JURY NULLIFICATION-WHAT FOR?
I would take a jury over a judge if the judges were required to instruct the jury on their power to nullify any criminal or unconstitutional process. Take the case in San Francisco against Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow.
The charges are basically generated out of the federal and state government colluding to support federal law and prosecute those who have a certain right under state law. In this case marijuana. The feds set up a dispensary with a promise of money for the project in a phone call from a non-medical marijuana state and call in to a medical marijuana district and call it federal money laundering.
The City and County of San Francisco colluded with former SF City Attorney and now Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris, to break state law!
San Francisco and California are said to lead the world so I will continue monitoring this story and others showing the corruption of city, state, federal and international politicians.
The undercover employees remain nameless and there is no cross-examination of the witness as they are allowed hearsay reports to convict anyone they want to put away. Add the locals directing the feds against their political opponents and like the IRS terrorism you have the Central American Socialist Party taking out rivals. A jury could nullify the feds but with media bias it becomes a lynch mob to get back at someone.
Like a judge once said, “This is your first offense but you have been doing this a long time”.
But what if there is no jury?
Consider M, 87 year old female, mentally quick but a little slow walking. She has had her:
constitutional right to choose an attorney for herself denied and having civil and property rights taken away with legally insufficient orders and having her choice of trustee not considered as she was presumed incompetent from the beginning of the filing (by a non-family Petitioner) for Letters of Conservatorship.
This creates the improper presumption of dementia, at filing, being substituted for reason and the history of probate law leading to totally unjustified and whimsical orders.
I am following this case in San Francisco Superior Court Probate Division: PCN-15-298967 and it’s companion case PTR-15-299149.
M successfully defended against the issuance of a Temporary Order of Conservancy by Judge A who was not physically present in the hearing room and there was no record or court reporter.
Despite counsel’s filing and properly serving briefs, giving constitutionally sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard , these documents HAVE NOT BEEN FILED BY THE CLERKS OR JUDGES DESPITE THEIR HAVING AND RELYING UPON COPIES OF THE PLEADINGS!
M was competent and appeared in Court before substitute Judge B, who granted and signed a substantially flawed Order of Conservancy despite no new evidence by using previous hearsay evidence without it being subject to cross-examination.
No temporary order issued on substantially the same evidence that the Presiding Judge A rejected previously!
Judge B denied counsel standing despite M’s having accepted private counsel in open court and through numerous declarations and forced her to accept court appointed counsel.
It is the opinion of this counsel that the order from B was pre-determined and designed to cover criminal fraud, forgery and looting of Conservatee’s assets.
This was confirmed at a trust hearing where the earlier B’s order affirmed by Judge C with only the heading “…with amendments…”, presumably covering through amendment both forgery and the absence of any showing of any dementia as well as incomplete and fallacious legal documentation.
Add to this the backdating and back-filling of the dockets to LOOK correct but easily seen to affirm the absence of any court reporter. Only the clerk’s “minute” order is mentioned, which is typically a one or two liner note and the disposition without the substance.
This order curiously found no support for its findings, none, in the conclusory order and, in fact, Judge C lined out any consideration of , and denying, judicial notice of any allied cases in a confusion of judicial musical chairs.
The individual cannot split their causes of action but the judiciary can do what it wants. Black robed mafia in charge here.
The intent is obviously to cover-up the fraudulent signature used to pass Ms. M’s property outside her knowledge and permission.
Further, The testamentary document executed by M was not null and void, which is crossed out, but, written in by Judge C, is ineffective as Ms. P was no longer serving as Trustee when it was signed (and no trustee was serving at the time as the documents were fatally flawed and the impropriety of a lack of notarization of a crucial document just passed over).
Nothing to see here, move along..
I was present in court as was A H, for the trustee who was out of the country and court appointed counsel was not present nor was M present in what was supposed to be final accounting and confirmations before the Presiding Judge A, who was first present, in person, at this hearing. I was not expected to be there.
Judge A continued this matter for two weeks, and seemed to be accepting or soliciting objections from this member of the bar. With 10 day before hearing rules about submissions and over Christmas and New Years, this left about 5 or 6 working days to get the objections in from this Amicus Publicus or “Friend of the People” as I cannot be a friend of corrupt courts.
The allegations of chemically induced dementia cannot be ignored. Benzodiazepines are damned dangerous. They destroy memory at the hypothalamus and M was given them for 9 months before she was evaluated.
In both cases and all hearings, there was never a court reporter so there are no court transcripts verifiable independent of the Judges own staff. How convenient for insiders.
This was particularly egregious given the number of trust cases before Judge C that were called .
The X Trust matter was called, when there was a reporter who packed up and left before, and for the duration of, the hearing of M’s trust matter which took over 2 million dollars and her freedom in a smile and bang of the gavel…just as deadly as a gun.
There is substantive evidence of criminal and civil crimes but who can fight courts and city halls whose politicians appoint their friends like in San Francisco for at least two decades?
Finally the gross insult of having Attorney E who took M’s case and abandoned her just before the first hearing (by mere days and who provided “proof” of dementia by a Pay-for-Opinion psychologist not subject to cross-examination) now petitions to be paid against all canons of professional responsibility and should be reported to the bar for discipline along with Retired Judge B, who forgot to “x” any boxes or provide any support for his order of conservancy (proving the old darling “not quite with it”).
I have filed complaints against this fellow before but he does as told and that is his usefulness.
Final arguments in the Shrimp Boy case begin on this Monday and the conservatorship is heard for final orders on Wednesday.
You are the jury of the people and only you can nullify a dysfunctional judicial system.
Have a Happy Activist New Year!