STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT

3RD CIRCUIT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiff, Case No. 00-69257
HON JAMES R. CHYLINSKI
v

MARK JACKSON
Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________/

Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se

129 North Lowell Road
Windham, NH 03087
313 478 8061
_____________________________________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO VACATE

JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

Pursuant to MCR 2.119(F), MCR 2.604(A), MCR 6.500 and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, et al.

Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to move the court to reconsider the Motion to

Vacate Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Indictment heard on September 24, 2010.

FACTS AND HISTORY

1. On December 6, 2000, the Defendant accepted a Pretrial Settlement Offer [exhibit A].

2. In or about August of 2010, the Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Motion to
 Dismiss Indictment, hereafter referred to as the “Motion to Vacate”.

3. On September 24, 2010, the Defendant overheard the Prosecutor, Sunita Doddamani (Bar

#67459) and the Court Clerk discussing the Motion [see exhibit B – DEFENDANT’S

AFFIDAVIT…]

4. On September 24, 2010, at approximately 9 a.m., oral arguments were presented before Judge

Chylinski.

5. On September 24, 2010, Judge Chylinski ordered that the Motion to Vacate be denied on the

basis that “the defendant’s claim lack merit since most were waived upon plea of guilty and the

remaining claims should be addressed by way of formal appeal to The Court of Appeals rather

than by Motion in this Court.” [exhibit C]

ARGUMENT/PLEADINGS

ERROR #1 - JURISDICTION
According to the Criminal Procedure Monograph 6:
1
6.8 Motions for Rehearing or Reconsideration

A circuit court, acting as an appellate court in review of a district court order or

judgment, possesses the authority to reconsider its own previous order or judgment on

the matter. People of the City of Riverview v Walters, 266 Mich App 341, 346-350

(2005). Except as provided in MCR 2.604(A), a motion for rehearing or reconsideration

of the decision on a motion must be filed and served within 14 days of the entry of the

order disposing of the motion. MCR 2.119(F)(1).


























































1
Page 6–8 – Page 6-9 Monograph 6—Pretrial Motions (2006–August 2009)



 2

 Under MCR 2.604(A), an order is “subject to revision before entry of final judgment.”

“[T]he 14-day time limit on motions for reconsideration contained in MCR 2.119(F)(1)

should not deter a trial court from correcting its interim orders whenever legally

appropriate.” Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), §2604.2, p

351. No response to the motion may be filed and no oral argument is allowed unless the

court directs otherwise. MCR 2.119(F)(2). The standard for granting or denying

motions for rehearing or reconsideration is set forth in MCR 2.119(F)(3), which states as

follows:

“Generally, and without restricting the discretion of the court, a motion for

rehearing or reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by

the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. The

moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the

parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must

result from correction of the error.”

In People v Turner, 181 Mich App 680, 683 (1989), the Court of Appeals stated that the

rehearing procedure contained in MCR 2.119(F) “allows a court to correct mistakes

which would otherwise be subject to correction on appeal, though at much greater

expense to the parties.”

Palpable error is not a mandatory prerequisite to a court’s decision to grant a party’s

motion for reconsideration. Walters, supra at 350-352. Adherence to the palpable error

provision contained in MCR 2.119(F)(3) is not required; rather, the provision offers

guidance to a court by suggesting when it may be appropriate to grant a party’s motion

for reconsideration. Walters, supra at 350.


 3

 Where a different judge is seated in the circuit court that issued the ruling or order for

which a party seeks reconsideration, the judge reviews the prior court’s factual findings

for clear error. Id. at 352. The fact that the successor judge is reviewing the matter for

the first time does not authorize the judge to conduct a de novo review. Id.

The Court erred in its findings when it entered the order on September 24, 2010 in several

ways. The very first way that the court erred was that it assumed that the duty of the Appellate

Court was to address claims that the Defendant made. In the event that the Appellate Court had

found errors in the record, then it would grant the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate. However, it is

clear that the law urges the Court to correct mistakes that would otherwise “be subject to

correction on appeal.”

If Judge Chylinski truly believed that the Appeals Court could address errors, then the very

same law that gives that Court authority, gives his Court authority to correct the very same

errors. In the alternative, if Judge Chylinski believed that he did not have the authority to

address these issues, then he never would have had the subject matter jurisdiction to address

matters and the case should have been vacated. This Court was given the tools to rule on this

matter and the law to rule on this matter and it erred in its decision to send it to a higher court.

