VEXTIOUS LITIGANT DISMSSAL

SHARON STEPHENSPO Box 9475Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701760.835.8210

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, INDIO COURT
 CASE NO.: INS072657

SHADOW CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION                          Plaintiffs
v.

SHARON STEPHENS                                         
  Defendant                                               

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS VOID VEXATIOUS LITIGANTJUDGMENT(Code of Civil Procedure section 473 & Code of Civil Procedure section 391)
________________  

Defendant, Sharon Stephens gives NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION to move this court to apply controlling law and recognize and declare as void the order making her a vexatious litigant on July 28, 2004. This motion relies upon decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, California statues and rules of court, federal laws and multiple constitutional protections, and related points and authorities, and Defendants Declaration. (The statute of limitations does not apply to a suit in equity to vacate a void judgment and may be challenged any time. Defendant is not filing “new “ litigation or “maintaining” litigation, but rather she is attempting to “undo” the results of unjust litigation that has been instituted against her, as to be justifiable as “any civil action encompassing civil trial…” McColm v. Westwood Park Association (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1211,1219; Mahdavi v. Superior Court (228) 166 Cal.App. 4th 42.
On March 21, 1990 a letter was sent to the Office of Senator Milton Marks, from the Legislative Office of the Courts which declared: “We question whether a litigant should ever be required to post security if litigation has merit and is not filed for purposes of delay or harassment. Would such a requirement be constitutional?...” Of course not!In the same spirit, the Defendant does not need to ask permission to file a motion to dismiss a void judgment, when in effect there is no judgment at all. And, there is no contempt of court as no one can be punished for violation of a void order. A void order is 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)
No permission is needed to file in Small Claims Court. (CCP 391)
This finding of vexatious litigant against Defendant, Sharon Stephens is void on the face as it did not follow the law.
NO APPEAL IS NEEDED TO CHALLENGE A VOID ORDER. (CCP 473 and 473a)
The defendant asks that monetary damages be awarded to her.
FACTUAL HISTORY
As a disabled individual and indigent person the Defendant was forced into pro se litigation due to the State of California’s failure to protect her (42 U.S.C. 2101(b)(4).6) and her property.
In a short hearing of less than ten or fifteen minutes, what in essence is a snap judgment, with out any investigation of the evidence as to whether the charges against the Defendant have merit, and where no CONSTITUTIONAL Due Process is offered to the pro se to be heard in oral argument – a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment -- a judge may --[not must]—but may issue a finding, on an overly broad statue to declare a pro per a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure 391 (b)(4), and where they then are blacklisted with a lifelong stigma that destroys a person’s good name and reputation.
The judge therefore has discretion to make a finding, or not. However when a judge does not follow the law, they abuse their discretion. Abuse of Discretion occurs when a judge does not apply the correct law or if it bases its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact. Where a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision.
Abuse of Discretion = Abuse of Process [See Rappleyea v. Campbell below.]
A finding is not a judgment but the finding that the Defendant, a pro se litigant is a “vexatious litigant was given a res judicata force of a judgment and made applicable to all future actions without benefit of a Due Process hearing for filing four constitutionally protected restraining orders, and one injunction, on the advise of a Cathedral City Police Sergeant, for her own protection against verbal and physical attacks on her person.
As a homeowner in Shadow Crest Homeowner’s Association, Inc., the Defendant discovered the Board of Directors: President, Kent Robbins, Vice President, Jim Hooten, Treasure, Jose Liceaga, and Secretary, Jill Reed, along with Member at Large, John Weiser, along with the Association Attorney, Brian Moreno were misusing Reserve Funds, and abusing the CC&Rs to collect fines and harass certain home owners. The Defendant had filed for an injunction to stop the board from using invalid restraining orders, but was stopped with a demurrer for which she was charged an unconscionable fee of $20,000.
The Defendant was warned by board member they would get restraining orders to keep her out of meetings. Such an action is unlawful. The first one was filed by Secretary, Jill Reed, using CCP 527.6 (with no grounds or the proper statutory criteria), then by President, Kent Robbins, Jim Hooten, John Weiser, and Jose Laceiga. The commissioners and judges ignored the law and granted all of their restraining orders without meeting the statutory criteria and all therefore are void on the face and open to challenge. The Defendant has police reports of the abuses of the board members.
Thus began an ongoing intense period of harassment, slander and physical abuse of the Defendant. C.C.P.D. Sergeant, Laura Hanlon advised her to file for restraining orders. The board members responded with requests for restraining orders, not meetin statutory criteria. In court they would all show up and act as witnesses for each other, even when John Weiser hit the Defendant with his car while she was on foot, he was given a restraining order against her claiming trespassing. There was no proof of a Penal Code 602 trespass! The Association Attorney, Brian Moreno did participated to bring these orders, and then they all supported each other in this conspiracy to bring this vexatious litigant motion against the Defendant to avoid giving her access to the Association Books and Records. In fact, the motion was Fraud on the Court to keep her from presenting her case.
