this I found really fun but it was denied without any reasoning

POOR OLD REDACTED
In Propria Persona




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




PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

vs.
POOR OLD REDACTED,
Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



Case No.: 8CA10541
AFFIDAVIT OF DURESS ,NOTICE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, AND MOTION TO REQUEST THAT JUDGE VILLAR RECUSE HERSELF DUE TO BIAS SHOWN TO ADVERSE PARTIES TO THE DEFENDANT, NAMELY HOWARD WILLIAMS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES AND DUE TO JUDGE MARY LOU VILLARS SEEMING DISINTEREST/ANTIPATHY TO THE RIGHTS OF THE FALSELY ACCUSED, POOR OLD REDACTED


DATE: 8 / /2009
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT: 40
Time Estimate: 30 minutes




COMES NOW Defendant POOR OLD REDACTED, pro se, to Move this Court For a hearing that should seek to inform her of the charges against her, that should discuss the recusal of Judge Mary Lou Villar due to bias and other irregularities of the record, and to Dismiss the charges with Sanctions against the parties adverse to the defendant who are members of the bar, and that perjury charges to be brought against the instigator, Mathilde Notaro.


POOR OLD REDACTED affies as follows:
1. I appeared for a 8:30 PM hearing in Division 40 at the Clara Folz Courthouse, on July 29th, 2009, the Honorable Mary Lou Villar presiding. A motion to withdraw as attorney was filed by Howard Williams and though I couldn’t conceivably keep him on as counsel (as everytime I had counsel I was never informed of much less received discovery— I could only accept the judge’s ruling where she made no viable effort to be a trier of fact but rather to align herself with the interest of my attorney—who the evidence clearly shows is as corrupt and despicable as it gets. )This by all indications did not concern this judge who said, “ It just means you can’t get along with your lawyer.” Such a statement when pleadings and exhibits have been made available can only portend rulings and conclusions that will further even more injustice and encourage this malicious prosecution to feel omnipotent.
2. Judge Villar was aware that I had brought e-mails to court, though I certainly had no way of telling her this, nor would the prosecution know this. This indicates ex parte contact with a clearly adversarial lawyer (who under just circumstances would be sanctioned) and further will embolden the malfeasance of this desperate and malicious prosecution. Judge Villar would not address my very legitimate and legal concerns I attempted to voice re; the Farretta Motion. Despite my protestations she insisted that the charges were clear and that proceeding to hearing on the motion to traverse the warrants was reasonable. No such motion or hearing had been confirmed to the defendant
3. It is the defendant’s belief since Judge Riscik erred by conditioning the farretta motion on the instant hearing on fraudulent charges, gave this errant prosecution the hope that such an error would repeat and the defendant could be railroaded into an illegal hearing.

3. Judge Villar despite the defendant’s protestations would not address her concerns :
a. What is the nature of my charges?
b. what basis is there to bring them. What do all these number and figures and entities mean. No reasonable person could surmise any illegality from what has thus far been presented.
c. what evidence has swayed a judge to approve the warrant or more particularly what in this “discovery” suggests anything criminal by the defendant.
d. what does the new discovery about Patricia Brummer mean,? Who is Patricia Brummer and what do they claim she did or by proxy how does this implicate the defendant in any way,
e. what does any of those pages of numbers in these two perjured affidavit’s mean?
f. Where are the written and signed statements of these supposed witnesses, Martha Kelly, Jackie Kashian, Jeff Singer, Notaro. Why is the defendant not entitled to view the criminal records of these people. There has never been a showing that any violence was ever committed by the defendant though very false and obvious accusations were made by Notaro. Therefore according to law there is no reason to deny the defendant such necessary and allowed information.

