Since the court illegally refused to file this

REDACTED DEFENDANT
In Propria Persona


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


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

PLAINTIFF

vs.

REDACTED DEFENDANT,

DEFENDANT
Case No. 8CA10541

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
REGARDING THE COMPETENCY ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 12, 2009. REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND TO DISMISS BASED ON DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL DUE TO UNWARRANTED CONTINUANCES

Date:
Time:
Division:



TO: . THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA
AND THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR AND FEDERAL COURTs
Notice is hereby given at the date, time and department set forth above, defendant, REDACTED DEFENDANT shall move this court to inform the defendant of the status of the motion filed to Void the order granted by Judge Samantha Jessner on August 12, 2009.
defendant finds it too hard to believe that Judge Jessner would allow so many acts of malpractice and such a showing of malicious prosecution to go unnoticed, and for those purposes the defendant will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there must be a big misunderstanding caused by haste or inadvertance and present some facts in a more concise way.

The illegal order for a competency is void and a date needs to be set for a hearing on REDACTED DEFENDANT’s motion to void or a date when it can be conceded that an error was made and that the trial must move forward. It is not fair or legal to have REDACTED DEFENDANT and her family struggle with the brutality inherent in such a situation (Such an obvious and slanderous ploy by the prosecution) for longer than necessary.

The defendant can’t counter the statements made by Felise Cohen- Kalpakian and Jennifer Abrams Waxler in the illegal ex parte that took place at the bench, and that are not listed in the minutes for reasons yet to be investigated, but she can deduce that Kalpakian and Waxler were doing whatever they could to harm the chances for the defendant to prevail at trial as evidenced by their lying openly to the court later on. And, by there slanderous and shamelessly baseless statements, “ She is a danger to herself and others and she was pro per from the beginning” The statement by Kalpakian are code words to get some locked up, and they are not in any way true nor has she shown any evidence to support that very strong claim, and which is required by law.
Waxler says I was pro per from the beginning which I know from my research was meant to sway a judge to associate me with the reputation of most pro pers- nutty etc. I was and am now only pro per because it was either that or being represented by those who simply didn’t have the resources to fight this frightful prosecution( The public defender’s office and then the spooked and corruptible Howard Williams.) If the defendant was in possession of the funds needed for a capable , unskittish, and honest attorney she would retain one.

The defendant realizes that though no such hearing should have taken place without notice and after an illegal and very public ex parte , the judge might have succumbed to the dirty tactics of Kalpakian and Waxler unwittingly and my virtue of a busy calendar and the move things …And, therefore she should reconsider at best the actions she took on August 12, 2009.
Kalpakian claimed that I wrote nonsensical motions. The court has the motions filed on August 12th and must perceive them to see how sanctionable Kalpakian’s actions are. - Discuss how much time has gone on and how overdue those motions are as opposed to the mischaracterization of Kalpakian that I am bombarding them with nonsensical motions. Why not just say that I am bothering them with “frivolous motions’ or have the judge ask to see the motions before granting the completely bizarre, unexpected, unwarranted, and illegal request for a competency hearing. The motions were fine and essential—REDACTED DEFENDANT has been denied a speedy trial (amongst other things) and that motion will go to show that she was at the mercy of unnecessary continuances because of the prosecution’s failure to file their motions.

Kalpakian twisted my obvious meaning in the previous illegal hearings before Judge John Martinez. I made it clear in motions and orally that the fact that it keeps saying that Kelly Boyer has charged me with 4 counts of 237 a when in fact their unnoticed motion to amend was for one count of 653m which involves something that I can’t be sure of as they are not giving me the discovery,. And, then the other is 237a. As of June 9th 2009 discovery says that Kelly Boyer charged me with 4 charges of 273a. so what reasonable person wouldn’t be confused by this? Add the fact that there is no detail given or discovery offered about this 653m telephonic charge. Add the fact that I have no idea who Kelly Boyer is and what she is up to.
Spare the state the expense of an even more complicated and controversial appeal( If I am not aquitted at trial) and the cost of another expert that I have the right to , and will call upon in, the case that the threat to arrest me for not abiding by this void order is carried out. Instead:
1. Instead of allowing Waxler and co. to purposely complicate and slow down this malicious prosecution by feigning “threat” investigate why such a baseless and obviously meant to bias accusation is permitted.
2.Read the motions that Kalpakian pointed to as evidence of my insanity. Recognize that the charges as presented by the prosecution are impossible to understand without discovery and that Kalpakian is behaving with malice and Judge Jessner breaks the law when such an order based on me not “understanding these charges.” Having discovery state that 4 charges of 273. 6 have been filed when this has not occurred is a far cry from what this ruthless prosecution is doing when they misrepresent what would be obvious to any reasonable person
3.Find if everything claimed by the defendant in all motions is true and written in the best way possible under these trying and unjust circumstances.
4.Ask yourself why after a year and a plea offer of informal diversion why the prosecutors are suddenly claiming all kinds of fears and getting Threat Units involved. What provoked this fear that would require extreme remedies( Villar’s order, threat unit, etc.) when the defendant is 40 year old with no history of any violence and no traffic infractions—What could or have they offered that would allow Villar to order that no contact be made with them and prolong and further complicate the trial. Why would Cohen Kalpakian and Waxler suddenly after hours in court with the defendant and talking to her etc suddenly demand an ex parte hearing? What could possibly have prompted this?
5.Cross examine Notaro about supposed violence or threats and have trial to that effect. Bring in Witnesses that will show that there never was violence and this is an ugly trick – to lend an air of menace—to a defendant who has no history of violence and who never touched or conceived of touching the hyper-repugnant Notaro. The defendant submits that in rank desperation(charges but no crime or evidence) this ethicsless prosecution is reaching into the sewer to dirty up any presumption of innocence that should result when the defendant has no history of violence and when it is well established that Mathilde Notaro is a pathological liar.
6. Look at the history of REDACTED DEFENDANT’s legal representation and see that Waxler showed no candor in front of the Tribunal and should be sanctioned.
7. Look at all the e-mails that the defendant can provide to show that she is an ideal client who got unlucky with Mr. Williams and was not allowed to see any discovery for many months when
represented by the public defender, and how wrong it is for this prosecution to twist this into something to gain a degrading and completely illegal competency hearing order, when REDACTED DEFENDANT has provided the court with ample documentation to show what happened with her lawyers and how she is not pro per for zany reasons.
8. Ask why Villar granted a Farretta(Also missing from the minutes) and then Rizk also granted a Farretta and why Judge Jessner then would be so uniquely qualified to disagree with their assessments as it is the first time she and I ever “met.” She did sign the illegal and perjury ridden search warrants of John Gregozek so she’d be by all logic less qualified to sign such an absurdly void orer.
9.What was said in that illegal ex parte and why was such an ex parte allowed by Judge Jessner, and why don’t the minutes reflect that this widely witnessed ex parte took place ?

Wherein, REDACTED DEFENDANT prays that this order be expunged, a rehearing of all unnoticed motions be scheduled, and for the preparations essential for a fair trial to resume at once.


Dated: August 20, 2009


By:
REDACTED DEFENDANT

In propria persona