1 Alberta Rose Jones

P. O. Box 95144
2
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
408-449-3041
3

4 Superior Court of California

County of Santa Clara
5 191 North First Street
6 San Jose, Ca 95113

7 ) CASE NO. 1-10-CH-003171

JAMIE LEIGH HARLEY )
8 ) MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
) AND EXTENSION OF TIME
9 V. )
)
10 )
ALBERTA ROSE JONES )
11
)
12 )

13
MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
14 AND EXTENSION OF TIME

15
Alberta Rose Jones respectfully motions the court for a new trial date of Sept 2, 2011.
16
This case began in July 2010 and sat dormant for months. Alberta Jones left the area in
17
December 2010. The last piece of correspondence she received from the Court was dated in
18
October 2010. In order for this case to go to trial, the defendant in this case would have to prove
19
new evidence. Per California Code of Civil Procedure and California statutory law, a defendant
20
is given an opportunity to “cease and desist” whatever “alleged” behavior is causing the plaintiff
21
harm. Nothing has happening in this case for over how many months?? Six months.
22
Defendant Jones has a right to defend herself not only against these “false” fabricated
23
allegations but because Harley has caused Jones extensive harm.
24

25

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

1
 1 In August 2010 when Alberta Jones appeared before the court, the court was informed
2 that the defendant requested a “jury trial.” The Court stated that Ms. Jones was not entitled to a
3 “jury trial.” That is “false.”
4 If Ms. Jones is going to return to California to “defend” herself, she has a right to
5 prepare for trial. For the record: Defendants are not required to appear for “civil harassment
6 proceedings.” Case law pertaining to “civil harassment” proceedings supports this fact. Judge
7 Bondonno and Plaintiff‟s counsel are well aware of this “fact” and have ignored it. If a
8 defendant does now wish to appear for a “civil harassment” proceeding, they are not required to
9 appear. No shows are pretty common. Judges are “required” by law to find “proof beyond a
10 reasonable” doubt that a “defendant” is guilty of “civil harassment.” Proof is “not a plaintiff
11 making a “false sworn affidavit” stating that “she was chased in a federal building” with five or
12 more United States Marshals in the area to “protect” her and a United States Court Federal Judge
13 at the bench.
14 Judge Bondonno made a decision after referring with Jamie Harley‟s counsel, who is a
15 “witness” in this case and will be called upon at trial, that there are supposedly “new allegations”
16 to warrant a “permanent restraining” order in this case.
17 Jones has tried to obtain a copy of the transcript from May 6, 2011 but the court reporter
18 has not responded which is not surprising. Jones‟ wishes to know what “current” allegations
19 Harley has made to warrant a “trial” in this case. Whatever new allegations occurred would
20 have to have to occur between October 10, 2010 and December 2, 2010.
21 Jones has filed “subpoenas” for the scheduled trial on July 1, 2011. There are currently
22 26 subpoenas and a total of 10 more subpoenas need to be issued if not more. Harley is alleging
23 that Jones „harassed‟ her in a federal building with “surveillance” cameras. In July 2010,
24 Defendant Jones immediately requested that the United States Marshals review these tapes. In
25 addition to the review of these video surveillance cameras, United States Marshalls were asked
Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171
2
 1 to review when Alberta Jones came in the building and left the building. Two federal buildings
2 have surveillance cameras. Both federal agents were asked to review their tapes. This
3 information must be made available for trial in order for Defendant Jones to properly defend
4 herself.
5 Ms. Harley has also alleged that Jones came to her home numerous times. Subpoenas are
6 being issued to obtain proof that Jones never travelled to “Morgan Hill” to “spy” on Jamie
7 Harley. Until Ms. Harley filed this “fabricated” civil harassment restraining order, Jones had no
8 prior knowledge that Harley resided in “Morgan Hill, California.” These facts need to be
9 verified for trial.
10 In furtherance of justice, Jones wishes to prepare for trial. Trial preparation will take
11 more than the current 45 days being allowed. Witnesses need to be located. The courtroom for
12 Jamie Harley‟s trial in June/July 2010 was “full”. If Alberta Jones did the things as alleged,
13 there would surely be “witnesses” in a full courtroom.
14 United States District Court Judge James Ware would have been aware of these facts.
15 The United States Marshals would be aware of these facts. The United States attorneys would be
16 aware of these facts. Judge Ware‟s courtroom staff would be aware of these facts.
17 In fact, if Ms. Harley had gone to any U.S. Marshal, Jones would have been arrested on
18 “federal” property and this would be a “federal issue” verse a “state issue.” Why did Ms. Harley
19 not go to the U.S. Marshals? Especially since Ms. Harley is “alleging” that Jones was stalking
20 her at her home? Harley would have been entitled to a “federal escort.”
21 A state court judge without any “proof” has let this charade go forward. The question is
22 why? If Judge Bondonno is so convinced beyond a “reasonable” doubt, then let the facts be
23 brought forth in trial.
24 In order to prepare for trial, Defendant Jones needs an additional 90 days to properly
25 notify “witnesses” in this case. Some witnesses need to be located. There were a total of 12
Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171
3
 1 jurors at Jamie Harley‟s trial. These jurors need to be located. Ms. Harley is alleging that Jones
2 “basically” chased her around a full courtroom and followed her “throughout” a federal building
3 with surveillance cameras in every corner of the building. Why did the “San Jose Mercury
4 News” not write a story about this? Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News was at Ms.
5 Harley‟s trial during Ms. Harley‟s alleged harassment by Ms. Jones.
6 This case was never about Ms. Harley or her “false” allegations. This case has been
7 strictly to harass Jones nothing more for her “freedom” of speech and Jones has a “right” to
8 defend herself. There is “one witness” to this case who is no longer in the United States who can
9 testify to “Jamie Harley‟s false allegations.” What is very strange is when this witness returned
10 to “Australia”, Ms. Harley comes to the court to begin the process of going to trial.
11 Justin Coventry who is now back in Australia was with Alberta Jones when she was in
12 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division. He
13 needs to be brought back to the United States to testify. He was also with Ms. Jones when Jamie
14 Harley is alleging that Jones traveled to “Morgan Hill.”
15 Jones has only known Jamie Harley since January 2009. Harley was fired by Ms. Jones
16 in April 2009. The allegations made by Ms. Harley did not surface until July 2010 and only after
17 Jones began writing about her on her “website” Judgebusters.com.
18 It is strange how “Jones” is being singled out when Ms. Harley has lots of people who
19 have no respect for her. Please read the attached comments made by individuals who “read” the
20 San Jose Mercury News. Comments are made as follows: (these are not the only ones, there are
21 many others.”)
22 Forums Home › Article Comments › Comments on the News
San Jose defense attorney convicted on five (5) money laundering counts
23

