HARRY L. PLUKIN (Judge)
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA
Logan v. Stephens
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 They both insisted it meant that the order Judge Plukin originally made was in force.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.
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
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE HARRY L. PLUKIN,
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND DEFENDANT’S DECLARATION
DECEMBER 23, 2008
JUDGE KEITH DAVIS
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA
Logan v. Stephens
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 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.
MINUTE ORDER OF JUDGE DAVIS
[Transcripts not scanned into my computer]
Case UDRS802820 - LOGAN -V- STEPHENS
December 23, 2008 Top of Form
CLERK: JULIE BRIGUGLIO
COURT REPORTER KAREN DIGGS KAREN DIGGS
COURT ATTENDANT RICHARD UNGER
ATTORNEY LINDA T.HOLLENBECK PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
DEFENDANT SHARON STEPHENS PRESENT
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 ===
PO Box 9475
Alta Loma, CA 91701
March 15, 2009 CIVSS 90098
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.
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