John Stuart's next court hearing is this Wednesday 10/13/10 9:00 am at 101 West Jefferson, Phoenix, East Court Building, Courtroom 513, Judge Davis.
1. Judge Gottsfield denied John's motion to dismiss the case for the public defenders failure to enter a notice of appearance, after Judge Stienle refused to release John from jail because the attorney that argued for the relase failed to enter a notice of appearance.
So, a entering a notice of appearance is necessary to save a defendant, but is not necessary when the failure to enter one when can harm the defendant. In other words, the rules ONLY count if they can be used to harm the defendant.
Its one of those special Maricopa County Rules.
2. Judge Gottsfield refused to dismiss the case for the public defenders requesting an extension against John's order and in violation of Rule 6 which prevents change of attorneys unless the new attorney is ready for the set trial date. Then Judge Davis refused to continue the case fro 90 days because an attorney must be ready for the trial date if he accepts the case.
So continuances can ONLY be granted if the defendant does not want one and it can harm his case, but can't be granted if he needs one to correct erors committed by the court.
Another one of those special Maricopa County Rules.
John Stuart is still the ONLY man ever imprisoned in the US for entering evidence into a case that proves he is innocent. To prevent the jury from seeing the evidence, the prosecutor sealed the evidence and charged John with filing false documents into a public office and had John imprisoned.
This case is corrupt even by Maricopa County standards, which is known for being the worst in the US. Could it have something to do with the fact the judges, cops and politicians pension funds are in trouble becasue they were so invested in the real estate market and are now trying to rebuild by investing in the private prsion market?
Or is is just a coincidence that the judges are ruling against homeowners to save the banks, which would save the judge's pension funds; and causing so many innocent people to be falsely convicted, which also seems to benefit the judge's pension funds?
Should judges even be allowed to make decisions that directly affect their own pension funds, when their decissions benefit them in direct proprotion to the loss of the people's freedom and homes?