one of the three that compelled them to conduct the smelliest of ex parte's ever

A POOR OLD REDACTED
IN PROPRIA PERSONA








SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



The People of the State of California,
Plaintiff,
vs.
A Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 8CA10541

Notice that minutes are not reflecting what the attorneys are claiming to have filed. Notice of untimely opposition to Traverse motion said to be filed June 17, 2009, by Howard Williams. Notice of irregularities that consistently have violated the rights of the defendant and request for a continuance.

Defendant POOR OLD REDACTED’s Counsel Howard Williams filed a Motion to Traverse the Search Warrants on June 17th 2009. An opposition was said to be filed on July 9h of 2009 by someone at the City Attorney’s office, but it is not signed by the clerk for reasons not yet explained. According to Mr. Williams the City Attorney indeed faxed him an opposition motion on July 8 starting at 5.11 P.M and ending somewhere near six (according to Howard Williams it was a 35 page motion.) This according to Mr. Williams, upon being questioned by the defendant, was “not fine” but no remedies other than another continuance could be asked. The defendant submits that this is not true and that it caused a needless continuance of a malicious prosecution. The defendant has expressed sentiments to this attorney, Howard Williams that will show that she would not have agreed to a continuance and it is clear that he has caused needless grief and delay. If Mr. Williams had left his office at 5 P.M that night (Which is common) he might have had no time at all to even know about the motion as he was due in court for A POOR OLD REDACTED for a hearing on this same motion the next morning. Mr. Williams seemingly unaware of deadlines or filing rules or the ABA in general asks for a nearly one month period and expects the understanding of the defendant, as according to Mr. Williams, this 35 page motion they have snuck into his fax after 5 P.M , will demand research etc. Said Motion for reasons unclear is now set for August 12th of 2009. Pursuant to Court rules the opposition motion was required to be filed 5 days before the hearing on July 9th. Give or take, it had to be filed by July 2.
The prosecution therefore by filing such this opposition to the motion on the date of the hearing should either be denied any hearing or should be given sanctions. According to the rules of court a party who fails to file an opposition to a pending motion may be deemed to have consented to the granting of the motion in its entirety. Accordingly, POOR OLD REDACTED requests that the motion to traverse the warrants be granted in its entirety... The defendant would like any court that may view this now, or down the road, to know that there is no evidence in the minutes filed as of July 9th 2008 that indicates either that Mr. Williams filed any motions or set any motions for hearings and there is no mention of any motions filed by the prosecutors who claim they filed a moot motion on July 9th 2009. Judge Villar despite these irregularities has pressured the defense to have a hearing on the motion to traverse on August 12th 2009 and the defendant submits that due to the other motions she had to file due to the lies of Howard Williams and the extra efforts necessitated by City Attorney Jennifer Waxler getting the judge to agree that I be forbidden to contact the adversarial attorney ( except for personal delivery or U.S Mail) by the defendant for reasons that would not satisfy a reasonable person . Howard William’s complete passivity and duplicity further indicates that no counsel was in fact adequately representing POOR OLD REDACTED at this point, and that defendant’s rights have been trampled and her life … smashed for very nearly a year by this prosecution and the other self serving entities.
POOR OLD REDACTED requests a continuance of 2 weeks to prepare a reply to the opposition to the Traverse.
The defendant on August 3, 2009 timely filed an amended motion to Traverse and a Request for Franks hearing and if the Hon. Villar sets a hearing for that instead, at a time that allows a reasonable time for the defendant to prepare, than the failure of the prosecution to file a timely opposition motion can be moot, and a continuance will suffice. The defendant asserts her right to a speedy trial has been more than compromised by the antics of the attorneys on both sides.
Dated this August 12, 2009


A POOR OLD REDACTED