allowed.5. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider [exhibit
A]
on Oct 12 2010 and a Motion toDisq
u
alify J
u
d
g
e Chm
u
ra [exhibit B
]
on Oct. 15 2010.6. The Defendant s
u
mmarily dismissed all of the Plaintiff¶s Motions on Oct. 21 2010.7. The Defendant ref 
u
sed to follow lawf 
u
l proced
u
re re
g
ardin
g
the Plaintiff¶s Motion toDisq
u
alify when the Plaintiff inq
u
ired abo
u
t the dismissal of the Motion to Disq
u
alify.8. The proper proced
u
res for Disq
u
alification are laid o
u
t in MCR 2.00
3(
B), which theDefendant
u
nlawf 
u
lly chose to i
g
nore.9. The Defendant¶s Co
u
rt
A
dministrator, Robert C
u
rtis, informed the Plaintiff that theDefendant wo
u
ld not be
g
rantin
g
the Motion to Disq
u
alify, that the Motion to Disq
u
alify had been s
u
mmarily dismissed and that the Defendant wo
u
ld not be sendin
g
it to a hi
g
her co
u
rt,in accordance with MCR 2.00
3(
B).
 s
eeA
 ffidavit of Ev
e
nt 
 s
of Octob
er 
21, 2010
[exhibit C
]
.
 
10. The Plaintiff is not barred from any action of a Writ of Mandam
u
s.Plaintiff has attached his
 B
i
e
 f in Suppo
t of Complaint fo
Mandamu
 s
to this Complaint.
W
HEREFORE,
Plaintiff moves the co
u
rt to iss
u
e a Writ of Mandam
u
s toinq
u
ire into the matter of the j
u
dicial disq
u
alification of J
u
d
g
e Chm
u
ra and for Defendant to show ca
u
se why he did notcomply with law and that followin
g
saidhearin
g
the lawf 
u
l process of appeal be ordered and
g
ranted in accordance with MCR 2.00
3(
B).

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
puretrust liked this

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)//-->