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 They both insisted it meant that the order Judge Plukin originally made was in force.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 café 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 12^th. 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

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.

MY CASE TO RECUSE THE DISTRCT ATTORNEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

v

SHARON STEPHENS

CASE NO: MWV903720

NOTICE OF MOTION, AND MOTION

TO RECUSE THE ENTIRE SAN

BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY OFFICE; POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES; AFFIDAVIT, and

DECLARATION OF

SHARON STEPHENS

Date: October 13, 2009

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: 20

----------------------------------------------------------------

TO: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter "Defendant" will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant's case herein.

The Defendant asserts that this motion is necessary because an apparent conflict of interest exist that would render it unlikely that the Defendant would receive a fair trial as set forth in Penal Code section 1424, and the cases that have applied this statute.

This motion is based on this notice of motion, the evidence attached to the motion, the court herein and such matters as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. Since this motion must be supported by an affidavit the Defendant has provided one, which is to be used for the purpose of supporting this motion.

October 1, 2009 Sharon Stephens ,pro per

BACKGROUND

The Defendant is a 69 year old disabled woman with a heart condition and sleep apnea, and was illegally evicted by Briarwood Manor/Logan Management through their Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck for complaining about unsafe living conditions, criminal behavior at Briarwood Manor, and, for writing a newsletter then revealing that one of their friends was not a doctor all of which are constitutionally protected activities. Consequently that Case # ACIAS 900001 is in the Appellant Court and due to be heard on calendar in November, 2009.

When the Appellant Court said it would be a severe hardship if the Defendant was to be evicted, before appeal, Logan Property Management and Attorney Hollenbeck went after her with a vengeance to the point of perjury, fraud and deception to the court, battery, tampering with the US Mail, and finally a provable conspiracy where they filedagainst her with bogus restraining orders, which allowed for false arrests even for constitutionally protected andlegitimate activity. (The District Attorney has a copy of the Conspiracy Report, and an Elder Abuse Report but refuses to act on them.)

FAQ: Restraining Orders are the most misused and abused court documents, often just handed out like candy canes on Christmas morning by judges who have no regard for the required statutory and case laws that regulate them, and how they can ruin a person's life. The Defendant is still fighting such void orders by her homeowners association in Riverside County, and, suing the judge for not following the law, and she is considering such legal action in this case against the judges involved.

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 jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face.

However, on January 14, 2009 Judge Victor told Attorney Hollenbeck he "Did not think [Defendant's behavior] was sufficient to not give her notice of the hearing, i.e., She had NOT committed any violence and there was no "Credible threat of violence."

First and foremost, for there to be a valid order the plaintiffs had to meet the criteria and case law of CCP 527.8 which clearly states there must have been clear and convincing evidence of a threat of great bodily harm. No such threat was ever made by the Defendant to the plaintiffs Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, and in fact a quick perusal of Case CIVRS 900198 will show that both plaintiffs provided provably perjured declarations and documents, as did their Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, who deceived the court and signed declarations that she claimed were written by her clients.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR RECUSAL OF PROSECUTORIAL STAFF
OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Defendant submits the following facts to support her motion.

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 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 ALLrestraining 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.

Please take Judicial Notice: Motion to Dismiss June 19, 2009, and Addendum to Motion to Dismiss, September 24, 2009.

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.

It appears to the Defendant that the San Bernardino County District Attorney, and particularly Deputy District Attorneys HINSON, M. BURNETTE, and HILDALGO has given and continues to give preferential treatment to the politically powerful Logan Property Management [ Ameriland Group], and its agents thereby resulting in a conflict of interest which makes it unlikely that the Defendant can receive a fair trial.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: [A] pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v.Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992) A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint must read the complaints allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S.519, 520-21, S. Ct. 594, 596, 60 L.Ed. 2d 652 (1972) Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigant's pleadings liberally Polling v. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally.Tannenbaum v.United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

Penal Code section I 424(a)(1) provides in part that the notice of motion to disqualify the district attorney shall contain a statement of the facts setting forth the grounds for the claimed disqualification, the legal authorities relied upon by the moving party, and be supported by affidavits of witnesses who are competent to testify to the facts set forth in the affidavits.

The standard for granting the motion is stated in Penal Code section 1424(a)( 1) as follows: "The motion may not be granted unless the evidence shows that a conflict of interest exists that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial"

A conflict under section 1424 "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

Defendant has demonstrated that fair treatment by the office is unlikely. People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 86. The standard is "likelihood of unfairness."

In People v. Merrit, 19 Cal.App 4th 1573, 24 Cal Rptr 2d 177(1993), the court confirmed that the term "conflict" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1424 as "evidence of a reasonable possibility the district attorney's office may not be able to exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner." the Merritt case also states that when it appears that misconduct has been committed by the district attorney, then the burden shifts to the district attorney to show that sanctions are not warranted because the defendant has not been prejudiced by the misconduct.

Although recusal of an entire prosecutorial office is a serious case, there is a showing that such a step is necessary to assure fair treatment of the Defendant. People v. Hamilton (1989)48 Ca.3d 1142 1156 259 Cal Rptr, 701

The California Supreme Court stated in People v. Superior Court (Greer) 19 Cal. 3d 255, 269 that a trial judge may exercise its power to disqualify a district attorney from participating in the prosecution of a criminal charge when the judge determines that the attorney suffers from a conflict of interest which might prejudice him against the accused and thereby affect, or appear to affect, his ability to impartially perform discretionary functions of his office.

Defendant believes that there is ample evidence in this case for the court to recuse the entire prosecutorial staff in light of the standards set forth above, and she believes that it is unlikely that she can receive a fair trial.