g. Why isn’t her honor interested in what occurred with my private or non private counsel when a year has now passed with no evidence of any rational outcome, why were only 2 additional charges granted rather that four and what happened to those two charges that are said to show up as late as June of 2009.
h. What justification can exist when the Brummers nor POOR OLD REDACTED can be linked to these supposed facebook postings
i. Why are such flagrantly stale allegations , by someone who Gregozek has admitted isn’t credible, allowable as the basis for granting a search warrant that infringes on the privacy of not only the defendant, but her Sister and Mother and The Brummer family, and that doesn’t in any way suggest that any link to the defendant is forthcoming
j. why was the defendant forced to get the court minutes and then confront her attorney and still despite her requests has not been informed why it is acceptable for the City attorney to fax Howard Williams an opposition motion after 5 p.m on the day before the hearing, or what the defendant said or did to Ms. Waxler that would have her demand of Judge Riczik that only U.S mail should be allowed for POOR OLD REDACTED to communicate with her or her office.
k. On request of the baffled defendant, Judge Grizcik concluded that e-mail is acceptable. No evidence or detail has been requested and Jude Villar now says that my family can’t call the City Attorney. I can’t control the adults in my family and would like an official court order drafted that can show the necessity of such restrictions. I submit that at no time did I or my family act illegally or were even remotely abusive(or even rude) to Ms. Waxler and she is simply trying to bias the judge without any evidence and/or is grasping at any way to cause me financial hardship(as she is well aware that I am indigent) as postage is costly. This also serves to bias any judge as it succeeds without evidence to cast the defendant as someone who behaves unreasonably. The defendant submits that much evidence can show that this is simply more malicious misrepresentation on the part of a treasonous prosecution.
l. Thus far these ploys are probably effective as Judge Villar and Rizk seem to think that Jennifer Waxler’s word is enough. I would like Ms. Waxler or anyone to characterize or present any evidence that would require such court orders to be instated. I also will need to know what happened in court on July 9th 2009 as Howard Williams has no credibility. See email.
m. Judge Villar seemed to want to help Howard Williams get out of the court in the time he must have told her about when he told her about the e-mails. Any alternate explanations are welcome. Many many more questions need to be answered but I will for the sake of brevity include those only if necessary.
4 . My only other substantial encounter with Judge Villar occurred when I previously was forced to go Pro Se because my public defender was behaving in ways that instilled no confidence in anything resembling due process ie. No discovery or information was ever provided and after 6 months it did not appear forthcoming. A Farretta hearing took place only after Judge Villar told me I’d have to wait till the end of the day to have a Mardsen Motion. I had to go home and take care of other concerns, and so under duress I submitted to this Farretta motion without being allowed a mardsen motion . Again, the only time I’ve ever been apprised of anything to do with my case was when I have been without counsel . The public defender has only told me of what a crooked system this is and how the court and prosecutor would do all in their power to railroad obviously innocent people.
A” friend of the court” witnessing the farretta motion under Judge Villar told me that I should return at another time and request a hearing for this Mardsen Motion. So, this I did, and when I requested this of Judge Villar’s Clerk, Ms. Susan Rios, she was exceptionally rude, threatened me with bailiffs for no logical reason, and told me that according to her computer I was no pro per and that no such farretta motion was entered in the record. Evidence since has confirmed that no such notation exists is in the court minutes and Ms. Rios was unaware of the farretta motion and therefore denied me any recourse in obtaining counsel that might respect a defendant’s due process rights.
On the 29th of July, 2009, though Judge Villar told me in open court something to the effect that indeed it is in the record. Transcript will show that the City Attorney stipulated that such a farretta hearing took place but this too is not in the court minutes.
5. The court minutes given to me by the clerk on July 9th of 2009 only mentions the time I was again forced to get a farretta hearing due to no communication on the part of the public defender. Here, a Judge Georgina Riczic, conducted a cursory but more thorough Farretta than Judge Villar conditioned on me having a hearing with Judge Bork that I was not given notice about nor was any reasonable inquiry or effort made by public counsel to mention that I was entitled to notice etc. These charges were granted in spite of their complete nebulousness and the fact that any warrant granted by Judge Samantha Jessner was granted because of the perjury and flagrant deceptions of Detective John Gregozek of the LAPD. .
6. The hearing of July 29, 2009 was conducted “in camera” because of my onerous ex attorney’s request and it appeared that Judge Villar therefore spoke to me in a much less abrasive and biased tone than the first Farretta hearing. I contend that her ex parte communication I made it very clear that I was not aware of the nature of my charges(as is required by law) and If allowed I would have told her about the fact that the discovery on two occasions(the last one being June 9, 2009) states that 4 charges were added by a Kelly Boyer of the City Attorney. Indeed, only after me mentioning this in the Farretta hearing on March 23, 2008 with Judge Grizcik did the City Attorney scramble forth with what appeared to be some ad hoc charges that are beyond vague and would not be understood by a jury of my peers. These like the initial charge are void for vagueness and no jury will see it otherwise yet the city money continues to be thrown away. The Void for Vagueness is what should cause a dismissal as Mathilde Notaro and her witnesses have become so impeachable that a jury trial will only benefit the mounting civil claims of the defendant.
7. There was unwarranted intervention by bailiffs on July 29th 2009. It seemed that the only way to stop this judge from ruling without premise or legality was to inform her as best as I could of certain circumstances. Yet, this was met with the constant threat of a Bailiff jumping to his feet. He was very pleasant but nevertheless his participation would not appear necessary to a reasonable person.
8.This apparent public insinuation of criminal misbehavior- making the smallest show of knowing some of my rights or something like that- was not conducive to a fair hearing. Additionally, I am Under Duress, and feel I am under threat of injury or worse, for any pretext given or indeed for no reason at all, at every moment spent within the presence of this Judge and Prosecution.
9. This matter, beginning with the unlawful "contact" and false accusation, on April 7st, 2008, and continuing to the present day, has caused me a great deal of injury. I have experienced, among other things, headaches, nausea, indigestion, loss of appetite, insomnia, intense revulsion, and have come very close to vomiting on a number of occasions, particularly when reviewing the massive amount of documents that bolster the reasonable conclusion that a cruel farce is being perpetuated on me, my loved ones and the City of Los Angeles, My health and the fiscal health of my loved ones is deteriorating as a direct result of this extended "contact", as is the fiscal health of a City that can’t afford to fund this malicious prosecution any longer.
10.Howard Williams presented a new plea offer from the prosecution on July 29th 2009 to the defendant: Diversion with three years. The City Attorney has not made any different offers since informal diversion approximately 6 months before and so to attempt to offer a plea at this point suggests that the failure of the paid attorney’s lawyer to advocate for the defendant and their failure to file timely motions or follow the rules of discovery is perceived as a strategic boon by this malicious prosecution. I told Mr. Williams in so many words to “get lost” as him presenting such a plea after repeatedly telling me what a joke this prosecution was could only be further evidence of his complicity i.e. that and him going to laugh it up with the prosecution after the judge concluded sua sponte that he was in the clear and could leave the courtroom. It should be noted that the defendant can’t see why the prosecution would increase the punishment regarding the plea when there case has only become more and more preposterous and it is only time to now attempt to make amends to the defendant etc.
11. The events of April 7, 2008 till July 30 2009, partially testified supra, have caused me additional physical, mental, emotional, and financial injury. The misconduct and resulting injuries testified to above are by no means inclusive.
12. The defendant can show ample documentary and anecdotal evidence that comports with all her claims

I, POOR OLD REDACTED, do declare on under penalty of perjury, the foregoing to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge.
,


Dated this July 31, 2009

POOR OLD REDACTED