Tuesday, November 17, 2009

ABUSE OF DISCRETION


RE:
Prosecutorial Misconduct
San Bernardino County District Attorney
CASE NO: MWV903720

November 9, 2009

To: CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

From: Sharon Stephens
Box 9475, Alta Loma, CA 91701

ABUSE OF DISCRETION: A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Justice Mosk began Rappleyea with a succinct statement of the question before the Supreme Court and its answer: The question is whether a default must be set aside and a default judgment reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion. We conclude that they must be.
Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 The question before us
is the same. And so is our answer.
(8 Cal.4th at p. 978)

BACKGROUND

I am 69 years old, a heart patient, and homeless after being illegally evicted for complaining about unsafe living conditions, and criminal behavior on our low income property. That case is now in the Appellant Court of Appeal, No. ACIAS 900001 and Superior Ct. No. UDRS802820. It comes on calendar in November. However, I am considering filing a Motion to Vacate the Eviction As Void, I have been sleeping in my car since February 27, 2009: A void order is "a dead limb on the judicial tree," which has no provisional or interim effect. Hence, even though an appeal there from is pending in an appellate court, the trial court which rendered it may vacate it at any time. Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 C.A. 2d 638, 641, 239 P.2d 650.

I took on a big Corporate Bully known as Ameriland Group, and their managers Logan Property Management, and a very unethical attorney, Linda Hollenbeck. When I began to complain I didn’t realize that they were in a million dollar lawsuit in Los Angeles with a property named The Alexandria Hotel where there were 36 criminal counts against the Ameriland Group related to fire code violations, and five people died. Many of the elderly who complained were “forced out of the hotel,” and consequently made homeless. [© Los Angeles Downtown News, page 6,
2/9/2009: and, AMERILAND GROUP
http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html] -- I was complaining about lack of fire safety regulations in our building; I am now homeless.

The unethical and dirty tricks this company pulled on me to get me out before the actually eviction were beyond belief: elder abuse, perjured documents, false police reports, and then when I approached the Appellant Court with a Writ to be able to stay until the Appeal was heard, they went into court on an ex parte and charged me with “Work Place Violence” – with no credible proof. Great or irreparable harm must be proven. Nebel v Sulach (1999 4th Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 1363, 1369, 87 Cal Rptr 2d 3851 They weren’t happy with one; they took out two identical TROs. However, one judge saw through their scheme and dismissed it immediately as “void” because they “did not make their case.”

This second one is also void, and that is where I am at today trying to fight this in court with a judge, and District Attorney who either don’t know the law, or ignore that law.

Unfortunately, Judge Rex Victor made it clear he did not know the law of CCP 527.8, and he ignored the criteria to issue such an order. It is a void order.

I have been falsely arrested four times for “constitutionally protected or legitimate business” on this void order, and now I am in criminal court and trying to be heard: “Protected and/or legitimate
activity, is not “harassment.”
Byers v. Cathcart, 57 Cal. App. 4th 805 (1997) – but The District Attorney’s Office seems bound to “get me” and refuses to listen, or to research the law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HAS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION
AND TRYING TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT PERSON

The District Attorney and Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, 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.

An attorney's professional responsibilities, whether prosecutor, or defense are set forth in, Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 2668; People v. Pope(1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; as In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal 4th 924.)

It’s hard to say what is more disturbing – the fact that despite being a Deputy District Attorney, Marbi Laverne Burnette #119595 ignores the law or in the alternative that she is ignorant of the law, or, she just makes up the law. Certainly, today, September 24, 2009 in Court Room R7, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, where I was challenging this void order, she influenced the court by making up the law, stating that “A void judgment must be appealed in order to be recognized as void.”

No such law exists! This is just downright untrue and a deception on the court on the part of Ms. Burnett. CAL STATE BAR Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the
member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
This is NOT “harmless error” on the part of Attorney Burnette; rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct .

It is acknowledged that certain constitutional rights are "so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as ‘harmless error’." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

I have served three Formal Complaints regarding Attorney Burnette misconduct to the Rancho Cucamonga District Attorney’s Office. I can only presume they are being ignored as Ms. Burnette is still on this case with what can only be described as an egregious case of prosecutorial zealotry.