24
Read Article
25 Posted on Tuesday, 7/20/2010 - 11:57 a.m. PDT — by Merc Reader
Merc Reader
Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171
4
 1

3 Joined: Mar 2008

Current Posts: 50
4

5
It's good to see that justice was served. Jamie Harmon got what she deserved. She should be
ashamed of herself. In the beginning of her legal career she had worked as a Santa Clara County
6 deputy district attorney. Now she hopefully will lose her law license and can no longer represent
anyone as a defense attorney either.
7 Rate this Topic:
8
0406080100
9 Average: 5 (2 votes)
Tuesday, 7/20/2010 - 1:31 p.m. PDT — It's about time
10 Hockey_gal

11

12
Joined: Dec 2008
13 Current Posts: 8
14 This woman has been running her business outside the parameters of the law for quite a while, in
many different ways. She is lucky that this is all she has been convicted of.
15
Wednesday, 7/21/2010 - 11:53 a.m. PDT — Justice has been served!
16 sharks89

17

18
Joined: Jul 2010
19 Current Posts: 1

20 I'm glad this lawyer got what was coming to her! She deserves every bit of punishment for all the
injustices she's done to so many people. Justice HAS BEEN SERVED!
21 Wednesday, 7/21/2010 - 6:15 p.m. PDT — Jamie Deserves This
Been There....
22

23

24
Joined: Jul 2010
25 Current Posts: 1

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

5
 1 Ms Harmon/Harley deserves what she got. She has had problems with her ethics and morals for
years having numerous bar complaints filed against her and having most upheld. Now this----she
2
should have been banned form practicing law years ago. Well as a former prosecutor I am sure
she will have lots of "friends" in prison. Hope she likes Protective Custody.
3
Thursday, 7/22/2010 - 8:48 p.m. PDT — I couldn't agree more. I
4 Jeri Mateo

6
Joined: Jul 2010
7 Current Posts: 1

8 I couldn't agree more. I hope she goes to jail for a very long time. As a
criminal defense attorney, she took on a family law case, took my money, her staff forged my
9 signature on documents (that I never saw) which were filed with the court, cut off
communications with me, told me the judge handling my case knows that my ex-husband is in
10
several contempts of court, committed felony crimes and refuses to act upon it because the judge
11
doesn't like me...not because Jamie Harley didn't do her job! I have not seen my children for
over a year thanks to that woman and the members of her staff. Why she is still listed as an
12 active attorney with the State Bar baffles me. She truly got what she deserves.
Thursday, 8/12/2010 - 10:05 p.m. PDT — Part Prosecutor? Half [bleep]!-Attorney? Full
13 Time Criminal!!!
kenneth ago
14

