Mississippi from the Inside Out
Bienvenue a Louisianne !
Traduire web page
Who Are We?
- Eric Hoggatt
- Ethan Hoggatt
- Victoria Hoggatt
- Israel Hoggatt
If Almighty God is approachable, shouldn't we be?
IN THE COURT Put the name of your state here
[Put your name here, if you are a beleaguered parent]
*Some names have been changed. Try inserting yours, and see how you would feel if this happened to you.
During the Holocaust, no one knew anything about anything. If you think something like this could not happen to you, you may rest assured that these parents, in their wildest dreams and worst nightmares, could have never believed it could happen to them, either.
VERSUS
Court of Your County
Proposed Corrections to Record
Comes now Dr. Samir Chitrikar in CAUSE # XXXXXXX IN THE YOUTH COURT DIVISION OF THE COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF Jefferson, IN THE INTEREST OF: (What's your KID'S name?), a minor and proposes the following corrections to the record on appeal, and states as follows:
'Tis a novel thought in the history of Mississippi jurisprudence that instead of following Rule 10 in the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for determining the content of the record for appeal, that the Mississippi Court may file a pleading in response to Dr. Chitrikar’s Designation of Record, styled Motion Objecting to [Dr.Chitrikar’s] Designation of Record and to Designate Record, a motion to eliminate Dr. Chitrikar’s designation of record for appeal, and then the same Mississippi Court (in this instance, the youth court of Jefferson County) may order a content of the appellate record of its own choosing. The entire contrivance effects a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution, and constitutes an actionable meritless action, unwarranted delay, and unnecessary proceeding that is without substantial justification interposed for delay or harassment, that unnecessarily expanded the proceedings by improper conduct. Such activities have been the hallmark of all proceedings in this cause by the Couth Court of Jefferson County Mississippi.
Dr. Chitrikar still asserts that the youth court of Jefferson County Mississippi never had jurisdiction over the minor and his family to effect a change in custody without due process of law, from fit parents who were residents of New York, to a 83 year old man in Louisiana who hated the parents because of their assistance to the family of an Aggravated Incest victim, whose assailant the 83 year old Louisiana man was Aiding and Abetting at the time of the contact of the family with the youth court of Jefferson County, and whose only interest in the proceedings was to blacken the name of the parents, Dr. Chitrikar and his wife, so that they could not be used as federal witnesses against him. [If Fatima Gonzalez of Alvin, Texas is to be believed, then ] Dr. Chitrikar believes that Agent Nathan Songer of the Monroe, FBI office contacted Manuel Chitrikar prior to Dr. Chitrikar’s first [meeting in] Mississippi Court and warned them [Gracie and Manuel Ortiz of Franklin Parish Louisiana] that Dr. Chitrikar and his wife had offered to serve as federal witnesses against him [Manuel Chitrikar].
Dr. Chitrikar cannot give a certified opinion as to the accuracy of much of what is listed in the Clerk’s Papers list. Many of the documents listed as being in the official court file, [neither] Dr. Chitrikar [nor his attorney] have ever seen. The only time Dr. Chitrikar [or his attorney] were permitted inspection of part of the court file contained in the office of the Circuit Clerk of Jefferson County Mississippi in the above styled and numbered cause was on July 10, 2003, prior to a hearing of Mississippi Court’s Motion Objecting to the Designation of Record by Dr.Chitrikar and to Designate Record, under much duress.
Much of what has been entered on Clerk’s Papers list was not in the court file July 10, 2003. Some of the documents had other notations than are on the documents sent by Mr. Olson to Dr. Chitrikar purporting to be certified true copies of the originals.
One in particular in the court file on July 10, 2003 had a notation “Filed in this office” and then the date. Dr. Chitrikar believes that may have been one of the Orders dated October 29, 2001 but cannot state with certainty, as Dr. Chitrikar [and his attorney] were denied copies of the all decrees, orders, and intake records when requested from the Circuit Clerk’s office July 10, 2003, as they had been at all times prior, upon direction of Judge San Juana Guerrero, and Dr. Chitrikar' attorney was not allowed to use a microphone on laptop to read contents of the documents into her computer.