Furthermore, when the prosecutor argued that the Court lacked the Venue to hear the

matter, the prosecution was absolutely right. The Court never had Jurisdiction to hear the

original matter. The Court has a duty to correct this error and it would be malfeasance to do

otherwise.

Remedies available to a defendant who has plead nolo contendere are limited. Appeals are

limited. There are not many statutes regarding post-appeal options.

Rule 6.502 Motion for Relief From Judgment


 4

 (A) Nature of Motion. The request for relief under this subchapter must be in the form of

a motion to set aside or modify the judgment. The motion must specify all of the grounds

for relief which are available to the defendant and of which the defendant has, or by the

exercise of due diligence, should have knowledge.

(B) Limitations on Motion. A motion may seek relief from one judgment only. If the

defendant desires to challenge the validity of additional judgments, the defendant must do

so by separate motions. For the purpose of this rule, multiple convictions resulting from

a single trial or plea proceeding shall be treated as a single judgment.

(C) Form of Motion. The motion may not be noticed for hearing, and must be typed or

legibly handwritten and include a verification by the defendant or defendant's lawyer in

accordance with MCR 2.114. Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the combined

length of the motion and any memorandum of law in support may not exceed 50 pages

double-spaced, exclusive of attachments and exhibits. If the court enters an order

increasing the page limit for the motion, the same order shall indicate that the page limit

for the prosecutor’s response provided for in MCR 6.506(A) is increased by the same

amount. The motion must be substantially in the form approved by the State Court

Administrative Office, and must include:

(1) The name of the defendant;

(2) The name of the court in which the defendant was convicted and the file

number of the defendant's case;

(3) The place where the defendant is confined, or, if not confined, the defendant's

current address;

(4) The offenses for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced;


 5

 (5) The date on which the defendant was sentenced;

(6) Whether the defendant was convicted by a jury, by a judge without jury, or on

a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or nolo contendere;

(7) The sentence imposed (probation, fine, and/or imprisonment), the length of the

sentence imposed, and whether the defendant is now serving that sentence;

(8) The name of the judge who presided at trial and imposed sentence;

(9) The court, title, and file number of any proceeding (including appeals and

federal court proceedings) instituted by the defendant to obtain relief from

conviction or sentence, specifying whether a proceeding is pending or has been

completed;

(10) The name of each lawyer who represented the defendant at any time after

arrest, and the stage of the case at which each represented the defendant;

(11) The relief requested;

(12) The grounds for the relief requested;

(13) The facts supporting each ground, stated in summary form;

(14) Whether any of the grounds for the relief requested were raised before; if so,

at what stage of the case, and, if not, the reasons they were not raised;

(15) Whether the defendant requests the appointment of counsel, and, if so,

information necessary for the court to determine whether the defendant is entitled

to appointment of counsel at public expense.

Upon request, the clerk of each court with trial level jurisdiction over felony cases

shall make available blank motion forms without charge to any person desiring to

file such a motion.


 6

 (D) Return of Insufficient Motion. If a motion is not submitted on a form approved by the

State Court Administrative Office, or does not substantially comply with the requirements

of these rules, the court shall either direct that it be returned to the defendant with a

statement of the reasons for its return, along with the appropriate form, or adjudicate the

motion under the provisions of these rules. The clerk of the court shall retain a copy of

the motion.

(E) Attachments to Motion. The defendant may attach to the motion any affidavit,

document, or evidence to support the relief requested.

(F) Amendment and Supplementation of Motion. The court may permit the defendant to

amend or supplement the motion at any time.

(G) Successive Motions.

(1) Except as provided in subrule (G)(2), regardless of whether a defendant has

previously filed a motion for relief from judgment, after August 1, 1995, one and

only one motion for relief from judgment may be filed with regard to a conviction.

The court shall return without filing any successive motions for relief from

judgment. A defendant may not appeal the denial or rejection of a successive

motion.

(2) A defendant may file a second or subsequent motion based on a retroactive

change in law that occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment or a

claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion. The

clerk shall refer a successive motion that asserts that one of these exceptions is

applicable to the judge to whom the case is assigned for a determination whether

the motion is within one of the exceptions.


 7

 Rule 6.503 Filing and Service of Motion

(A) Filing; Copies.

