Preview
UIA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-23-2013 4:11 pm
Case Number: CUD-13-644474
Filing Date: Apr-23-2013 4:10
Filed by: RONNIE OTERO
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04028694
MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC)
NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS
001004028694
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0
Mark Edwards
2048 Polk Street. #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
415.240-0191
For defendant in propria persona
a ( NE OUR r
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA? ta _
Te
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
<<
Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474
NOTICE MOTIOAND MOTION FOR RESCUSES
CODE §170.6 CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE
MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATION OF
DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION / DECLARATORY RELIEF
Date: Aprilet¢, 2013
Time:
Dept: > /
Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA
Judge: Hon.
Filed: February 25, 2013
Trial Date: April 22, 2013
Plaintiff,
ve
Mark Edwards,
Defendant.
TO THE COURT, AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
COMES NOW defendant Mark Edwards (“Defendant”) and submits the following:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RESCUSES CODE §170.6 ; MEMORANDUM
AND DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION.
The defendant Edwards, hereof move this court for hearing of motion on April , 2013 in
department S01, at 9:30 am located 400 McAllister Street in San Francisco, CA 94109.
Dated: APRILZ f° ,2013
MARK EDWARDS.
Defendant in Propria Persona
DECLARATION
-1-
Signed: Daw LlMark Edwards
2048 Polk Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
415.240-0191
For defendant in propria persona
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474
NOTICE MOTIONAND MOTION FOR
RESCUSES CODE 170.6 CCP; MEMORANDUM,
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION/ DECLARATORY
Plaintiff,
Vv.
Mark Edwards,
Date: April 4G , 2013
Time:
Dept.: 52 C
Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA
Judge: Hon.
Filed: February 25, 2013
Trial Date: April 22, 2013
Defendant.
COMES the Defendant Mark Edwards (“Defendant”) to above entitled
cause hereof, seeking grounds for “RESCUSES against Judge for biasness
grounds rendered within Code §§ , of California Civil Procedure
1. Bad Faith
2. Procedural Structural Defect errors
3. Deprival of Due Process to DISCOVERY ACT RIGHTS
4. Tactical Corruption pursuant to U.S. v. Coppola (2008)
671 3° 220, 225-229.
5. Biasness toward Pro Se Litigants Right of Adequate
defense and preparation.
6. Unlawful waiver of procedural rights and challenges of
To opposition of Motions in absent of the plaintiff.
DECLARATION
-2-Incurred prejudice may be seen by the structural content of
presiding magistrate during case management phase of pretrial, which
the most crucial stage where discovery rights, evidences and all other
relative issues determines the readiness to a “fair trial.”
The court on its own initial prejudice preclude defendant
Edwards from proceeding forth in the interest/or furtherance of
justice with bias holding him to retrains to “fundamental fairness.”
The Defendant Edwards, challenge the plaintiff’s failure of no
attachment of Declaration “Proof of Service - POS 10/40” and “Proof of
Fictional Business Existence” Form SC 103 in filing his complaint on
February 25, 2013. Therefore he both in “Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction.”
The Defendant asserted his rights under the clause to California
Rules of Court, Rule 3:100 (a-g). Which motions to stay, quash,
dismiss and demurrer where all utilized, showing procedural biasness.
Defendant on March 18, 2013 under coercive procedural tactics of
the court was compelled to respond to a complaint that was both in
“Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.”
On April 23, 2013 Defendant Edwards Motion for Discovery was
denied and held under the same ground he raise on March 18, 2013
against the complaint “Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction.” This constitute bias treatment which was never held for
legal corrections by the courts and appellate court further grounds of
Procedural “Structural Defeats of Errors.”
DECLARATIONx
27
28
Therefore defendant establish grounds of existing prejudice
restricting to “discretional - impartiality” constituting grounds for
complete “STAY OF HIS PROCEEDING” pending Administrative Review
regarding a “personal interest” involvement claim of contentions.
There exist a showing that defendant shall suffer undue
prejudice incurred absence to a owed liberty protection from any and
all hidden present procedure “defects” anticipated by this court and
party of dispute as another tactical restrain.
WHEREFORE THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM JUDICIAL
BAISNESS, hindering his rights or restrains to due process and
safeguard of equal protection.
Dated: APRIL, 2013 Signed: (7 Lf Sie —
MARK EDWARDS.
Defendant in Propria Persona
DECLARATION
-4-wv
Mark Edwards
2048 Polk Street, #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
415.240-0191
For defendant in propria persona
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FOR
RESCUSES CODE 170.6 CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE PROCE DURE
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS
Plaintiff,
Mark Edwards,
Date: April 2¢ , 2013
Time:
Dept: Sof
Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA
Judge: Hon.
Filed: February 25, 2013
Defendant.
It is required that acting magistrate acting over schedule management of a case to remain fair and
impartial to both side of the dispute and not impose “conflicting interest nor biasness.”
See U.S. vs. Coppola (20008) 671 3" 220, 225-229 citing California Constitution Article VI, Sections 8,
18, 18.1 and 18.5.
