None can ever be free until all are free. Let me repeat that: NO ONE will ever be truly free until EVERYONE is free. We do NOT have the right, under the constitution, to judge anyone as crazy or deprive them of freedom because of eccentricity or non-normative behavior, so long as such behavior is not physically injurious without the consent of the “victim.” Where the object of any action, the “victim” consents to non-physical injury, the freedom to act must not be impaired or impeded in any way.
The use of linguistic, grammatical, lexical, semantic, semiotic, or syntactic, ambiguity in law is routine, but Bill and now Hillary Clinton seem to have perfected this stratagem as an art form. Why should others, including the famous, infamous, notable, or notorious David Wynn Miller, not have the right to do the same?
AUGUST 2, 2010: NEW CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
- The Orange County Superior Court (The Honorable [Commissioner] Glen Mondo, West Judicial Center at Westminster California) reconvened and in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§241-242, infringed Aurora I. Diaz’ rights to due process and equal protection of laws in the following ways and means, by its minute order and oral pronouncements:
- Aurora I. Diaz informed the California Superior Court that she had retained counsel, although she had proceeded pro se in the past.
- The Commissioner of the California Superior Court informed Defendant that she would not be allowed
- In fact, exercising her rights under the First Amendment (Right to Petition, Freedom of Assembly), the Seventh, and the Ninth Amendment, Aurora I. Diaz had in fact retained as David Wynn Miller as her counsel and linguistic expert on the interpretation of contractual and statutory language at a trial-by-jury.
- Aurora I. Diaz paid the counsel of her choice $3,000.00 cash for representation in this and another case relating to two houses and he was available to return from Australia to represent her in this case during the same week as trial, but later in the week.
- The right to counsel of choice, under U.S. Supreme Court holdings, has never been limited only to licensed attorneys, especially for economically and situationally disadvantaged people. See, e.g. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969)(See Exhibit H).
THE DEFENDANT’S NEED FOR LINGUISTIC COUNSEL FOR LEGAL DEFENSE
- A Defendant in an unlawful detainer case is at a severe disadvantage due to the structure of the laws of the State of California, which make it almost impossible, perhaps completely impossible, to raise an effective defense under normal circumstances.
- In fact, most licensed attorneys in the State of California will not represent a Defendant in an unlawful detainer case because no effective defense is possible.
- David Wynn Miller is known around the world for his theory of quantum language analysis of legal documents and texts.
- Defendant Aurora I. Diaz is a not a native speaker of English and believes that David Wynn Miller’s approach posits a worthy analysis of this state’s laws and applications of contractual obligations and procedures under deeds of trust.
- The Defendant asserts that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counsel and advocate.
- The Defendant asserts that the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution also guarantees her the right to her choice in the selection of her counselor and advocate.
- The Defendant finally asserts that 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1982 guarantee her the equal right with all other citizens and lawful residents of the United States to make and enforce contracts (according to her linguistic understanding) and to institute and maintain legal proceedings (including the presentation of linguistic analysis and evidence) for the vindication of her rights.
- David Wynn Miller is a controversial scholar and advocate of linguistic analysis is not favored by all commentators.
- However, it has long been held, as an axiom of First Amendment law that, although the government may disagree with every word one man or another speaks or rights, it is the duty of all who uphold the Constitution to defend to the death each man’s right to speak or write his opinions and conclusions freely.
- David Wynn Miller has devoted his life to the linguistic analysis of the law and the deconstruction of legal texts, which, to the average native-born speaker of English, are all but totally incomprehensible.
- David Wynn Miller’s theory of grammar and Syntax may not be the same as Noam Chomsky’s theory or that of non-Chomskyites such as Joseph Harold Greenberg, but the fact that his theories may not be taught in all departments of Semiotics or Linguistics does not mean that this Defendant should not have the right to fully take advantage of his advice and teachings and the application of his analytical theorems to the language of law in this case.
- It is even incomprehensible why “counsel” in a case such as the present case, so heavily dependent on the analysis and decipherment of dense legal texts, should be limited to “legal” counselors rather than “linguistic” counselors.
- Defendant Aurora I. Diaz would point out that even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sought the assistance of and representation by Linguists and grammatical analysts in cases pending during the past year, see for example Rodearmal v. Clinton, in the United States District Court Case 1:09-cv-00171-RBW-JR Document 29 Filed 08/27/2009 Page 1 of 29. See Exhibit E: Linguistics in Law Amici Curiae Linguists
CALIFORNIA COURTS DENY RIGHT TO COUNSEL & JURY TRIAL & FALSELY IMPUTE AND ATTRIBUTE WAIVER TO DEFENDANT
- The California Superior Court refused to accommodate Aurora I. Diaz’ reasonable and modest request.
- At the same time, the California Superior Court in Westminster set this case for a NON-JURY trial on August 23, 2010, despite the fact that the Plaintiff had properly demanded a trial-by-jury on November 12, 2009, and again on December 7, 2010, all prior to her first removal to the United States District Court on December 10, 2010 (Exhibit F).
- Finally, in the minute order entered on August 2, 2010, Commissioner Mondo also stated that Defendant had “waived her right to notice” of the trial. At no point was Defendant Aurora I. Diaz aware of having waived any rights, and in fact, the Judge did not engage in any colloquy or verbal exchange of any kind with the Defendant to inquire whether she realized that she was waiving any rights or what the consequence of these waivers might be.
- The entry of a “waiver” on an order without even inquiring of a Defendant whether she agreed or not to a waiver is an unconscionable act of oppression in derogation of this Defendant’s fundamental constitutional and human rights.
- In sum, Commissioner Mondo refused to respect the Defendant’s right to be represented by counsel, refused to schedule final trial so that Defendant’s counsel could be present, refused to schedule a trial-by-jury, and also forcibly deprived Defendant of other rights by falsely entering a “waiver of rights” on the part of Aurora I. Diaz, when no such waiver of rights ever took place.
- With regard to Civil Rights Removal due to denial of equal protection of laws, Defendant’s Notice of Removal is proper and timely because the Court’s order of August 2, 2010, was entered less than 30 days prior to the removal of this case, and is accordingly proper within the meaning of and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1443(1) and 1446(b), which states:
a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title [28 USCS § 1332] more than 1 year after commencement of the action.
- Furthermore, Defendant submits that racially blind civil rights removal should be properly applied and allowed to the protection of disadvantaged classes which are denied equal protection and due process of law in Orange County, California (and the state of California generally) under color of California statutory law enforced, interpreted, and applied by the Superior Courts of Orange County include (1) a racially defined class (Hispanic residents of California), (2) a sex defined class (single female), and (3) a class defined by economic litigation (of defendants of wrongful eviction actions predicated on their status as victims of wrongful foreclosure) whose members are each denied and cannot enforce in the courts of Orange County, California.