(1) A defendant seeking relief under this subchapter must file a motion, and a

copy of the motion with the clerk of the court in which the defendant was

convicted and sentenced.

(2) Upon receipt of a motion, the clerk shall file it under the same number as the

original conviction.

(B) Service. The defendant shall serve a copy of the motion and notice of its filing on the

prosecuting attorney. Unless so ordered by the court as provided in this subchapter, the

filing and service of the motion does not require a response by the prosecutor.

Rule 6.504 Assignment; Preliminary Consideration by Judge; Summary Denial

(A) Assignment to Judge. The motion shall be presented to the judge to whom the case

was assigned at the time of the defendant's conviction. If the appropriate judge is not

available, the motion must be assigned to another judge in accordance with the court's

procedure for the reassignment of cases. The chief judge may reassign cases in order to

correct docket control problems arising from the requirements of this rule.

(B) Initial Consideration by Court.

(1) The court shall promptly examine the motion, together with all the files,

records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack.

The court may request that the prosecutor provide copies of transcripts, briefs, or

other records.


 8

 (2) If it plainly appears from the face of the materials described in subrule(B)(1)

that the defendant is not entitled to relief, the court shall deny the motion without

directing further proceedings. The order must include a concise statement of the

reasons for the denial. The clerk shall serve a copy of the order on the defendant

and the prosecutor. The court may dismiss some requests for relief or grounds for

relief while directing a response or further proceedings with respect to other

specified grounds.

(3) If the motion is summarily dismissed under subrule (B)(2), the defendant may

move for reconsideration of the dismissal within 21 days after the clerk serves the

order. The motion must concisely state why the court's decision was based on a

clear error and that a different decision must result from correction of the error.

A motion which merely presents the same matters that were considered by the

court will not be granted.

(4) If the entire motion is not dismissed under subrule (B)(2), the court shall order

the prosecuting attorney to file a response as provided in MCR 6.506, and shall

conduct further proceedings as provided in MCR 6.505-6.508.

Rule 6.505 Right to Legal Assistance

(A) Appointment of Counsel. If the defendant has requested appointment of counsel, and

the court has determined that the defendant is indigent, the court may appoint counsel for

the defendant at any time during the proceedings under this subchapter. Counsel must be

appointed if the court directs that oral argument or an evidentiary hearing be held.

(B) Opportunity to Supplement the Motion. If the court appoints counsel to represent the


 9

 defendant, it shall afford counsel 56 days to amend or supplement the motion. The court

may extend the time on a showing that a necessary transcript or record is not available to

counsel.

If the statute directs the Defendant to file with the Court of record, then it is specious logic

to assume that the Court can simply circumvent its responsibilities by sending post-appeal

remedies to an Appellate Court. It simply adds a prejudicial and an undue burden to the

Defense.

ERROR #2 – RIGHTS NOT WAIVED

The Order issued by the Court on September 24, 2010 [exhibit C], states that, “the

defendant’s claim lack merit since most were waived upon plea of guilty and the remaining

claims should be addressed by way of formal appeal to The Court of Appeals rather than by

Motion in this Court.”

Reiterating those claims named in the Order:

1. Ineffective counsel

2. Due process violations

3. Defective oath of office by judges involved

4. Standing argument

5. Incorrect statute citations

6. Police office trespass at the scene

7. Cruel and unusual punishment citing conditions at police lockup

8. Delay in arraignment

9. Courts lack of jurisdiction

The settlement reached by the 2 parties on December 6, 2000 [exhibit A] surrendered none


 10

of these rights. In fact, the rights listed were very deliberately listed. Anything more would be

non-disclosure and constitute fraud upon the Court. Those rights are:

1. The right to a jury trial or trial by the court with the prosecutor’s consent.

2. The right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. The right to confront and question the witnesses against me.

4. The right to have the Court compel witnesses to come to court and testify for me.

5. The right to testify at my trial. The right to remain silent and not have my silence

used against me.

6. The right to claim my plea was the result of promises or threats not disclosed to the

court, or that it was not my choice to plead guilty.

7. The right to appeal as of right as to conviction and sentence.

None of these surrendered rights are contrary to the issues raised. Not listed among those

rights surrendered, lest the Court forget, was the right to have all evidence presented to the

Defense. Unless the Court has a secret document, no rights were waived raised in the

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate. If the Court does believe that the Defendant has waved his

rights, other than those listed, then the Defendant needs a tool to remedy this error and the

Motion to Vacate should be granted. No prudent person could assume that there was a larger list

of rights waived and no learned man, not even counsel, could guess the nature of such a list. No

Court, no contract, no agreement would hold up to such a standard.

