Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendant's Objection (9!29!10)
Defendant's Objection (9!29!10)
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 00-69257
v HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI
MARK JACKSON
Defendant,
_________________________________________________________/
_________________________________________________________/
Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to object to the Prosecutor’s lack of
response to the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Judge
FACTS
1
1. In August of 2010, the Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the
2. The Motion alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and misconduct by Judge
Chylinski for not having a valid Oath of Office, among other things.
5. Upon entering the court room, the Defendant could hear the prosecutor discussing the
6. The Clerk asked if the prosecutor had seen the Motion and the prosecutor responded by
7. Once the hearing began, Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that he had read the
Motion.
8. Instead of holding counsel to the standards required by a member of the bar, Judge
Chylinkski chose to argue counsel’s position for them and made no mention of counsel’s
lack of response.
9. Judge Chylinski held to the position that he was a viable Judge and that the alleged
10. Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that, “He was talking” and the Defendant was
11. The Defendant asked Judge Chylinski for Findings of fact and Conclusions of law in his
order.
12. Judge Chylinski responded to the Defendant’s request for Findings of Fact and
2
13. Judge Chylinski denied the Defendant’s Motion.
ARGUMENT
The Defendant was deprived of his rights of due process and Constitutional protections.
The Motion heard on September 24, 2010 was an effort to reclaim those rights.
The prosecution had a duty to respond to the Motion and had more than a month to make
that response and ask the court for relief. Counsel did not ask for a continuance, but simply
relied on Judge Chylinski to argue their case. All that Judge Chylinski required of counsel was
The Defendant’s Motion alleged that Judge Chylinski was not a Constitutionally viable
official during the time of the original offense. This was addressed at the hearing and the Judge
was slightly defensive of this issue. Case Law, the State of Michigan Constitution, the
Constitution of the United States and Statues are all conclusive on these points.
A prudent and intelligent person can only assume that the Judge was “forced” to deny the
Defendant’s Motion, not based on law, but rather, based on an effort to cover up his misdeeds.
Therefore, counsel was not required to take any position in the matter. This issue could not
come to light if the Judge wanted to maintain his standing as a member in good standing of the
judiciary.
Whatever the reason for the denial of the Motion, Counsel must be held to a particular
standard. Case Law screams out that a Defendant should not be held to the same standards as
counsel, otherwise the burden would be too great and the whole weight of the system would
come crashing down on his shoulders. To further reinforce that point, the forefathers ensured
that justice should not be denied a defendant because he is not schooled in law. This was never
3
the intent. In this case, we have the opposite standard; counsel was not even held to the same
standards as the Defendant. How can a man receive justice when he makes the very best
arguments and favoritism prevails? How can a man receive justice when he must make his fight
Judge Chylinski sees criminal Defendants day in and day out. He advises them on the
law and the foolishness of their actions. From time to time, he even exercises compassion on
some of those individuals. With such a high conviction rate, yea, with such a high rate of people
pleading, would he remember what an innocent man looks like? Would he remember what a
criminal looks like who isn’t standing behind the Defendant’s table, but rather behind the
In Antonin Scalia’s Book, Making Your Case (coauthored by Bryan A. Garner), the
Justice argues that jury arguments should not be made to Judges. The emotional appeals don’t
play well with men and women who pride themselves on having a profound understanding of the
law. The law failed in this case. It failed over and over, again. The law, ironically, has not been
The prosecutor did not read the Defendant’s Motion, although it did make the office
gossip pool. The judge did. The question must be asked, who did the work to dispense of the
PRAYER
The Defense prays that this Court sustain the objections raised in this delayed objection
4
WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves the Court to sustain the objection and moves for
Respectfully Submitted,
Windham, NH 03087
313-478-8061
5
VERIFICATION
I, Mark Alan Jackson, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and
Jurat
Signed
and
sworn
before
me
________________________________,
on
this
day,
the
_____
day
of
_________,
2010.
Notary
Signature:
____________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify on this date a copy of this motion was served upon the prosecutor by
6