MARYLAND COURTS of Montgomery County

PRO SE LITIGANTS & JUDGES BIASES

Pro Se litigants: "Deprived of life, liberty or property without due process." Judges: "Refuse to operate within the law and provide fair procedures". ACC SS TO JUST!C Access to justice has eroded. Pro Se litigants are discouraged and denied rights with the intent to sabotage pro se litigants access to justice. These biases exists in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court ruling in Faretta v. California; "that everyone has the constitutional right to proceed without counsel". Olmstad v. nited !tates, "#$%&' %(( .!. )*& "Crime is contagious. +f the ,overnment becomes a lawbrea-er, it breeds contempt for law; it invites everyone to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy".

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Maryland !urt" #n M!nt$!%&ry !unty

A''&"" t! Ju"t#'&
T"e Court of Pu#li$ O%inion "./ million 0mericans 1ualify for federally funding civil legal aid, yet more than half of those who see- help are turned away due to lac- of resources" "legal aid and pro bono lawyers' "Access to Justice" is eroded in Montgomery County Maryland judicial system especially towards pro se litigants. Powers to be !the go"ernment became a "rubber stamp institution# $accepted these beha"iors% re&using to hold Judges go"ernment and court o&&icials accountable &or their actions. 'n addition ignoring the root causes o& disparity issues in Montgomery county without applying a comprehensi"e social economic or political strategy to combat these long!term problems. These actions impacts the political and social destabili(ation in the region such as "iolating human and ci"il rights unsustainable social and economic de"elopment that causes di"isions in society and political systems. According to the )epartment o& Justice $Access to Justice 'nitiati"es% millions o& people can#t get assistance due to systematic discrimination that ta*es hold in judicial procedures and understands that ine+uities shouldn#t be tolerated. ,or example promoting barriers and accessibility towards indi"iduals who are experiencing &inancial barriers to exercise their rights ensuring &airness deli"ering &air and just outcomes and respect &rom the justice system in Montgomery County. 'n -../ Chie& Judge 0obert 1ell o& the Court o& Appeals o& Maryland established Maryland Access to Justice Commission to reduce these barriers. 'n -..- an Anti! 1ias commission was created to examine the racial gender and ethical bias that negati"ely impacted on the Maryland judicial system. 'n -.23 these barriers ha"en#t decrease the numbers e+ually

howe"er demonstrates consistent disparity which remain a crisis situation in Montgomery County Maryland. Montgomery county is one o& the tenth wealthiest counties in the nation highest disparity and ine+uality $social economic issues% historically howe"er suppressed $0e&erence disparity statistics below%. 'n -..the Court o& Appeals o& Maryland implemented an administrati"e order creating anti!bias commission on gender e+uality to ensure that gender racial and ethnic &airness don#t ha"e a negati"e impact in the Maryland judicial system. The comprehensi"e report is a study designed to measure the changes in attitudes experiences and perceptions towards these biases. "!ocial neglect and abandonment of indigenous, brown and blacpeople have been perpetuated through the institutionali2ed legality of unfair treatment. 3ore aggressive measures and policies are implemented to deny rights to those who are a the bottom of the social and economic barrel". The rights &or e+uality e+uity and justice &or all is a myth howe"er suppressed in Montgomery County Maryland. T"e !ssues&'arriers 4hen you are a pro se litigant your are negati"ely characteri(ed discouraged and denied rights 4udges comments reflect a distinct anti5pro se litigant sentiment. 6lmore v. 3cCammon "#$&7' 7)/ F. !upp. $/. "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws." The Courts are bias against pro se litigants in procedural re+uirements that are intentionally di&&icult. " 8ro se pleadings are to be considered without the regard to technicality; pro se pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers" Jen*ins ". Mc5eithen 678 9.S. 322 3-2 $2787%. Judges and court o&&icials are rude and disrespect&ul only to discourage the rights o& pro se litigants. "Judges ha"e duty under Canon 6 to "be patient digni&ied and courteous towards litigants and the right to be heard according to the law. "The &i&th amendment states that no one shall be " deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law". Court cler*s withhold in&ormation &rom pro se litigants stereotype and stigmati(ed and maliciously ad"ised litigants with wrong in&ormation. Cler*s manipulate records and documents are constantly lost there is no accountability to these actions. Canon 6 94udges has a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or pre:udice in the performance of their official duties" $Canon 6 Section -% suggests a duty upon :udges, especially administrative :udges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner. The Courts pro"ide a sel&!help window which it#s no guarantee o& any help. They loo* angry attitudes and responses are rude as i& you disturbing them when it#s part o& their job to ser"e the public. This is just a tactic to bloc* judicial access to common citi(ens. :aw libraries are &inanced by &iling &ees &rom pro se litigants $ some states% howe"er they are at the con"enience &or lawyers. +f you are a minority some cler-s automatic assume you are a defendant in a criminal case before as-ing, 3ay + help you"; +nstead they as-, "0re you a defendant for a criminal case"; Montgomery County is culturally di"erse there are immigrants and second language citi(ens in this county. 4hen they present their case you can barely understand or comprehend their case. ;ispanics has the ad"antage to be o&&ered an interpreter and others such as Asian A&rican and 'ndians etc. don#t ha"e the same opportunity to be o&&ered the same ser"ices &or an interpreter made a"ailable to assist them. Cases are lost due to this sort o& injustice and discriminatory practices. This practice is unconstitutional e"ery member in society deser"es e+ual protection under the law. Maty ". <rasselii Chemical Company 6.6 9.S. 27= $276/% "8leadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and :ust settlements of controversies between litigants. <hey should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. 8roper pleadings is important, but its importance consists in effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a :ust :udgment". The matter o& public opinion and 2st Amendment rights aren#t guaranteed ! To openly spea* on these topics o& disparity injustice and ci"il rights! you are retaliated and threatened in "arious ways that attributes and create a totalitarian oppressed system. This includes the access to media $&reedom o& the press% which is regulated on the basis o& con&ormity to the go"ernment and non!con&ormity with "o&&icial" public opinion. This results to a "&orcible consensus" not a democratic system o& go"ernment but an anarchy. The problem is the go"ernment exclude the public access and don#t ha"e the ability to design a political system to limit corruption. 'n

addition can#t rid their own personal biases to produce a comprehensi"e plan to impro"e public trust that deeply colors the way the public negati"ely "iews politics. "<here can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his e=ercise of Constitutional rights". Sherar ". Cullen 3/2,. -d 73> $27=6%. The &ounding &athers tirelessly tried to repair the problem o& corruption? their ideas o& this "disease o& corruption" range &rom moral and ethical "alues &eaturing the legal and political systems. @ow that the disease has sur&aced the constitution and laws needs to re&ormed and redesigned. The Constitution! &i&th amendment states that no one shall be "depri"ed o& li&e liberty o& property without due process o& law". The A+ual Protection clause stretched with the promise that be&ore depri"ing a citi(en o& life, liberty or property, the go"ernment must &ollow &air procedures. Action denying the process that is "due" is unconstitutional and the erosion o& ci"il liberties.

0e&erences B Ciew lin*s $below% 9n&inished 1usiness ! )isparity in Montgomery County httpsBDDdri"e.google.comDEtabFjoGauthuserF.Hmy!dri"e Tra&&ic Stops in Montgomery County httpsBDDdocs.google.comD&ileDdD.1>4A/=w(;gSCCn@Ia9J0I(J@94MDedit )epartment o& Justice "Access to Justice" Maryland Courts on 0acial and <ender 1ias httpBDDwww.msba.orgDdepartmentsDcommpublDpressJctrDpressrelD-..2Dpr2.!-7!-..2.asp Montgomery County Achie"ement <ap httpsBDDdocs.google.comD&ileDdD.1>4A/=w(;gSC942saC0hei2SIA9Dedit Montgomery County MKA )epartment o& Justice DMCP) engage in racially discriminatory conduct httpBDDwww.justice.go"DcrtDaboutDcorDPubsDmcagrmt.phpHCKMP:A'@T A@) '@CAST'<AT'K@ P0KCASS

D#"tr#'t !urt !( Maryland L!"" !( t)& *!n!ra+l& Jud$& !n,!y, JrJ9)<AS ATT'T9)AS TK4A0)S P0K SA :'T'<A@TS "Judges rule with a "iew to the pri"ate interest" Per"erted &orms o& systematic corruptions Judges "shall accord to e"ery person who has a legal interest in a proceeding... the right to be heard according to the law" $Canon 6 Sec. 13% ' am sorry &or the lost o& Judge Conroy Jr. who was a Judge at the )istrict Court o& Maryland. ' pray the strength &or his wi&e &amily and lo"ed ones as they grie"e their loss. ' disco"ered that the Judge was deceased in the newspaper while no one in&ormed me &rom the )istrict Court o& Maryland that Judge Conroy Jr. was deceased. ,or some reason ' was waiting &or an o&&icer &rom the courts to

