Motion for a Stay of Proceedings Until the Interlocutory Appeals Can Be Heard    

         It was January, 2015 and I had two final appeals by right before the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) dating all the way back to March of 2013 on the Personal Protection Order and being found in Contempt of Court on Petitioner John Benson’s Motion to Show Cause. Additionally, I had two Interlocutory Appeals on the civil suit, and there was no word back from the court on any of them. I decided to file a Motion for a Stay of Proceedings in an attempt to put it all together.

        On November 11, 2014, we filed for a Stay of Proceedings until the Interlocutory Appeals could be heard. The hearing was set for January 26, 2015. At the hearing, the judge ruled partially for the plaintiffs by allowing a 42 day stay of proceedings, but told the defense to go ahead and file their Motion for Summary Disposition any time during the 42 day stay, but they would have to get a hearing date after the 42 days were up. My attorney agreed to do the order under the 7 Day Rule, and left it to me to write up the order. I immediately requested transcripts, so that I could get all what was said by the Judge at the hearing so I could write up the order. It occurred to me that if we wrote up the order, we agreed to that order. We did not. We asked for an indefinite stay until the Interlocutory Appeals could be heard, and the court only gave us 42 days.  After speaking to a friend who is a retired attorney, he questioned why it was taking so long for the COA to accept our appeals. I came to the conclusion that the COA was working with Judge Cronin to put this whole case to bed, and that would be done in the Motion for Summary Disposition.

       Judge Cronin was really out of character in the motion hearing for a stay. In the past he could be depended on to say no to me, and yes to anything the defense counsel asked for. I then started to go over the election aspects I placed in the Second Interlocutory Appeal’s Introduction, and worked on the connection between Judge Cronin and Cindy Yonkers.

Motion for Court to Disqualify Itself

       During February, 2015 while researching the election information shown on the home page, I came to the conclusion that there was a connection between judge Cronin who was one candidate for the Circuit Court seat who won the recount, and the fact that Cindy Yonkers was part of the Chain of Corruption that gave him that seat.

       On March 3, 2015, I filed a Motion to Disqualify the Court based on the Court’s election connection under MCR 2.003(C)(b)(ii) “has failed to adhere to the appearance of impropriety standard as set forth in Canon two of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. An affidavit and brief were both filed in support of my motion. A hearing was scheduled for March 30, 2015, and defendants filed their answer to my motion on March 18, 2015. This motion was based strictly on the “appearance of impropriety”. Before the hearing, I was researching my answers for the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition filed February 17, 2015.

      While I was researching my answers for defendants’ motion, I started putting together the evidence I had for a crime under MCL 750.157a Conspiracy to do a legal act in an illegal manner as laid  First Crimes.  At the hearing, I brought up the Court’s connection to Cindy Yonkers and the crimes committed 15 years earlier. The Court’s rulings had “aided and abetted”  possible felons in the accomplishment of their crime. Under the American Rule of Law, a party found to “aid and abet” a criminal in the commission of their crime is subject to the same penalties under the law as the actual criminal. The Court Denied my motion to disqualify himself.


West Michigan News Company

Court Disqualification

       On April 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Appeal of Judge Cronin’s Order to the Chief Judge of Allegan County, the Honorable Margaret Z. Bakker, who had presided over the Personal Protection Orders. The key addition we had on the appeal was a good deal of the information we showed on First Crimes. We now had MCR 2.003(C)(b)(i) “a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process rights of a party as enunciated in Caperton v Massey, US; 129 S Ct 2252; 173 L Ed 2d 1208 (2009). In plain English, if you can show an abuse of discretion along with an extreme circumstance, like a crime that the court is aiding and abetting, then you meet the United States Supreme Court’s standard for having a judge disqualified.

Home Government Crimes Logical News Judicial Corruption Elections Auditor Intimidation Archives Subscribe