According to CV 110-102 Mark Herbert Schmitt v. Susan M. Reimer, et al. Footnote 1 reads: "While Plaintiff does not identify his motion as an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, based upon the substance of the motion and Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court shall construe it as such."
Mark Schmitt is a White male with 28 years air traffic control experience and a work safety record in the top one percent of any controller.
Judge J. Randal Hall showed leniency based on Schmitt's "pro se" status to hear the motions as presented.
While, Michael Christopher Blocker, a non-violent Black male pro se petitioner with a G.E.D. who is simply asking for a hearing is DENIED by Judge J. Randal Hall stating in CV 116-034: Petitioner's motion offers no facts or law at all, much less any "of a strongly convincing nature." The best that this Court can discern, Petitioner wants this Court to simply change its mind for no reason at all.
NO REASON AT ALL?
Michael Christopher Blocker whose private attorney and public defender both failed to notice that the expedited DNA Report showed no DNA Match for Rape and with Mr. Blocker's limited education, he has toiled to the best of his ability to vacate a life sentence without parole for a crime that he did not commit for the last nine years.
FURTHERMORE:
If Michael Christopher Blocker did not have concrete evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct surrounding (former A.D.A) Ashley Wright, (former D.A.) Daniel J. Craig, Judge James G. Blanchard, Jr., etc, then a hearing would have already been ordered for "pure entertainment" alone.
However, the Honorable Judge J. Randal Hall continues his pattern to protect the judicial immunity of Judge Daniel J. Craig and associates in his one paragraph order denying Mr. Blocker a hearing that he so deserves based on the very same sentencing transcript that is claimed to be so damaging to his defense. In reality, the sentencing transcript damages the State more than the defendant.
On a separate note, Why did it take three months for Judge J. Randal Hall to respond with a one paragraph denial to CV 116-034? Mr. Blocker's motion for reconsideration asking for another venue as well as a direct response from the Sam Olens, Attorney General, himself was received around 6/28/2016. Yet, the motion remained pending for three months just for a simple one paragraph denial on 10/5/2016?
If the heist of my bank account was supposed to intimidate me from using my freedom of speech, then you are sadly mistaken.
You all have destroyed the lives of so many families regardless of race, but your biased response to Mr. Blocker's request for a hearing shows an inconsistency in how you construe "Black pro se petitioners" compared to "White pro se plaintiffs."
Maybe the ACLU would be interested in this discriminatory behavior?
#exonerateMichael
