Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 STATE OF ARIZONA
3
4 V
5
6 STEPHEN KANDIK
7
8
9
10 CA-CV 2009-0180/ CT-20090056
11
12
13
14
15
16 APPELLANT PETITION FOR
17 SUPREME COURT
18
19 REVIEW OF ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
20 DIVISION TWO
21
22 DISMISSAL/DECISION
23
24
25
26
27 June 1, 2010
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2
37 (Preface –All the required elements for this petition are contained in this
38 document, however; time has run out for me to order them more to your
39 liking or as others might have, please excuse my short comings.)
40
41 Judicial disqualification for bias or impartiality
42
43 ******The U.S. Supreme Court (has) held that "Disqualification is
44 required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions
45 about the judge's impartiality. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
46
69 share of the of the governments portion of the proceeds of ARS 41-164 1722 the
3
70 Arizona photo enforcement statute and presumably fines from its traffic light
71 ticketing arm A.R.S. 28-645 (A)(3)(a) as well. You, your Honor, know better than
73 ¶2) At issue, is whether rouge jurists and complicit prosecutors in Arizona will
74 get away with refusing an American citizen the right to subpoena witnesses to
75 court. Also weather, after the fact; the Appellant Courts and prosecutors will
79 convicted citizen his (wrongfully deprived) driving privileges and retain his court
80 fees and bond money under the cloak of justice? (The following legal citations
98
99 ¶ 3) Here and now, I declare the invalidity of the void judgment of this case, and
100 erg the court to honor my rights and uphold the constitution as they have sworn
101 to, by asserting, that the judgment in question is null and void.
102 ¶ 4) For over a year, the Arizona courts have been in possession of clear
103 incontrovertible evidence that my civil rights were violated in traffic court. You
104 have an audio recording of magistrate Levitt forfeiting jurisdiction in her first
106 rules of practice (of the 5, which sought witnesses, 2 were exclusively for
107 witnesses). The court has these original subpoenas on record, and no additional
108 evidence is necessary to declare the nullity. (The following legal citations are
110 ******Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal
111 jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law,
112 must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D.
113 278
114
115 ******When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief
116 is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (
117 Colo. 1994).
118
119 ******"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US,
120 474 F2d 215.
121
122 ¶ 5) Division 2 has elected to seize discretion not lawfully available to them, and
123 has chosen to act upon a frivolous discretionary motion to dismiss, rather than
124 the nondiscretionary dictates of the higher courts just sighted. The appellant
125 judges should have informed the prosecutor, that his claims were unfounded,
5
126 and that his motion was denied. (All precedents contained forthwith are from my
139 validity" repeatedly, suggesting that, if a state statute appears to achieve, what it
140 professes to accomplish (even if it actually does not), this bars higher courts from
142 The prosecutor whimsically endeavored to trump the bill of rights with Arizona's
143 local rules of practice, And what’s worse I think he believes it!
160 ***** in State v. Anderson, 9 Ariz. App. 42, 43 779 P.2d 59, 60 (1969), the
161 court of appeals interpreted the above section, A.R.S. §22-375, to mean: This
162 section denies the right of appeal from a City Court beyond the Superior Court
163 except in those instances wherein the constitutionality of a statute is involved.
164
165 ¶ 8) In response to this sham tactic, I’ve include the table of contents from my
166 Div 2 brief, amply demonstrating that the motion was proffered disingenuously
167 and acted upon in a blatant error undermining the cause of true justice:
189 be hard pressed to not see that the issues in play are virtually all predicated on
191 misconstrued their actual jurisdictional dominion over this matter. Why was this
192 motion allowed, Does the city reflexively playing fast and loose with the rules or
193 is it my particular due process rights they hold in contempt? And why has the
7
194 Court teamed up with the plaintiffs to undermine and deny my constitutional
195 protection?
196 ****"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California,
197 110 U.S. 516
198
199 ****"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly
200 denied." Gomillion v. Lightfoot 364 U.S. 155 (1966) cited also in Smith v.