15

16 Joined: Aug 2010

Current Posts: 1
17
Has Justice really been served? How many lives have been mishandled by this irresponsible and
18
often maniacal Perpetrator? Should we dare to ask how the very system we depend on to
19 eliminate this element of our society, is the same institution that harbored her. And how many
others conceal themselves as reputable and respectable members of the legal profession
20 and society. How many countless victims and families of victims must be accumulated by those
who still veil themselves as genuine. Yet hasten their clients to a quick conclusion for profit,
21 with little or no concern for the lives of those that have entrusted them. Should we dare to ask do
they operate by a code of being diligent to appointed service and a fidelity to every trust. Or have
22 they earned the reputation of being deplorable, right under the noses of those in the legal
profession that have the power to change this corruption, yet observe idly by and do nothing.
23 Most often because of FEAR.
24

25

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

6
 1 My website Judgebusters.com has no blog about Jamie Harley. It contains only factual
2 information about her. The California State Court is being used to harass “Alberta Rose Jones”
and Judge Bondonno is fully aware of this fact. Unless “Ms. Harley‟s” allegations can be
3
proven, yes proven, there is no “civil harassment” case. Alberta Rose Jones is not required to
4
submit herself to the court for civil harassment proceedings unless she is allowed to bring forth
5
evidence to “counter” Harley‟s false allegations. The court is not supposed to move forward
6 unless Ms. Harley has proven “beyond” a reasonable doubt that what she is alleging is true. To

7 date Ms. Harley has not provided “one” witness, not “one” sworn declaration from someone
other than herself. The court has Ms. Jones sworn declaration regarding the matter and that is
8
all the court needs. The allegations as made by Ms. Harmon have been repeatedly denied and
9
the court is well aware of this fact. This sworn declaration is being posted on the internet.
10 If this court wishes Ms. Jones to appear the date of July 1, 2011 is not sufficient time for
11 Jones to prepare for a lengthy trial as Jamie Harley as so requested. Ms. Jones has submitted 26
subpoenas to the court. Three of the subpoenas pertain to a “911” call made by Ms. Harley on
12
July 22, 2011 referencing Ms. Harley being harassed by Ms. Jones. The two other subpoenas
13
pertain to proving Ms. Jones was never near Ms. Harley as so alleged in her “sworn” declaration.
14 To be fully prepared for trial with the necessary documentation to prove Alberta Rose
15 Jones‟ innocence, an additional 90 days are fully necessary and justified.

16
Ms. Jones is also entitled by law to know who Ms. Harley wishes to call as witnesses in
this matter. Harley has been preparing for months for this case because the court has assisted her
17
in having an upper hand. Ms. Jones is entitled by law to call witnesses as well regarding Ms.
18
Harley‟s creditability. As you can see from the statements from the internet, Ms. Harley has a
19 creditability issue.

20 I, Alberta Rose Jones, declare under penalty of perjury the above statements are true and
correct under the laws of the United States of America dated this May 18, 2011, North Little
21
Rock Arkansas.
22
Alberta Rose Jones
23

24 Proposed order attached.

25

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

7
 1 Alberta Rose Jones
P. O. Box 95144
2
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
408-449-3041
3

4 Superior Court of California

County of Santa Clara
5 191 North First Street
6 San Jose, Ca 95113

7 ) CASE NO. 1-10-CH-003171

JAMIE LEIGH HARLEY )
8 ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
9 V. ) MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
) AND EXTENSION OF TIME
10 )
ALBERTA ROSE JONES )
11
)
12 )

13
PROPOSE ORDER
14 MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
15 AND EXTENSION OF TIME

16
In order for Defendant Jones to prepare for trial and good cause showing, a new trial date of
17
September 2, 2011 at 9:00am is hereby set.
18

19 Date: _____________________ _________________

20 Judge Franklin Bondonno

21

22

23

24

25

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

8
 1 Alberta Rose Jones
P. O. Box 95144
2
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
408-449-3041
3

4 Superior Court of California

County of Santa Clara
5 191 North First Street
6 San Jose, Ca 95113

7 ) CASE NO. 1-10-CH-003171

JAMIE LEIGH HARLEY )
8 )
) PROOF OF SERVICE
9 V. )
) MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
10 ) AND EXTENSION OF TIME
ALBERTA ROSE JONES )
11
)
12 )

13
PROOF OF SERVICE
14 MOTION TO MOVE TRIAL DATE
AND EXTENSION OF TIME
15

16
I, declare under penalty of perjury that a copy of this motion for an extension of time
17
Was mailed postage pre-paid to Jamie Harley‟s Attorney of Record as posted on the
18
Court‟s website as follows and pasted below:
19

20 Theodore Stalcup

21 Jamie Harley None

None
22 Attorney: Theodore D. Stalcup
None300 S. First Street,, Suite 220, San Jose, Ca 95113
23

24
Alberta Rose Jones Date: May 18, 2011
25

Motion Extension of time Case No. 1-10-CH-003171

9