Pro Se Chicago's Weblog

April 19, 2018

Complaint for mandamus; civil rights relief from incompetent judges


When judges or officials are incompetent, malicious, or plain mean and violate your civil rights there are two other means that the public usually doesn’t realize by which they can obtain relief even during the case. The judge or official must have a mandatory (non-discretionary) duty under the law or constitution to do a particular act, must have failed to do it, and must be able to do it if ordered to do so in order to use a mandamus complaint. Civil rights law is very complicated. Both types of complaints should be handled by an attorney, but as a starting place if you are interested in such complaints then this is an example that was filed by me, a non-attorney pro se. Look up the case law and look up cases regarding mandamus or civil rights in the circuit courts and under your states’ laws.

  1. Mandamus – this is where you ask a court to order an official (including a judge) to perform a task that is mandatory and not discretionary like set a bail when no bail was set in violation of the law – in Illinois no bail is allowed only on murder cases, cases where the sentence may be life, or cases where a due process hearing was held and the defendant is proven to be a danger to the public or himself.
  2. Civil rights complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Suppose a court refuses to allow you to put any witnesses on the stand, refuses to allow you to subpoena documents or refuses to accommodate your disabilities, even when you discussed them with the disability coordinator and followed the court procedures. Under the federal civil rights act section 1983 you can ask a different court (either state or federal) under federal law to declare the judge’s acts or orders in violation of law or the constitution (declaratory relief) and order the judge to follow the law and allow you compulsory process or force the judge to accommodate your disabilities (injunctive relief).
Advertisements

May 27, 2014

Right to present a defense


Add your case’s caption, add the standard ending to a court pleading (Respectfully submitted by _______, and the litigants name address and phone), as well as a notice of service and filing.

Look up the case law in your state as Illinois case law has no precedent in another state which is true of all case law. Substitute your state’s case law for case law here, but you may be able to obtain search terms as sell as Shephardize the U.S. Supreme Court cases to find your state’s case law by using the following:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEMORADUM OF LAW – RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE

NOW COMES Linda Shelton who respectfully presents to the court this memorandum of law.

  1. A defendant has a right to present a defense, as in In re Marriage of A’Hearn, 408 Ill.App.3d 1091, 947 N.E.2d 333, 349 Ill.Dec.696 (2011), where the court ruled that it was too harsh a sanction as well as it ignored the best interest of the child, when in a post-trial motion to change custody was dismissed due to the litigant violating discovery. The court ruled that the best interests of the child were so important that a discovery violation was not extreme enough to deny a hearing on the merits.
  2. Every defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. People v. Manion, 67 Ill.2d 564, 10 Ill.Dec. 547, 367  N.E.2d 1313 (1977) [It is a fundamental error to deny the right to present a defense that requires the decision be overturned. Striking Manion’s response was a denial of a right to present a defense as was the court’s decision to hold the trial and deny a continuance so Manion could obtain discovery and plan a defense.  The decision of the court was overturned.]
  3. It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194 (1886). Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398 (1875).
  4. Per the U.S. Supreme Court, a judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461 (1888), and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: