Judge Vinny Samuel has also begun to show her lack of ethics, bias, law breaking and corruption, based on her refusal to recuse herself from my case and the underlying causes for my request that she recuse herself.
False Findings And Misconduct
I asked Judge Samuel to accuse herself because of several incidents: Not being able to actually recall the proper name of my case; trying to force the public defender’s office to pay for a competency evaluation when the law requires another department to pay for said competency evaluation (Judges are expected to know the law.) thereby breaking the law and and denying me time to trial and speedy trail because the public defender’s office had to fight judge Samuel’s ruling in court, denying me the presumption of innocence by trying to indicate that I was a danger to the public based on the alleged charges and without going through an RCW 10.21.060 hearing which I am entitled to.
However, the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to say, was Samuel’s recent and absolutely ludicrous ruling indicating that all my previous attorneys had been effective attorneys and therefore I would be denied further counsel if another attorney chose to withdraw from my case due to my showing they were ineffective, liars, corrupt, et cetera!
Judge Samuel made this allegation and false finding without:
- Having actually read the record concerning the other attorneys and their actions in my case; and
- Allowing me to be heard and address why those attorneys were in fact ineffective counsel, liars, law breakers, rule violators, et cetera!
By making that ludicrous and I believe illegal ruling judge Samuel violated not only constitutional law but also judicial code of conduct law. (See Code of Judicial Conduct – Terminology – “Law” encompasses court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional law.”) Therefore, Judge Samuel is unethical and a law breaker and does not belong on the bench! Sadly, she is immune from any legal consequences for her misconduct.
Go take a few minutes and reread ‘Corrupt Mistachkin’, based on the evidence presented there do you think that Mistachkin was effective counsel? Would you want a: child endangering, lying, perjuring, money grubbing, bounty collecting, oath breaking, client betraying person like that as your attorney if your and your childs life depended on it? I think not, yet Judge Samuel made a ruling that he was effective counsel for me!!!!!!!!
Now ask yourself this question, “If a judge thinks that David Mistachkin is an ethical and effective attorney for me as his client, then do you want that type of unethical and corrupt judge sitting on your court, representing your county and bringing more lawsuits against your county?!?
Samuel’s Lack Of Ethics Per The Code of Judicial Conduct
I. Applicability of This Code [of Judicial Conduct]
Comment [1] The Rules in this Code [of Judicial Conduct] have been formulated to address the ethical obligations of any person who serves a judicial function, and are premised upon the supposition that a uniform system of ethical principles should apply to all those authorized to perform judicial functions.
Therefore when Judge Samuel violates the code of judicial conduct she violates her ethical obligations and is in fact unethical per the law!
Samuel’s Law Breaking Per The Code of Judicial Conduct
Code of Judicial Conduct – Terminology – “Law” encompasses court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional law.”
Based on how I read the definition above and Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, Rule 1.1, when Samuel breaks one of the judicial codes she is also breaking the law!
Samuel’s Breaking The Law By Breaking The Code of Judicial Conduct
Based on my understanding of the code of judicial conduct and its definition as a law, Judge Samuel has violated several of those Judicial Codes and therefore shown herself as unethical and a law breaker by ruling that my past counsel were all effective, including the obvious ineffective and corrupt David Mistachkin, without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel.
Samuel’s Breaking CANON 1 – A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law: A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel , Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 1.1 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Comment [5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel , Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 1.2 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
Samuel’s Breaking CANON 2 – A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness: A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Comment [1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel, Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 2.2 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment:
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel, Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 2.3 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
RULE 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation:
(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and diligently.
Comment [1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial office.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel, Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 2.5 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard:
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
Comment [1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
Mistachkin was obviously ineffective and corrupt! By ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel, Judge Samuel appears to have broken CJC Rule 2.6 and the law! Therefore, she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
RULE 2.11 Disqualification
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
Comment
[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply. In many jurisdictions in Washington, the term “recusal” is used interchangeably with the term “disqualification.”
[2] A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.
There’s no question that Judge Samuel’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned’ based on her ruling that all my previous public defenders, including Mistachkin, provided effective assistance of counsel without actually checking the facts, allowing me to be heard or making any specific findings as to why they were all allegedly effective counsel. Judge Samuel should disqualify herself from my case!!! Her failure to do so despite my request indicates she Is unethical and does not belong on the bench as a judge!
Samuel’s Is Breaking Constitutional Law By Violating My Constitutional Rights To Free Speech And Petition (US Constitution Amendment 1; Washington Constitution Article 1, sections 4, 5, 10 and11)
By ruling that I cannot get another public defender if my current public defender withdraws Judge Samuel has effectively created what is called a prior restraint on my First Amendment rights. Specifically, my First Amendment rights to:
- Free Speech; because, I’m effectively blocked from talking about any lies or misconduct by my new public defender because if I do so I will lose legal representation but if I don’t do so then I could be convicted due to ineffective representation; and
- Petition; because, I cannot petition the court for a new public defender if I find out that this one is as corrupt and ineffective as Mistachkin.
Prior Restraints On Free Speech And Petition Are Illegal Per Decisional Law.
State v. Coe, 679 P. 2d 353, 374, 101 Wn.2d 364 (1984) (“Prior restraints on speech and press are governed by article 1, section 5 of the Washington Constitution, which states:
‘Freedom of Speech. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.’
Appellant correctly points out that, unlike the first amendment to the United States Constitution, the plain language of Const. art. 1, § 5 seems to rule out prior restraints under any circumstances, leaving the State with only post-publication sanctions to punish abuse of free speech rights.”)
