An Election Challenge Part III

The state Court system is much worse than good intent gone awry. We are in the United States, defendants in the Magistrates Court entitled to "due process". That includes a procedural process that assures any and all individual from the throes of judicial tyranny.

In New Mexico, if one is charged with a misdemeanor, that includes a meaningful hearing with 60 days on two simple questions: 1) is he a danger to any person or the community? and 2) will he be likely to appear in Court? .

. Under Rule 5-401 A, the court MUST order the release of any person who is entitled to bail under Article II, Section §13 of the New Mexico Constitution, either on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond, unless the Court determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the accused or "will endanger the safety of any other person or the community." If the court makes such a determination, the rule permits the court to impose such conditions as "will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community."

The New Mexico Constitution guarantees a defendant's right to be released on bond pending trial. N.M. Constitution, Article II, §13. The court may only deny bail in non-capital cases for up to sixty days after the defendant's incarceration, by an order entered within seven days of incarceration, and only in specified cases where the defendant, who is accused of a felony, has been previously convicted of felonies.

Specifically, if the defendant has been previously convicted of two or more felonies committed within New Mexico, neither of which arose from the same or a common transaction with the case for which the defendant is now before the court, the court may deny bail for sixty days.

The constitution also allows denial of bail altogether for the sixty-day period if the

defendant has been convicted of only one prior felony within the State, if the current charge involves a felony alleged to have been committed with a deadly weapon. The sixty-day limit may be extended to the extent that the trial has been delayed at the request of the defendant.

But rather than go to that extent of what it MUST do, the Magistrate Courts organize a deception of itself, rerouting arraignments on the same charges, and then again, and then again. Never giving a thought to the meaning of liberty or the Constitutional requirements of the State.

And how does Chad Redhouse deal with this? To save his soul and to preserve his sanity at the depths of this Kafkaesque nightmare, he files motions. The motions are denied. He filed one last week, asking that the charges be dismissed because he hadn't been arraigned for 110 days after his arrest, and the New Mexico Statutes say it must be done within 30 days. Judge David Segura denies the motion, and then arraigns him, as if the statutes somehow don't apply, how many days late? 110-30=80 days late. It seemed another example of surreal justice under a guise of law.

Then there are the questions of double docketing and triple docketing, filing the same charges in 3 different courtrooms with three different judges. And keeping him in longer because they have never been consolidated""or were they as the NM Courts website reports two orders to consolidate and then a reconsideration to deny consolidation. . In all twelve charges in 4 cases brought before 3 Judges based on two events.

There are constitutional limits to what the Court can and cannot do.