201 Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
202
203 ****“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
204 rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v Arizona,
205 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
206
207
208 ADDITIONAL FOUNDATIONAL AND RELATED ISSUE
209
212 should have been a big red flag to Superior Court Judge Miller, correct?
213 ******The judge has a duty to continually inspect the record of the case, and
214 if subject-matter jurisdiction does not appear at any time from the record of
215 the case, then he has the duty to dismiss the case as lacking subject-matter
216 jurisdiction. Should a judge act in any case in which he does not have subject-
217 matter jurisdiction, he is acting unlawfully, and without any judicial authority
218 U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980);
219 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821),
220
221 ******“inspection of the record of the case has been ruled to be the
222 controlling factor. If the record of the case does not support subject-matter
223 jurisdiction, then the judge has acted without subject-matter jurisdiction.”The
224 People v Brewer, 328 Ill. 472, 483 (1928)
225
226 *****"If the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give
227 jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zieber, 3
228 Or at 202-03
229
8
230 ¶ 11) Judge Miller failed to comply with the law and dismiss this case as he
231
232 Should have, once he recognized that due process was breached? After reading
233
234 My brief, shouldn't the prosecutor have desisted from further actions as well?
235
236 Why then advance this case, was it done to protect a felonious jurist?
237
238 *****The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "Since such jurisdictional defect
239 deprives not only the initial court but also the appellate court of its power over
240 the case or controversy, to permit the appellate court to ignore it ... [would be
241 an] unlawful action by the appellate court itself." Freytag v. Commissioner,
242 501 U.S. 868 (1991); Miller, supra.
243
244 ******Any judge or attorney who does not report a judge for treason as
245 required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C.
246 Section 2382.Under Federal law
247
248 ¶ 12) Clearly everyone involved in the adjudication of this case has engaged in, to
249 some degree or another, fraud or the cover up thereof. I have continually tried to
250 bring this matter to a close, yet circumstances seem to be steering me toward the
251 Federal Courts for Justice, an so be it, Truth, the evidence, God (by way of my
252 inalienable creator bestowed rights) and the Constitution are all on my side.
259 month, they were in possession of all the evidence necessary to determine that I
260 was unquestionably entitled too, and that they were obligated too, provide me
261 with relief, by way of nullification. Yet, instead when the plaintiffs exceeded the
262 time the law allows for rendering a brief, somehow they were miraculously
9
263 granted an extension of time to produce one, without even petitioning for it. And
264 even then, they didn't submit the appropriate brief stipulated by the court, but
271 City, State and Courts have ignored fraud, a nullity and have...
276 earn a living, due to this unlawful suspension (it's been years, since I've
278 and excessively cruel and unusual punishment to inflict for a minor civil
282 e) And lastly, they have shut their eyes to insurmountable evidence
283 of multiple felonies and left the perpetrators free, to evade prosecution
284 and retaining seats on the bench, which enables them to continue preying
286 ****"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Offutt v. United States,
287 348 U.S. 11, 14(1954)
288
289 *****"Aside from all else, 'due process' means fundamental fairness and
290 substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879,
291 883." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500
292
293 ******Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is
294 fair and right and just." Solebee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950) (Justice
295 Frandfurter dissenting.)
296
297 ¶ 15) In whose eye would this appear fair, right or just? Certainly not the public
298 reading this on the net, nor those who will be spoon fed sound bites about this
299 case, from the main stream media (anxious to smear Arizona over it's perceived
300 immigration police state stances). This is an obvious hustle: the first judge denies
301 due process, the second judge overlooks the infringement and at the third stage,
303 protections. Voila, Arizona has concocted a treasonous scheme to bypass the bill
304 of rights...
317 ¶ 16) I will spare you the reiteration of my previous standing challenge, but I do
318 here and now, raising the issue again and challenge the plaintiff prove they hold
319 a legal and constitutional right to have charged me, particularly as I outlined on
321 ¶ 17) Furthermore, I must point out that this is the second issue( #1 -
322 nullification), which I've brought before an Arizona Appellant bench, which
323 Federal Courts have determined that I am entitled to do at "any time". I believe
324 the Appellant Court, knew full well, that a petition for nullification and a
325 challenge of standing submitted in a timely and legal fashion, deserved fare
327 falsehood and turned in after the clock had run out for spurious and frivolous
328 motions.