Therefore I am calling a Grand Jury, and making a Cal State Bar Complaint against her. Attorney Burnette has lied in court, and even to the Public Defender, Michael Camber without any fear of the consequence of discipline for violation of civil liberties and statutes. With this lack of conscience I am wondering if she may suffer from the disorder known as "pseudologia fantastica.''

The American justice system is designed to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free rather than incarcerate the innocent. But when an innocent defendant enters the criminal justice system, grievous mistakes can occur, if the prosecutor suffers no long-term repercussions from convicting an innocent person. It has been said, “The one most likely to abuse power is the one who thinks they are above doing so.”

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.

Too harsh?: If you think so, consider that these prosecutors who are so willing to send me to jail, or prison for crimes I did not commit, based on evidence from police reports that are untrue and tainted, and grossly incomplete, witnesses who provably lied, and an attorney who committed fraud on the court to get a bogus restraining order - and then to not to give me due process in a fair and impartial manner, refusing to do their job of “due diligence” to make sure the Defendant receives a fair trial -- “Too harsh?”

Would it really be so unfair for them to have a small taste of the confinement they have been willing to subject me to? Real punishments are needed for those who employ false claims, and turn our judicial system into a series of Kangaroo Courts.

Judge Christopher B. MARSHALL won’t be a judge to do that as he made it clear he did not even research on the law presented in my motion, and was influenced by, and went along with Attorney Burnett, adding insult to injury he ignored the law, and denied my motion; one does
expect a judge to follow the law. When a judge does not follow the law, they are a trespasser of the law and the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974); Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821); When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman
Estates, Illinois
, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) I am filing a lawsuit against Judge Marshall, and reporting him to The Judicial Commission.

JUDGES PARTICIPATE IN ABUSE OF DISCRETION

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

I realize that Judge Marshall will not do his job on this point either, so I shall report Attorney Burnette to the Cal State Bar, and report him for not complying with the law.

It is quite obvious that the real sanction that keeps most lower-court judges from following precedent is professional pride. Everyone within the legal community knows when a trial or intermediate judge gets smacked down; some judges have thicker skins than others, but most
don't want to appear unlearned and unprofessional, and not following the law. Judge Marshall’s attitude is, “I don’t need to follow any stinken law!” This is a dead giveaway that he knows he has lost.

Judges are not supposed to set aside the law and use their own judgment, or the judgment of the District Attorney’s Office--and in the few cases where they do, they make a real effort to show how their decision was forced because the law in question was in conflict with some other law. That is not the case here.

Please take Notice: As stated in the Defendant’s, June 19, 2009, and September 24, 2009 Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, “Work Place Violence” was not met by the plaintiffs in Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost subject matter jurisdiction for not following the
law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face. Judge Victor ignored the law of work place violence that states there must be violent acts and/ or credible threats of physical violence – there were never any such threats made by the defendant, and no evidence of such presented to the court ;there are no affidavits filed by the plaintiff’s against the defendant, nor any police reports of violent behavior.

Judge Rex A. Victor and Judge Marshall have committed treason: When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. The Court:
Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of
treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5
L.Ed 257 (1821)

AND: “Any judge or attorney [Ms. Burnette and/or Hollenbeck] who does not report a judge for treason, as required by law, may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason…” 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

THE LAW OF VOID JUDGMENTS CANNOT BE IGNORED

The law is clear: MOTIONS to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment. County of Ventura v. Tillett,133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110; Void on the face judgments "never die" in the State of California, Reid v. and it can be set aside at any time after its entry. Reid v Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194; A void act or judgment may
be attacked in any forum, state or federal, where its validity may be
drawn in issue.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 [24 L. Ed. 565 ] (1878).

