Defendant has repeatedly brought the denial of Due Process to the attention of the ineffectiveassistance of counsel, but they have refused to acknowledge that this is not normal procedures or that there is anything wrong with it.7.
Defendant was not arraigned in OPEN COURT on any charges alleged in the arrest of April10, 2009, and there is NO record of same and NO WAIVER on the record and the ineffectiveassistance of counsel has been unwilling to assist with Defendant¶s due process rights.8.
Defendant was never allowed to have a Probable Cause Hearing or an AdversarialPreliminary Hearing but the ineffective assistance of counsel told the Defendant that she wouldnot file a frivolous motion because she, Beth Arreguin, wanted to keep her Bar Card. This againis ineffective assistance of counsel when there is no probable cause determination in the filesigned by anyone.9.
Defendant was not formally charged with a crime in OPEN Court, and this can be verified bythe Electronic Court Reporter causing the Court to be in want of both subject matter and InPersona Jurisdiction in this case because there is no Service of Process on the Record, but theineffective assistance of counsel refuses to point that out to the Court, and prevents Defendantfrom doing so while he appears to be Counsel of record.10.
Defendant has not received service of process from this Court made pursuant to statutes andSupreme Court Rules, Janove v. Bacon,
111. 2d 245, 249,218 N.E. 2d 70
, 708 (1953) There is NO OBJECTIONS from the ineffective assistance of counsel.11.
Defendant was denied Due Process in that the prerequisites for trial have been omitted likefirst appearance, probable cause hearing, adversarial preliminary hearing, arraignment, or appointment of counsel in OPEN COURT, and there is no Court Reporter¶s record for verification to the contrary. Court Employee (Sue) in the official court reporter¶s office hasverified that no record of the proceedings mentioned above exist in the office of the courtreporter.12.
The ineffective assistance of counsel has refused to advice Defendant that a ³Notice of Expiration of Speedy Trial´ could have been filed when Defendant filed his first Pro se Motion