Where discovery of infringement of rights has cause undue prejudice to the defense/ defendant,
depriving him of both due process and procedural safeguard then his right to receiving a “fair trial” under
his constitutional rights has unlawfully been waivered by constituting judicial grounds of “structural
defect of errors.”
Dated: APRILZ ?. 2013 Signed: Clb EZ ere
MARK EDWARDS.
Defendant in Propria Persona
DECLARATION
-5-27
28
Mark Edwards
2048 Polk Street. #303
San Francisco, CA 94109
415.240-0191
For defendant in propria persona
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Nasir Patel. Case No. CUD-13-644474
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS
IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION FOR
RESCUSES CODE 170 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
v.
Mark Edwards,
Date: April 2€ , 2013
Time:
Dept.: yo (
Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA
Judge: Hon.
Filed: February 25, 2013
Trial Date: April 22. 2013
Defendant.
Declarant Hereof, defendant Mark Edwards “defendant” submit upon the court a supportive
Declaration attach to motion hereof:
MOTION FOR RESCUSE CODE 170 OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Dated: APRIL 27, 2013 Signed: Bol — Shree
MARK EDWARDS.
Defendant in Propria Persona
DECLARATION
-6-wu
Grievance in comparison with the Belmont City Official scandal reflect abuse of power pursuant to
California Constitution, Article 6, §8 where unethical practices warranted immediate disbarment of
City Offices in the interest of justice being prevailed.
11. In the current matter of Patel v. Edwards CUD-13-644474 related occurrences demonstrates
Non-fashionable restrains on tainted powers pursuant to U.S. v. Coppola (2008) 671 3"? 220, 225-29,
whereas a San Francisco Rent Board Decision pursuant to Defendants establish Petition filed on
11/16/12 further show criminal intent of Administrative Power of Concealing Evidences that shall prove
That abuse of the judicial process was circumvented under personal interest.
12. Again personal interest can be declared on February 25, 2013, March 18, 2013, April 18,
2013, April 23 and that offer the record concealed.
13. That the court conceded it lack jurisdiction for my discovery motion on April 22-23, 2013
But had Personal Jurisdiction over Complaint March 18, 2013 imposed a “conflict of interest” toward
defendants right of “fundamental fairness.”
14. That defendant is entitled to change of venue and dismissal of pending cause for entry of
default and summary judgment hereof as constitutional required based on remitture of the records.
Defendant hereafter sayeth not:
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
FORGOING MATTER HEREOF GIVEN IS TRUE AND CORRECT
Dated: APRIL, 2013 sina, Le EE A
MARK EDWARDS.
Defendant in Propria Person
DECLARATION
-8-
Preview
UIA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-23-2013 4:11 pm Case Number: CUD-13-644474 Filing Date: Apr-23-2013 4:10 Filed by: RONNIE OTERO Juke Box: 001 Image: 04028694 MOTION (CIVIL GENERIC) NASIR PATEL VS. MARK THOMAS EDWARDS 001004028694 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.0 Mark Edwards 2048 Polk Street. #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 415.240-0191 For defendant in propria persona a ( NE OUR r IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA? ta _ Te COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO << Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474 NOTICE MOTIOAND MOTION FOR RESCUSES CODE §170.6 CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION / DECLARATORY RELIEF Date: Aprilet¢, 2013 Time: Dept: > / Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA Judge: Hon. Filed: February 25, 2013 Trial Date: April 22, 2013 Plaintiff, ve Mark Edwards, Defendant. TO THE COURT, AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: COMES NOW defendant Mark Edwards (“Defendant”) and submits the following: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RESCUSES CODE §170.6 ; MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION. The defendant Edwards, hereof move this court for hearing of motion on April , 2013 in department S01, at 9:30 am located 400 McAllister Street in San Francisco, CA 94109. Dated: APRILZ f° ,2013 MARK EDWARDS. Defendant in Propria Persona DECLARATION -1- Signed: Daw LlMark Edwards 2048 Polk Street, #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 415.240-0191 For defendant in propria persona IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474 NOTICE MOTIONAND MOTION FOR RESCUSES CODE 170.6 CCP; MEMORANDUM, DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION/ DECLARATORY Plaintiff, Vv. Mark Edwards, Date: April 4G , 2013 Time: Dept.: 52 C Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA Judge: Hon. Filed: February 25, 2013 Trial Date: April 22, 2013 Defendant. COMES the Defendant Mark Edwards (“Defendant”) to above entitled cause hereof, seeking grounds for “RESCUSES against Judge for biasness grounds rendered within Code §§ , of California Civil Procedure 1. Bad Faith 2. Procedural Structural Defect errors 3. Deprival of Due Process to DISCOVERY ACT RIGHTS 4. Tactical Corruption pursuant to U.S. v. Coppola (2008) 671 3° 220, 225-229. 5. Biasness toward Pro Se Litigants Right of Adequate defense and preparation. 