NO APPEAL IS NEEDED TO CHALLENGE A VOID ORDER! I CAN CHALLENGE THIS
VOID ORDER IN ANY COURT WHERE IT IS AN ISSUE, and IN THIS CASE IT IS
CERTAINLY AN ISSUE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS FILING A FRIVOLOUS CASE
AGAINST ME.
(I would ask: If the trial court may ignore or vacate its own void order at its pleasure, by what judicial whim does that order bind a party to obedience? )

Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett’s credibility is strained beyond tolerance and this case is just another example of why the confidence of most Americans in our Country's legal and judicial
systems has been and is being shattered. We cannot tolerate a District Attorney and/or Deputy District Attorney who refuse to do their job of “due diligence” to know the law and the cases they are prosecuting.

Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case -- Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUST NOT ABUSE THEIR DISC RETION

The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law: A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as
its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.
Berrger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.;’ ”People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 ; Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... ‘The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present...the evidence... People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.; The prosecutor’s job isn’t just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules. United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323. As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility… to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair
trial… United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.

Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett has in her possession “proof” that plaintiff’s, Logan Property et al, and their Attorney Linda Hollenbeck #145048 through provable conspiracy did seek a bogus and sham TRO on February 14, 2009 after I served them with reports February 7 through 13, 2009 for their conspiracy, elder abuse and other crimes. Their sham TRO was a totally retaliatory order, it never met the burden of the law, and was misused and abused – and now The District Attorney’s Office is refusing to follow the law, or to seek justice, and District Attorney Burnette is suppressing this evidence, which she has a duty to reveal: Cal State Bar, Rule 5-220

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.

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of their exercise of Constitutional Rights."

It most certainly does appear that The District Attorney’s Office, and Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett in particular has an interest in protecting the large corporate entity of [Ameriland Group] Logan Property and her fellow attorney, Linda Hollenbeck rather than seeking justice in this case, and have ignored not only the law, but also the evidence that I am the victim: and its agents making it unlikely that the Defendant can receive a fair trial.

A conflict under Penal Code1424 "exists whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the DA's office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner. Thus, there is no need to determine whether a conflict is 'actual,' only
that it gives an 'appearance' of conflict." People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal.3d 141, 148.

1. The District Attorney has assigned three Deputy District Attorneys, HINSON, BURNETT and HILDALGO to this criminal case ALL of whom have ignored the law in Case #CIVRS 900198 and in this, therefore the void criminal case, and, ignored other reports that show the malicious and vindictive behavior of the plaintiffs and their attorney, and then, even presented false law to the court. [SEE: Formal Complaint; Marbi Burnett]
2. Plaintiff’s Attorney Linda Hollenbeck did commit a Battery on the defendant, in front of a witness in the hall outside the court room and a report was filed with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office, Case # 89090068, (This is moral turpitude, malum in se State v.Stiffler, 788 P.2d 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109) The District Attorney has ignored the report.
3. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck and her secretary, Ms. Brenda Eiden did provably deceive, commit perjury, and commit fraud on the court in filing for the Temporary Restraining Order, and the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office: Case # 800900150 has taken the case to the District
Attorney. The District Attorney has ignored the report.
4. ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES provided the District Attorney’s Office with an “Elder Abuse Report.“ re: Logan Property Management.The District Attorney has ignored the report.
5. A “Conspiracy Report” re: Logan Property Management was provided to Deputy District Attorneys, Hildalgo and Burnett. The District Attorney has ignored the report.
6. In accepting the police reports as valid in the case where the Defendant was falsely arrested while pursuing constitutionally protected activity, and/or legitimate business; [Schraer v. Berkley
Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.] the District Attorney has ignored the law of all restraining orders on these two points. The acts she was charged with were not “crimes.” EXAMPLE: The Plaintiff’s had the Defendant arrested after she was locked out of her apartment,
for complaining to the office that she needed to have her heart medication; legitimate business. They refused to give it to her and she went into angina. Martha Enrique of Logan Property Management had her arrested in the ambulance. AGAIN, The District Attorney has ignored the law.

The Defendant has committed no wrong doing. Particularly she has committed no criminal acts. This case has been an exercise in injustice from the beginning.

