Tuesday, May 18, 2010



Attorney, Linda Tracy Hollenbeck #145048

Case No. MWV903720


Court Room 7
8303 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Before the court, on May 21, 2010 Sharon Stephens [will] personally appeared and was duly sworn and deposed to say:

Attorney, Linda Tracy Hollenbeck #145048 did appear in Rancho Superior Court, Court Room 7 on or about May 7, 2010 for a 402 Hearing and did commit subornation of perjury, (Penal Code127), and conspiracy with Deputy District Attorney, Jack C. Liu #248963, Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hysen to commit perjury, and present false evidence into the court record. (Penal Code 182). In this it seems large scale evils require the cooperation, and conspiracy of the many against the few.

Attorney Hollnebeck did sit at the table in court with Deputy District Attorney, Jack C. Liu, and acting as a aide to the prosecutor, did tell him what questions to ask, and, as such she took on the role of a co-prosecutor as well.

Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck is employed by Ameriland Group, and their management company Logan Property Management. When I moved onto their property, Briarwood Manor in Montclair as a HUD/Section 8 tenant I also became an automatic member of the HUD Resident Council. Resident Council is formed as a Tenant Government to work with the owners and management in the running of the property, under Fed Reg. Article 4. Sec. 245.115 § 245.115 and it is guaranteed certain protected activities, such as speaking to the owners and managers about problems on the property. When it became apparent that there were fire-safety issues and criminal behavior on the property I approached the owners and managers to make them aware of these problems. (At this time I did not know that Ameriland Group had eight [8] elderly and handicapped tenants die in two separate fires previous to my complaints.) On August 14, 2008 Attorney Hollenbeck sent me an email telling me that if I "continued to contact the owners they would get a restraining order against me so as to arrest me." The owners also started a retalitory eviction process against me, which I am still challenging in court as a void judgment. (Amerland Group and Logan Managment has a well documented record of evicting people who complain from off their property. Along with me, whom they did evict, they attempted to evict two other handicapped tenants from Briarwood Manor, making them homeless, for complaining.)

I am 69 years old, handicapped and have been living in my car for over a year due to the retalitory and illegal eviction by Attorney Hollenbeck. She likes to brag that she does 750 - 1000 evictions a month.

According to the state supreme court, “[i]t is misconduct… to elicit or attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence… Because we consider the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, a determination of bad faith or wrongful intent by the prosecutor it is not required for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.” (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Ca) The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers. “ ‘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.” (Berger 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.)

Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include (Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861): "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which re­quires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." (People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].) "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void. Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, (B & C Investments, INc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla.App.Div 3, 1995). "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) 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)

Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck, acting as co-prosecutor was very much aware that the testimony given by Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hysen was not in the original trial record as Attorney Hollenbeck was at the original hearing, and had a copy of the transcripts before her. Attorney Hollenbeck knew she had never asked any of the questions she was feeding to Prosecutor Jack Liu, and in this did she commit fraud on the court. Rather, the witnesses' testimony was well couched by the attorneys, Attorney Linda T.Hollenbek and Prosecuter Liu, and, fabricated for the appearance of the witnesses at the hearing, by all witnesses: Cassandr Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hyaen.

“The most obvious misconduct is to present false testimony or false evidence.” (Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1993) 17 F.3d 1201; United States v. Valentine (2nd Cir. 1987) 820 F.2nd 565); SEE: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d); Penal Code § 1473(b), and Rule 5-200, Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar.)

“Fraud on the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." (Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ). The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." It is void.

Due process is violated when false evidence is presented, whether offered intentionally or inadvertently. “Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecutor cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which it is aware… even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted.” (iles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66… Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264… People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 33 …” People v. Seaton, 26 Cal.4th 598, 647; see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214; People v. Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1192-1196.) “Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.” (Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461)

It seens that co-prosecutor, Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, in some way convinced District Attorney Prosecutor Jack C. Liu to ignore his responsibility of "due diligence" and in this was he incompetent in makiong sure he "knew the law:" Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200, Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Deception to Court -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 – 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 practitioner."

IF Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, had of been honest with Prosecutor Jack C. Liu, and he had done a due diligence search of this case, and of the evidence in the District Attorney's own office it would have been evident that: 1. The restraining order was void as the statue of limitations expired and the Judge Victor, as well as ignoring the law of CCP 527.8, had no subject matter jurisdiction to issue such an order. 2. An identical case, #CIVRS90016 brought by Attorney Hollenbeck against defendant Sharon Stephens, with two other Briarwood Manor employees, was dismissed immediately as she "did not make her case." 3. A San Bernardino Sheriff's Case # 89090068, against Ms. Hollenbeck for battery against the defendant, Sharon Stephens, in front of a witness. 4. An Elder Abuse case delivered to the District Attorney by Adult Protective Services that involved Briarwood Manor, Attorney Hollenbeck, Karen Brooks, and Logan Property Management. 5. A City of Montclair police report involving the conspiracy of Attorney Hollenbeck, Briarwood Manor employees, and Logan Property Management employees to commit a crime so as to hurry her eviction. ALL OF THESE OUGHT TO HAVE RAISED A RED FLAG IN THE EYES OF PROSECUTOR JACK C. LIU and violates Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110 Failure to Act Competently.

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., then the abused victim and the laws that protect the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has, or has not 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.

This is NOT “harmless error,” on the part of Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck; rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct, and may be moral turpitude, malum in se, (State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2 2205 (1990)); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109).

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. The question before us is the same. And so is our answer. (Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980). "We conclude that they must be.” ( Rappleyea supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 978.)

The human condition, which can be ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, perhaps 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.

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).) and, ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

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 this prosecutor, and Attorney Hollenbeck, and their witnesses who are so willing to send me to jail, or prison for crimes I 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 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?”

“Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,” as stated in the Cal State Bar Court case against Attorney, Benjamin Thomas Field [#168197] where he “disregarded prosecutorial accountability in favor of winning cases,” The three-judge panel upheld the recommendation of hearing Judge Pat McElroy and urged that Field be given five years of probation. Field left the DA’s office and is now chief of staff with Working Partnerships USA, a San Jose company that addresses the needs of working families in Silicon Valley.

Would it really be so unfair for them to have a small taste of the confinement they have been willing to subject me to?

However, is that what I really want? Of course not! I spent a year of hellish [and recently 44 days] incarceration, mostly in solitary confinement in Riverside County Jail, and several weeks in Patton State Hospital because of an unethical District Attorney, a judge and a public defender [Melanie Roe -- who had no time for my case] and, who were ignorant of, or ignored the law, for crimes I did not commit. I lost my home, $100,000, and much of my health due to the abuses of this legal system. I would not want that for anyone.

May 16, 2010: Fox News revealed Reggie Deshawn Cole was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison. On this date he was released after 14 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. The California Innocence Project, based at California Western School of Law in San Diego discovered he was convicted on false evidence.

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 is very wrong with the judicial system in America.

Real punishments are needed for those who employ false claims, and turn our judicial system into a series of Kangaroo Courts.

What I do want is for judges, prosecutors, defence attorneys and their witnesses to know they MUST know and follow the law, and tell the truth.

I declare under penalty of perjury the aforementioned is true to the best of my ability, and that I can and will testify to such if called upon to do so.

Sharon Stephens, Homeless

Mail: PO Box 9475, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91701

cc: Cal State Bar