FORMAL COMPLIANT
Penal Code 148.6
RICH TWISS
Investigator
Riverside Co. District Attorney
82-675 Highway 111,4th Floor
Indio, CA 92201
RE: People v. Sharon Dale Stephens
Case: INF054715
MAY 14, 2008
MAILED MAY 14, 2008
FROM: Sharon Stephens:
District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss met with Jill Reed, and Darlene Trylson on May 24, 2006. He certainly had more than enough time to "investigate" whether these women were telling the truth, e.g., was the order of Trylson "valid" as she claimed? A quick reading of the case, INC57008 would have proved it was NOT! It was void on the face, and, Commissioner J. McCoy had already agreed to dismiss it, and this is all in the court record. And, in fact there was a Charging Affidavit for Perjury against Trylson, and her witness, Kent Robins.
District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss met with Jill Reed, and Darlene Trylson on May 24, 2006. He certainly had more than enough time to "investigate" whether these women were telling the truth, e.g., was the order of Trylson "valid" as she claimed? A quick reading of the case, INC57008 would have proved it was NOT! It was void on the face, and, Commissioner J. McCoy had already agreed to dismiss it, and this is all in the court record. And, in fact there was a Charging Affidavit for Perjury against Trylson, and her witness, Kent Robins.
The truth and evidence was there for District Attorney Investigator Twiss to ascertain, but he was so anxious to win, that he went on to allow the District Attorney to ignored my right to a fair trial, and never did the required investigation of the cases they were prosecuting me for. SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998 competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.
June 8, 2006: Consequently, false arrest! A false arrest consists of unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty without proper legal authority-- there is no authority for false arrest. The doctrine of qualified immunity, under which a public officer will not be held liable for a federal civil rights violation if he or she acted in good faith, has no application to a claim based on Civil Code Sec. 52.1, and triable issues exist as my civil rights were deprived by means of threats, intimidation, or coercion.
Investigator Twiss detained me from going into court on official proceedings:18 U.S.C.1515 (a) (1), (i) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States which is Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C 1503, which is also a Perversion of Justice PC 182.5, which is also Contempt of Court. And, I received no Miranda rights: California v. Prysock 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
No one can be punished for disobedience of a void order. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 759, 764, citing Fortenbury v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 405, 408-09; see In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 137, 147
Twiss refused to let me go before the judge; instead he had me incarcerated in the county jail, with an unconstitutional, unreasonable $500,000 Bail. I did not argue or resist, though I did try and tell him, with alacrity, the case was void. An officer may detain a person for a reasonable time to conduct their investigation, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Rich Twiss did no investigation; he in fact ignored me.
In Emmett Cartier v. California State Highway Patrol, et al, jury instructions sited, People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 C.A. 4th 961, 966, stating it is not a willful delay, obstruction, or interference with the duties of an officer to fail to follow the orders of an officer "with alacrity."The Random House Dictionary defines "alacrity" as,cheerful readiness, promptness, or willingness...along with the right to silence, a private citizen has the First Amendment right to question and criticize the actions of an officer even at the scene, so long as his actions do not interfere with the officer's duties.
Mr. Twiss was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice in his commission of abuse against me.
Elder Abuse Law; Penal Code 368: Broadly speaking, abuse includes physical abuse, neglect, fiduciary abuse, abandonment, isolation or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering...
Elder abuse protection applies to any resident in California who is 65 years of age or older; "dependent adults" who are defined as any person residing in California between the ages of 16 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.
I have read and understood the above statement.
___________________________________
Sharon Stephens
cc: DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROD PACHECO
4075 Main Street; Riverside, CA 92501
