On 2-4-13, the date of my next court date, I file a letter inquiring about the status of my motion 1-9. The letter I filed with the clerk explains that since 1-8 the 2/4/13 court date in #10 remains “inaccurately” listed as a pre-trial, it says that (since 1-9-13), I had not yet been served with proper response to my motion submitted 1-9-13, and that I was upset I had not yet heard when jury trial would proceed if and when the judges who had been involved in my case responded to my motion (1-9-13). The letter to the court summarizes the claims I made in my 1-9 motion, briefly summarizes why I believe reset had been illegitimately achieved, and goes on to explain how the admin judge connected to my case--as well as the off-docket judge in court #9--were previously going to allow deferred adjudication but then subsequently denied my deferred after receiving a letter (that bore witness to events I had every right every right to describe). I ask that my case be resolved as quickly as it should have been when the prosecutor did not object to my opposition to reset on the day of the trial 1-8—and to do this without further bias, impediment or unnecessary delay. (The case should have been dismissed.) Attorney Found On 2-4-13, I also call the office of an attorney, which a friend had referred me to. A coworker of this future attorney asked me who I was and what my case was about. After learning what my case is about. I said I needed an attorney TODAY and he gives me the office address to a one, a Mr. Warfield, and tells me to come in, talk with the secretary, and fill out my paperwork there. I dont see this attorney there, but when I get to the office of Warfield, it is obvious that the secretary and attorney knew who I was and what my case was about. Warfield isnt there, but his secretary is. Shes on the phone talking with the attorney. I ask if that was him. She says yes. She says strangely (or not so strangely depending on how you look at it) that all this could have been avoided if you had had an attorney to begin with. Such a statement on her part informed me that she had already been in discussions with Mr. Warfield or his coworker and knew who I was. At the time that I hired Mr. Warfield to represent me--I of course did not know for certain that he--like so many other legal people throughout Dallas likely knew of my case’s history prior to taking me on as a client because of the 5 pg motion I submitted 1-9-13. I also didnt know that he had deep connections with the city and judges in DMC. I didnt realize--as I soon found out through our texts and talks--that he really had a conflict of interest in representing me; that he approved enough of the courts actions that he would be as deceptive as the courts had been and hed support them in doing what they wanted to do rather than do right and try to help me. For example, I would soon learn he was aware and approving of the city’s/judge’s deliberate avoidance of providing me a written response to my motion submitted 1-9-13 (which remained out of the record) and other acts that they engaged in to cover up a coup that had been deliberately taken both inside and outside the courtroom on account of my status as pro se. He also knew a witness had not been available but didnt think to check to see if this were the case. He knew what action I wanted taken; deliberately deceives/reasonably leads me to believe he would take this action on my case; but does the exact opposite, pretending not to understand what I wanted and coming up with excuses for not doing what he clearly knew I wanted done. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not knowing any of this would transpire, I ask the secretrary how much it would cost for Warfield to represent me. She says itll be 150. I say okay, now I want to be very clear, Im committed elsewhere and I have a motion before the court. I dont want deferred, I want a response to my motion and I have a letter here to the court I want Warfield to present to the court to check the status of the courts response to my motion. Do you think he could do that? Well, all the attorney is going to be able to do is show up, appear, if he cant get your case dismissed he will either motion for deferred adjudication or set your case for trial. I say well, the court has my motion and I want a response to it. the secretary pauses, her eyes going back and forth. I ask again. I want to be very clear before I hire Warfield that all I want is for him is to show up and inquire about the status of my 1-9-13 motion before the court. Do you think he can do that? Sure, she says. Okay, well then I have a letter inquiring about the status of my motion in my car. Let me go get it. I get it and return to the office. Shes back on the phone talking to Warfield, I suspect. I say okay heres 150, and I request the attorneys phone number, so I can talk to him and tell him what I told the secretary. When I present the letter inquiring about the status of my 1-9-13 motion to the secretary in a closed envelope, she immediately begins to open it as Im leaving, presumably to read and forward this information on to Warfield by phone. I say, dont open it, its just for Warfields eyes only. She turns blush red and says, okay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the road, I text Warfield from the number the secretary gave me. I reiterate the wishes I had told the secretary: that Warfield verbally inquire about the courts status of my motion and/or present my letter inquiring about this status to the prosecutor, judge and/or clerk of the court for me. Warfield no doubt would have read the letter by the time he arrived for court if he had had a chance to read it before going to the court. One of the very first questions Warfield texts me in response is, “What intersection did you get accused of making a no turn on red?” I say Ross and 75. He asks “What is your motion asking for?” I say dismissal. He asks “On what grounds?” I dont say that there was a lack of witness--even though that would have been the grounds I should have stated. I only say that the Prosecutor never opposed