Additionally, a pleading that Mississippi Court youth court prosecutor Mahmoud Al-Meeenie notified Dr. Chitrikar had been filed, styled ***AMENDED*** Motion Objecting to the Designation of Record [by Dr.Chitrikar] and to Designate Record, to include some CASA and Department of Human Services/Division of Youth Services records, is not listed on Clerk’s papers, though Mrs. Al-Meeenie sent Dr. Chitrikar a copy of such ***AMENDED*** Motion Objecting to the Designation of Record [by Dr.Chitrikar] and to Designate Record.
[Dr. Chitrikar's attorney] has requested from the Circuit Clerk’s office on August 26, 2003 a copy of the March 7, 2003 entry in the general docket, styled Order Setting Hearing, but was told by Mary Helen Muzoz that Judge San Juana Guerrero said not to send any documents to [Dr. Chitrikar and his attorney] without his express approval.
[Dr. Chitrikar] can comment only on those documents in the record transmitted in the record in August of 2003, as those are the only documents he has. That having been said, the following corrections Dr. Chitrikar can propose.
In the Clerk’s Papers Docket
1.31.1003 First entry should be place in proper sequence and labeled Petition for Disclosure of Records and Release of Records, and dated in the year 2003.
9.7.2000 Dr.Chitrikar cannot comment on, as they have been denied a copy of the original petition that involved minor and Dr. Chitrikar. Parents filed a police report on August 20, 2000, a copy of which is in the record. Police report was obtained from Natchez Police Department, because Mississippi Court denied parents a copy despite repeated requests. Responding agency was Natchez Police Department, not SO [Jefferson County Sheriff's Office] as noted.
9.8.2000 Dr.Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he has been denied a copy of the original petition, as well as this one, if it is different than what was filed 9.7.2000.
9.8.2000 Letter of Representation to Attorney and Minor filed. Dr.Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he has been denied a copy of the document.
9.15.2000 Order Setting Hearing Dr.Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he has been denied a copy of the document, and inspection of same.
9.15.2000 Waiver of Process filed. Dr.Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he has been denied a copy of the document, and inspection of same.
9.15.2000 Intake Report and Order filed. Dr. Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he has been denied a copy of the document, though Judge Guerrerostated emphatically on the official court record that no intake reports were in the court file in the Circuit Clerk’s office, and indeed, such Intake Report had been removed prior to Dr.Chitrikar' attorney being allowed to view part of the court file under duress on July 10, 2003.
12.05.2000 Order filed. Dr.Chitrikar believes that the document 000003 in court record, which purports to be the Order, dated 25 September 2000, is not the same document Dr. Chitrikar's attorney was allowed to see for the first time July 10, 2003, under duress, as recorded on videotape. Note that no one wanted to sign document found at Page 000003 of the record.
The document that Dr. Chitrikar was allowed to see in the Circuit Clerk’s office, and was told first that [his attorney] could not take notes on, and was denied a copy of, purporting to be the Order of September 25, 2000, Dr. Chitrikar believes from [his attorney's] notes had language in the first paragraph to the effect that “Custody was to return to the parents in six months, conditioned upon child, parents, and custodian receiving therapy, and upon the advice of the therapist.”
The reason the discrepancy is noteworthy is because Guardian ad Litem Alana Causey told Dr. Chitrikar that they could attend the six-month review of the September 25, 2000 order, by teleconference, but never contacted them for the teleconference.[Editor's note: no review hearing was held in six months, anyway, it turns out] Parents had no knowledge of such language in the September 25, 2003 Order because they were never sent one, even though it was requested repeatedly. Note that no one wanted to sign documents found at Pages 000003 and 000004 contained in the record sent Dr. Chitrikar.
6.05.2001 Dispositional Review Order filed. Dr. Chitrikar cannot comment on, as he have been denied a copy of the document. [His attorney has been repeatedly denied inspection of same.] Guardian ad Litem Alana Causey told Dr. Chitrikar that they could attend by teleconference, but never contacted them for the teleconference nor sent them a copy of disposition.
