Motion to Disqualify judge
It was very clear after the first hearing that the
judge was prejudice.
| |
|
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
This notice and motion is based on the following points and authorities of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1 and Plaintiff therefore asks to disqualify Judge William Mclafferty.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 (a) (6) (C)
(C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that
the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a
lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.
Prejudice as established by motion that Judge is so prejudiced that party cannot have fair and impartial trail. Mayr v. Superior Court (1964) 228 Cal. App. 2d 60, 61 39 Ca. Rptr. 240.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Christopher A. Brown, the plaintiff in this legal action, under the provisions of;
California Evidence Code section 452.
Matters which may be judicially noticed.
Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters..........
California Evidence Code section 452.
(d) Records of (1) any court of this State...........
And the provisions of;
California Evidence Code section 453. Compulsory judicial notice upon request.
The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in section 452 if a party requests it and:
(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and
(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of transcripts;
At hearing of motions before Judge Mclafferty, on July 17, 2000, of this case, Christopher Brown vs The County of Santa Barbara, as EXHIBIT ELEVEN,
Page 3 lines 26 through 27.
THE COURT:
"Well I can't make head or tails out of what's going on here. But is there an OSC re dismissal in this case."
The statement shows the judge cannot make head or tails of what is going on in the plaintiffs pleadings. The plaintiff alleges this is because his attitude is so severe he will not or cannot read the plaintiffs legal filings. The judges attitude dominates his interests and his immediate thought is dismissal, which is demonstrated by his inquiry to the County counsel regarding the presence of an "OSC re dismissal" in the case.
On page 4, lines 9 and 10 the plaintiff must finish the judges statement by saying "there were a lot of deaths." At lines 11 through 13 the judge indicates that the plaintiffs requests for judicial notice does not have "sufficient information" and denies judicial notice.
California Evidence Code 452.
(g) "Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot be reasonably be the subject of dispute.
It can be reasonably said that at least one of the listed events of extreme school violence, that of Littleton Colorado, Columbine High school where 15 people were killed, is known by every person possessing the senses of sight and sound, in every judicial jurisdiction in the continental United States. For all 18 events the dates and cities were provided and the;
Law Revision Comment
Of section 453 of the California Evidence Code states, concerning sufficiency of information provided for judicial notice;
i.e that no reasonable person having the same information as is available to the judge could rationally disbelieve the fact.
In this case 1035100 on July 17, 2000 Department 5 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court at the hearing of the plaintiffs motion for emergency injunctive relief, judge William Mclafferty chose to state that he "could not grant" judicial notice of a fact that no reasonable person could rationally disbelieve. The fact that 14 young people and a teacher were shot to death by two students on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High school in Colorado.
It is proven at page 7, lines 5 to 9, of the transcripts of the hearing that the judges neglect of the plaintiffs case is so complete that he is unaware of what pleadings are in the file. The motion plaintiff indicates at lines 1 through 4 of page 7, that the motion was in the file. Presented here with a request for judicial notice, as EXHIBIT THIRTEEN.
Further support of the fact that the judge has not examined the plaintiffs pleading or the documents of the file is to be found in the transcripts of EXHIBIT ELEVEN at:
PAGE 1; Lines 15-16, 20-21 & 23-24
PAGE 2; Lines 1-2
PAGE 3; Line 1, and 4, 9-11, 17-18
PAGE 4; Line 8
From line 23 page 4 to page 5 line 24 the plaintiff attempts to guide the judge through the proofs of service of the file that are complete and proper.
On page 6 lines 14 through 15 it is indicated by the judges denials of judicial notice that he is prejudice against the plaintiff who is acting as his own attorney in this case, grounds for disqualification per 170.1 (a) (6) (C). Further proof of this is on page 7 lines 17, 18 blanket denials of judicial notice.
On page 2, (EXHIBIT ELEVEN) lines 13 through 18, clear pre judging of the matter is demonstrated when immediately preceding, with consideration of the plaintiffs words of page 2, lines 3 through 12, (lines 8 through 9 can be taken as absolute by any rational human being who understands the ideology of civil society) indicates that the judge had made his decision beforehand and prepared his statement of lines 13 through 18, to present it to the plaintiff with no regard for anything the plaintiff might say at the hearing. Clearly pre judging without regard for the loss of life cited and requested to be judicially noticed.
A continued demonstration of this prejudice, EXHIBIT ELEVEN, page 7, lines 17 through 18 where the judge states,
THE COURT:
"There's no judicial notice taken of anything today. All right. The matter is over"
A total of 5 requests for judicial notice were treated in this way and all satisfied Evidence code 452 whereupon the compulsion of 453 became a duty of the court.
For the record the plaintiff believes the judge is intrinsically prejudice against the nature of the case rather than the plaintiff personally, while favoring the defendant, the County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiffs earlier motion to disqualify all Santa Barbara Superior Court judges, on calendar before the court on July 24, heard instead on July 17, was presented as much to deflect, from the judges of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court the severe discomfort that they feel when forced to read and make decisions upon pleadings that address abuses of hypnosis, as the motion was to attain fair, just and impartial hearing of the plaintiffs case. To support this the plaintiff;
REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE
Under the provisions of;
California Evidence Code section 452.
Matters which may be judicially noticed.
Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters..........
California Evidence Code section 452.
(d) Records of (1) any court of this State...........
And the provisions of;
California Evidence Code section 453. Compulsory judicial notice upon request. (a) and (b) satisfied fully with sufficient information.
