Motion To Dismiss Bogus Tresspass Case

SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
County of San Bernardino
8303 North Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

PEOPLE Case No.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND  AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS TRESSPASS and DEFENDANT’S DECLARATION

Court Room: 7
Time: 8:00 a.m.
Date: July 9, 2010

_____________________________/

Defendant SHARON STEPHENS respectfully submit the this Motion, Points and Authorities, and Declaration to DISMISS TRESPASS CHARGE

Penal Code 602, as is set forth in the attached Declaration.

The charges being brought by the plaintiff, THE PEOPLE are unproven, and more often than not in perjurious, and unverified statements, and may include federal criminal charges for conspiracy pursuant to 18 USC §§ 241 and 242, which indicate serious criminal implications. No reasonable person could think that a commissioner, judge or anyone working under them could possibly conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner considering they are facing possible criminal charges which would bring jail time or a long probation period and these charges originate from the plaintiffs and their attorney’s own statements.

TRESPASS

Penal Code 602

If one is accused of entering someone else’s property with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities conducted on that property, then one must have actually interfered with or obstructed that business. If one didn't, then one has not committed a criminal trespass! In re Wallace (1970) 3 Cal.3d 289. This case holds that Actual damage … an obstruction or interference with the property’s business…is required before a Penal Code 602 California criminal trespass charge may be sustained. ALSO: One cannot be charged with "trespass" if they are visiting a person on the property. It gets down to "legitimate activity" Byers v. Cathcart, 57 Cal. App. 4th 805 (1997); SEE: Penal Code 602(o), end note 15: People v. Wilkinson (1967)248 Cal.App.2d Supp. 906, 910: The pertinent part reads as follows, "However, this subdivision shall not be applicable to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities…to persons on the premises who are engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution, or to persons who are on the premises at the request of a resident or management.” I was on the property at the request of Carol Colburn. I have an open invitation from several residents to “visit anytime” and, I often act as an advocate for residents and at times bring them food.

There was no evidence of trespass or harassment of anyone, by me at Briarwood Manor. There is no evidence of me even disturbing the peace Penal Code 415.

When a statute authorizes a prescribed procedure and the court acts contrary to the authority conferred, the court exceeds its jurisdiction. (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., (2004), 33 Cal.4th at p. 661.)

Judge S. Sabet, on May 26, 2010 gave an order to incarcerate me and set Bail at $150,000 (Excessive Bail: Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. (1951) the U.S. Supreme Court: A judge or justice may be censured for "setting 'grossly excessive' bail and [thus] showing a 'severe attitude' toward witnesses and litigants," as the Michigan Supreme Court did to a trial judge recently: Debra Cassens Weiss, writes, "Judge Censured for Excessive Bail, Severe Attitude", (ABA Journal, February 8, 2008).

There has been no trespass or harassment by me of anyone, anytime and there has been no evidence provided to such in this hearing, or in the original trial.

In the context of Judge Sabet's order the testimonial evidence does not either qualitatively or quantitatively meet the high threshold for a finding of trespassing, or even harassment in the State of California: Penal Code 602. C.C.C.527.6, Therefore the claim, and Judge S. Sabet’s order are void.

Void judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored 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. 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment, 286, p. 828.) CCP Section 473 permits a trial court, on noticed motion, to set aside void judgments and orders. Courts also possess inherent power to grant such relief. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.

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; seeIn re Berry (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 137, 147 (order in excess of jurisdiction).

Because the evidence does not either qualitatively or quantitatively meet the high threshold for a finding of trespassing, or even harassment in the State of California: Penal Code 602; C.C.C.527.6., and there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts don't establish guilt, this case needs to be dismissed

"Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."

It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

.DECLARATION

I, Sharon Stephens and declare I am a resident in California and I am the defendant in this matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, and can and will testify to such in any court or hearing. Executed in the state of California, in the County of San Bernardino, California.



July 9, 2010 ______________________________

Sharon Stephens