in&orm me but ' expect too much integrity &rom the )istrict Court in Montgomery County. @ow ' understand why the ;onorable Judge 4ol&e desire to bury my case on the behal& o& pri"ate interest.... disregarding justice. Judge 4ol&e has his own biases with women low!income and pro se litigants $ distinct anti!pro se litigant sentiment%. The ;onorable judge the administrati"e judge &ails to impro"e the numbers o& outcomes and to impro"e the access to justice in Montgomery County. Minorities is still the highest in tra&&ic "iolations with large &ines unsuccess&ul in criminal and ci"il cases outcomes against gender income race and ethnic litigants in Montgomery County. The tra&&ic court is segregated as the o&&icers $mostly white males% sit on one side o& the court while minorities low!income and white women $blac* &emales has the highest stops in Montgomery County% sits on the other side....."ery intimidating and segregated en"ironment. $'n -..- Court o& Appeals created an Anti! 1ias Commission that studies pro"ided that gender and racial bias ha"e a major negati"e impact in Maryland Judicial system%. The disparity still exists today in -.23. As the court administrator the court cler*s intentionally withhold in&ormation &rom non!lawyers that they routinely gi"e to lawyers. '& a lawyer calls to re+uest a particular procedure the cler* with pro"ide answers. ;owe"er i& a pro se litigant re+uest the same in&ormation it becomes suddenly "no answer" or don#t pro"ide legal ad"ice or tell misin&ormation with malicious intent. A"en i& they ha"e a window &or pro se litigants there is no real assistance or e"en ci"ility. They ha"e an instant attitude snatching papers as i& you are bothering them as it apart o& their job to greet the public. 0ecords are munipulated and documents are mailed late intentionally. Ax!parte communication is acceptable. They intentionally do e"erything to discourage pro se litigants &rom exercising their rights &or justice. Judges ha"e a duty to assure that court o&&icials "re&rain &rom mani&esting bias or prejudice in the per&ormance o& their o&&icial duties". $Canon 6 Sec C-% The latter pro"ision suggests a duty upon judges generally and especially administrati"e judges to assure their court sta&& pro"ide assistance in an impartial manner. There is no accountability &or judges actions as they belie"es that they are "0bove the >aw" therefore he can use the judicial plat&orm to suppress the law. The court room shouldn#t be a place &or situational ethics. Cannon v. Commission on 4udicial ?ualifications "#$(.' #) Cal@ *d 7(& 7$) " 0cts in e=cess of :udicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a :udge deliberately disregards the re1uirements of fairness and due process.

MAR.LAND OURTS PRO/SE SUPPRESSION MONTGOMER. OUNT.

9.S. ". :ee 2.> 9.S. 27> --. 2 S. Ct. -3. ->2 -= :. Ad 2=2 $2//-% Judges "Abo"e the :aw" at the expense o& public trustB "@o man in this country is so high that he is abo"e the law. @o o&&icer o& the law may set that law at de&iance with impunity. All the o&&icers o& the go"ernment &rom the highest to the lowest are creatures o& the law are bound to obey it". "'t is the only supreme power in our system o& go"ernment and e"ery man who by accepting o&&ice participates in its &unctions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to obser"e the limitations which it imposes on the exercise o& the authority which it gi"es." Judges ha"e ta*en control the right to assert guarantee rights they are no longer inalienable as guaranteed in the Constitution. Lou are only granted these rights when the judge &eels li*e you should ha"e them. Judges can ignore e"idence twist rules and procedure obstruct the record retaliate disrupt e"idence and &acts allow &alse claims and dismiss "alid ones denial submission o& e"idence display biases and impartiality accept perjury engage in ex parte communication and misrepresent the law. These incidents "iolates the protection o& sanctity o& the judicial system. Pro Se litigants are "ictims o& an eroded justice system. That because litigants can#t &inancially a&&ord attorneys and are women or minorities? they shouldn#t be denied access to the justice. The Constitution re+uires our justice system to be neutral towards pro se litigants. The courts must o&&er a +uality o& a due process &or the pro se litigants e+ual to those who are represented by an attorney consistent with basic principles o& &airness..... " the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws". 6lmore v. 3cCammon "#$&7' 7)/ F. !upp. $/.. The Constitution granted pro se litigants the right to access a jury that will directly protect citi(ens against judicial abuse and corruption. ;owe"er that was ta*en away by judicial legislation as a "gate*eeping" power to protect Judges &rom accountability and the pro se litigants are at the will o& the Judge. The Judges eliminated all means not to be held accountable to the public &or their actions.