STATE OF MICHIGAN

37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MICHIGAN Case numbers: T003166W / T003167W

CITY OF WARREN,

BUILDING AND ZONING DIVISION

DATE: 10/13/2010
(EVERETT MURPHY)

Plaintiff,

VS.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE
JEFFERY DEAN SAXON,

(an obvious fictional person of the State created

by the STATE and not real party of interest

“Jeffery-Dean: Saxon”)

Trustee – Sui Juris

Defendant in error,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B), et al.

1
 Comes now Defendant in error, Jeffery-Dean: Saxon, a sovereign free white man over 21

years old, who has the rights to which all free men are entitled, who is not under the power of

another, such as the implied jurisdiction of any Corporation or Government to move the court to

disqualify Judge John M. Chmura per the rules laid out in MCR 2.003(B).

JURISDICTION

It has been and remains the position of the defense that this court surrendered jurisdiction

through due process violations and structural errors. However, in order to seek the intended

relief, this court must hear this Motion, at arm’s length and by special appearance, by the

Defendant. Furthermore, the Defense does not wave, nor has it ever waved these violations or

errors. The Defense stands fast.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, is not learned counsel.

2. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, is not schooled in law.

3. The Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, appeared before Judge John M. Chmura on September 29 th,

2010.

4. Judge Chmura summarily dismissed Defendant's Petition to Set Aside and Dismiss the

Complaint and Summons without reading it.

5. Judge Chmura allowed the prosecution to proceed without answering the Defendant’s Petition.

6. Judge Chmura found in favor of the State, but did not provide an account nor lawful backing for

his findings.

2
 DISCUSSION

From the Michigan Judicial Institute:

The moving party has the burden of showing grounds for disqualification. A party

challenging a judge on the basis of bias or prejudice bears the burden of overcoming the

heavy presumption of judicial impartiality. Cain v Dep’t of Corr, 451 Mich 470, 497

(1996), and In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 151 (1992). One who

challenges a judge on the basis of the constitutional right to an unbiased and impartial

tribunal also bears a heavy burden. Cain, supra at 498–99 n 33.

Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B), “[a] judge is disqualified when the judge cannot impartially

hear a case.” Michigan Court Rule 2.003(B) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of

circumstances in which a judge is disqualified, including instances when a judge is

personally biased or prejudiced against a party or attorney. MCR 2.003(B)(1).

Bias or prejudice is defined as an attitude or state of mind belying an aversion or hostility

of such a degree that a fair-minded person could not entirely set it aside when judging

certain persons or causes. Cain, supra at 495. For purposes of disqualification, a judge’s

bias or prejudice must be actual and personal. Id. Unless the alleged bias or prejudice

displays such deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that a fair judgment would be

impossible, a judge’s favorable or unfavorable disposition must arise from facts or events

outside the current judicial proceeding. Id. at 495–96, 513. The mere fact that a judge

conducted a prior proceeding against the defendant does not amount to proof of

disqualifying bias. People v White, 411 Mich 366, 386 (1981), and People v Koss, 86 Mich

App 557, 560 (1978). A judge who sits as trier of fact and finds the defendant guilty is not

automatically disqualified from acting as trier of fact at the defendant’s retrial after

reversal on appeal. People v Upshaw, 172 Mich App 386, 388–89 (1988). A judge who

presides over a plea proceeding, during which the defendant provides a factual basis for a

3
guilty plea but then decides not to plead guilty, need not sua sponte disqualify himself or

herself from conducting the defendant’s subsequent bench trial. People v Cocuzza, 413

Mich 78, 83 (1982).

Motions for disqualification may also be based on an alleged violation of the due-process

requirement that a decision maker be unbiased and impartial. Cain, supra at 497–98, and

Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 350 (1975). It is only in the most extreme cases

that a judge will be disqualified for bias or prejudice on due-process grounds. Cain, supra

at 497–98. Examples of instances in which the probability of actual bias may be too high

to be constitutionally tolerable, and in which a judge may therefore be disqualified

notwithstanding the absence of a showing of actual bias, include situations where a judge:

1) has a pecuniary interest; 2) has been insulted, slandered and vilified by a party; 3) has

revealed deep prejudice against the defendant’s profession and has recently been a losing

party in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the defendant; or 4) might have prejudged the case

because of prior participation in the case as one who personally conducted the initial

investigation, amassed evidence, and filed and prosecuted the charges, or as one who

made the initial decision which is under review. Crampton, supra at 351–55, and Cain,

supra at 497–502, 514. Due process is violated when full- time law enforcement officials,

charged with responsibility for arrest and prosecution of law violators, sit as adjudicators

in law enforcement disputes between citizens and police officers. Crampton, supra at 356–

58. MCR 2.003(C)(1) states as follows: “(1) Time for Filing. To avoid delaying trial and

inconveniencing the witnesses, a motion to disqualify must be filed within 14 days after the

moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. If the discovery is made within 14

days of the trial date, the motion must be made forthwith. If a motion is not timely filed,

untimeliness, including delay in waiving jury trial, is a factor in deciding whether the

motion should be granted.”

