"forthwith" (Dept 8, former Chief of Civil; superceded by the Hon. Kevin Murphy, Dept 22; now superceded by hte Hon. Mary Jo Levinger, Dept. 5 -- "the Civil rotation") ("the oral tradition") "The Court determines that the above-referenced case is NOT COMPLEX" (4-1-09)
This case is public.. 2/1/09, 3/9/09, 4/19/09 |
"Public for All"
www,publicforall.com
("a work in progress" .. gosh, I may have to correct some errors and misperceptions .. stay tuned..)
A Grant that is priceless and granted in whole (thank you both).
Welcome to my
lawsuit
"Justice for ALL" (why not?) Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara Presiding Chief (formerly) of the Civil Division: The Honorable Kevin J Murphy "The court understands perfectly"
|
"The full 'heart and lungs' of
Sections 378 - 382"
of the California Civil Code of Procedure
"Yeah sure.." I'll let him do that one. Or my sister (who made the same suggestion). |
|
Now take control of your ship. Mutiny on the County |
First Papers
|
|
Second Papers |
|
|
|
Third Papers |
|
|
|
||
|
||
Section 384: "paved with good intentions" Why hasn't it all been turned into law stamps or something? I want our money back! |
||
|
|
3/19/09
|
ALL unrepresented litigants should be. My problem is that I'm slow. (it's not intentional and a recognised ADA disability) "Writer's Block is the anticipated problem" (thanks Corrine) CMC date: June 2, 10am many other dates Aug 26, 2008 "..or I'll have to dimiss it.." And the Clock has begun to Toll 3 years I'm Told 3 years and no more And for whom does it Toll? It tolls for me. The 11th hour: for when it strikes "12" it all turns into a pumpkin. So I must file the rest later. |
|
||||||||||
Actually, have forgotten what's in most of these, sorry, haven't had a chance to review, edit and label all these files yet (some links are broken because I've been trying update and delete duplicates). Even doing this much is extremely time-consuming for me. Time I don't have and that is quickly running out on me. But the record must be made nevertheless. | ||||||||||
144
244 PSI |
251 | 274 |
299 300 |
323 | 347 368 |
376_377 373 |
391 |
|
|
|
|
470 (apology to Josh, Feb 1, 09)
491_BlueCross.wav Chris "catching
up", thanks for your call (2/20?), talk to Corina, she finally figured it all
out long long ago.
|
* 2/3/09, ~10:30am: "She's good but she's slow" I told Diego in her local district office here, as I sat filling out the request form for the list of names I need. |
If I were Sheriff Laurie Smith, I'd fire Budget Unit "Can I talk to your supervisor?" I've "handcuffed the Sheriff", that was dumb. It's right on the POS-015 "(SIGNATURE OF SENDER—MUST NOT BE A PARTY IN THIS CASE)" Talk about "shoot yourself in the foot". She should be joining me as a plaintiff anyway. Not a defendant. All of her appointments must be approved by the County Executive first. That's "diminished capacity". It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Dolores Carr has the same problem. It's nice to get these vital pieces of information you've been missing. If only at the last minute and I'm afraid to mention where I got it from. In case Budget Unit were to ever find out. I'm suing the County of Santa Clara, no wonder "please hold" is all I ever seem to hear. Or constantly dumped into unreturned voice mails. While the statute of limitations times out on me. It would be nice to get a return call from someone. "We're very busy .. have a great weekend" (Jennifer Allmand). I didn't ask for her anyway. Nor did I ask for Lori's assistant's voicemail that I was transferred into the next time. I asked for Lori Pegg. I think that's who I gave a copy of my suit to who quietly surprised me on the right asking what it was about. After I sat down having given my speech in the one minute I was allowed last Feb 10 at their Board of Supervisors meeting. Telling them all that I had come there to make my case. And sue for my sanity. Giving my name, the case number, CMC date, and the department it was in. And asking who would be willing to join me as a plaintiff under Section 382. I still don't know. Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice. And perhaps a bit of an apology. I think she's been there for me all along. Parenthetically, Thomas Barnett is also dismissed without prejudice. Because from what I've read subsequently, I don't think it's called anti-trust. It's RICO-esque (if not RICO itself). Or maybe the Enron-Valdez. Sheriff Laurie Smith is the only one I can trust to "get it right" in her office run by Budget Unit. And I have as yet no idea whatever as to whether she got the letter I sent her recently. Or if it was diverted from reaching her. By "Budget Unit" or someone. No one will tell me. I marked it "Personal". No one will even let me leave a voicemail for her. So I can tell it to her personally: Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice. To recapitulate a bit: on 4/1/09 I sent a copy of 1-08-CV-109152 to Lt. Larry Imas who asked to see it (finally someone actually did in their office, what a relief). So the Sheriff's office could fill out and mail the Proof of Service forms for me (I can't). After which Lt. Estella Frontella took over his telephone extension number. Maybe Doug Havig actually still is the head of their civil department "who knows?". In fact, I have no way whatever of proving who in fact actually did return the copy of 1-08-CV-109152 that I mailed (with great difficulty for me personally) to Larry. I don't think Larry would have done that to me. I don't think he's the type. There's no name on the return address. Or a signature of anyone at all in the accompanying memorandi. Why send more copies just to have them returned again? Or be "shown the door" once more if I try to go over there again personally. Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice. I have to go back to 6/10/08 when Karen Miles hung up on me telling me someone would be calling me back without even allowing me to leave my telephone number. I called back and made Tess promise to get my message through to Laurie. Sgt. Rick Turini called me back the very next day with the right answer. That I originally asked them on 5-7-08. And after wasting a day with much grief, finally got the right answer for. Only a month later to have to ask it of them again. A year later: No, not "hold", WHOLE, having to spell it out for Undersheriff John Hirokawa "granted in whole", that means totally. Sheriff Laurie Smith is dismissed from this case without prejudice. And fear Tess may no longer be able to get through to her anymore either for me and my class: "Who's your supervisor?" I asked Tess, then "Who's Karen Miles supervisor?" .. "Are you sure?". And now fear the unanswered questions I've had to ask her have been too many for her. Sheriff Laurie Smith should be joining me as a plaintiff. If I were the Sheriff, I'd fire Budget Unit. Forthwith. |
3-14-09 Software problems
Backup backup backup -- this peculiar "shell game". Oops, just stepped into another 'pothole'. "which one was it this time" -- takes days to figure it out. Because first you tried to fix it. Not knowing the cause. More problems you create for yourself. Trying to untie this Gordian knot you've gotten yourself into: "it's just around the corner" -- the next boot. After boot after boot. Days turn into weeks that turn into months. Because you can't afford the solutions even if it *did* exist. Like the software that the Judicial Council hasn't, wouldn't, couldn't or didn't. And should have known about. Another two months you waste trying to solve it. The time you need to be spending on finishing writing up your suit. A PDF file is searchable. But you can't with their system. So you have to have separate bland text files to do it. Why? And whatever happened to the CCMS-V3? -- and when's the "V4" coming out? -- "who's David Yamasaki"? More unanswered questions. As the statute of limitations times out on you. |
|
|
"The Good, The Bad, and The .. " Receptionist_at_the_Supreme_Court.WAV
|
A new website is a "billboard in a desert". A hit counter upon it will register absolutely nothing: Until someone is told where to find it. It is, for all intents and purposes, essentially hidden and secret. And known only to those who have been told of it. Like a private telephone number. Ignore the first 200 or so, it's just me making edits and "looking at myself". |
Websites are a "public repository of information". And that only. And
probably one of the most confusing forms of publication (if at that) there is.
They are passive, not active like TV or radio is. And because there are 'zillions' of them, it's generally unlikely that this
"drop in the ocean" here will have any influence whatever over the general state of
affairs. Even for the few who happen to 'click' on it, there's really no
guarantee they'll actually
read (or have the
time to) and/or be able to understand it all. Education is often a
very slow process. No one reads anymore anyway. |
™: indeed, I have a few myself regarding some hard lessons I've had to learn on the security issues. |