ERROR #3 – IMPARTIALITY

Before Judge Chylinski took the bench on the morning of September 24, 2010, the

conversation between counsel and the clerk shed some very disturbing light on practices and


 11

procedures in the Court House. Counsel had not seen the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate. Now,

while it is certainly understandable that Counsel has a very busy schedule, Counsel didn’t run

forward and ask for a continuance. Counsel didn’t file a last minute response to the Defendant’s

motion. Counsel didn’t have to check case file. Counsel didn’t need to. Ms. Doddamani only

had to look to Judge Chylinski and with a brief statement, forty (40) plus pages of facts, laws and

arguments and ten (10) or more pages of evidence were sent away to the appeals court and the

Defense, whose burden is already overwhelming must bear more.

The Defendant has filed a delayed objection [exhibit D]. While the prosecution does not

have to prove the guilt of the Defense, because of the plea. The prosecution has been challenged.

The question has been raised if that plea was achieved ethically and in good faith. The

prosecution didn’t demonstrate good faith.

If the Judge has read the pleadings and the prosecution has not, conjecture need not be

evident to show who has done the work to dispense of the pleadings. Futhermore, the judge does

not have the tools, the knowledge and the documentation to decide if one side has acted or is

acting unethically. The very thought is contrary to the adversarial system. The Defense cannot

prevail against the Judge and the Prosecutor. Oral arguments become a forgone conclusion.

ERROR #4 – NON CRIMES

State Court Rules are fairly consistent from state to state. The rules stem from the

Federal Court Rules. In Rule 34 of the Federal Criminal Rules it says:

Rule 34. Arresting Judgment


 12

 (a) In General.

Upon the defendant's motion or on its own, the court must arrest judgment if:

(1) the indictment or information does not charge an offense; or

(2) the court does not have jurisdiction of the charged offense.

When reading statutes, it is essential to read those statutes in para materia. Without it,

context and intent cannot be established.

The same argument is made about the United Stated Constitution. An argument is made

that there is no possible way to understand what the forefathers had intended and yet documents

like the Federalist Papers and the Antifederalist Papers testify to something different.

Rule 34 screams intent. The law does not intend that the executive branch have carte

blanche on prosecutions. The authority granted is a very small one. It would be an error and a

miscarriage of justice maintain the restrictions on the Defendant’s liberties with such obvious

fatal errors.

ERROR #5 – OATH OF OFFICE

While the Court saw the Oath of Office issued argued in the Motion to Vacate as a minor

one, case law sees it a bit differently. New York and other states have several cases to this

effect, but one case in Texas which spells it out very well,


 13

 “2After criminal defendant failed to appear in court, the 34th District Court, El Paso

County, Jack Ferguson, J., entered judgment forfeiting $40,000 bail bond. Bail bond

surety appealed. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed, 948 S.W.2d 69. The Court of

Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded for reconsideration. Thereafter, the Court of

Appeals, Larsen, J., held that: (1) senior judge who signed judgment nisi was required, as

appointed official, to take constitutional oath, and (2) because judgment nisi was invalid,

application for bail forfeiture was unsupported. Reversed and rendered.”

While this issue, at first blush, may appear as a “minor infraction”, it may be something

quite a bit more than that. It is certainly a Constitutional requirement.

While Judge Chylinski may remember taking the Oath, there is only one legal way to

verify that fact: a legally filed oath, within 10 days.

A defendant could certainly argue that he was “legally divorced” when he marries a

second bride, but he would be liable to all the pains and penalties of law if that same

defendant didn’t have proof.

A Defendant cannot be assured that his Constitutionally protected rights would be

preserved in front of such an official. The Defense adamantly believes that this is an error and

cannot be overlooked.

PRAYER

The Defense prays that this Court grants this Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Vacate

and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Furthermore, the Defense also asks that this Court not


























































2
994 S. W. 2d 316 (Tx. App. - El Paso) PRIETO BAIL BONDS v. The STATE of Texas 1999


 14

overlook the Prosecutions lack of good faith in its dealings with the same.

WHEREFORE, the defendant moves the Court to Reconsider the Motion to Vacate and Motion

to Dismiss the Indictment, filed by the Defendant, Mark A. Jackson. 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 denied in accordance with MCR 2.613(C).

