STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT

3RD CIRCUIT COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 00-69257
v HONORABLE JAMES R CHYLINSKI

MARK JACKSON
Defendant,

_________________________________________________________/

Mark Alan Jackson, Pro Se

129 North Lowell Road
Windham, New Hampshire 03087
313 478 8061

_________________________________________________________/

NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S DELAYED OBJECTION TO

PROSECUTOR’S LACK OF RESPONSE

Persuant to MCR 2.119 and MCR 6.001(D).

Now comes, Defendant, Mark Alan Jackson, to object to the Prosecutor’s lack of

response to the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Judge

Chylinski’s efforts to argue the Prosecutor’s position.

FACTS


 1

 1. In August of 2010, the Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss the

Indictment regarding a case from 2001, hereafter referred to as the “Motion”.

2. The Motion alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and misconduct by Judge

Chylinski for not having a valid Oath of Office, among other things.

3. On September 24. 2010, the court heard arguments on that Motion.

4. The Prosecution, Sunita Doddamani, failed to file a response to that Motion.

5. Upon entering the court room, the Defendant could hear the prosecutor discussing the

Motion with Judge Chylinski’s Clerk.

6. The Clerk asked if the prosecutor had seen the Motion and the prosecutor responded by

stating, “No, but she had heard about it.”

7. Once the hearing began, Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that he had read the

Motion.

8. Instead of holding counsel to the standards required by a member of the bar, Judge

Chylinkski chose to argue counsel’s position for them and made no mention of counsel’s

lack of response.

9. Judge Chylinski held to the position that he was a viable Judge and that the alleged

misconduct was an oversight, “at best” on his part.

10. Judge Chylinski advised the Defendant that, “He was talking” and the Defendant was

deprived of his opportunity to object for the record.

11. The Defendant asked Judge Chylinski for Findings of fact and Conclusions of law in his

order.

12. Judge Chylinski responded to the Defendant’s request for Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of law by saying that it would be “sparse”.


 2

 13. Judge Chylinski denied the Defendant’s Motion.

ARGUMENT

The Defendant was deprived of his rights of due process and Constitutional protections.

The Motion heard on September 24, 2010 was an effort to reclaim those rights.

The prosecution had a duty to respond to the Motion and had more than a month to make

that response and ask the court for relief. Counsel did not ask for a continuance, but simply

relied on Judge Chylinski to argue their case. All that Judge Chylinski required of counsel was

to agree with his own position.

The Defendant’s Motion alleged that Judge Chylinski was not a Constitutionally viable

official during the time of the original offense. This was addressed at the hearing and the Judge

was slightly defensive of this issue. Case Law, the State of Michigan Constitution, the

Constitution of the United States and Statues are all conclusive on these points.

A prudent and intelligent person can only assume that the Judge was “forced” to deny the

Defendant’s Motion, not based on law, but rather, based on an effort to cover up his misdeeds.

Therefore, counsel was not required to take any position in the matter. This issue could not

come to light if the Judge wanted to maintain his standing as a member in good standing of the

judiciary.

Whatever the reason for the denial of the Motion, Counsel must be held to a particular

standard. Case Law screams out that a Defendant should not be held to the same standards as

counsel, otherwise the burden would be too great and the whole weight of the system would

come crashing down on his shoulders. To further reinforce that point, the forefathers ensured

that justice should not be denied a defendant because he is not schooled in law. This was never


 3

the intent. In this case, we have the opposite standard; counsel was not even held to the same

standards as the Defendant. How can a man receive justice when he makes the very best

arguments and favoritism prevails? How can a man receive justice when he must make his fight

against the officers, the prosecutors and the judge?

Judge Chylinski sees criminal Defendants day in and day out. He advises them on the

law and the foolishness of their actions. From time to time, he even exercises compassion on

some of those individuals. With such a high conviction rate, yea, with such a high rate of people

pleading, would he remember what an innocent man looks like? Would he remember what a

criminal looks like who isn’t standing behind the Defendant’s table, but rather behind the

prosecutor’s table? How about behind the bench?

In Antonin Scalia’s Book, Making Your Case (coauthored by Bryan A. Garner), the

Justice argues that jury arguments should not be made to Judges. The emotional appeals don’t

play well with men and women who pride themselves on having a profound understanding of the

law. The law failed in this case. It failed over and over, again. The law, ironically, has not been

given a home in the practice of law.

The prosecutor did not read the Defendant’s Motion, although it did make the office

gossip pool. The judge did. The question must be asked, who did the work to dispense of the

Defendant’s argument? Where was the law in “Conclusions of law”?

PRAYER

The Defense prays that this Court sustain the objections raised in this delayed objection

and asks for sanctions against the prosecutor.


 4

 WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves the Court to sustain the objection and moves for

sanctions against the prosecutor.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________ Notary Stamp Here

Mark Alan Jackson

129 North Lowell Road

Windham, NH 03087

313-478-8061

marcosagostos@gmail.com



























 5

 VERIFICATION

I, Mark Alan Jackson, do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and

accurate to the best of my knowledge, in all respects.

Jurat

Signed
and
sworn
before
me
________________________________,
on
this
day,
the
_____
day
of

_________,
2010.

Notary
Signature:



____________________________________




PROOF OF SERVICE

To be completed by the court.

I certify on this date a copy of this motion was served upon the prosecutor by

Personal Service: Mail:


 6