It follows that if there is no crime, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This conclusion is compelled not only by the statutes and cases interpreting those statutes, this conclusion comports with fundamental principles of justice. The notion that a person can be punished under the criminal law for committing an act that is not a crime is entirely outside our system of jurisprudence. The District Attorney has ignored the law.

SHOULD IT NOW BE STATED: We in the District Attorney's Office are committed to seek justice and accountability for all who violate the law in our county except unless it be for politically powerful friends, and fellow attorneys.

In the State of California we have a Constitution that is akin to the federal constitution that guarantees ALL be allowed “justice,” and many of the individual rights clauses in the state constitution have been construed as providing rights broader than the Bill of Rights in
the federal constitution, e.g., Article 1… defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy, and in Section 7:(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; I have clearly been a victim, yet I am have not been afforded equal protection from The District Attorney, or the court. Section 28 (a) (2) [ALL] Victims
of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal
justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b).

Article I, Section 28 (b) mirrors the similarly enacted provision(s) of California Penal Code 679-679.02 (also known as Marsy's Law -Mandatory Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crimes) --- however, the Constitutional origins of Article I, Section 28 (b) may have more teeth since all of the purported immunities invoked by public employee(s) and the like appear and are believed to be inapplicable and moot if "unconstitutional" mischief has transpired.

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of their exercise of Constitutional Rights.

The status quo has left Citizens with a justice system that is not affordable, confusing, hostile and indifferent to the cause of justice. The status quo has left many thinking they are powerless to
do anything about an abuse of discretion and power they experience.

Justice has become a process of back room deals, manipulations and closed door sessions with Citizens being shut out of the process. Misconduct often occurs out of sight, especially in cases that never go to trial. Those cases by definition do not generate appellate opinions However it is not a safe assumption that cases ending with guilty pleas are absent prosecutorial misconduct.

Because exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary and when any lawyer, or pro per in diligent pursuit of a fair disposition of a case dares to stand up to Bad Judges, the "system" locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer, or pro per for bucking the “Lawyer’s Club.” The system's remarkable resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding.

Where does one go when they are not being provided with justice by the very people we elect, or appoint, and/or hire to assure justice -- the judges and the district attorneys?

I DO DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE THE TRUTH TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

NOVEMBER 9, 2009 ______________________________
_________
Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475; Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
760.835.8210


Monday, October 19, 2009

JUDGE H. L. PLUKIN -- A LACK OF ETHICS


COMPLAINT

HARRY L. PLUKIN (Judge)
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA

Logan v. Stephens
Case #UDRS802820

Judge Harry L. Plukin is tampering with the records in the court, and has illegally and unethically removed the original Minute Order of December 22, 2008 from the computer electronic file that shows he recused himself, and declared a nunc pro tunc. The Minute Order can no longer be retrieved on the computer.

December 22, 2008, Case No. UDRS 802820, I made a MOTION TO
RECUSE JUDGE HARRY L. PLUKIN
for not following the law. [See: Attachment 1]

Judge Plunktin did recuse himself and attached a portion of the transcript to the Minute Order to show he declared a nunc pro tunc, a Latin expression in common legal use in the English language. Now for then; a court ruling of "nunc pro tunc" applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling.

Judge Plunktin’s judgment became
void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., he did not follow the law. When a judge does not follow the law they are a
trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

December 23, 2008: The case, along with The Motion to Vacate The Void Restraining Order of Judge Rex Victor, then went to Judge Keith Davis. Judge Davis ignored the attachment of Judge Pulkin, and he went according to the old order to evict me, only giving credence to Attorney Linda Hollenbeck [See: Attachment 2]

Neither Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, or Judge Davis understood the term,
nunc pro tunc. They both insisted it meant that the order Judge Plukin originally made was in force. [See: Attachment 3]

Davis did have a change of mind, and he recused himself when it was pointed out to him: “When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.” The Court: Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962); “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Judge Davis’ order became void, and the eviction he prescribed for December 26
became void as well. He refused to address the motion against Judge Rex Victor.