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________ Notary Stamp Here

Mark Alan Jackson

129 North Lowell Road

Windham, NH 03087

313-478-8061

marcosagostos@gmail.com


 15

 Exhibits

All exhibits have been attached to the end of this document and labeled. Some are part of

the original Court Record and some are unclear, but should have been entered into the Court

Record.

A. Pretrial Settlement Offer, filed on December 6, 2000.

B. Affidavit of Mark A. Jackson regarding the events of the morning of September 24,

2010.

C. Order Denying Motion to Vacate Judgment entered by Judge James R. Chylinski on

September 24, 2010

D. Defendant’s Delayed Objection.


 16

 i I

t
b STATEOF TICHIGAN PRETRIAL
f] THIRDJUDIGIALCIRCUIT
COURT SETTLEMENTOFFER
I
I
CoURT
D neconDER'S ANDNOTICEOF ACCEPTANCE

THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATE ,'ja-.,/-t-, 7/lrr*-/-

V.
OF MICHIGAN -

PRETRIALSETTLEMENTOFFER

Ek ruochargereduction tr reduction
Gharge
ATEI{PT STATUTORY
@UNT: SPFCIFY CHARG E{S) PA@ 75TN ilA)OMUMPENALTY
f- 7L -J 5t., I. a rl-/ ,_, t

7_ l.r,,r{, . I .,.i.,,,.-. f-i L'.rs,,r, }q ? -r, l.( 7 7 (t/e.,,

XL sentenceAgreement Recommendgtion
Sentence
(n w9 l..rj (- i tr' , +!.r'( )
t

i'-, i r t ,:'ri t:-,'! L,,.(.,rt'

I

f.".ilr- {r' i {- V'('-J.f--a-ir t 1 lft t.t,, j1:'/, lr -tf-

,!c i it r./..r, L r{cf ',

I
rt-//'
t^/1 ,
\t ) ot'"tt! {,.ttt, 1, i, { .,, , .','/ {.., ,, {-{ }i1,(.r, {n rt' y'-

tr Peopleagreeto PA511sentence Peopleobject to PA511sentence

tr Sentenceis mandatorilyconsecutiveby law to
n Peopleagreeto dismissHabitualSupplemental
Notice.
n Dismiss
x o'n13:'1":'.1i5' -.1't'
t- C-<* i.*i + i
Exhibit A Pros!cutingAttorney

NOTICEOF AGCEPTANCE
I HEREBYACCEPTTHE ABOVEPRETRIALSETTLEMENTOFFER AND WAIVETHE FOLLOWINGRTGHTS:
1. THE RTGHTTO A JURY TRIALOR TRIAL BY THE COURTWITH THE PROSECUTOR'S CONSENT.
2. THE RIGHTTO BE PBESUMEO INNOCENTUNLESSPROVENGUILTYBEYONDA REASONABLE DOUBT.
AGAINST ME
OME TO @URT ANO TESTIFTFOR ME
N SILENTAND NOT HAVE MY STLENCEUSEDAGAINSTME.
ilrsES oB THHEATSNOT DTSCLOSED
TO THE COURT,OR THAT
{D SENTENCE'


I L'(-- cns
' .,. DefenseAttomey

 17
 - : : ., .. i

Pir*{rfiEA|fnE
FoImr/l Goldqnd--bsty G.rd Admlr*Bbalor
(Rwlsod4Jq B|rrFHafilq Coufioorn Cl!rl( .
 STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
3RD CIRCUIT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 00-69257
HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI
v

MARK JACKSON
Defendant,

_________________________________________________________/

Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se

129 North Lowell Road
Windham, New Hampshire 03087
313 478 8061

_________________________________________________________/
Exhibit B


 18

 AFFIDAVIT OF MARK ALAN JACKSON REGARDING THE EVENTS

OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 HEARING

I, Mark Alan Jackson, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. THAT I am competent to declare and affirm the facts set forth herein.

2. THAT I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, unless based upon best

information and belief, which I will so state if applicable, and will testify to their

veracity if called upon as a witness.

3. THAT I reside at 129 North Lowell Road, the City of Windham in the Rockingham

County, New Hampshire.

4. THAT on the morning of September 24, 2010, I did overhear the prosecutor, Sunita

Doddamani (Bar #67459), hearafter referred to as Ms. Doddamani, conversing with

Judge Chylinski’s Court Clerk.

