“ ... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … ” (6th Amendment US Constitution)Except for special circumstances, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department conducts all police related activities in the OC. The incident complained about in this case occurred in Orange County. And I, for all purposes relating to this matter, reside in Orange County. So, why did my case end up in Los Angeles? It was first assigned to Hon. Marc L. Goldman in Santa Ana who then transferred it to Hon. Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles.
Courts have generally kept true to the intent of the framers of the Constitution when it comes to questions of jurisdiction. Having a matter adjudicated in the proper venue insures fairness by guaranteeing that no party will be disadvantaged by the cost and distance of travel. This allows everyone involved to plan and commit resources accordingly. In Burger King v. Rudzewicz the court held that:
The Due Process Clause protects an individual from "not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.(Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985))The conversations I had with other practitioners of the law gave me the impression that the US District Court was a whole world apart. Superlatives they used about the federal courts included, “they have better judges and more resources. And the decisions are generally better.” They also said that “... lawyers who practice in federal courts are more civilized." After experiencing all the difficulties that I have - the bias and prejudice in the hands of the Superior Court judges, (state courts) I had very high expectations of the US District Court.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department case was the first that I ever filed in the US Courts. (Filed May 19, 2010) And of all the actions I have lodged, it was the one where I felt justice was so completely and so utterly trampled on. It began with an improper seizure of my car and then the transfer of my case to a venue that was wholly improper. In fact, it expanded and heightened my conspiracy theory, which said that the criminal-justice system, including the law enforcement community, the legal profession and the courts systematically deprive parties who represent themselves their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Consider what happened in this case. Keep in mind that one of the parties - yours truly - is an indigent litigator - completely without money and homeless. This case was filed in the US District Court Central District in Santa Ana California. From where I live as a homeless individual (Aliso Viejo), it takes two buses to get there. Unilaterally and without prior notice the case was transferred to Los Angeles, approximately 50+ miles away. I only heard of the transfer after filing a “Proof of Service” for a document that I served. They took my filling but told me that future filings and hearings will be in Los Angeles. There were no indications of that possibility prior to the action being filed. Had I known, I would have modified my action and filed it in the Superior Court in Santa Ana.
The fact is, I haven’t a car. The state revoked my Driver’s License and my DRE Salesperson’s License for failure to pay child support payment. Early morning hearings would have been problematic because buses in our area run a limited schedule. The bus transfers required to get there would have insured my tardiness for the hearing. If the hearings went on longer and I am not able to leave court early enough I would miss the bus that would take me back to Aliso Viejo. That means a long walk. CourtCall, a system that attorneys use to conduct hearings on the phone, would be out of the question. I simply can’t afford it.
It was as if a sledge hammer was brought to bear on my chest with full force.
Effectively, the court lost it’s authority over the matter, at least in my mind. I knew that I wasn’t going to get a fair hearing from that point onwards. Furthermore, a policy that is so inherently unjust and arbitrary cannot possibly withstand an assault in a higher court. I felt that objecting to the “Motion for Summary Judgment” was pointless. So, what this means is the matter will be filed in the highest court of the land. RobertsJustice will be going to the Supreme Court.
(We are unable to attach a copy of court filed documents for this case at this time. The trial binder was in the van that was recently towed from an acquaintance’s apartment. We are working on getting it back, requiring another case in court.)
LACAMBRA v. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT
DISMISSAL ORDER