Yet, Judge Samuel has chosen to violate this decisional law and restrain both my free speech and my right to petition prior to me making any actual statement or filing.
In re Marriage of Meredith, 201 P. 3d 1056, 1061, 148 Wash.App. 887 (2009) (“The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s ‘freedom of speech” and “right … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’”)
As Judge Samuel’s ruling stands I cannot redress grievances against assigned counsel even though those grievances are directly related to violations of the rules of professional conduct and the guidelines of effect of assistance of counsel!
Samuel’s Is Breaking Constitutional Law By Violating My Constitutional Rights To Due Process (US Constitution Amendments 5, 14; Washington Constitution Article 1, section 3)
Lying to a client is not only a breach of ethics under the rules of professional conduct it is also a violation of the attorney client relationship and a conflict of interest if the attorney states he did not lie. There is decisional law that clearly indicates that if an attorney is accused of lying and the attorney says that he did not lie, then he is testifying against his client which is a conflict of interest.
If my attorneys wished me not to report them to the court, then all they had to do was:
- Follow their own rules as set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct;
- Not lie to me;
- File the motions for dismissal; and
- Provide me an effective defense based on the standards set forth in ‘LexisNexis® Practice Guide: Washington Criminal Law’ by Linda S. Portnoy and Lisa M. Leone’ and also ‘Criminal Practice and Procedure, 3d (Vols. 12 and 13, Washington Practice Series)’ by Royce A. Ferguson, Jr.
As I previously indicated, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dann, 960 P. 2d 416, 419, 136 Wash.2d 67 (1998) indicates (“RPC 8.4(c) provides that “[it] is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Simply put, the question is whether the attorney lied. No ethical duty could be plainer.”
When an attorney lies to a client they break RPC 4.8(c). Therefore they are unethical and engaging in misconduct against their client and the court!
How can you be expected to trust someone with the most critical issues in your and your child’s life when they openly and blatantly lie to you. I can’t. Can and would you?
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)). (“To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort, see North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, at 738 (opinion of Black, J.), and for an agent of the State to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person’s reliance on his legal rights is “patently unconstitutional.” Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, supra, at 32-33, n. 20. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570.”)
I have not broken any law concerning my reporting of my past attorneys for lying, other misconduct and ineffective assistance to the court. I have just told the truths about their misconduct; yet, Samuel’s is punishing me for it and blocking me from it! Therefore, she is violating my right to due process under the law and breaking the law!
Samuel’s Is Breaking Constitutional Law By Violating My Constitutional Rights To Equal Protection Under The Law (US Constitution Amendments 14; Washington Constitution Article 1, section 12)
This violation is simple to understand, other people can petition and notify the courts concerning the misconduct of their attorney – I can’t or I lose any and all future attorneys!
Samuel’s Is Breaking Constitutional Law By Violating My Constitutional Rights To Effective Assistance Of Counsel (US Constitution Amendments 6; Washington Constitution Article 1, section 22)
I have an absolute constitutional right to the effective assistance of council!
MATTER OF PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF RILEY, 122 Wn.2d 772, 779-780, 863 P. 2d 554 (1993) (“The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right “to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const. amend. 6. The right to counsel means the right to the effective assistance of counsel.”) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) and McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 25 L.Ed. 763, 90 S.Ct. 1441 (1970)).
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 US 387, 396-397 (1985) (“[A] party whose counsel is unable to provide effective representation is in no better position than one who has no counsel at all…. like the promise of Gideon that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel at trial — would be a futile gesture unless it comprehended the right to the effective assistance of counsel.”)
Judge Samuel’s ruling has effectively forced me into what is called a Hobson’s Choice which is a choice between two constitutional rights – my First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Petition verses my Sixth Amendment rights to Counsel and Effective Counsel.
Judge Samuel Is Breaking Constitutional Law By Violating My Constitutional Rights To Appeal And Habeas Corpus (US Constitution Article 1, section 9, clause 2; Washington Constitution Article 1, section 22)
US Constitution – Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 Habeas Corpus
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Washington Constitution – Article I, Section 13 Habeas Corpus
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.”
Washington Constitution – Article I, Section 22 Rights Of The Accused
In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to … appeal in all cases….”
How does Samuel’s ruling affect my right to Habeas Corpus and Appeal?
State v. Grier, 246 P. 3d 1260,1266-1267, 171 Wash.2d 17 (2011) (“When an ineffective assistance claim is raised on appeal, the reviewing court may consider only facts within the record.“)
State v. Grier, 246 P. 3d 1260,1268, 171 Wash.2d 17 (2011) (“In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court set forth the prevailing standard under the Sixth Amendment for reversal of criminal convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel. [Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Under Strickland, ineffective assistance is a two-pronged inquiry:
‘First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction… resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.’”)
In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel I must do two things:
- Show deficient performance, and
- Show prejudice that deprived me of a fair trial.
However in order to show the two Strickland factors for ineffective assistance on appeal and habeas corpus the proof must be on the record (written in court records or in the reports of proceedings which are record of what was said in court). Since I can’t put them on the record for fear of current council withdrawing and being denied future counsel – I am effectively denied my right to appeal and to habeas corpus!
Plus, State v. Hill, 123 Wn.2d 641, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994) (Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal.) Meaning that if I do not challenge Samuel’s findings as to my past counsel being effective, then they become legal fact even if they are lies!!!
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? OUR COURTS TAKE LIES AND MAKE THEM TRUE FACTS. CORRUPT, CORRUPT, CORRUPT!!!
Judge Samuel’s ruling has effectively forced me into multiple Hobson’s Choice’s and Prior Restraints between – my First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Petition verses my constitutional rights to Appeal and Habeas Corpus!