Whistle Blower Sam vs. Traitor Roo Judge Scott M. Jones

On Thurs. 6.20.2024, Traitor Judge Jones denied my Habeas Corpus that Sam presented in Court. On Friday 6.21.2024, I went to present the Habeas Corpus to Traitor Judge Jones directly. I was thrown out of Bridgeport Courthouse by many Judicial Marshals.

CHAPTER 915 HABEAS CORPUS

Sec. 52-466. Application for writ of habeas corpus. Service. Return. (a)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus, other than an application pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, shall be made to the superior court, or to a judge thereof, for the judicial district in which the person whose custody is in question is claimed to be illegally confined or deprived of such person's liberty.

(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus claiming illegal confinement or deprivation of liberty, made by or on behalf of an inmate or prisoner confined in a correctional facility as a result of a conviction of a crime, shall be made to the superior court, or to a judge thereof, for the judicial district of Tolland.

(b) The application shall be verified by the affidavit of the applicant for the writ alleging that he truly believes that the person on whose account the writ is sought is illegally confined or deprived of his liberty.

(c) The writ shall be directed to some proper officer to serve and return, who shall serve the same by putting a true and attested copy of it into the hands of the person who has the custody of the body of the person who is directed to be presented upon the writ. If the officer fails to make immediate return of the writ, with his actions thereon, he shall pay fifty dollars to the person so held in custody.

(d) Any judge of the Superior Court to whom an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made may make the writ returnable before any other judge of the court, the consent of the other judge being first obtained; and the other judge shall thereupon proceed with the matter with the same authority as though the application had been originally presented to him.

(e) If the application is made to a judge, the judge may certify the proceedings into court and the case shall thereupon be entered upon the docket and proceeded with as though the application had originally been made to the court.

(f) A foster parent or an approved adoptive parent shall have standing to make application for a writ of habeas corpus regarding the custody of a child currently or recently in his care for a continuous period of not less than ninety days in the case of a child under three years of age at the time of such application and not less than one hundred eighty days in the case of any other child.

"HE SHALL BE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT"
Sec. 52-467. Punishment for refusal to obey writ or accept copy. If any person having the custody of the body of anyone directed to be presented to the court or to a judge by a writ of habeas corpus duly served fails to present the body according to the command in the writ, or refuses to accept the copy of the writ offered in service, or in any way fraudulently avoids presenting the body according to the command, or, having presented the body, does not make return of the cause of detaining the person in custody, he shall be guilty of a contempt of court and may be punished for contempt by the court or judge by commitment, and shall pay to the person so held in custody two hundred dollars.

Connecticut General Statute
Sec. 54-82m. Rules re speedy trial to be adopted by judges of Superior Court effective July 1, 1985. In accordance with the provisions of section 51-14, the judges of the Superior Court shall make such rules as they deem necessary to provide a procedure to assure a speedy trial for any person charged with a criminal offense on or after July 1, 1985. Such rules shall provide that (1) in any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of a criminal offense shall commence within twelve months from the filing date of the information or indictment or from the date of the arrest, whichever is later, except that when such defendant is incarcerated in a correctional institution of this state pending such trial and is not subject to the provisions of section 54-82c, the trial of such defendant shall commence within eight months from the filing date of the information or indictment or from the date of arrest, whichever is later; and (2) if a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit set forth in subdivision (1) of this section and a trial is not commenced within thirty days of a motion for a speedy trial made by the defendant at any time after such time limit has passed, the information or indictment shall be dismissed. Such rules shall include provisions to identify periods of delay caused by the action of the defendant, or the defendant's inability to stand trial, to be excluded in computing the time limits set forth in subdivision (1) of this section.

Administrative incompetence, whether founded in negligence, recklessness or a serious dereliction of duty, does not constitute “exceptional circumstances”, and therefore “good cause”, for the failure to bring defendant to trial before the 30-day period has expired. 265 C. 437.