My Amended Motion

District Court of the
County of Chelan

Motion for Reconsideration,
alternately
New Trial and
Change of Venue, and
Modification of Current Order or
Stay Until New Trial

I am requesting New Trial per RCW RCW 4.76.080. I had a prior court order which conflicted with the date of this hearing; I was not given notice of the new date with new judge for this hearing; I did not have time to collect discovery which is still being made by Douglas County and which I need to obtain from police stations to support my claims; finally, the discovery of prejudice which affects judgement.

I would like Change of Venue based on RCW 4.12.030 (2) and (4) as I do not believe I can get fair trial here.

I am alternately requesting Reconsideration, per RCW 34.05.470, as I had a prior court order which conflicted with the date of this hearing; I was not given notice of the new date with new judge for this hearing; I did not have time to collect discovery which is still being made by Douglas County and which I need to obtain from police stations to support my claims; finally, the discovery of prejudice which affects judgment. I believe my discovery will completely exonerate me from Erickson’s claims.

As a protective measure, to protect the rights and interests of a minor and my constitutional right to access public services, I request a Stay of present Order, in compliance with RCW 34.05.550(2, 3, under a,b,c,and d). The current order interferes with my constitutional right to access to a public facility and to my and my son’s right to visitation in a manner which is consistent with my son’s needs.

Please see attached Declaration.

Sincerely,



Cameo L. Garrett July 14, 2010
















District Court of the
County of Chelan

DECLARATION OF CAMEO GARRETT IN SUPPORT OF:

Motion for Reconsideration,
alternately
New Trial and
Change of Venue, and
Modification of Current Order or
Stay Until New Trial


1. I was served with a notice to appear for an Anti-Harassment hearing brought by Michelle Erickson, who is also my current case worker for a CPS matter. Erickson is responsible for scheduling visits and notifying me of any changes and as the petitioner for this hearing, it was her duty to reschedule my state and court ordered visit so there was no conflict. It is also her duty to reasonably accommodate any disability that is perceived by the state, and as she has testified under oath she believes me to be severely mentally ill, and heard testimony in court about records and documents the CSO office turned over to CPS regarding my right to notice and time to receive mail or respond, she would be the person who shoulders the responsibility and burden of handling state matters in a professional way which does is not self-serving but is acting as a servant of the public.

Erickson also has the responsibility of behaving in a manner which is in the best interest of the child, my son, who is 4 years old, and her request blocks our ability to see my son for visits. She attempted to petition Douglas County Judge Hotchkiss to have my visits with my son held at the Wenatchee police department, which is harassing to me, a form of intimidation, and would not be comfortable for my son. Judge Hotchkiss believed this to be ridiculous and ruled against it.

I did not know ahead of time, nor did I have any discovery prior to this date, that the hearing was today. I went to the Chelan County Courthouse to file an Affidavit of Prejudice and court clerk Blanca Zendejas told me this would set the court date further out and it would not be on July 14th, 2010.

2. No Notice or Service of Court Date. I did not know ahead of time, nor did I have any discovery prior to this date, that the hearing was today. I went to the Chelan County Courthouse to file an Affidavit of Prejudice and court clerk Blanca Zendejas told me this would set the court date further out and it would not be on July 14th, 2010. I had a police officer Bueller serve me a second time with the same Motion (no changes for my Affidavit) on Monday of this week and this was after I filed my Affidavit and no changes were made and I told him I’d already been served. I know from past experience that if an Affidavit of Prejudice is made, the court date is set out further to allow the new Judge time to review the Motion and to receive discovery from the defendant. I did not have time to submit any discovery to the New Judge and didn’t even know who the New Judge would be. I was served by Officer Bueller on Monday evening, which gave me less than 48 hours before the hearing today and no changes were made and even if they were and I had notice of the New Judge, I did not have time to submit discovery in this timeframe.

2.No Notice or Service of Court Date. I did not know ahead of time, nor did I have any discovery prior to this date, that the hearing was today. I went to the Chelan County Courthouse to file an Affidavit of Prejudice and court clerk Blanca Zendejas told me this would set the court date further out and it would not be on July 14th, 2010. I had a police officer Bueller serve me a second time with the same Motion (no changes for my Affidavit and with the same Judge) on Monday of this week and this was after I filed my Affidavit and no changes were made and I told him I’d already been served. I know from past experience that if an Affidavit of Prejudice is made, the court date is set out further to allow the new Judge time to review the Motion and to receive discovery from the defendant. I did not have time to submit any discovery to the New Judge and didn’t even know who the New Judge would be. I was served by Officer Bueller on Monday evening, which gave me less than 48 hours before the hearing today and no changes were made and even if they were and I had notice of the New Judge, I did not have time to submit discovery in this timeframe.
3.Discovery of Prejudice. I did not think or know that there were still issues of Prejudice, in general, with Chelan County Courthouse as I had no prior knowledge someone would try to slip in a new Judge without giving me notice and a new court date, and then also make a ruling which most reasonable attorneys would know is unconstitutional. Judge Alicia Nakata ordered me to be banned from a public service office which I have a constitutional (federal and state) right to access. Judge Nakata knew Michelle Erickson was my case worker and that her place of work is the Washington State Department of Health and Social Services. This is a public place for which reasonable accomodation must be made. I have business with CPS there as well as CSO offices and must be allowed access to the building. Any Judge without prejudice would know this. I was also surprised to discover Nakata attempted to “ban” me from public expression or free speech, ordering me not to write anything “offensive” about Erickson in my public blog. Nakata knows she does not have a right to order someone to not post anything “offensive” about another person, as long as there is no threat. It also came to my attention at this time that Nakata is Catholic and in this situation, her religious loyalty or preference, and knowledge of my past court history, has contributed to prejudice against me, as her attempt to ban me from being “offensive” echoes what a former legal adversary and attorney for the Catholic church, Dick Whittemore, tried to do, in exchange for offering me $40,000. I was also reminded of my report to local FBI about a Judge in Chelan County who is alleged to be engaging in drug trafficking or use, and I do not know which Judge that might be and it is safe to say it is best that, since all these Judges are aware I made this report, that I have any hearing out of the area.

My visits are with my son at the state offices and my ability to access services is also there. There will be great harm to my son to have his visits with his mother discontinued or altered in any way, such as to be held at police offices as Erickson has attempted to obtain an Order for in the past (for which she was soundly denied). There is no evidence that my presence in the public state offices is a harm to the general public. Erickson’s offices are in the back of a building in a secured area and are not near the visitation offices where my son has his visits, which are next to the public lobby. My access to services is also in the public lobby and nowhere near Erickson’s private office.


I swear that the above statements and motion for Expedited New Trial and Change of Venue are true, made to the best of my ability and belief and that they are subject to penalty for perjury.

(my 4th point was modification of current order to accomodate visits and services at the State offices until new Trial).