MaryJane Duchene v. W.St.Paul,MN


Published on

Mary Jane Duchene, Civil Rights, has removed a Noise Ordinance to Fed Court, based on lack of Long Form Complaint, Name of Complaintant, Selective Prosecution,due process and civil rights violations by City Attorney Kori Land of the Law Firm

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MaryJane Duchene v. W.St.Paul,MN

  1. 1. United States District Court State of Minnesota City of West St. Paul, Plaintiff, Notice of and Removal of Dakota County District Court Criminal Case on Grounds vs. of Judicial Prejudice and Violations of 14th Amendment Due Process Rights. Mary Jane Duchene, Defendant Federal Court File no.___________ Dakota County Citation no. 3-441797 Dakota County Court file: 19WS-CR-09- 15734 TO: Dakota County District Court, Attorney for the City of West St. Paul The undersigned removed this to US District Court BY VIRTUE OF 28 U.S.C. 1443; Any of the following ... criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof[.] on the following grounds: 1) This Dakota County criminal action is observably a malicious prosecution by the plaintiffs in that action and the plaintiffs failed to comply with the legal process required by law and the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, by stating facts which comprise a criminal action, in continuing prosecution, which is shown in the selected court documents attached hereto. That established US Supreme Court requirements as to required specificity of a criminal accusation, see. e.g. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), quoted and affirmed in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 at 763-765, which in turn is cited with approval in State v. Gross, 387 N.W. 2d 182 at 189 (Minn. App. 1986). That the right to a specific accusation including separate counts for 1
  2. 2. distinct offenses charged has been incorporated by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. See: e.g. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 at 201 (1942), and Faretta v. California, 442 U.S. 806 at 818(1975). The plaintiffs have tried to allege that a police officer, allegedly hear a barking dog noise at my property, from a distance of over 200 feet, when scientific evidence clearly shows it would be impossible to identify such a sound, or even hear it, from such a distance, because sound diminished by about 75% at a distance of 200 feet or sixty meters, SEE SOUND CALCULATOR: The failure to withdraw the criminal complaint, AND INSTEAD RELENTLESSLY PURSUE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, shows the plaintiffs are relying on a failure of due process and fairness in the Dakota County Courts and there is obvioulsy the potential for progressively more insane criminal accusations to transpire in future because of this case. 2) The plaintiff have done this as part of a pattern of misconduct which has occurred over a period of more than fifteen years. 3) The defendant cannot get a fair trial in Dakota County, as detailed in the select Dakota county court documents attached hereto, as there has been a hostile history with the Dakota County. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) 2
  3. 3. "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an"appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/ herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances. 3
  4. 4. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. 4) The defendant’s First Amendment rights are also being abused by this action as this action appears to be retaliation by the City of West St. Paul Attorney, for speaking out on disability issues, via a web site, relevant to Alice Krengel, as the citation was issued one week after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against that City Attorney, and in favor of Ms. Krengel. RELIEF REQUESTED 1. AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL FROM CONTINUING THIS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, AND CONTINUING TO SOLICIT AND ENGAGE IN DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS IN THIS ACTION. 2. DAMAGES (INCLUSIVE BUT NOT LIMITED TO ACTUAL, PUNITIVE, AND EXEMPLARY) FOR ENGAGING IN A LONG TERM PATTERN OF HARASSMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, FOR AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT. January 11, 2010 Respectfully Submitted: Mary Jane Duchene, BA, BS 1144 Ottawa Avenue West St,. Paul, MN 55118 Fax: 651 457 4376 4
  5. 5. MariJaynDuchene@aol.,com te6/2009dog/wspnoise.html 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. 9
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. 15
  16. 16. 16
  17. 17. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. 21
  22. 22. 22
  23. 23. 23
  24. 24. 24
  25. 25. 25
  26. 26. 26
  27. 27. 27
  28. 28. 28
  29. 29. 29
  30. 30. 30
  31. 31. 31
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. 35
  36. 36. 36
  37. 37. 37
  38. 38. 38
  39. 39. 39
  40. 40. 40
  41. 41. 41
  42. 42. 42
  43. 43. 43
  44. 44. 44
  45. 45. 45
  46. 46. 46
  47. 47. 47
  48. 48. 48
  49. 49. 49
  50. 50. 50
  51. 51. 51
  52. 52. 52
  53. 53. 53
  54. 54. 54
  55. 55. 55
  56. 56. 56
  57. 57. 57
  58. 58. 58