5. THAT Judge Chylinski’s Court Clerk did ask Ms. Doddamani if she had seen the

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

6. THAT Ms. Doddamani responded by stating that she had not “seen it, but had heard

about it.”

7. THAT Ms. Doddamani proceeded with the hearing despite not having read the

document.

END OF AFFIDAVIT


 19

 STATE OF MICHIGAN


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE




 CRIMINAL DIVISION


 STATE OF MICHIGAN
Case Number 00-69257-01


v.




 Hon. JAMES CHYLINSKI


 MARK JACKSON
Defendant


----------------------------------------------------~/





 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT



At a session of said court

 held in the County of Wayne
On September 24,2010




Defendant, MARK JACKSON, pled No Contest to Reckless Discharge of

 a Firearm and Felonious Assault on 12-6-2000. An original charge of Felony
Firearm was dismissed per the plea agreement. He was sentenced To 3 years

 probation, psychological evaluation and last 6 months Wayne County Jai1. The
last 6 months jail was vacated in 2003.



 Now MARK JACKSON has filed a MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGEMENT and a MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT.


After reviewing the basis of the Motion, namely;

 -ineffective counsel
-due process violations

 -defective Oath of Office by Judges involved

 -Standing argument
-Incorrect statute citations

 -Police officer trespass at the scene
-cruel and unusual punishment citing conditions at police lockup

 -delay in arraignment
-Court's lack of jurisdiction
Exhibit C
IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS COURT THAT the defendants claim lack

 merit since most were waived upon plea of20

guilty and the remaining claims
should be addressed by way of formal appeal to The Court of Appeals rather than
by Motion in this Court.
 Wherefore, Defendant's MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT is
DENIED.









JAMES R. CHYLINSKI

 Circuit Court Judge
















































 21

 STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
3RD CIRCUIT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 00-69257
HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI
v

MARK JACKSON
Defendant,

_________________________________________________________/

Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se

129 North Lowell Road
Windham, New Hampshire 03087
313 478 8061

_________________________________________________________/
Exhibit D


 22

 NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S DELAYED OBJECTION TO

PROSECUTOR’S LACK OF RESPONSE

Persuant to MCR 2.119 and MCR 6.001(D).

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

Chylinski’s efforts to argue the Prosecutor’s position.

FACTS

1. In
August
of
2010,
the
Defendant
filed
a
Motion
to
Vacate
and
Motion
to
Dismiss
the


Indictment
regarding
a
case
from
2001,
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
“Motion”.


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.


3. On
September
24.
2010,
the
court
heard
arguments
on
that
Motion.


4. The
Prosecution,
Sunita
Doddamani,
failed
to
file
a
response
to
that
Motion.


5. Upon
entering
the
court
room,
the
Defendant
could
hear
the
prosecutor
discussing


the
Motion
with
Judge
Chylinski’s
Clerk.


6. The
 Clerk
 asked
 if
 the
 prosecutor
 had
 seen
 the
 Motion
 and
 the
 prosecutor


responded
by
stating,
“No,
but
she
had
heard
about
it.”


7. Once
the
hearing
began,
Judge
Chylinski
advised
the
Defendant
that
he
had
read
the


Motion.



 23

 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


misconduct
was
an
oversight,
“at
best”
on
his
part.


10. Judge
Chylinski
advised
the
Defendant
that,
“He
was
talking”
and
the
Defendant
was


deprived
of
his
opportunity
to
object
for
the
record.


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


Conclusions
of
law
by
saying
that
it
would
be
“sparse”.


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

to agree with his own position.

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


 24

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

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

against the officers, the prosecutors and the judge?

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

prosecutor’s table? How about behind the bench?


 25

 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

given a home in the practice of law.

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

Defendant’s argument? Where was the law in “Conclusions of law”?

PRAYER

The Defense prays that this Court sustain the objections raised in this delayed objection

and asks for sanctions against the prosecutor.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves the Court to sustain the objection and moves for

sanctions against the prosecutor.









 26

 VERIFICATION

I, Mark Alan Jackson, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and

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

Jurat

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

_________,
2010.

Notary
Signature:



____________________________________


PROOF OF SERVICE

To be completed by the court.

I certify on this date a copy of this motion was served upon the prosecutor by

Personal Service: Mail:


 27