These void restraining orders were then used, with provable perjury and false accusations to have the Defendant falsely imprisoned for a year. This is being challenged in court now. TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO VACATE PLAINTIFF’S VOID CRIMINAL JUDGMENT, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, REQUEST FOR DAMAGES, CASE NO. INF 054715, Riverside County Superior Court, Indio CA.
The person falsely imprisoned may sue the offender for damages. Once the plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort, the defendant has the burden to establish that the detention or arrest was legally justified. See Cervantes v. J.C. Penney Co., 595 P.2d 975, 982 (Cal.'79).
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF ANY ELDERLY PERSON: California Penal Code § 368.(f) Crimes against elder or dependent adults; Any person who commits the false imprisonment of an elder or a dependent adult by the use of violence, menace, fraud, or deceit is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
When the Defendant was unlawfully refused access to the Shadow Crest Association Books and Records she filed a case in Small Claims Court to gain access to them and was hit in court with a Motion, without Notice, to find her a Vexatious Litigant for filing the Injunction for abuse of CC&Rs, and the four restraining orders against board members for harassment, abuse, and battery.
Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., Board President, Kent Robbins presented the Motion in court to find the Defendant a Vexatious Litigant.
Defendant’s case was not heard in court that day, and, in fact was never heard at all. Therefore she was never able to access the books and records, which of course was the intent of the attorney and the board members with their filing of the Motion to make her a vexatious litigant. The court quickly [about fifteen minutes] made the order finding the defendant a vexatious litigant, and never allowed her Due Process to be heard, i.e., to defend herself. In so doing The Court aided in the abusive and unlawful behavior of Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. board members and their attorney, Brian Moreno against the Defendant.
NO ONE can violate a void order, and NO ORDER, such as this finding of vexatious litigant may be attached onto a void order. The Defendant is about to challenge the criminal case, and the void restraining orders of the board members in court; all will be meritorious.
The Defendant has NEVER filed numerous and unmeritorious cases as she was dishonestly, and unethically charged with by the current Association Attorney, Margaret G. Wrangler, in her “OPPOSITION TO [Defendant’s] APPEAL, (October 20, 2005)” in this case.
And, Attorney Wangler needs to understand, Void judgments "never die" in the State of California, and may be challenged anytime even if a case has been dismissed.
It is stunning how many judges, commissioners, District Attorneys, Public Defenders, defense attorneys, and, association attorneys do not know the law of void judgments.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
California’s vexatious litigant law dates back to the early 1960’s when the appellate court in Stafford v. Russell (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 722 suggested the study of vexatious litigation and the unreasonable burdens it places upon the courts. In response, the Legislature enacted sections 391 through 391.6 (Stats. 1963, ch. 1471, § 1, p. 3088) to address problems “created by the persistent and obsessive litigant, appearing in propria persona, who has constantly pending a number of groundless actions.” (Committee on Administration of Justice, Report, (1963) 38 Cal. State Bar J. 485, 489; Rawles, The California Vexatious Litigant Statute: A Viable Judicial Tool to Deny the Clever Obstructionists Access? (1998) 72 S.Cal. L.Rev. 275, 284-285.)
Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth; not just playing referee...
What is a Vexatious Litigant and what the Vexatious Litigant Law
MUST a judge follow to make A Finding of Vexatious Litigant?
CCP 391 through 391.6 (3) To address problems “created by the persistent and obsessive litigant, appearing in propria persona, who has constantly pending a number of groundless actions.” In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay."
There was no evidence presented that the Defendant did any of the above. Therewere no groundless actions, no unmeritorious motions, pleading or other papers…or any tactics that were frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
The Defendant, in order to protect herself from vicious verbal and physical attacks had filed for four [4] restraining orders on the advice of a police officer -- that is the constitutionally protected expected course of action for self-protection -- and one [1] Injunction to Stop the Unlawful Misuse of CC&Rs (Covenants, Codes and Rules) by the Shadow Crest Homeowners Board of Directors that were being used to abuse certain homeowners.
Restraining Orders are “Constitutionally protected activity, just as the making of police reports, or complaints of any type and are excluded from the meaning of ‘course of conduct ‘ [re: harassment].” Schraer v. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.
The court did not follow the statutory criteria in entering a required statutory finding of vexatious litigant, and did not allow the defendant Due Process to be heard.
The court had a duty to ensure fairness. This Court failed, or refused to ensure fairness and then worked to see that the case against Sharon Stephens went forward, without lawful notice and without hearing from Defendant, i.e., with no Due Process. Marshall v. Jerrico, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 446 U.S. 238
JUDGE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW
When a judge does not follow the law they are a trespasser of the law and 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)
"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
“Lack of Jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to rewrite history.” Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F. 2d 321 325-26 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels 902 F. 2d 1238 , 1240, (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188, (7th Cir. 1987); and Central Laborer's Pension and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644, (7th Cir. 1999)
CONSEQUENCES FOR A JUDGE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW

"When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
[Emphasis supplied in original]. Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, they are warring on the constitution, i.e., the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 ); Cohens v. Virgina 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264 (1921. See: Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,78 S.Ct. (1401 1958.

Therefore, without authority or jurisdiction, a judge loses absolute immunity and is subject to a law suit for at very least abuse of process.

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.)

"A court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).).
To Ascertain The Truth, A Judge Must Allow for Due Process

Due Process: A course of legal proceedings according to those Principles and Rules which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence, for the enforcement and protection of Private Rights: The essential elements are (1) NOTICE (2) OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (3) and to DEFEND in an orderly proceeding adapted to the Nature of the case and Cause of the action, and, requires that every man have the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Where RIGHTS are concerned there can be no rule making which would abrogate them. U.S. V. Miller, supra, 449 U.S. 200
“Due process is best defined in one word — fairness! When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, they are said to have been deprived of or denied due process.” (United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938),

Violation of due process, (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct.
There was no Constitutional Due Process allowed to the defendant. She was not given notice, and not heard, i.e., allowed to offer oral testimony, or to give evidence to defend her self for the filing of the injunction or restraining orders, which she had filed with merit. Rather the judge made a finding without ascertaining the truth. “A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. [But] the validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b) Prather v Loyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.

It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.

If the defendant had of been allowed due process to be heard, she would have brought to the attention of the court that the restraining orders she filed were provably for her own protection, advised by the police, and had merit. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.

A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and, is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.THEREFORE: This void finding of Vexatious Litigant cannot be used to stop the Defendant from filing in any other court case.

“Even the most rudimentary of due process procedures gives the opportunity to be heard . . . to anyone directly affected by [an] official’s action.” ( Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1108. .

Thus under the fundamental requirements of due process before a court enters a defendant’s default in a lawsuit which may result in a judgment depriving the defendant of liberty or property “[a] defendant is entitled to opportunity to be heard upon the allegations of the complaint on which judgment is sought against him.” (Thompson v. Cook (1942) 20 Cal.2d 564, 568
Where Due Process is denied, the case is void , Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 S Ct.1019; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2D 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2D 289 (1956) Hallberg v. Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill. 25 (1936)
“Defendants who have been treated with unfairness, bias and the appearance of prejudice by this Court ,and the opposing counsel leaves open the question of how an uninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and neutrality of this Court.“…our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).
IF the defendant had of been allowed Due Process to be heard: She would have made the court aware that the Motion To Find her a Vexatious Litigant was actually just a retaliatory and conspiratorial ploy between the Association Attorney, Brian Moreno, an officer of the court, who wrote the motion, and the board members to keep her case from being heard, because it would have allowed her access to the Association Books and Records, and proof that there was at the very least misuse of Reserve Funds, and more than likely embezzlement by the attorney and board.
This Motion to find the Defendant a Vexatious Litigant was in fact Abuse of Process: Use of legal process in a wrongful manner with an ulterior motive. (Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 824 [266 Cal.Rptr. 360].)
The Motion was also FRAUD ON THE COURT!"Fraud upon 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 [judges and attorneys] so that the judicial machinery can not 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 ed., p. 512, 60.23. 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."
As with the many, retaliatory restraining order abuses, motions to request an opposing pro per be found a vexatious litigant is too often a conspiratorial ploy used by unethical attorneys, and their clients to avoid the penalties and consequences of a pending case, and, the court turns a blind eye to justice.
NO APPEAL NEEDED TO CHALLENGE VOID JUDGMENT:
Void judgments "never die" in the State of California:
CCP 473 and 473a: Because the order of dismissal was void, it can be set aside at any time after its entry, and the six-month time limitation in section CCP 473 for relief from improper orders, is not applicable here. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194
Motions to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment. County of Ventura v. Tillett, supra, 133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110.
An APPEAL will NOT prevent the court from at any time lopping off what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree -- a void order. MacMillan Petroleum Corp. v. Griffin (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 523, 533 [222 P.2d 69]; accord: People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 467 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]; Svistunoff v.Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. App. 2d 638, 641-642 [239 P.2d 650]; and see: 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 7, pp. 4024-4025.)
CCP Section 473 permits a trial court, on noticed motion, to set aside void judgments and orders. Other Courts also possess inherent power to grant such relief. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.
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…. Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761
The Law Favors Resolution of Cases On Their Merits
And because it does, if any doubts arise about whether Code of Civil Procedure section 473 relief should be granted – “ [Void Judgments] must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [Citations]. Therefore, a trial court denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits. [Citations.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 (Rappleyea).)
It is interesting that 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)

