From this page you can view an image of the Judge Christine Goldsmith Order
On 3/15/89, at 1:30pm, I was scheduled for hearing with Judge Bolman of the El Cajon Municipal Court on the issue of whether Judge Christine Goldsmith should be disqualified because I named her as Defendant in my Habeas Corpus Petition in the United States District Court in San Diego, case #89-0368JLI. I had not received effective assistance of counsel in the Municipal Court, and I believed myself the victim of malicious prosecution before Judge Goldsmith. So, with the Federal case filed, Judge Bolman was to determine whether Judge Goldsmith and my appointed counsel, Donna Woodley, should be disqualified or allowed to continue with their efforts against me...
...Judge Bolman denied my motions, stating ..."Court finds Judge Goldsmith acted properly and is not disqualified to hear this case. Defendant's motion to have Atty. Woodley relieved is denied."
Read Judge Bolman's Order
Immediately thereafter, I was taken to appear before Judge Christine Goldsmith, with appointed counsel Attorney Donna Woodley. Judge Goldsmith, now a defendant in my Federal Habeas Corpus Petition, was not pleased with me. She ordered that I be taken away immediately to undergo psychiatric evaluation, without bail.
Remarks contained in Judge Goldsmith's order, as follows: ..."People request the Court take judicial notice of the Court's own file, specifically re. deft. written admissions of violation of probation & r3 conditions of probation ordered. Ct takes judicial notice. Ct finds the deft in violation of probation only as to count 3 in that deft failed to complete SB38 and revokes prob as to that count only. Court further finds deft has been unable to cooperate with his counsel & questions his ability to understand the proceedings. Court suspends proceedings purs PC 1368 and orders Atty. P. Pfeiffer be appointed to represent deft during the 1368 proceedings."
It should be noted that the "written admissions" the court was asked to take judicial notice of was my documents/statements that violation of probation was inevitable because of the court's failure to apply the Health and Safety Code provisions petitioned for by me. The many documents showed my efforts to communicate with the court so to prove that it was the legal system itself that held complete control at all times...
I believe that the court effectively orchestrated my inability to meet the terms of probation, and then punished me when it felt like it. I believe the reason for such conduct by the court is that the court did not like receiving the two-page Letter from Bob Hudson of Senator Pete Wilson's Office, and decided at that time to retain jurisdiction by all means, to the extent of ordering an eight-year probabation, and then denial of the legal provisions available to assist me succeed with compliance of that excessive and cruel probation.
Look for yourself, at the "Chronology of Events" , to find how busy the court kept me with this case....
Do you think that the California Governor's office threat against me to manipulate the justice system against me (see "About Me") was the force behind this court and its actions? Do you think me entitled to a hearing about these concerns? Do you think that counsel should be appointed me immediately, so to resolve this case?
Do you think any of the courts who came to know about this case should have held hearing on the issues? Or, do you think it proper that reviewing courts just rubber-stamp whatever happens in the lower courts? Even if one of the issues concerns the forcing of guilty pleas described by Superior Court Judge Hammes in her San Diego Union Newspaper editorial?
Do you know anyone who has been treated in a similar way in any court in the United States of America? How many people do you know who have legal claims they could not or cant pursue even though their cases are meritorious? Do you think people with claims should be allowed to seek redress, in every case, or do you think the government should be allowed to force denials of hearings on those with any claims? How many cases should the government be allowed to not hear? Exactly how defenseless must someone become before entitled to their Constitutional rights to redress? How many times should an employer be allowed to cheat workers out of pay? How many times should a prosecutor, or a judge, or even appointed defense attorneys, be allowed to force guilty pleas? (see "Plea Bargaining: An Unconstitutional Delegation of Judicial Power to the Executive Branch of Government; a Free-Market Solution to Unconstitutional Plea Bargaining"). How many times should an insurance company be allowed to stall and then deny payment of claims, especially for those seriously injured? (see "FBIC: Fight Bad Faith Insurance Companies"and "Insurance Consumer's Battle Manual"). Or do you believe that someone who has been injured has no right to seek payment from the policy they have paid for, and government is correct to deny people access to the courts, even to the extent of condoning unlawful activities (see "Medical Whores and the IME"). And could you agree that the court system is just too busy to be bothered with reviewing all the cases where someone claims innocence, especially because of forced guilty pleas?
Please, tell me what you think! Post your thoughts at The LegalRemedies Forum", link at about middle of "Home" page
alan joseph samson
In grateful respect for my Lord's gift of Proverbs 22(19-29)KJV