I realize that the real sanction that keeps most lower-court judges from following precedent is professional pride. Everyone within the legal community knows when a trial or intermediate judge gets smacked down; some judges have thicker skins than others, but most don't want to appear unlearned and unprofessional, and disciplined for not following the law. However, Judge Plotkin cannot be allowed to set aside the law and use his own judgment on how to decide a matter of jurisdiction, and law.

Judges must FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL. Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge.

The original Minute Order of December 22, 2008
MUST be made available for all who wish to access it on the internet court record site may do so.

I do declare under the laws of perjury of the State of California that the above is the truth to the best of my ability.

Sharon Stephens

ATTCHEMENT #1

SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
County of San Bernardino
8303 North Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Case No. UDRS 802820

December 22, 2008

Logan Property Management
vs.
Sharon Stephens

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE HARRY L. PLUKIN,
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND DEFENDANT’S DECLARATION

(Truncated) _______________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #2

COMPLAINT

DECEMBER 23, 2008

JUDGE KEITH DAVIS
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA

Logan v. Stephens

Case #UDRS802820

On
December 23, 2008 I appeared before Judge Keith Davis in Department 9, Superior Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (Transcripts to follow)

I had been before Judge Barry Plunktin, and the case was transferred to Department 9. Before Judge Plunktin recused himself he changed his Minute Order, and attached a portion of transcript to show the change he made on his previous ruling. Judge Keith Davis ignored this attachment, and went according to the old order.

Judge Davis also refused to allow me to write an Opposition to the Plaintiff and present facts that would disprove their claim, which I had only received at 8:30 AM, on December 23, in the cafĂ© of the court house. If I had of been giving the opportunity to write an opposition I would have presented Declarations, under oath, of witnesses that totally dispute Ms. Alvarez’s Declaration, as well as possibly even the police report, and other evidence.

Instead, he allowed Attorney Linda Hollenbeck to present a
provably perjured Declaration by Logan Property Management, employee Edith Alvarez, on which Judge Keith D. Davis made the order of a lock-out to take place on December 26, 2008 by 3:30 PM, based on paragraph 2, of Ms. Alvarez’s perjured statement.

Judge Davis
ignored the attached transcript of Judge Pluktin. When the defendant told Judge Davis that Judge Pluktin had changed the order, Attorney Hollenbeck was very well this was true, but choose to keep silent – allowing for the lock-out to take place. And she also kept silent when defendant brought to the attention of Judge Davis that Judge Pluktin had agreed to look at the transcripts from the original hearing, and if he thought I could win, he would allow me to stay beyond January 12th. Ms. Hollenbeck was in the court room when Judge Pluktin made that statement, but she choose again to remain silent to the truth. I have now requested the transcript addressing the statement by Judge Plotkin.

What
he did allow was to let Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck’s, through somewhat sophomoric theatrics, unsubstantiated, corrupted and incompetent testimony to alleged facts of which she had no personal knowledge, to influence the court.

Judge Davis allowed for this, even though I objected, and he then made the rude comment that this “isn’t court television!” He refused to let me object.

In other words, I was denied due process, and Judge Keith D. Davis only gave me two days to move out.

I am 68 years old, disabled heart patient, who must sleep with a B-Pap machine at night to breath properly, but will now be sleeping in my car.

I believe Judge D. Davis is incompetent, mean-spirited, and sadistic. Certainly he is
not interested in justice.

Further report to follow:
I declare the laws of perjury, of the State of California that foregoing is true to the best of my ability.

Most sincerely,
Sharon Stephens
____________________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #3

MINUTE ORDER OF JUDGE DAVIS
[Transcripts not scanned into my computer]
Case UDRS802820 - LOGAN -V- STEPHENS

December 23, 2008 Top of Form

Bottom of Form


EX PARTE HEARING RE: MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF LOCK
12/23/2008 - 2:00 PM DEPT. R6

KEITH D DAVIS PRESIDING.

CLERK: JULIE BRIGUGLIO

COURT REPORTER KAREN DIGGS KAREN DIGGS

COURT ATTENDANT RICHARD UNGER

-

APPEARANCES:

ATTORNEY LINDA T.HOLLENBECK PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

DEFENDANT SHARON STEPHENS PRESENT

-

PROCEEDINGS:

PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

EX PARTE APPLICATION ARGUED.