  59. 59. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 1 of 10 Search: n The Web n Angelfire i j k l m j k l m Report Abuse « Previous | Top 100 | Next » homeowners ins share: | digg | reddit | furl | facebook Ads by Google MN Court Reporting Wilson Law Group $39 Moving Helpers Retail Pet ID Tag Program Certified LiveNote Reporters. Complex Personable & aggressive lawyers who Fast, experienced movers to help you VIP Patented Tag & Collar Engraver litigation our specialty. fight for you. Free consultation. move. Affordable. Highest quality tags! West St. Paul, Minnesota, RE: Alleged Noise Violations “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sr. Arthur Conan Doyle Calculator for determining amount sound diminishes with distance: Application for Public Defender: FORM 06.htm Citation, 7/24/2009: LINK Demand Long Form Complaint LINK 1/18/2010
  60. 60. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 2 of 10 Long Form Complaint 7/31/2009 LINK Initial Motion to Dismiss, inclusive long form complaint LINK provided Motion to Vacate and Reverse LINK WARRANT LINK Continuance LINK MOTION TO DISMISS, November 25, 2009 LINK REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, PREJUDICE, LINK December 09, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF LINK EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, December 16, 2009 Memoradum Support Motion to Dismiss of 11/25/2009, LINK January 13, 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING LINK DECEMBER 16, 2009 MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 14, 2010 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ORDER COMPELLING LINK RELEASE OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, January 17, 2010 LINK REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT, JANUARY 11, 2010 Mary Jane Duchene Plaintiff: City of West St Paul Defendant: Mary Jane Duchene Case Number: 0:2010cr00012 1/18/2010
  61. 61. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 3 of 10 Filed: January 13, 2010 Court: Minnesota District Court Office: DMN Office [ Court Info ] 1/18/2010
  62. 62. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 4 of 10 1/18/2010
  63. 63. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 5 of 10 1/18/2010
  64. 64. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 6 of 10 Front Row (left to right): Police Officer John Reynold, Officer Jennifer Hobbs, Sgt. Margaret Schult Audra Rawlings, Officer Elizabeth Schult, Officer Joey McCollum, Officer Don Weber, Police Sergeant Tom Fangel.{5AB2A4C2-6052-4911 F1B-3C51575DB80A}#{F9B67795-70B5-4335-B2BE-77C50FD85B54} "Lost/Found Pets If a pet has been found, and the pet has a license tag, call the West St. Paul Municipal Center at 651-552-4100. The City has a record of all licenses and owners. You can also inquire about lost or found pets by calling the petline at 651-322-2323." Alice Krengel v. City WSP, case won, in Minnesota Supreme Court, one week before July 24, 2009 Supreme Court Decision 7/16/2009 Precedent, Due Process and Long Form Complaint: 1997 - Dakota County Judge Harvis ruled that prosecution must amend the long form complaint to include both a statement of probable cause and statement of case, or facts showing basis and justification for the criminal charges. The prosecution failed to amend the long form complaint and the case was dismissed. Dakota County Court file T2-97-24334 1/18/2010
  65. 65. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 7 of 10 1/18/2010
  66. 66. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 8 of 10 U.S. Supreme Court, U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), 92 U.S. 542 COLE V. ARKANSAS, 338 U. S. 345 (1949) 1/18/2010
  67. 67. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 9 of 10 Page 422 U. S. 818 III This consensus is soundly premised. The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, as well as in the English and colonial jurisprudence from which the Amendment emerged. A The Sixth Amendment includes a compact statement of the rights necessary to a full defense: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Because these rights are basic to our adversary system of criminal justice, they are part of the "due process of law" that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants in the criminal courts of the States. [Footnote 14] The rights to notice, confrontation, and compulsory process, when taken together, guarantee that a criminal charge may be answered in a manner now considered fundamental to the fair administration of American justice -- through the calling and interrogation of favorable witnesses, the cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the orderly introduction of evidence. In short, the Amendment constitutionalizes the right in an adversary criminal trial to make a defense as we know it. See California v. Green, 399 U. S. 149, 399 U. S. 176 (Harlan, J., concurring). 1/18/2010
  68. 68. West St. Paul, Alledged Noise Violations Page 10 of 10 Site Sponsors Criminal Appeals DUI/DWI? Howard Family Law Federal Appeals and Habeas Peterson & Schiks, LLC Free, no- Divorce, custody and child support. Florida Appeals - 904-355-1890 obligation consultations. Schedule a free consultation. 1/18/2010