Spokane County District Court sued. March 2016
The Spokane County District Court is under a 3-pronged attack by a pro se litigant after having a newly appointed judge vacate a small claims judgment without any legal cause and then working to prevent an appeal from being filed for review by the Superior Court. The District Court clerks, under the direction of District Court Judge Richard Leland (who was appointed to the bench after helping Cathy McMorris-Rodgers get reelected) made up a host of new rules on the spot to prevent the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Judge Leland is now off the case as the pro se litigant: 1) using CrRLJ 2.1(c), filed criminal charges against the Judge and the Clerks for Official Misconduct violation of RCW 91.80.010; 2) filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Court to accept the filing of the Notice of Appeal, which is now under review by the WA State Supreme Court; and 3) filed a class action federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court under Title 4 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging a pattern of civil rights violations and asking the federal court to assume oversight of the local county District Court. In a nation "conceived in liberty" we know that the greatest enemy to our Constitution and to our rights as citizens often comes from agents of our own government. This is a good example of how people really can stand up and fight city hall if necessary. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
New GURILLA LAW case completed.
November 2013. Brought in by delivery drivers who were being systematically underpaid and forced to perform unpaid work by Spokane Baggage, our Eastern Washington mentor recently prosecuted to completion the case of Keyes v Shields/SBDS receiving a cash settlement and obtaining a Statement of Confession from company owner Joseph Shields that will be used by L&I to obtain the back wages owed to all delivery drivers. This case will be published in its entirety as #4 in our Civil Action series of educational books for pro se litigants.
======================================================================================================
Don't Copy This Mistake.
Bryan James was being prosecuted for murder. He was accused of being the gunman in a drive-by shooting. When he didn't like what his
attorney was doing he made a motion to the court for leave (permission) to represent himself. What he really wanted was another attorney. In a hearing before Judge Kathleen O'Connor in Spokane he said "I'm not even sure what I am supposed to be asking, you know. I mean, I thought if I could, I just wanted another lawyer, counsel or defense lawyer or something because I don't trust this guy." Judge O'Connor, who has an poor reputation with pro se (and with males and other-than-rich-people in general) replied that she would only consider the motion in front of her - to consider a motion to replace counsel she had to have it in writing. The reality is that the civil rules permit a motion to be made orally in open court, and that Judge O'Connor could have converted his motion to a motion to replace counsel. Instead, Judge O'Connor proceeded with questioning him about his ability to proceed pro se [as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832-35, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975)]. Maybe he felt boxed in and had no other choice, or maybe he just had an exaggerated sense of his own abilities, but he answered most of the questions about understanding things in the affirmative. "When questioned about trial procedure, Mr. James said he did not understand everything, but would "hit the law library" to learn."
Needless to say, Bryan James was convicted of murder. He appealed his conviction to Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals claiming he had not voluntarily waived his right to counsel because his waiver was not unequivocal. In May 2007, in a divided opinion, his conviction was upheld. Read the slip opinion in State of Washington v. Bryan Montez James. Maybe he will pursue his appeal to the State Supreme Court or seek habeas corpus from the federal court. There are cases that are substantially similar to his that were reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kudos to Division III's Justice John Schultheis for his dissent in this case.
Either way, the lesson for anyone put in such a position is A) don't do drive by shootings; and B) unless you have very extensive experience, representing yourself in a criminal action is always foolish. There is just too much at stake: your liberty. It is much better to play dumb and not be smart. Playing dumb is more effective. If you don't understand the charges against you, if you don't understand your rights as they've explained them, if you don't know how to do anything for yourself, then you are more likely to thwart the efforts of the court and the prosecutor to bully you. You are also more likely to get appointed legal counsel, even if the public defender's office has denied your request because you earn more than their arbitrary $10/hr limit.
Save your pro se efforts for the civil courts. Proceeding pro se in the criminal court is essentially a guaranteed conviction. Better to have an attorney for criminal cases. If you lose, you can always appeal based upon the lawyer's mistakes and incompetence and not your own.