329 ¶ 18) It's as though the State and Courts are scoffing at me and the bill of rights,
330 and no longer care about public appearances anymore, so they're not even
331 putting forth any effort to mask obvious bias's and improprieties.
332 ******"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
333 falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government
334 from falling into error." Perry v. United States 204 U.S. 330, 358
335
336 ¶ 22) Drafted on Memorial Day 2010 in remembrance of those who have and
339
12
340
341
342 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
343 AND SERVICE
344
345 6/2/2010
346
347
348
349
350
351 PURSUANT TO ARCAP 14(B), I, STEPHEN KANDIK, CERTIFY
352 THAT THIS ATTACHED PETITION FOR SUPREME COURT REVIEW
353 (ACCORDING TO MICROSOFT WORD) CONTAINS 3866 WORDS. AND
354 THAT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES COMPORTS TO ALL OTHER
355 REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT FOR E-FILLING.
356
357 STEPHEN KANDIK
358 210 S. SHERWOOD VILLAGE DR.
359 TUCSON AZ 85710
360 (520) 245-0527
361
362
363 2 COPIES OF THE FORGOING PETITION FOR SUPREME COURT
364 REVIEW WERE MAILED ON 6/2/2010 TO:
365
366 WILLIAM F. MILLS
367 SUPERVISING PROSECUTOR
368 P.O. BOX 27210
369 TUCSON, AZ 85701-7210
370
371 RE: 2 CA-CV 2009-0180/ CT-20090056
372
373
374
375
376
13
377
378 COURT OF APPEALS
379 STATE OF ARIZONA
380 DIVISION TWO
381
382
383 ORDER
384
385 2 CA-CV 2009-0180
386 Department A
387 Pima County
388 Cause No. CT20090056
389
390 RE: STATE OF ARIZONA v. KANDIK
391
392
393 Pursuant to Motion to Strike Appellant’s Memorandum and Dismiss His Appeal, and no
394 response having been filed,
395
396 ORDERED: The above-entitled appeal is DISMISSED.
397
398 Judges Howard and Kelly concurring.
399
400 DATED: April 21, 2010
401
402
403
404 ______________________________
405 Philip G. Espinosa
406 Presiding Judge
407
408
409 Copies to:
410
411 Stephen D. Kandik
412 210 S. Sherwood Village Dr.
413 Tucson, AZ 85710
414
415 William F. Mills
416 TUCSON CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
417 P.O. Box 27210
418 Tucson, AZ 85701
419
420 Hon. Michael O. Miller
421 Judge
422 Pima County Superior Court
14
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
15
469 APPENDIX
470
471
472 NOTEWORTHY FACTOIDS?
473
474
475 ¶ 19) In court over a year ago, I...
476 • Pointed out that the city had broken the law by
477 shaving yellow light times, and now they have publicly stated that they
480 had violated federal laws by tampering with traffic devices an painting
481 arbitrary wait lines in, oddly enough these lines are being blotted out.
484 enforce this racketeering scam, yet since then, the state has been forced
485 (probably not by their consciences) to back peddled and will no longer
489 as the U.S. 9TH, now I understand ADOT is going to yank the plug on
493 existed... since then the city has gone in and scrubbed that term out of
495 situation, they don't want people to have grounds for resisting their
496 lawlessness.
497 ¶ 20) Was this flurry of activity purely coincidental or is it overt evidence that
498 the City and State, have been caught on the wrong side of the law. Clearly they
499 have willfully engaged in fraud to prevent my witness from derailing their
500 extortion racket. In any case, the good news is the state is currently in retreat
502 ¶ 21) With all these concessions and changes the plaintiffs have made, I could not
503 be convicted today on this charge, even in a kangaroo traffic court like Levitt's.
504