Page i of x

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Jeffrey Dean Saxon

File no.______________________
Plaintiff,

v.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

John M. Chmura
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________/
Jeffrey Dean Saxon, Pro Se
ADDRESS

Warren Mi 48089

PHONE

_________________________________________________________________/

THE COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS INVOLVES A RULING THAT A

PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, A STATUTE, RULE OR

REGULATION, OR OTHER STATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTION IS

INVALID

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS

Pursuant to MCR 7.206, MCR 7.212(C), MCR 2.003(B) and MCL 600.4401, et al.
 Page ii of x

BRIEF IN SUPPORT
BRIEF IN SUPPORT............................................................................................................................... ii

Tables of Authorities........................................................................................................................... 3

JURISDICTION........................................................................................................................................ 1

ISSUES I.................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 (A) Did the Defendant follow the law, as commanded, in MCR 2.003(B)?.........................1
1.2 (B) Has the Defendant denied the Plaintiff due process?.......................................................1
1.3 (C) Should the Defendant be disqualified?.................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND II.................................................................................................................................... 1
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................... 1

LEGAL DISCUSSION III......................................................................................................................... 2

A. Did the Defendant follow the law, as commanded, in MCR 2.003(B)?....................................2
B. Has the Defendant denied the Plaintiff due process?................................................................... 4
C. Should the Defendant be disqualified?............................................................................................. 5

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................... 5
 Page iii of x

Tables of Authorities

Cain v Dep’t of Corr, 451 Mich 470, 497 (1996)………………………………………….Page 3

Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 350 (1975)……………………………………Page 4

Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), §2003……………………Page 5

Excerpt from The Judicial Tenure Institute…………………...……………………..…...Page 3

In re Contempt of Steingold (In re Smith), 244 Mich App 153, 160–61 (2000)………….Page 5

In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 151 (1992)……………………….….Page 3

MCR 3.301(A)(1)…………………………………………………..……………………….Page 1

MCR 7.206…………………………………..……………………..……………………….Page 2

People v Cocuzza, 413 Mich 78, 83 (1982)………………………………………………..Page 4

People v Koss, 86 Mich App 557, 560 (1978)………………………………………...……Page 4

People v McDonald, 97 Mich App 425, 433 (1980)……………………………………….Page 5

People v Upshaw, 172 Mich App 386, 388–89 (1988)…………………………………….Page 4

People v White, 411 Mich 366, 386 (1981)…………………………………………...……Page 4

US 18 § 241…………………………………………………………………………………Page 6

US 18 § 242…………………………………………………………………………………Page 6
Page iv of x
 JURISDICTION

This court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus, attached and
preceding this document, under MCR 3.301(A)(1).

ISSUES I

1.1 (A) Did the Defendant follow the law, as commanded, in MCR 2.003(B)?

1.2 (B) Has the Defendant denied the Plaintiff due process?

1.3 (C) Should the Defendant be disqualified?

BACKGROUND II

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.1 The Plaintiff was issued several citations by the city of Warren, as stated in the facts.
The Plaintiff challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of those citations on several grounds.
The Defendant made it clear on many instances that there was no interested in hearing the
Plaintiff’s challenges or even reading his motions and summarily dismissed every document
submitted to the court.
2.2 The Defendant and the Defendant’s staff made it clear to the Plaintiff that they were
willing to ignore every court rule, every constitutional provision and every state and city statute
in order to deny the Plaintiff his due process rights and secure the fines for the city.
2.3 The Plaintiff has filed several documents in an honest attempt to secure his rights and
due process, rather than an attempt to exacerbate and harass the other side. The Plaintiff has held
and still holds that the city’s statutes are in violation of the 1963 Michigan State Constitution and
the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that this entire case was
brought to punish him for statements that he made in public hearings.
 LEGAL DISCUSSION III

A. Did the Defendant follow the law, as commanded, in MCR 2.003(B)?

MCR Rule 7.206 Extraordinary Writs, Original Actions, and Enforcement Actions.
(impertinent sections omitted)
(A) General Rules of Pleading. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the general
rules of pleading apply as nearly as practicable. See MCR 2.111-2.114.
(B) Superintending Control, Mandamus, and Habeas Corpus. To the extent that they do
not conflict with this rule, the rules in subchapter 3.300 apply to actions for
superintending control, mandamus, and habeas corpus.

(D) Actions for Extraordinary Writs and Original Actions.