======================================================================================================
The Spokane County District Court is under a 3-pronged attack by a pro se litigant after having a newly appointed judge vacate a small claims judgment without any legal cause and then working to prevent an appeal from being filed for review by the Superior Court. The District Court clerks, under the direction of District Court Judge Richard Leland (who was appointed to the bench after helping Cathy McMorris-Rodgers get reelected) made up a host of new rules on the spot to prevent the filing of a Notice of Appeal. Judge Leland is now off the case as the pro se litigant: 1) using CrRLJ 2.1(c), filed criminal charges against the Judge and the Clerks for Official Misconduct violation of RCW 91.80.010; 2) filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Court to accept the filing of the Notice of Appeal, which is now under review by the WA State Supreme Court; and 3) filed a class action federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court under Title 4 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging a pattern of civil rights violations and asking the federal court to assume oversight of the local county District Court. In a nation "conceived in liberty" we know that the greatest enemy to our Constitution and to our rights as citizens often comes from agents of our own government. This is a good example of how people really can stand up and fight city hall if necessary. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
New GURILLA LAW case completed.
November 2013. Brought in by delivery drivers who were being systematically underpaid and forced to perform unpaid work by Spokane Baggage, our Eastern Washington mentor recently prosecuted to completion the case of Keyes v Shields/SBDS receiving a cash settlement and obtaining a Statement of Confession from company owner Joseph Shields that will be used by L&I to obtain the back wages owed to all delivery drivers. This case will be published in its entirety as #4 in our Civil Action series of educational books for pro se litigants.
======================================================================================================
Don't Copy This Mistake.
Bryan James was being prosecuted for murder. He was accused of being the gunman in a drive-by shooting. When he didn't like what his
attorney was doing he made a motion to the court for leave (permission) to represent himself. What he really wanted was another attorney. In a hearing before Judge Kathleen O'Connor in Spokane he said "I'm not even sure what I am supposed to be asking, you know. I mean, I thought if I could, I just wanted another lawyer, counsel or defense lawyer or something because I don't trust this guy." Judge O'Connor, who has an poor reputation with pro se (and with males and other-than-rich-people in general) replied that she would only consider the motion in front of her - to consider a motion to replace counsel she had to have it in writing. The reality is that the civil rules permit a motion to be made orally in open court, and that Judge O'Connor could have converted his motion to a motion to replace counsel. Instead, Judge O'Connor proceeded with questioning him about his ability to proceed pro se [as required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832-35, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975)]. Maybe he felt boxed in and had no other choice, or maybe he just had an exaggerated sense of his own abilities, but he answered most of the questions about understanding things in the affirmative. "When questioned about trial procedure, Mr. James said he did not understand everything, but would "hit the law library" to learn."
Needless to say, Bryan James was convicted of murder. He appealed his conviction to Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals claiming he had not voluntarily waived his right to counsel because his waiver was not unequivocal. In May 2007, in a divided opinion, his conviction was upheld. Read the slip opinion in State of Washington v. Bryan Montez James. Maybe he will pursue his appeal to the State Supreme Court or seek habeas corpus from the federal court. There are cases that are substantially similar to his that were reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kudos to Division III's Justice John Schultheis for his dissent in this case.
Either way, the lesson for anyone put in such a position is A) don't do drive by shootings; and B) unless you have very extensive experience, representing yourself in a criminal action is always foolish. There is just too much at stake: your liberty. It is much better to play dumb and not be smart. Playing dumb is more effective. If you don't understand the charges against you, if you don't understand your rights as they've explained them, if you don't know how to do anything for yourself, then you are more likely to thwart the efforts of the court and the prosecutor to bully you. You are also more likely to get appointed legal counsel, even if the public defender's office has denied your request because you earn more than their arbitrary $10/hr limit.
Save your pro se efforts for the civil courts. Proceeding pro se in the criminal court is essentially a guaranteed conviction. Better to have an attorney for criminal cases. If you lose, you can always appeal based upon the lawyer's mistakes and incompetence and not your own.
======================================================================================================