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of court transcripts to further demonstrate the difficulty Santa Barbara Superior Court judges have in consideration of the subject matter of this case, introduces EXHIBIT FOURTEEN. Transcripts from trial September 8 1998, case 220298, pages 25 and 26. At lines 23 through 25 the plaintiff, Mr. Brown asks the judge to call the defendant to the stand for testimony. The transcripts do not show an objection by the defendants counsel to the defendant giving testimony and there was none. The transcripts also do not show that over five minutes elapsed between the plaintiffs request and the judges response.
Instead of calling the defendant to the stand the judge asks, at line 26 if, the plaintiff has taken the defendants deposition. Rationally, rightfully and lawfully the judge had every reason to call the defendant for testimony to the stand at the time and place of the plaintiffs request. The plaintiff had waited over a year for the opportunity to hear it. Instead the judge asks "why not" at line 28. On page 26 at line 1, the stunned plaintiff states the obvious. Had the Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge been rational, rightful and lawful in the exercise of his judicial powers, the 23 deaths of young people in the schools after that trial would not have occurred. In support of this statement;
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE
Under the provisions of California Evidence Code 452 and 453 and its various applicable parts as cited earlier in this motion, of EXHIBIT FIFTEEN, a newspaper clipping from a newspaper of July 19, 2000 with title "Boy, 13, Surrenders after Gun Fired Into Ceiling at School". The first sentence of the second paragraph states that "No one was injured in the Monday shooting". That day should be specifically noticed as July 17, 2000, the day of the hearing of the plaintiffs motions and all denial of plaintiffs motions and judicial notice. In the forth paragraph it is stated "that the gun was pointed in a girls face during the incident". Plaintiff requests notice of his amended complaint, page 9, lines 5,6,7, concerning the fact that girls were targeted in the lethal shootings listed for judicial notice as well as the synchronous timing of the July 17, incident with the hearing of the plaintiffs motions. A similar relation to that of EXHIBIT EIGHT (complaint) and the citation dated April 20, the day of the shootings at Columbine high.
CONCLUSION
This motion and its exhibits prove the judges inability to be fair and impartial therefore the plaintiff requests that the judge disqualify himself, but before doing so that he set aside the decision of July 17, 2000 denying the motion for emergency injunctive relief as well as the denial of the motion to disqualify all Santa Barbara Superior Court judges. And the plaintiff does so with a prayer that the judge grant this motion to prevent any chance of further grievous error on the part of any judges of the Santa Barbara Superior Court and shield them from the great difficulty of decision in this matter, as is demonstrated in this motion.
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN
I Christopher A. Brown Declare under the penalty of the laws of perjury of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I am the Plaintiff in the above action and that Judge William Mclafferty, before whom this case is pending is prejudiced against the party, interests of the party and the subject matter of the plaintiffs complaint, so that the Plaintiff believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial trial before the Judge.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the relief herein be granted.
Date;
Christopher A. Brown,
in PRO PER
(C)
170.1. (a) (6)
(6) For any reason (A) the judge believes his or her recusal would
further the interests of justice, (B) the judge believes there is a
substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial, or (C) a
person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that
the judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice towards a
lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.
170.3. (b)
(4) In the event that grounds for disqualification are first
learned of or arise after the judge has made one or more rulings in a
proceeding but before the judge has completed judicial action in a
proceeding, the judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived,
disqualify himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the
rulings he or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by
the judge who replaces the disqualified judge.
(c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself
refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a
written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before
the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for
disqualification of the judge. The statement shall be presented at
the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts
constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the
statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who
has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to
be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is
present in the courthouse or in chambers.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 disqualification of Judges is "automatic", when good faith belief in prejudice is sufficient without proof of facts. McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 512, 531-532, 116 Cal Rptr. 260, 526 P.2d 268.
Prejudice as established by motion that Judge is so prejudiced that party cannot have fair and impartial trail. Mayr v. Superior Court (1964) 228 Cal. App. 2d 60, 61 39 Ca. Rptr. 240.
Another matter, as shown on ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT dated 11/03/99, attached as EXHIBIT ONE, CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN vs WILLIAM GORDON, small claims action 999556, states that "ALL SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED" for adjudication of the entitled matter, establishing the prejudice of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judges against Christopher A. Brown. Attached EXHIBIT TWO, the Declaration of Hilary Williams establishes, that retired judge Dana Henry Senit is also prejudiced when failing to examine plaintiffs evidence or recognize fundaments of "official discretion".
CONCLUSION
EXHIBIT ONE concerning case #999556 alleging fraud, by William Gordon, a Santa Barbara Superior Court judge, in a failure to provide a fair and impartial trial, a duty owed to any plaintiff who pays fees to file a legal action in a court of law, is emotionally inflammetory in nature to judical officers and after all Santa Barbara Superior Court judges have been disqualified from hearing the matter, a general prejudice against the plaintiff is created. This action, case #01035100, alleges an evasion of duty by Santa Barbara County. Part of the alleged evasion is an unaccountability for missing court case files. The Judges of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST due to allegations of deficient record keeping and the interests of their employer, Santa Barbara County. A fair and impartial trial before a Judge is the plaintiffs only means of protecting his children, himself and children in Santa Barbara County schools.
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN
I Christopher A. Brown Declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. I am the Plaintiff in the above action and that all Santa Barbara Court Judges are prejudiced against my legal actions, and that the judges of the named Court, before whom this case is pending are prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party, so that the Plaintiff believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial trial before the Judges of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the relief herein be granted.
Date;
Christopher A. Brown,
in PRO PER