Declaration for Motion To Recuse Hotchkiss

This is my Declaration to accompany my Motion For Recusal of Hotchkiss:

Re. Dependency




DECLARATION OF FACTS TO SUPPORT MOTION FOR RECUSAL
And RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL


Judge Hotchkiss knew I was turning both PDs Paul Cassel and Jeanne Wellbaum over to the Bar, for negligence, ineffective counsel, and conflict of interest. Establishing ineffective counsel, below an objective standard of reasonableness, which resulted in prejudice, is not difficult to show in my case (See standard applied State v. Thomas, 109 Wash. 2d 222, 225-26 1987—adopting test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Ineffectiveness can be proved by failure to make reasonable investigation into defense strategies (In re Davis, 152 Wn. 2d 64, 742 (2004), failure to prepare for trial or subpoena witnesses, and in my case, failure to communicate with me for over 2 weeks at a time, failure to notify me of court hearing dates and times (which I then missed and resulted in prejudice), and failure to contact character witnesses and obtain evidence to help my case, as well as provide me with copies of documents being filed on my behalf (which I never even saw, despite my requests). That was Cassel. Wellbaum did the same, telling me by email she couldn’t be reached for an entire week, leaving only one week before hearing date to prepare, talk to me, and gather evidence. She also admitted she had a conflict of interest with regard to my case, which SHE believed to be a serious conflict, until I found out what it was and was so outraged I said I was turning her in to the Bar. She suddenly changed her mind about there being a conflict, and that she had gained access to confidential information from my case improperly, without recusing herself. In the interim, Ms. Wellbaum refused to communicate with me, which delayed my ability to consult with counsel and prepare for my case and the next hearing.

Both she and Cassel stalled and delayed, and refused to respond to my question of whether anyone was representing me or not, until the day of last trial, where Judge Hotchkiss announced he would not appoint me a new public defender. Judge Hotchkiss knew I had asked Cassel to file a Motion to Recuse Judge Hotchkiss, and my PD refused to do this. As a result, I had an order and decision made against me by the Judge.

I discovered Cassel and Judge Hotchkiss are quite good friends. My PD Paul Cassel was a former law partner in a very small firm, with Judge Hotchkiss, before Hotchkiss became judge. Cassels refusal to make a Motion for Recusal can be viewed as a favor to his friend, because Cassel would not even hear my reasons for the recusal, and did not want the details, which should have been obtained to decide whether my request was merited or not. Cassel blindly defended Judge Hotchkiss, and in that same hearing, made statements against me which could be viewed as prejudicial and damaging, coming from my supposed public defense counsel. After making biased statements, Cassel later claimed, along with Hotchkiss, that I should drop my report to the Bar if I wanted representation at all.

I tried to file a short declaration for recusal of the judge, on my own. Judge Hotchkiss would not even look at it before casting it aside. He based his confidence on his former law partner’s protection, and reassurance he was not filing any motion, as PD.

The matter was that I believed Judge Hotchkiss would be prejudiced against me because of unethical behavior in the past, as a former neighbor of mine was offered small judicial favors by Judge Hotchkiss. She told me Judge Hotchkiss was flirting with her and told her if she ever got a traffic ticket or anything else, to bring it to him and he would “take care of it”. My PD Cassel did not even investigate this matter or interview my witness.

After this, Judge Hotchkiss returned the favor, by telling me in the last hearing that if I wanted any legal counsel, I had to take back Cassel and Wellbaum, but that I was going to have to drop my report to the Bar. Judge Hotchkiss pressured me, telling me if I didn’t drop my charges, he would force me to represent myself, pro se.

Instead of examining whether or not I had had ineffective or effective counsel, Judge Hotchkiss simply tried to remove Bar complaints from his buddies and told me to go back to them. At the moment, under the pressure, I agreed I would, and then realized after the hearing what had just happened and how it was not only a threat and coercion, but bribery of sorts, and flatly unethical, demonstrating bias and prejudice, and the willingness to dispense favors. Judge Hotchkiss attempted to protect them, knowing I had already made allegations and entered at least some proof of ineffective counsel, into the record already.

My case has already been severely weakened by this ineffective counsel, and orders have come down from the Judge, against me and for the state, after I attempted to have him first removed. My case continues to be prejudiced and no one in Wenatchee is doing anything about it. They appear to be making their own rules, even though any reasonable person would be able to find an appearance of bias given the facts.

Judge Hotchkiss has demonstrated established bias, on the record, and should not proceed until the facts have been adjudicated. I need a copy of the audio or transcript from the lasts hearing in order to make my case, and I wasn’t able to do so in a more timely manner, because I repeatedly sought to find out the status of my “public defense” and had no response.

Judge Hotchkiss has not only offered small judicial favors to a neighbor I used to have, he then proved he allows his social relationships in Wenatchee to interfere with his judicial responsibilities, by attempting to bribe me to quit my reports against Wenatchee PDs he knows, under threat of forcing me to go forward pro se. He has also subsequently issued orders against me which impede my ability to get my son back, and has issued orders which violate my right to privacy for medical records and information.

The delay and stalling and refusal to address my questions has left me zero preparation for the hearing today, and for some reason, the word “malfeasance” comes to mind.

I have not had any response from any PD Judge Hotchkiss demanded I accept, even though he forced me to rescind my attempt to report them to the Bar for ineffective counsel. I am having to make this motion on my own, even though I do not wish to be pro se and do not voluntarily waive my right to court appointed counsel.

Unless a waiver of counsel is invalid, court cannot continue without counsel. I am entitled to counsel as a matter of law, as I meet the qualifications for indigent counsel (R.C.W.10.101.010(1)), and also have a right to counsel in dependency proceedings (RCW 13.34.090; JuCR 9(c)(2). These laws provide parents with the right to effective counsel. Quoting from a brief prepared by Perkins Coie, “The right to counsel serves no purpose unless it is the right to effective counsel.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970).

I believe, given the facts, that no further action should be taken in this case until I am given a copy of the transcripts for the last two hearings, which contain statements by Judge Hotchkiss and also, hearing before last, prejudicial statements by my former PD Cassel, whom I was forced to accept again. I request hearing for this Motion for Recusal and for my Request For Counsel, and with this evidence at hand, unless the Judge voluntarily decides to step down and another judge or commissioner appoints other public defense, to remedy this problem.

I believe it would be most expedient, for the latter to occur.

I intend to appeal to higher courts, immediately, if this is not done, on an interloculatory type of basis. I request abatement or injunction from release of my medical records and further action in this case, until the facts are heard and decided.

I thank the court for its time and review of this matter.

I swear that the above statement is true to the best of my belief and knowledge and I know it will be used as evidence in court, and is subject to penalty for perjury.

Cameo Garrett

June 25, 2008