CONCLUSION

Deputy District Attorney HINSON suggested at our first meeting that the Defendant has no right to be considered a victim or to be given protection in this case? Deputies HILDALGO and BURNETTE have in their behavior, in and out of court reiterated this belief. And, the entire District Attorney's has turned a blind eye to Defendant's complaints regarding their misconduct.

In effect, The District Attorney is saying it is not relevant whether the People's witnesses are lying or have a motive to lie because they are involved in an appeal that will result in a lawsuit for a great deal of money, that also involves crimes of perjury, false arrest, conspiracy and more. This is a deliberate attempt to convict the Defendant without a fair trial and shows the length that the DA will go to in order to "win."

However, the Defendant and the public have a right to demand the highest ethical standards for its public servants, particularly those acting on our behalf in the legal system. Unfortunately, today's courts fall short of ensuring accountability for attorneys who commit ethics violations and ensuring public transparency of the process. Both areas are critical in maintaining integrity and public confidence in a self-regulating profession.

"Without any question, the legal system has become a tool for bullying in this country," said Philip Howard, chair of the legal reform group Common Good. "And if you're a lawyer, [Linda Hollenbeck] and you don't have to go out and spend money for another lawyer, [because the District Attorney is protecting you from prosecution] you can use it as a hammer."

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 willing to send the Defendant to jail, or prison for crimes she did not commit, based on evidence from police reports that is 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 the Defendant due process in a fair and impartial manner, refusing to 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 the Defendant to?

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.

America needs judges willing to say "NO!" to the lawyer bullies.

The system as a whole doesn't do what we count on it to do, which is to sort out the guilty people from the innocent people. It doesn't do that because the guilty people and the innocent people are ALL faced with the same pressure to plead guilty.

If the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is allowed to remain on this case it is likely that the Defendant will not get a fair trial.

October 1, 2009

Respectfully Submitted, Sharon Stephens ,
pro per

ADDENDUM

TO: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter Defendant will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant's case herein, and present this Addendum to Motion.

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 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; no affidavits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, nor any police reports or violent behavior.

The court and the Office of the District Attorney have insisted that the restraining order was valid at the time of my arrests for allegedly violating the order, even though the Defendant showed Deputy District Attorney HINSON the law of void orders, as follows, he obviously ignored the law.

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

Such void on the face judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored [by defendant] as they neither bind, nor bar anyone. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment,§ 286, p. 828.).

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.

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

The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Counsel justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits. (John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC; "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with Self-Represented Litigants"

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/selfrep07/Ethical/May_07_Ethica l_Issues.ppt.>

CONCLUSION

It is really not the Defendant's desire that anyone be incarcerated in this case; not anyone from the District Attorneys Office, nor her declared and obvious enemies in this case: Logan Property Management [Ameriland Group], Briarwood Management: Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth; nor even the worst of them all, because she knows, or should know the law, Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck. [Though it is apparent she ought to lose her California State Bar License, and, the Defendant is filing a complaint against her next week, and believes the court needs to do its duty.] 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.

The Defendant spent a year of hellish [and recently 44 days] incarceration in solitary confinement in Riverside County Jail because of an unethical District Attorney, [She is seeking to recuse that office]; Inadequate Public Defenders [She will never rely on a public defender again!], and, Judges who ignored or did not know the law of void judgments [They lose their immunity when they don't follow the law, and, are open to a lawsuit]. She is still fighting that case. She expects to win, but all of this has taken its toll on her health, and financial standing. As a 69 year old woman in poor health she ought not to have to fight for justice because she stood up tocorporate bullies who retaliated on her with an illegal eviction and sham restraining orders when she did the right thing in her community in reporting unsafe living conditions and crime. [However, not even for my worst enemies do I wish to see them in jail or prison.]

FAQ: The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world. "Every 1 out of 100 Americans are incarcerated. As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated." -- "New High In U.S. Prison Numbers". By, N.C. Aizenman. February 29, 2008. Washington Post. In 2005, the average cost of incarceration per prisoner in the United States was $23,876. That comes out to $65.41 per day. At least 10% of those incarcerated are believed to be innocent. Department of Justice statistics [1999].

Something in very wrong with the judicial system in America.

In this case the Defendant is looking for justice from the court, and, for the District Attorney's Office, and their agents to do their job of seeking justice.

October 7, 2009 Sharon Stephens, pro per

MORE LAW ON VOID JUDGMENTS

"The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal" Valley v Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."Williamson v. Berry, 8 How 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."

Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

DECLARATION

Defendant

SHARON STEPHENS

I Sharon Stephens the defendant in this case declares as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, unless stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify to those facts I could and would competently do so.

2. I am 69 years old, a heart patient having undergone open heart surgery, suffer from ongoing angina, sleep apnea for which I am suppose to sleep with a breathing machine at night, and Post Traumatic Stress and suffer from severe stress and anxiety for which I am under the care of a physician. I am sleeping in my car due to the void eviction and this void restraining order.

3. I am making this Motion to Dismiss the entire San Bernardino District Attorney Office based on prosecutorial misconduct against me as they refuse to do their job to make sure I will receive a fair trial, as stated in the motion. The judgment they seek is void for subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, lack of due process, lack of due diligence, and prosecutorial misconduct, and is based on a judgment that is void. CIVRS 900198, in which I was illegally arrested, and charged with crimes that did not exist.

4 I will not receive a fair and impartial trial with this District Attorney's Office, and, in the interest of justice they need to be recused from this case.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

October, 7 2009

SHARON STEPHENS, pro per