12.28.2001 Dispositional Review Order filed. One document Dr. Chitrikar['s attorney] viewed on July 10, 2003 in the court file, instead of the usual file stamp used by the Circuit Clerk, such as is seen on 000001 and all other documents in the file, i. e., Received and Filed, date, M.L. Olson Circuit Clerk, By _(name or initials of deputy) instead had the words “Filed in this office” and the date filed, perhaps December 28, 2001. That notation may have been on the abstract of the Order filed December 28, 2003.
3.7.2003 Order Setting Hearing Dr. Chitrikar['s attorney] has requested from the Circuit Clerk’s office on August 26, 2003 a copy of the March 7, 2003 entry in the general docket, styled Order Setting Hearing, but were told by Mary Helen Muzoz that Judge San Juana Guerrero said not to send any documents to Dr. Chitrikar, [nor to Dr. Chitrikar's attorney] without his express approval.
7.10.2003 Docket lists Mississippi Court Youth Court Prosecutor Mahmoud Al-Meeenie’s Motion Objecting to the Dr.Chitrikar's Designation of Record and to Designate Record as filed July 10, 2003, the day it was heard. Dr. Chitrikar think that must be in error, because Mr. Al-Meeenie notified Dr.Chitrikar on or about June 27, 2003 that he had amended the Motion, which presupposes that it had been filed. Mr. Al-Meeenie sent Dr. Chitrikar a copy of the Amended Motion Objecting to the [Dr.Chitrikar's] Designation of Record and to Designate Record, dated June 10, 2003, which included CASA and MDHS records.
In the Pleadings
000002 No clerk’s signature on file stamp
000003 No clerk’s signature on file stamp
000003 Dr. Chitrikar believes that the document 000003 in court record, which purports to be the Order, dated 25 September 2000, is not the same document Dr.Chitrikar['s attorney] was allowed to see for the first time July 10, 2003, under duress, as recorded on videotape. (See above)
000004 No clerk’s signature on file stamp
000107-000109 Pages belong at the end of exhibits. Exhibits were originally filed January 29, 2003 as Affidavits to Petition for Disclosure of Records and Release of Records. When Judge Guerrerosaid that Dr.Chitrikar must re-file because Mississippi rules no longer admitted pleadings on legal length paper, said Affidavits were attached as exhibits to the re-filed Petition for Disclosure of Records and Release of Records. They were retrieved at the time of re-filing.
000107 Would be labeled Exhibit N-3
000108 Would be labeled Exhibit N-2
000109 Would be labeled Exhibit N-1
Dr. Chitrikar is stating this for clarification. Such failure to label was Dr.Chitrikar[Attorney’s] omission.
Additions and Amendments
(1) Please amend the Clerk’s Papers list to show that Court Reporter’s Estimate of Costs for transcription of the hearing for consideration of Mississippi Court’s Motion Objecting to the Dr.Chitrikar's Designation of Record and to Designate Record was filed July 10, 2003.
(2) Please amend the record to include a copy of the July 10,2003 Court Reporter’s estimate in the record, for transcription of Mississippi Court’s Motion Objecting to the Dr.Chitrikar's Designation of Record and to Designate Record.
(3) Please amend to show any notation that may have been made in or on the official court file, that Judge Guerrerosaid that [Dr. Chitrikar's Attorney] was to be prohibited from inspecting any records, stated by him in the Circuit Clerk’s office on or about January 14, 2003, should such notation exist.
(4)‘Clerk’s Papers’ list includes ‘Intake Report’ filed September 15, 2001. Judge Guerrero stated on the record July 10, 2003 that no intake reports were in the youth court file. Please amend record to state the date that the intake report(s) were removed from the youth court file, prior to July 10, 2003. That intake record was not in the court file in office of Circuit Clerk immediately prior to the hearing on Mississippi Court’s Motion Objecting to the Dr.Chitrikar's Designation of Record and to Designate Record.
Respectfully submitted, this the _________ day of August, 2003.
_________________________________
(Your name here?)
4015 Stonebrook Lane
Tyler, Texas 75707
(903) 566-5766
Mississippi State Bar # 9112