Void Judgments Lack Jurisdiction
AND CAN BE LEGALLY IGNOREDThey Neither Bind, Nor Bar Anyone:

Oviously 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.)

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, 14

The Court Has A Responsibility To Correct a Void Judgment:
The statute of limitations does not apply to a suit in equity to vacate a void judgment. (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, p. 569; Estate of Pusey, 180 Cal. 368, 374 [181 P. 648].)
This rule holds as to all void judgments. In the other two cases cited, People v. Massengale and In re Sandel, the courts confirmed the judicial power and responsibility to correct void judgments.
STANDARD OF PROOF TO LIFT FINDING OF VEXATOIUS LITIGANT?
A Change in Facts or Circumstances
It has been indicated that a person might have a vexatious litigant status lifted if they can meet the same standard of proof as someone seeking to lift an injunction. “At a minimum to cast off the vexatious litigant label the court would find a change in facts or circumstances relating to the original determination.” PBA ,LLC v. KPOD, LTD (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 965 A void judgment lifts an injunction. PROOF ENOUGH!
The Defendant is a Pro Per
“…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 complaint’s 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)
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Defendant, Sharon Stephens is not a vexatious litigant. She has never filed any cases that are without merit, nor does she intend to do so in the future.
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. "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with Self-Represented Litigants" John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC. [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/selfrep07/Ethical/May_07_Ethical_Issues.ppt.]
It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says, "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far"
DEFENDANT’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
The Defendant, Sharon Stephens has suffered much harm as the result of acts of Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc and their agents. She has been damaged financially, socially, and emotionally, and horribly embarrassed and even with shunning by neighbors, family and friends. Additionally, she has been deprived of her right to defend herself, or being suit in court against an unlawful, retaliatory eviction and retaliatory, void restraining orders in San Bernardino County, where she was again unlawfully incarcerated.
The Plaintiff’s, Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. have no damages. Any time and/or money they claim as a loss is because of their own unlawful, vindictive and retaliatory behavior in this case, and related cases, that resulted only in the abuse of the Defendant.
The Defendant asks the court to award the Defendant General Damages of $7,500 [The Maxim allowed in Small Claims Court] for monies lost due to this false accusation of vexatious litigant by the perpetrators, Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, Inc., board members who did so, with the help of Association Attorney, Brian Moreno and supported now by, Association Attorney, Margaret G. Wangler. ALL participated, and continue to participate in keeping alive this unlawful, unjust and unethical false motion, to find her a vexatious litigant, which at the very least is abuse of process , elder abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional abuse. In doing these acts herein alleged; Plaintiffs, and each of them, acted with oppression, conspiracy, and malice, and DID INJURE THE DEFENDANT, therefore Defendant is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages and she requests $50,000 for the harm she has suffered, and, for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including costs as provided in CCP §998, CCP §1032 and related provisions of law.
THEREFORE: Defendant, Sharon Stephens requests the court to dismiss The Finding of Vexatious Litigant, notify the Judicial Council that the order is void, and award her the appropriate requested damages.
Respectfully Submitted,
by Sharon Stephens