(1) Filing of Complaint. To commence an original action, the plaintiff shall file
with the clerk:
(a) for original actions filed under Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25-34, 5 copies
of a complaint (one signed) that conforms to the special requirements of
MCR 2.112(M), and which indicates whether there are any factual
questions that must be resolved; for all other extraordinary writs and
original actions, 5 copies of a complaint (one signed), which may have
copies of supporting documents or affidavits attached to each copy;
(b) 5 copies of a supporting brief (one signed) conforming to MCR
7.212(C) to the extent possible;
(c) proof that a copy of each of the filed documents was served on every
named defendant and, in a superintending control action, on any other
party involved in the case which gave rise to the complaint for
superintending control; and
(d) the entry fee.

(3) Preliminary Hearing. There is no oral argument on preliminary hearing of a

complaint. The court may deny relief, grant peremptory relief, or allow the
parties to proceed to full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal
of right either with or without referral to a judicial circuit or tribunal or agency
for the taking of proofs and report of factual findings. If the case is ordered to
proceed to full hearing, the time for filing a brief by the plaintiff begins to run
from the date the order allowing the case to proceed is certified or the date the
transcript or report of factual findings on referral is filed, whichever is later. The
plaintiff's brief must conform to MCR 7.212(C). An opposing brief must conform
to MCR 7.212(D). In a habeas corpus proceeding, the prisoner need not be
brought before the Court of Appeals.

3.1 When the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Chmura, the Defendant summarily
dismissed the Motion and refused to follow the rules laid on in MCR 2.003(B). From the
Michigan Judicial Institute:
The moving party has the burden of showing grounds for disqualification. A party
challenging a judge on the basis of bias or prejudice bears the burden of overcoming the
heavy presumption of judicial impartiality. Cain v Dep’t of Corr, 451 Mich 470, 497
(1996), and In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 151 (1992). One who
challenges a judge on the basis of the constitutional right to an unbiased and impartial
tribunal also bears a heavy burden. Cain, supra at 498–99 n 33.
Pursuant to MCR 2.003(B), “[a] judge is disqualified when the judge cannot impartially
hear a case.” Michigan Court Rule 2.003(B) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of
circumstances in which a judge is disqualified, including instances when a judge is
personally biased or prejudiced against a party or attorney. MCR 2.003(B)(1).
Bias or prejudice is defined as an attitude or state of mind belying an aversion or hostility
of such a degree that a fair-minded person could not entirely set it aside when judging
certain persons or causes. Cain, supra at 495. For purposes of disqualification, a judge’s
bias or prejudice must be actual and personal. Id. Unless the alleged bias or prejudice
displays such deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that a fair judgment would be
impossible, a judge’s favorable or unfavorable disposition must arise from facts or events
outside the current judicial proceeding. Id. at 495–96, 513. The mere fact that a judge
conducted a prior proceeding against the defendant does not amount to proof of
disqualifying bias. People v White, 411 Mich 366, 386 (1981), and People v Koss, 86 Mich
App 557, 560 (1978). A judge who sits as trier of fact and finds the defendant guilty is not
automatically disqualified from acting as trier of fact at the defendant’s retrial after
reversal on appeal. People v Upshaw, 172 Mich App 386, 388–89 (1988). A judge who
presides over a plea proceeding, during which the defendant provides a factual basis for a
guilty plea but then decides not to plead guilty, need not sua sponte disqualify himself or
herself from conducting the defendant’s subsequent bench trial. People v Cocuzza, 413
Mich 78, 83 (1982).
Motions for disqualification may also be based on an alleged violation of the due-process
requirement that a decision maker be unbiased and impartial. Cain, supra at 497–98, and
Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 350 (1975). It is only in the most extreme cases
that a judge will be disqualified for bias or prejudice on due-process grounds. Cain, supra
at 497–98. Examples of instances in which the probability of actual bias may be too high
to be constitutionally tolerable, and in which a judge may therefore be disqualified
notwithstanding the absence of a showing of actual bias, include situations where a judge:
1) has a pecuniary interest; 2) has been insulted, slandered and vilified by a party; 3) has
revealed deep prejudice against the defendant’s profession and has recently been a losing
party in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the defendant; or 4) might have prejudged the case
because of prior participation in the case as one who personally conducted the initial
investigation, amassed evidence, and filed and prosecuted the charges, or as one who
made the initial decision which is under review. Crampton, supra at 351–55, and Cain,
supra at 497–502, 514. Due process is violated when full- time law enforcement officials,
charged with responsibility for arrest and prosecution of law violators, sit as adjudicators
in law enforcement disputes between citizens and police officers. Crampton, supra at 356–
58. MCR 2.003(C)(1) states as follows: “(1) Time for Filing. To avoid delaying trial and
inconveniencing the witnesses, a motion to disqualify must be filed within 14 days after the
moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. If the discovery is made within 14
 days of the trial date, the motion must be made forthwith. If a motion is not timely filed,
untimeliness, including delay in waiving jury trial, is a factor in deciding whether the
motion should be granted.”
The 14-day deadlines for filing a motion to disqualify are mandatory. Cain, supra at 493,
and Dean & Longhofer, Michigan Court Rules Practice (4th ed), §2003.8, p 55 (the 14-
day deadlines in the subrule are mandatory, and the “untimeliness” in the third sentence
refers to time requirements other than those stated in the first two sentences of the
subrule). “Whenever a challenged judge has denied a disqualification motion and a
request for a hearing before another judge comes after a trial or hearing has started[,] the
challenged judge should have the option of proceeding with the trial or hearing unless a
chief judge or a higher court orders that the trial or hearing be interrupted or delayed so
that the disqualification motion may be considered by another judge before the trial or
hearing is concluded.” People v McDonald, 97 Mich App 425, 433 (1980), vacated on
other grounds 411 Mich 870 (1981). See also In re Contempt of Steingold (In re Smith),
244 Mich App 153, 160–61 (2000) (the juvenile court referee did not err in denying
defense counsel’s oral motion for disqualification on the first day of trial, but the referee
did err by not referring the matter to the chief judge as required under MCR 2.003(C)(3)).
The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit and must include all known grounds for
disqualification. MCR 2.003(C)(2). The challenged judge decides the motion and, if the
motion is denied and a party so requests, the challenged judge must refer the motion to the
chief judge (if the court has more than one judge) or to a judge appointed by the state
court administrator (if the court has only one judge or where the challenged judge is the
chief judge) for de novo decision. MCR 2.003(C)(3).1

