Two years ago, Petitioner Dr. David Dortch was blacklisted by Murrieta Police Department with a false allegation that he held “Sovereign Citizen ideology” and thus, they claimed, a safety concern for the community. Since then, law enforcement, in concert with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office and the Respondent Riverside County Superior Court, Dr. Dortch and his family have been methodically deprived of their most basic constitutional rights, including being punished for exercising their rights of freedom of speech to talk about how they have been treated by law enforcement, prosecutors, and the court, and the right of redress to the court for violation of their civil rights.
(a) A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal . . . to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal . . . Where the appellate division grants a writ of mandate directed to the superior court, the superior court is an inferior tribunal for purposes of this chapter.
All criminal defendants have a right to a speedy and public trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 15 , of the California Constitution. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 (1970).
The criminal complaint in the 444 Case was filed September 3, 2015, and arises directly out of the actions of the Respondent Court taken after Petitioner’s speedy trial rights had been long violated. Petition, ¶ 29. As noted above, when Petitioner walked out of court on August 27, 2015, the Respondent Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Petition, ¶ 30. In a case of massive overkill against an unadjudicated defendant who had no history of any violence and had done no more than walk out of the courtroom early, Petitioner was forcibly attacked by plain clothes officers and arrested several days later, on September 1, 2015. Petition, ¶
Although the Court and the prosecutor have been on notice of this criminal act by investigators and destruction of material evidence in the case, there is no indicia of any criminal investigation or charges being made. Petition, ¶ 87; Kramer Decl. ¶ 35.
402 (1960) (per curiam), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part standard for determining competency to stand trial: first, a person must have the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding ; and, second, he or she must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her. Id.
Petition, ¶¶ 39 and 40. As noted above, eight months later, on April 10, 2015, in open court, Dr. Dortch discharged Ms. Kramer as his attorney and indicated to the Court that he would take the case on from there. Petition, ¶ 41; Hearing Transcript for April 10, 2015 proceedings before Judge Stephen Gallon (pending receipt).