EX PARTE ORDERS ARE GRANTED. STAY OF LOCK OUT IS ORDERED LIFTED.

THE COURT FINDS THERE IS A SHOWING BY PLAINTIFF OF A HARASSMENT BY DEFENDANT SINCE JUDGE

NO SOONER THAN 12-26-08 AT 3:00PM.

ACTION - COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

__________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #4

Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Alta Loma, CA 91701

March 15, 2009 CIVSS 90098
UDRS 802820
Honorable Jon Ferguson
Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
401 North Arrowhead Avenue INFORMAL MOTION
San Bernardino, CA 92415 -0063
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Most people today are stunned at the lack of justice in the courts, unethical attorneys who twist and lie about evidence to win a case at any cost, and have little care or concern for the people they are opposing. Linda Hollenbeck may be one of the worst, but the courts allow her to go on, with no reprimand.
(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. (I will be filing a Cal Bar Complaint against Ms. Hollenbeck, and the attorneys that oversee her legal behavior.]

1. I would be concerned about an attorney who does not even understand the meaning of nunc pro tunc [to return to its original meaning]. Judge Plotkin was recused because he tried to change the law, and needed to return it to is original meaning.

2. Only five residents [not nine] showed up at the Eviction Hearing, and were never heard, but talking with them afterwards NONE of them were there to testify that I was harassing them. [I was not allowed due process to question them.]

3. Hollenbeck was given two ex parte [behind my back] TROs: One was vacated in court as void; the second one, the same law, is before Judge McGuire to be heard and vacated. Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convaescere -- That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253

4. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that I have harassed anyone at Briarwood!!! In fact, Ms. Hollenbeck was let go from her law firm for this kind of dishonesty, and for stating under oath she was going to have me arrested on her void TRO. There is evidence [three police reports that I have been more than harassed.]

5. I am NOT a vexatious litigant. The attorney and homeowner association that brought those charges were suspended as a corporation, and could not bring or defend a lawsuit. "A corporation suspended for failure to file a required information statement with the California Secretary of State, may not prosecute or defend a lawsuit.” Palm Valley Homeowners Assn. v. Design MTC (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 350. The Vexatious Litigant charge is void! It is well settled that a judgment or order which is void on its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment-roll or record to show its invalidity, may be set aside on motion, at any time after its entry, by the court which rendered the judgment or made the order. Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761 I am waiting for a certified copy of the Secretary of State Suspension to have this case dismissed, along with other void cases involving this homeowners association. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck is going to be charged with barratry on this case.

No one can be punished for disobedience of avoid 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 (order in excess of jurisdiction).

6. I was at first granted a stay of eviction based on “hardship” by Judge
Ferguson. My hardship has not changed. I am a 68 year old, handicapped woman, who needs a breathing machine at night [I provided all of my medical evidence, and Attorney Hollenbeck and Briarwood Manor is aware of my hardship – yet they will lie, present unproven evidence, and put me on the street to live in my car. Why? Because I complained of unsafe living conditions and uncovered the fact that a friend of theirs was falsely holding himself out as a doctor.

7. My rent was $240. A month. [I live on $740 @ months] I was saving this. But a man in the building vandalized my car and I needed to get it repaired -- $350. I have put out more than $800. in legal expenses which I cannot recover because I am not an attorney. I cannot rent an apartment for $240. A month, and even if I could no one will accept me with this bogus eviction on my record.

I am only a lay person, and a very poor one at that, along with being elderly and handicapped, and I just wanted you all to know that there is no one out there in the legal field fighting for us.

~Sharon Stephens

cc: Commissioner Ronald J. Gilbert, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Hon. Keith Davis, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Hon. RYMOND Haight III, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Logan Property Management, Real Party of Interest


Sunday, October 18, 2009

THE AGENTS OF LAW & ETHICAL DILEMMAS


Ethical dilemmas
are dilemmas of a certain kind of conflict between the rightness or wrongness of actions
and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions.