3.2 The Plaintiff has requested the Defendant, who is the chief judge of the District, to a
judge appointed by the state court. The Defendant refuses to do this. It is a clear and willful
violation of the statute.
No, the Defendant did not follow the law, as commanded in MCR 2.003(B).

B. Has the Defendant denied the Plaintiff due process?

When the Defendant chose to ignore what was commanded, by law, which was clearly a
right that the Plaintiff had, he violated US 18 § 241 and 242:
US 18 § 241.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;... They shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
1
Monograph 6, Pretrial Motions Third Edition
 attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
US 18 § 242.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully
subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

3.3 The Plaintiff is not suggesting that the judge had a duty to recues himself, which would
have been nice, but rather, he had a duty to follow the prescribed processes for the Plaintiff’s
request.
Yes, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff due process of law.

C. Should the Defendant be disqualified?

3.4 If the Defendant had followed the law, if the judge would have exercised discretion and
maintained a professional approach, if the Defendant had not abused his authority and the law,
then he would have nothing to fear about appeal or oversight or even a Motion to Disqualify.
3.5 However, that isn’t the case. The last thing the Defendant wants is to see his actions
come to light. The Defendant has been an insult to the bench, a disgrace to the citizens of
Warren and a blight on the State of Michigan. His unconstitutional rulings line both his pockets
and stroke his ego.
Justice demand that the Defendant be disqualified. The law requires it.
Yes, without a doubt, the Defendant should be disqualified.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff has lawfully brought this complaint forward based on due process violations
and the Defendant’s unwillingness to perform his lawful duties, which are minor in nature, but
expose a larger cancer that operates in the Defendant’s court. For this reason, the court should
grant this complaint for mandamus.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to inquire into the
matter of the judicial disqualification of Judge Chmura and for Defendant to show cause why he
did not comply with law and that following said hearing the lawful process of appeal be ordered
and granted in accordance with MCR 2.003(B).

Presented this ______ day of October 2010.

_________________________
Jeffrey Dean Saxon
ADDRESS
Warren Mi 48089
PHONE

Michigan State Republic )

) Jurat

Macomb County )

On the ______ day of ____________, 20_____, Jeffery-Dean, family of Saxon personally appeared before me and
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed hereto and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same under asservation, and accepts the facts thereof. Subscribed and
affirmed before me this day. Witness my hand and seal this ______ day of __________________, 20_____,

_______________________________
Notary Signature

My commission expires: ___________________________