April 25, 2002
TO: California Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Ave., STE 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Judicial Council
303 Second Street. South Tower
San Francisco, California 94107
FROM:Richard Pitchers
In Propria Persona Sui Juris
1520 Lacey Court, #1
Concord, CA
925-363-5470
SUBJECT:FORMAL CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; AND OVERT VIOLENCE AND USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST MS. JUDITH CRADDICK ACTING “JUDGE” OF THE CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT [Case Number MSD97-02430]
A FORMAL COMPLAINT
Dear Judicial Council, et als,
This is a timely notice of overt crimes under act and/or omission against me by one Judith Craddick, an acting judicial officer acting under the title of “Judge” for the Superior Court of the Contra Costa Superior Court.
First, this letter authorizes you to act in any manner on my behalf to disqualify Ms. Judith Craddick from acting as a Judge or within the public trust for the State of California again, as she has committed overt crimes and has in fact outrageously usurped the Constitution for the State of California Article I §§15 and 24 “public trial” doctrine.
You are hereby authorized to provide me with substantive due process of law, as well as redress of grievances, and must act in my behalf as I am invoking your Commencement of the Commission per your Rule 109 of the Commission on Judicial Performance Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance adopted October 24, 1996, under Rule 126 (d). You may consider this as an opening brief under your Rule 130, with the attached evidence so submitted.
I am seeking a full disqualification under Rule 120 “should be removed or retired from office” as the overt acts and/or omissions of said “Judge” Ms. Judith Craddick in fact, is such an egregious crime and warrants that determination which is just and proper.
I also demand that any and all proceedings in this matter be entered into, and become a part of Ms. Judith Craddick’s personal personnel file.
I do in fact, demand that all “meetings” held by this commission be transcribed and provided to me and that they be a factual, word-for-word representation of that adjudication of this matter. I will in fact, prefer in the alternative any tape recording of this event submitted to me at the above-mentioned address.
Please find attached to this document, one NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING; along with one letter from Ms. Craddick disqualifying herself dated April 8, 2002; and finally a Pleading with Points and Authorities named JUDICIAL NOTICE REFUSAL OF “JUDGE” JUDITH CRADDICK LETTER OF APRIL 8, 2002 / “RECUSAL” OF HERSELF dated April 23, 2002. These documents are part of the trial and public record of Contra Costa Case Number MSD 97-02430.
COUNT 1
1.)That on or about March 15, 2002 that Ms. Judith Craddick did preside at my hearing acting as a “Judge” in this matter without written stipulation as required under your CRC Rule 244 and a full violation thereto in direct violation to my rights and over my objections.
2.)That on or about March 15, 2002 that Ms. Craddick was lawfully filed several documents, one of which was the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, formally filed and entered into the above mentioned case on March , 2002.
COUNT 2
3.)That on or about March 15, 2002 that Ms. Judith Craddick did unlawfully arrest me, without probable cause, without certificate of probable cause, without any formal complaint; without any warrant and did force me into an unknown and illegal proceeding. (A violation of Article I, Section 19; and Section 8; Constitution of California (1849)).
COUNT 3
4.)That on or about March 15, 2002 that Ms. Judith Craddick did in fact, close and seal the doors to the above mentioned tribunal and did in fact let nobody in the court and did not allow it to be a full public hearing; as my counsel and my next-best-friend were not able to enter this proceeding and were physically prohibited by oral mandate of Ms. Judith Craddick, an overt violation of the Constitution of California (1993-94), Article I, Section 15 and Section 24, “public hearing” mandates; as well as California Rules of Court “Appendix to Rules of Court, Judicial Administration Standards” that §30 Trial Court Performance et seq. (even though she was lawfully served and had direct knowledge of my NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING being filed into said matter.) These facts are incontrovertible and are a gross misprision of felony against the public trust of the Judiciary elected to uphold our form of government.
COUNT 4
5.)That Ms. Judith Craddick does hold herself out to be a duly elected judge, properly bonded in accordance with law, upholding the law; whose pay does not diminish, who is of good character, and who is of proper oath and affirmation. (A violation of Article VI, Constitution of California (1849) as well as Article III thereof, who did in fact, act as the County of Contra Costa County Lawyer in overt violation of law and did conspire thereto:
"That no one can, even by consent, be the attorney of both the litigating parties in the same controversy." Farresly 47.
COUNT 5
6.)That said “Judge” Ms. Judith Craddick on March 15, 2002[1] and April 8, 2002 did in fact, violate her own oath of office and violate her own law, under CCP §170 et seq. and did refuse my formal and lawful statement for disqualification. (A violation of the complete CCP §170 section, §170.3 et seq. and §170.4 in particular).
"Where statement is legally sufficient and judge fails to file answer thereto within five (now 10) days, facts alleged in statement must be taken as true and judge becomes disqualified automatically. Calhoun v. Superior Court (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 257, 262, 331 P.2d 648.
CCP § 170.4 “Power of Disqualified Judges” that under (c)(1) “…as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 170.3, and if it is determined that the judge is disqualified, all orders and rulings of the judge found to be disqualified made after the filing of the statement shall be vacated.”
