Racine County Court Corruption
http://racinecountycourtcorruption.blogspot.com/
Today's feature involves a defective complaint and a lack of veracity before the court.
State
lies vs. Kurt Hanson
Case
# 2014CF0001506
Motion
Hearing of 1-30-2015
Are
you sleeping? Are you sleeping?
Brother
John? Brother John?
How
appropriate this child’s tune is in Judge John Jude’s court.
It
is a sad day in Racine’s court that the arguing Attorneys have to inform the
court of what case is before the court.
This
is exactly what happened on the motion hearing of 1-30-2014,
State
lies vs. Kurt Hanson
Case
# 2014CF0001506
The
court was confused and clueless as to what case was standing before it, and had
to be informed by attending legal counsel of the case before the court.
It
appears Judge John Jude’s court is a dysfunctional court operating in the
Racine Circuit Court System. How can a court properly proceed in a motion
hearing if the court has not prepared for the hearing and read the file of all
the previous legal proceedings?
The
hearing request was for a reduction of bail for Mr. Hanson. During the hearing,
the court granted a reduced bail amount with conditions and responsibilities
placed directly upon Mr. Hanson’s sister for full compliance of the court’s
terms. Mr. Hanson decided not to accept the reduced bail amount, perhaps fearing the
additional court’s burdens on his sister would place her in dire straits.
Disorder
in the Court;
Judge
John Jude also has another problem in his court, the importance of veracity.
Veracity
in this court appears to be of no
relevance to the court or the other legal parties involved in this case.
We
are speaking of the City of Racine Police Department, City of Racine Attorney’s
Office, Racine District Attorney’s Office and Defense Attorney Dirk Jensen.
A
known defective complaint stands before the court and the above 5 legal parties
have done nothing to correct the record.
Donna
Hanke, City of Racine Police officer has taken no action in court to amend her
known defective complaint,
nor
has Art Howell, Chief of Police.
The
District Attorney’s Office was made aware of the defective complaint in November
of 2014, and has also not taken action to inform the court of the known lies
before the court.
The
court has been made aware of the defective complaint directly by RCC, and the
court has not acted to demand veracity in its own court.
“The
rule of law is dead in Racine County”
There
are 5 legal entities that have not made any effort to correct the defective
complaint, including the court.
Judge
John Jude has taken no action to address veracity before his own court. It
appears Judge John Jude along with the 4 other legal parties has violated their
oaths of office and should be held accountable for such acts.
Even
Mr. Hanson’s Defense Attorney did not bring up the issues of the defective
complaint and veracity in the court during the motion hearing.
In
the interim, Mr Hanson continues to remain in custody in the Racine County Jail
until his trial.
Is
Defense Attorney Dirk Jensen’s inaction of the defective complaint a brilliant
legal ploy or a reflection of his lack of work ethic? Time will soon tell as Mr. Hanson’s trial
date looms in the very near future.
2 comments:
I have a friend who was sued in small claims court, Judge John Jude presiding. At the beginning of the proceedings, Judge Jude announced that he had not read any of the briefs and other paperwork submitted to him. Court was “in session,” but Judge Jude was interrupting every thirty seconds or so to ask questions that were already answered in the paperwork. After awhile, Judge Jude announced that my pal and his opponent should go home and that he (Jude) would mail them his decision when he made it.
Welcome Clint,
Thanks for the input of your friends day in court.
With Judge John Jude, it doesn't appear that he reviews a case before court.
He has not demanded veracity in his court when the court record has been challenged. We at RCC informed the court in writing of the misinformation of the court record and the court has not are not acted upon the info.
The defendant is incarcerated with known misinformation in the court and the court refuses to act upon the now known lies..........Pathetic
Post a Comment