Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

r - "
CONNIE R. ZAKRAJSEK ———-— FILED _.,_ LOGGED
PO Box 2065 ——~ **`EC`E'VE¤ i_. COPY
‘ Phoenix, AZ 85001
(602) 349-6320 APR 1 0 ZUU? j
. [email protected] GEEK U S HSTWCT COURT p
I BV l}l$"m'tC`f GF ARIZONA
Plaintiff Pro Se DEPUW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
CONNIE R. ZAKRAJSEK )
) Case No. CIV 04-0449-PHX—SMM
Plaintiff, )
v. )
SUSAN ARMSTRONG, an individual; SUSAN )
ARMSTRONG, an employee of the County of ) CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD
Maricopa, Arizona; RICHARD TEENSTRA, an ) FOR THE COURT REGARDING
individual; RICHARD TEENSTRA, an employee ) STATUS OF RELATED
ofthe County of Maricopa, Arizona; the County ) PROCEEDING PENDING
of Maricopa, Arizona, as employer of Defendants ) IN THE former West Phoenix
SUSAN ARMSTRONG, and RICHARD ) Justice Court, no known as West
TEENSTRA; Hon. COLIN CAMPBELL, ) McDowell Justice Court and
Presiding Judge of Maricopa County Superior ) regarding the Identity and
Court, individually and in his official ) Capacity of Parties Sued
capacity as Presiding Judge; and DOES 1-25, )
Defendants. ) (Assigned to the Honorable
) STEPHEN M. McNAMEE)
Plaintiff hereby gives notice to this Court and Defendants that Plaintiff has only learned
today that when Defendants field their Motion for Summary Judgment that NO VALID
JUDGMENT of Conviction was entered against Defendant in Case No. CR04-00215 in the
West Phoenix Justice Coun. That judgment and conviction had been vacated on April 25, 2005,
_ because Defendant had no been sentenced. Under Arizona law, there can only be a judgment of
conviction upon the sentencing of a Defendant and on the date that Defendants filed their Motion
asserting their was a valid judgment of conviction precluding Plaintiff s recovery, when there
was none. Plaintiff only learned of this action by that Court today when she appeared there on a
1
Case 2:O4—cv—OO449—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed O4/10/2007 Page 1 of 4

related proceeding. Plaintiff has tiled an appeal of that judgment and sentence and the time for
that appeal has not yet run. So, on the date that Defendants asserted they were entitled to
Summary Judgment due to the conviction of Plaintiff, Defendants were incorrect and should
have known that they were incorrect. Also, their legal position on the motion that they did file as
incorrect as there could be no conviction based upon the document submitted by them to this
p court. It is not the court’s minute entry upon a finding of guilt that a sentence is entered but only
upon sentencing, pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal Procure 26.9.
Plaintiff would previously have brought that to this Court’s attention relative to the
J Conviction of Plaintiff upon which Defendants would so like to rely being void, but after tiling
the Motion to Vacate the Judgment, but Plaintiff has three grown children, one of which is a girl
that is currently expecting her fourth child. Plaintiff s son-in-law is active duty Army and
Plaintiff s daughter was very ill, as were her three little grandsons. Plaintiff has finally started
the healing process after being homeless and very, very, very ill for about two full years and was
at times denied and deprived access to her papers so as to prepared documents in this case.
However, Plaintiff is now well enough to handle these three little bundles of joy along with her
two older grandchildren that she was deprived of access to for well over one year, when Susan
Armstrong (who has admitted doing so) presumed (and had no other basis on which to believe
that Plaintiff was soliciting in the Law Library and, therefore, could be forced to leave the
premises upon demand.
This court has approved government and access thereto and access to the courts (Who
can do anything in a court without access to a Law Library) and limitations on the exercise of
important First Amendment rights by presumption‘?‘??? That is what Susan Armstrong admitted
to at the second trial, that she presumed Plaintiffs wrongdoing on February 17, 2004.
2
Case 2:O4—cv—OO449—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed O4/10/2007 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff sued Susan Armstrong, Richard Teenstra (now deceased) and Colin Campbell
A (no longer presiding judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of
i Maricopa, as he was NOT when the solicitation policy was promulgated by the Superior Court)
as individuals and not merely as the government drones that they are. And the Does are the
Sheriff` s deputies (employees of the County of Maricopa — which has horrible policies of not
giving any training to its deputies regarding important constitutional rights they are violating)
and therefore Stunrnary Judgment was not proper as to any of the named defendants, even if not
properly identified by their employer. No prior notice is required to sue an individual under the
A.R.S. Section cited by Carrie Brennan. She intentionally misled this Court.
Plaintiff wanted to make it very clear that as Plaintiff was very, very, very ill and unable
to engage in daily life functions for an extended period of time and COULD NOT type and
prepare pleadings or speak by telephone (as she slept 22 hours per day for a period of time) and
Plaintiff had her papers withheld from her for a long period of time, did not disrespect this court
and call it any names in pleadings (as this Court has Plaintiff) which this Court ignored and not
comply with the Orders of this Court. Plaintiff simply could not do so.
Plaintiff has been unable to raise the sum of $1,300 at one time to procure the second trial
transcript, otherwise this court would have it and have objective proof- typed by a third party ——
showing the admission of the government of the Law Library by presumption made by Susan
Armstrong. Plaintiff filed motion after motion to the Justice Court for a copy of the tape so that
it could be produced in that form, to no avail.
Plaintiff just wanted to set the record straight with some truth (as this Court has had none
from Defendants or their counsel before she files her appeal of the Orders of this Court.
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of April, 2007
3
Case 2:O4—cv—OO449—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed O4/10/2007 Page 3 of 4

[’ _ 1
Q. E
CONNIE R. ZAKRAJ SEK
Plaintiff Pro Se
Copy of the foregoing mailed to Defendants via first class mail, this
9th day of March, 2007, by Plaintiff by depositing the same in the
US Mail postage prepaid to the following counsel:
Carrie J Brennan,
Office ofthe Arizona Attomey General,
1275 W Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007-7679
Joseph I. Vigil, Dennis Dale Carpenter, Jr., and Michael G. Sullivan,
J Maricopa County Attomey's Office
222 N Central · e S 'te 1100
1 i' •¢· *_ S 0 4 Wn! ··
1 4__._. 4 4.1 nai
1 Nrnnza EK '
l
l
1
1
4
Case 2:O4—cv—OO449—SI\/II\/I Document 54 Filed O4/10/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 54

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 54

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 54

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00449-SMM

Document 54

Filed 04/10/2007

Page 4 of 4