What complicates the issue, as it happens, is the difference between duties of omission and duties of commission.

Duties of Omission imply negative rights of others, e.g. abused victims ignored.

Duties of Commission imply positive rights of others. e.g., abused victims protected.

There are fundamental differences between the two kinds of duties. For a duty of commission to be binding, someone, an agent of the law, i.e., police, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys must be able to carry it out. However the ability verses the consequence of responding are often problematic and become matters of judgment which can blur the nature of such duties and result in duties of omission.

Example: Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorney all belong to the “Lawyer’s Club,” and they may all consider the “protection” of each other rather than the consequences of not doing the right thing for the victim as morally more important. This is the kind of dilemma that arises from human limitations, and a
partiality of friendship, not from the structure of value itself. Now, all in the legal field know they ought to be impartial; that is the essence of legal morality -- they all tell themselves that. But this belief can be rejected if these agents of law resolve that in partiality of friendship there is a more moral importance to each other that permits, and perhaps even requires partiality in some circumstances to protect each other from the consequences of their omissions of justice.

The human condition, which is ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office" -- is what makes the
presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for it is the basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing for the lay citizen to have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.

Now a situation can become a dilemma when we want to make duties of commission matters of law, as in "Good Samaritan" law where one can be sued for following their moral standard of giving aid to a person in need. The person giving aid is faced with a ethical dilemma: to get involved, or not get involved. Attorneys and judges are faced with a dilemma that may involve them to ignore their own moral standard and a breach of ethics and a duty of omission occurs.

When a breach of ethics, and a duty of omission results in a
wrong of commission, it is often because of ignoring empirical evidence, i.e., the abused victim and the laws that protects the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has been committed through empirical evidence, and the law -- but if the agents turn a blind eye to both evidence and the law, justice is lost.

When this sort of a breach of a duty of commission results in a
wrong of omission, which by its very nature will produce no legal causal effects to the agent it means no one will ever even know that a wrong has been committed -- the evidence is ignored, and the law is not followed, and nobody notices. The Minute Order will simply read “Motion Denied” and no one, apart from the agents will ever know that a wrong was involved.

This is an important point to consider in relation to the nature of law. Someone who is prosecuted, or sued, or retaliated on for
being a "Good Samaritan" is not guiltier than the unnoticed callous agents who are caught up in an ethical dilemma, and perhaps more guilty for ignoring the good of helping someone in need. The Good Samaritan is simply more legally unlucky. However, legal sanctions ought not fall more heavily on the unlucky than on the guilty. That makes for a bad law.

Good Samaritans have a strong sense of their duty of commission involving an obligation to do the right thing but may very well become a victim of a system where agents ignore their obligation to do the right thing. By that very omission agents may not produce enough evidence, or even give false evidence, which means no one can never know how many of the guilty, even grossly guilty -- like callous agents, escape the consequences of their behavior.

Furthermore, since ability and fear of consequences cloud the very nature of duties of commission, it becomes very easy for agents to distort the evidence, or to unfairly second-guess a victim who
did the right thing and throw that victim to the prosecutorial wolves, who, as they now operate, go for convictions rather than the truth, and would be perfectly happy to portray the real victim who did the right thing as a dangerous violator of the law, all for the sake of winning.

The whole project of examining moral dilemmas is a relatively modern one. We don't find it in Plato or Aristotle who propounded relativism. With them, as now in life, what we just really want to know is what a person is like morally -- are they a good person or a bad person? If they are a good person we want to believe they will try to do the right thing, and the occurrence of dilemmas will not subtract from their goodness.

Most lay citizens do not come across such dire legal situations that present such ethical, moral dilemmas, but it is always a very interesting exercise to consider a dilemma and what our reaction to it may be.

Large scale evils require the cooperation, and conspiracy of the many against the few. A very large number of people are just going to go along with the crowd, afraid of being different and/or victimized by the agents themselves. However if even one example can give heart to those then a right action can suddenly produce the best effects.