my objection to her motion to reset on 1 8 13 and the judge did not rule against the prosecutor. Instead probing me to find out more details that might support a claim for dismissal--say, asking me to see if a witness had been present at trial-- the seasoned attorney replies like he has heard enough. Ignoratio elenchi: “The judges are paid by the same folks who pay the prosecutor. The system is stacked in favor of the City. The judge is allowed to use his discretion to side with one side or the other.” Although I disagreed with the blanket assumption that any discretion was permissible, I figured maybe I was mistaken in the impression that this attorney wasnt interested in the details and facts of my case. I state variously, “the City was not ready. Prosecutor did not object to my reasonable opposition to reset. Judge did not rule against prosecutor. She did not rule after hearing my side at all. She unfairly and partially took side with prosecutor and attempted to get me to agree with prosecutor over my objections. This included calling another judge who also did not rule for reset. He simply encouraged me to reset and then only after I asked did he say I had no choice. My motion is simply asking the court to put into writing a response to my opposition to the way reset was achieved. I had a court date 1 8 13. Then again 1 29 13. I have yet to hear a response on my motion... After hearing all this, the attorney still registers NO interest in asking me factual questions about the day of trial to see if there were good grounds that compelled me to write my motion or not. He simply says “Got it” and our communications went silent. It was not until later in the evening, after texting Warfield personally, that he responds to inform me what occured. I asked, So what did my attorney find out? He says the case was a citizen’s pre-trial. It was reset to the attorney pre-trial docket on Feb 26th. You will not need to be present then but we will likely be given a new trial date at that point. (In reality, the court had sent Warfield a letter informing me that I was required to be present on 2-26, something Warfield never instructed me on.) I ask Warfield if he had presented my letter to the judge. He says “No, it was a citizens docket. She would not consider it today. I will present it at the next pretrial. Any issue can be considered at any time/pretrial hearing. Why, I thought, was my letter and the issue of my outstanding motion dated 1-9 not brought up by my attorney--or at least entered into the record by him if any issue could be considered at any time/pre-trial?Unless he had some behind the schenes knowledge of the courts intentions--how could Warfield be so sure (if he hadn’t presented my letter to a judge yet) that another judge of court would likely give us a jury trial at the attorney pretrial on 2-26 instead of considering a favorable response to my motion 1-9-13? Finally, why would Warfield say that the court reset the case when its clear that he motioned for trial by jury and reset the case in my absence? Its clear he used this language because he knew filing for TBJ is not what I had wanted when I hired him. I ask Warfield, “Did you present my letter to the judge as a citizen? ….The attorney states, “If you would like, I will give you some of your money back, because I can tell you are going to be difficult to deal with?” I couldnt believe my eyes. Who exactly is going to be difficult to work with? Who exactly was working for who here? It was clear my attorney was working for the courts; he certainly wasnt working for me. I had been very clear on what I wanted my attorney to do--both with his secretary and him by text and by the letter I provided to him and the court requesting status of my motion, and he appears at court for me and takes action he knows I did not want taken. Now, he claims I am being difficult and I would be to blame to demand a response to the motion I filed? I just want you to fight for me.” I say. He replies, “Of course I will fight,…I will ask for a trial and give you one”--deliberately misinterpreting what I had hired him to do. Then he says, The judge is the one empowered to rule on issues, not us--as if to try and dodge responsibility for taking my case even though he knew the judge would not respond; knew he would not take action that he and I both knew I wanted taken; knew he would not help me get a response. I begin. Warfield! “I showed up on 1-29 and the courts have not responded (to my motion) yet.” “Gotta go Warfield texts, but I continue: “I told you when I hired you that I just wanted you to enter into record that I was checking on the status of this 1-9-13 motion. The letter (I gave you) was just my words appealing to the citizen’s court to remind them that I’m waiting.” Warfield; “You should come in and see me so we can talk about this as I am not sure I know what you are after. If you are not happy, I will refund $100 and you can appear for yourself on the Feb 24 court date.” “I shouldn’t need to, no? I have an outstanding motion they haven’t responded to yet….”The letter I gave you and which you read states what I’m after. I filed a copy of the letter with the clerk today as well. The letter makes perfectly clear what I’m after. It doesn’t sound like you will be the representative for me. The code of ethics—judicial and otherwise demand more”…… Warfield. “I think you should come by tomorrow and get your refund….I will leave the money AND your paperwork with my secretary after lunch.” “For the record, I did NOT approve of you resetting my court date. We never discussed that you would do this or take any other action we didn’t discuss, and I specifically told your secretary what I told you by text, namely, I simply wanted you to check the status of my motion dated 1-9-13. If you could not have done this, then you should have let me know before going to courthouse. This is all I wanted, texted you I wanted, and which I told your secretary that I wanted…”
Posted on: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:43:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015