they would like the judge to consider a lobotomy based on this motion

POOR OLD REDACTED
\
IN PROPRIA PERSONA




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


The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
,

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

POOR OLD REDACTED,

Defendant
Case No. 8CA10541


NOTICE OF NON REPLY TO DISCOVERY MOTION FILED BY HOWARD WILLIAMS ON APRIL 9 2009 AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11








According to Howard Williams, a Motion for Discovery was filed by him in April of 2009. According to “discovery” handed to Poor old redacted on July 29th 2009 it seems that something was handed to Mr. Williams relating to this discovery that Mr. Williams said was filed, but that does not show up in the minutes of the court as of July 9th 2009. Nowhere in the minutes is there any mention of any such filing or the prosecutors filed or unfiled response to said discovery request. Yet, on July 29th the defendant in the course of her attorney having to withdraw(, and being allowed to do so with impunity by Judge Villar, despite the defendant trying to make evident what was really occurring,) she was handed this by this attorney.
Show exhibit.
This might or might not indicate that any discovery was being handled informally but that was not what Mr. Williams claimed, or what would be required at this stage of the trial. Any such “investigation” should have been available long before July 29th 2009 as discovery.
If indeed Howard Williams received it on June 9th ( or approximately at that time) he certainly didn’t tell the defendant a thing about it despite her repeatedly imploring him to find out anything about who this Patricia Brummer is (see exhibit 2).
The defendant had filed an informal discovery request on March 25th 2009 with Jennifer Waxler of the city attorneys which is in now also in possession of the court (attached to the motion to compel to discovery) -And this new information isn’t by any means sufficient nor does it lend any clarity as it doesn’t show what Williams filed in order to obtain this new but vague and ultimately senseless information.
This all strongly suggests that Poor old redacted was right to not initialize the portions of the Farretta where it said that she had to be sure of her charges, and that she signed it under duress.
As of June 9th the new “discovery” again states that 4 charges were filed by Kelly Boyer of the City Attorney but it doesn’t specify that 2 charges were allowed on March 23rd to be added by Judge Bork in Division 55 and that one was for 273.6 and one was for 663 m and it doesn’t make clear what occurred here that would have led to this and whether 4 more charges were added on June 9, 2009 or this is just the same thing as last time. The irregularities of the record are mounting and should cause concern.

The prosecution therefore by not turning over the discovery asked on the 25th of 2009 is in clear violation of the rights of the defendant. It is now August 11, 2009.
Accordingly, Poor old redacted requests that the motion to compel discovery 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 it seems now have supplied Mr. Williams with this exhibit one but it was only given to the defendant on July 29 and it doesn’t shed light on what the charges are and no jury will understand either.
This case should be dismissed and those who have damaged Poor old redacted and her family should be held accountable. The defendant asserts her right to a speedy trial that has been compromised by the antics of attorneys on both sides and that sanctions be imposed.
Dated this August 12,2009





POOR OLD REDACTED

[Attorneys' names]