The 14-day deadlines for filing a motion to disqualify are mandatory. Cain, supra at 493,
4
 and Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), §2003.8, p 55 (the 14-

day deadlines in the subrule are mandatory, and the “untimeliness” in the third sentence

refers to time requirements other than those stated in the first two sentences of the

subrule). “Whenever a challenged judge has denied a disqualification motion and a

request for a hearing before another judge comes after a trial or hearing has started[,] the

challenged judge should have the option of proceeding with the trial or hearing unless a

chief judge or a higher court orders that the trial or hearing be interrupted or delayed so

that the disqualification motion may be considered by another judge before the trial or

hearing is concluded.” People v McDonald, 97 Mich App 425, 433 (1980), vacated on

other grounds 411 Mich 870 (1981). See also In re Contempt of Steingold (In re Smith),

244 Mich App 153, 160–61 (2000) (the juvenile court referee did not err in denying

defense counsel’s oral motion for disqualification on the first day of trial, but the referee

did err by not referring the matter to the chief judge as required under MCR 2.003(C)(3)).

The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit and must include all known grounds for

disqualification. MCR 2.003(C)(2). The challenged judge decides the motion and, if the

motion is denied and a party so requests, the challenged judge must refer the motion to the

chief judge (if the court has more than one judge) or to a judge appointed by the state

court administrator (if the court has only one judge or where the challenged judge is the

chief judge) for de novo decision. MCR 2.003(C)(3).1

ARGUMENT

In this case, the Defendant, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, has chosen to stand up for his rights and

has become the target of over-ambitious government agents who wish to persecute and subjigate

him and deny him of protections afforded him by way of Consitutional law and its protections.

1
Monograph 6, Pretrial Motions Third Edition
5
 From the inception of the United States, the framers and the judiciary understood that men

were “endowed by their creator” certain protections and the Consitution was drawn up, not to

give citizens their protections, but rather, to ensure the governments limitations on infringing on

those protections. Further cases clarified exactly what those limitations were in order to better

establish clarity. The intent, however, is still very much preserved in its entirety.

To solidify these fundamental protections, the founders chose an adversarial system to

advance the path of justice. In this system, noone should be prosecuted by a King or a judge, but

by another party.

In order to be successful, a party must meet the burden of showing:

1. The opposing party (in this case, the defendant) had a duty to perform.

2. The opposing party did not meet that duty.

3. The opposing party caused an articulatable harm, sometimes called corpus delicti.

In some cases, an element known as mens rea must also be shown to prove that there was

intent., futher extending the corpus delicti argument.

Fortunately for the citizens of Warren, the judiciary and its officers have expedited the

process and no longer need to meet such troublesome burdens. City officials simply hand out

tickets to political rivels and people they have characterized as dissedants to bring a steady

monetary flow for its coffers in these troubled economic times. Should a defendant follishly

contest such policies and try and seek out remedy, the judge argues the case for the prosecution.

Also, the prosecution need not be burdened with the unforntunate task of replying to any

annoying Motions or Petitions filed on behalf of the Defendant, because the case is a forgone

conclusion and noone will read them, anyway. This is the way of things in Judge Chmura’s

Court.

The prosecution in Judge Chmura’s court has no burden to bear; has no case to meet. When

the prosecution speaks, it is regarded as gospel, despite evidence and statutes to the contrary.

6
Justice cannot be had in Judge Chmura’s court and it was not had in this case. Judge Chmura

summarily dismissed the Defendant’s Petition to Dismiss, without turning a page.

Furthermore, Judge Chmura heard form the complaining party, who admitted to committing

a crime to obtain evidence against the Defendant and proceeded, despite objections.

Judge Chmura took the prosecutor, at face value, regarding a statue, despite a reference to

that very same statute in the Defendant’s Petition, which would have contradicted the

prosecutions statement. However, Judge Chmura could not have known that the statute was

referenced, because he did not read the petition.

Furthermore, it must be assumed that Judge Chmura understands all laws and case law in

this matter and knew exactly what he was doing, Screws et al. v. US., 325 U.S. 91 (1945), in the

violation of the defendant’s rights.

The founding fathers anticipated corruption. They had faced adversities from the rule of
King George. The laws are based on that principle; the principles of checks and balances. When
these laws are ignored, corruption abounds. They must be adhered to in para materia. If one
element of the law is ignored or forgotten, then justice is lost. It cannot be left up to a king or a
judge’s state of mind or the outcome of a morning cup of coffee, but rather the strict adhesion to
the laws and guidelines laid out in statutes and case law.

The defendant believes that Judge Chmura has shown bias and this bias is fatal or
irreparable and it will not allow a fair adjudication for the defense.

Failure to enforce the law does not change it. Lousville & N.R.R. v U.S., 282 U.S. 740,

759.

WHEREFORE, the defendant moves the Court to grant the motion for disqualification or to

dismiss the citation with prejudice. If the Court denies this motion, the defendant moves the

court to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law why this motion should be dismissed in

accordance with MCR 2.613(C).

7
Respectfully Submitted,

______________________ Notary Stamp Here

Jeffery-Dean: Saxon c/o

JEFFERY DEAN SAXON

ADDRESS
Warren Michigan [48089]

PHONE

Accused in Pro Per

At Arms Length

Restricted jurisdiction

By special visitation - “ special appearance”

To challenge jurisdiction of the Court

VERIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Dean: Saxon, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and

accurate to the best of my knowledge, in all respects.

8
 Jurat

Signed and sworn before me ________________________________, on this day, the _____ day of
_________, 2009.

Notary Signature: ____________________________________