SEE "Orders made by a judge after disqualification are void." [Noorthoek v. Superior Court (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 600, 607, 75 Cal.Rptr. 61]
COUNT 6
7.)That on March 15, 2002 and/or April 8, 2002 Ms. Judith Craddick did in fact, attempt to be a judge in her own cause in overt violation of settled law, and the maxims of law and did attempt to ascertain and adjudicate her own disqualification using an unknown practice, policy and procedure in direct violation of law.
"It is a maxim of every code in every country that no man should be a Judge in his own cause; it is not left to his discretion or to his sense of decency whether he shall act or not; when his own rights are in question he has no authority to determine the cause; so well is the principle understood, that in every court consisting of more judges than one, the Judge who is a party in a suit takes no party in the proceedings or decision of the cause." Washington Ins. Co. v. Price, 1823, 1 Hpk. 1
SEE Also: "Ancient maxim applicable in civil or criminal cases that no person ought to be a judge in his or her own cause.” Cadensasso v. Bank of Italy, (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 570, 6 P.2d 944; Meyer v. San Diego, (1898) 121 Cal. 102, 104, 53 P. 434.
I demand that this commission keep me informed at all stages of this matter, and if any rebuttal or response is needed to allow me at least ten (10) days written notice before hearing or final determination to submit answer thereto.
You are to hold Ms. Judith Craddick up to strict construction of the law, as she is of proper oath and affirmation under Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of California (1993-94) while you will in fact, hold me to a lenient standard and liberal construction of the law under the “spirit of the law” as I am a California State Citizen, a member of the posterity so declared in the preamble of said constitution and a member of “we the people” of which you are sworn to protect.[2]
Whereas, this is a formal complaint which must be acted upon by you in good faith with no bad faith to me. It must be acted upon promptly in the first instance. You are to do a thorough investigation and determination upon these facts I so lawfully submit and notice unto you.
You are not to use this Commission as a rubber stamp to allow Ms. Judith Craddick’s unlawful acts and/or omission in this matter. In approaching this Commission and/or Council on Judicial Performance, does not mean I give up any rights, on the contrary, I reserve all rights and give up none. I demand substantive due process of law and palpable redress of grievances in this matter in the first instance upon this filing.
So formally submitted as a matter of right.
DATED: April 25, 2002
SEAL:______
Richard Pitchers
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
1520 Lacey Court, #1
Concord, California
VERIFICATION
Contra Costa County]
] ss.
State of California]
I, Richard Pitchers being the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
That the afore-going Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents are exacting copies of the originals in my/or my counsel’s (specifically not American Bar Association, or professional “Attorney’s”) possession. That I have read the foregoing document(s) and attachments, and know and understand their contents, and having personal knowledge, know them to be true. As to those matters submitted therein upon information and/or belief, as to those matters, I also believe them true.
Executed this 25 day of April, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Two.
SEAL:______
Richard Pitchers
1520 Lacey Court, #1
Concord, California
925-363-5470
SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribed this 25 day of April, under exigent circumstances, before Almighty God, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Two.
SEAL:______
Richard Pitchers
1520 Lacey Court, #1
Concord, California
Reserving All Rights, Giving Up None
In the California Superior Court, In and for the County of Contra Costa
______Term
Richard Pitchers]
]Case No.
Appellant/Petitioner]CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
vs.]PROOF OF SERVICE
]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA]
Respondents]
______]
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within entitled cause of action; and, Further, hereby deposes and says: that on the date certified below, I did serve UNDER AUTHORITY OF APPELLANT/PETITIONER the attached document named:
1.) Richard Pitchers FORMAL COMPLAINT TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL7 Pages
_____AGAINST “JUDGE” JUDITH CRADDICK______[1 ATTACHMENT LETTER]______
The aforesaid documents were served in the following manner:
____By personal service. I did personally deliver the above-described documents at the address, or addresses captioned below:
____By the U.S. Postal Service by first class United States Mail Post
paid certified envelope, sealed by my hand at ______.
Certified Number ______
____By phone communication transmission [FAX], the material aforementioned on-line was sent at a total of ______transmitted pages to Tel.#( ) -
____By sealed envelope, hand enclosed by me and mailed to:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACounty of Contra Costa
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 911
Martinez, CA 94553 / Supervising Attorney Contra Costa Cty
Dept. of Child Support Services
50 Douglas Drive, STE 100
Martinez, CA 94553
District Attorney of Contra Costa Cty
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553 / Ms. Judith Craddick
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 911
Martinez, CA 94553
California Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Ave., STE 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660 / Judicial Council
303 Second Street. South Tower
San Francisco, California 94107
Further, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that these documents were served by me personally as stated above and/or mailed and sealed as stated above within the California Republic.
DATED: April ______, 2002______
______AM/PMNelson Kenyon
3359 Steele Drive
Bay Point, California
Telephone 925-458-5002
by Lawful Service
1
FORMAL COMPLAINT TO CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL – JUDITH CRADDICK
[1] I did in fact, formally disqualify her viva voce while in court, under extreme duress of being falsely arrested at the time by her.
[2] SEE: “This Government…has certainly some power to protect its own Citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights.” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).