6. Unlawful waiver of procedural rights and challenges of To opposition of Motions in absent of the plaintiff. DECLARATION -2-Incurred prejudice may be seen by the structural content of presiding magistrate during case management phase of pretrial, which the most crucial stage where discovery rights, evidences and all other relative issues determines the readiness to a “fair trial.” The court on its own initial prejudice preclude defendant Edwards from proceeding forth in the interest/or furtherance of justice with bias holding him to retrains to “fundamental fairness.” The Defendant Edwards, challenge the plaintiff’s failure of no attachment of Declaration “Proof of Service - POS 10/40” and “Proof of Fictional Business Existence” Form SC 103 in filing his complaint on February 25, 2013. Therefore he both in “Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” The Defendant asserted his rights under the clause to California Rules of Court, Rule 3:100 (a-g). Which motions to stay, quash, dismiss and demurrer where all utilized, showing procedural biasness. Defendant on March 18, 2013 under coercive procedural tactics of the court was compelled to respond to a complaint that was both in “Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” On April 23, 2013 Defendant Edwards Motion for Discovery was denied and held under the same ground he raise on March 18, 2013 against the complaint “Lack of Jurisdiction/ Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” This constitute bias treatment which was never held for legal corrections by the courts and appellate court further grounds of Procedural “Structural Defeats of Errors.” DECLARATIONx 27 28 Therefore defendant establish grounds of existing prejudice restricting to “discretional - impartiality” constituting grounds for complete “STAY OF HIS PROCEEDING” pending Administrative Review regarding a “personal interest” involvement claim of contentions. There exist a showing that defendant shall suffer undue prejudice incurred absence to a owed liberty protection from any and all hidden present procedure “defects” anticipated by this court and party of dispute as another tactical restrain. WHEREFORE THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM JUDICIAL BAISNESS, hindering his rights or restrains to due process and safeguard of equal protection. Dated: APRIL, 2013 Signed: (7 Lf Sie — MARK EDWARDS. Defendant in Propria Persona DECLARATION -4-wv Mark Edwards 2048 Polk Street, #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 415.240-0191 For defendant in propria persona IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Nasir Patel, Case No. CUD-13-644474 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FOR RESCUSES CODE 170.6 CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE PROCE DURE DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS Plaintiff, Mark Edwards, Date: April 2¢ , 2013 Time: Dept: Sof Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA Judge: Hon. Filed: February 25, 2013 Defendant. It is required that acting magistrate acting over schedule management of a case to remain fair and impartial to both side of the dispute and not impose “conflicting interest nor biasness.” See U.S. vs. Coppola (20008) 671 3" 220, 225-229 citing California Constitution Article VI, Sections 8, 18, 18.1 and 18.5. Where discovery of infringement of rights has cause undue prejudice to the defense/ defendant, depriving him of both due process and procedural safeguard then his right to receiving a “fair trial” under his constitutional rights has unlawfully been waivered by constituting judicial grounds of “structural defect of errors.” Dated: APRILZ ?. 2013 Signed: Clb EZ ere MARK EDWARDS. Defendant in Propria Persona DECLARATION -5-27 28 Mark Edwards 2048 Polk Street. #303 San Francisco, CA 94109 415.240-0191 For defendant in propria persona IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Nasir Patel. Case No. CUD-13-644474 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION FOR RESCUSES CODE 170 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF v. Mark Edwards, Date: April 2€ , 2013 Time: Dept.: yo ( Location: 400 McAllister Street SF, CA Judge: Hon. Filed: February 25, 2013 Trial Date: April 22. 2013 Defendant. Declarant Hereof, defendant Mark Edwards “defendant” submit upon the court a supportive Declaration attach to motion hereof: MOTION FOR RESCUSE CODE 170 OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Dated: APRIL 27, 2013 Signed: Bol — Shree MARK EDWARDS. Defendant in Propria Persona DECLARATION -6-wu Grievance in comparison with the Belmont City Official scandal reflect abuse of power pursuant to California Constitution, Article 6, §8 where unethical practices warranted immediate disbarment of City Offices in the interest of justice being prevailed. 11. In the current matter of Patel v. Edwards CUD-13-644474 related occurrences demonstrates Non-fashionable restrains on tainted powers pursuant to U.S. v. Coppola (2008) 671 3"? 220, 225-29, whereas a San Francisco Rent Board Decision pursuant to Defendants establish Petition filed on 11/16/12 further show criminal intent of Administrative Power of Concealing Evidences that shall prove That abuse of the judicial process was circumvented under personal interest. 12. Again personal interest can be declared on February 25, 2013, March 18, 2013, April 18, 2013, April 23 and that offer the record concealed. 13. That the court conceded it lack jurisdiction for my discovery motion on April 22-23, 2013 But had Personal Jurisdiction over Complaint March 18, 2013 imposed a “conflict of interest” toward defendants right of “fundamental fairness.” 14. That defendant is entitled to change of venue and dismissal of pending cause for entry of default and summary judgment hereof as constitutional required based on remitture of the records. Defendant hereafter sayeth not: I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FORGOING MATTER HEREOF GIVEN IS TRUE AND CORRECT Dated: APRIL, 2013 sina, Le EE A MARK EDWARDS. Defendant in Propria Person DECLARATION -8-