Tuesday, December 21, 2010


The United States Supreme Court defined a judicial act of "warring on the constitution" as treason.  Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).  "Warring on the constitution" includes acting without jurisdiction, in violation of laws. See United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216 at footnote 19, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)"

"Without authority or jurisdiction, NOT FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY LAW --the prosecutor and the judges lose absolute immunity against suit and are subject to suit for unlawful arrest, unlawful incarceration, and malicious prosecution."


(excerpts below)

"Both Presiding Criminal Court Judge Paul P. Biebel Jr. and Clerk of the Court Dorothy Brown take oaths of office to uphold the law. Both are grossly violating the law and their oaths of office regarding appeals to the Illinois Appellate Court..  There is a fundamental violation of the United States Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendment right to procedural due process ...

In violation of the above laws and rules, Dorothy Brown instead of filing the Notice of Appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court, files a "Notice" of Notice of Appeal. She then sends the Notice of Appeal to Judge Biebel and Judge Biebel in a hearing without notice to or presence of litigants or defendant's attorney or counsel makes a ruling as to whether or not he will allow the Notice of Appeal to be transmitted to the Illinois Appellate court. This writer met with Clerk Brown and her staff in December 2009 and she confirmed that her office was following this unlawful procedure. She pledged to look into it, but has not changed the procedure to be lawful as of this date."

"Judge Biebel has NO jurisdiction or legal authority to hold this hearing or even make any decision as to whether Clerk Brown is going to transmit the Notice of Appeal, as the Circuit Court judges lose all jurisdictional rights upon the filing of a notice of appeal.

"When Judge Biebel illegally quashes an appeal this denies the defendant his 5th an 14th Amendment Constitutional right to due process. This is an act of defying the constitution or "warring on the constitution," as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.  As this is knowingly and willfully done by Judge Biebel, this is treason as defined under federal law. To be called a traitor is a serious allegation, but judges who knowingly impair an appeal in a criminal case in open violation of law fall into this category as this sort of conduct is so egregious and violative of fundamental rights known by all judges. The case against Clerk Brown would be weaker as she claimed that she didn't know what her staff was doing in December 2009 to this writer. However, she has failed to correct this violation of law."

"This writer was unlawfully charged with Medicaid vendor fraud by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan in 2004. The writer was found not guilty by jury trial in February 2009 and has filed a federal civil rights suit against AG Madigan, as well as Judges Jorge Alonso and Kathleen Pantle for unlawfully prosecuting her and unlawfully incarcerating her pre-trial without legal authority to do so, without probable cause, and therefore without jurisdiction. AG Madigan had no jurisdiction under Illinois law to bring these charges as only the county States Attorney has legal authority in Illinois to charge someone with Medicaid vendor fraud. Therefore, technically AG Madigan as well as Judges Alonso and Pantle have committed treason since they were fully knowledgeable of this fact pre-trial through this writer's pre-trial motions.

This writer was NOT appealing an acquittal. She was appealing a pre-trial dismissal of a motion concerning the court's jurisdiction. This writer properly argued that AG Madigan did not have authority to bring the charges of Medicaid vendor fraud; the charges were barred by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause since the Federal Medicaid Code specifically allows doctors to bill for services of their employees; and therefore, the Circuit Court of Cook County had no jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is a justiciable issue (a controversy in this case) and double jeopardy is not invoked as this writer could not be retried if she wins or loses the appeal. Therefore, United States Supreme Court case law requires that this Illinois Supreme Court rule not be used to deny the appeal by this writer as the dismissal of the appeal violates prior United States Supreme Court holdings on this issue of appeals in cases of acquittal."

"Without authority or jurisdiction, the prosecutor and the judges lose absolute immunity against suit and are subject to suit for unlawful arrest, unlawful incarceration, and malicious prosecution."

Sunday, December 19, 2010

UPDATE" Thomas Goldstein's District Attorney Lawsuit

UPDATE:  August 2010 the city of Long Beach paid out an $8 million settlement in a case alleging prosecutorial misconduct brought by Thomas Goldstein. Rebecca Cathcart, Wrongfully Convicted Man Gets $7.95 Million Settlement, N.Y. Times, Rebecca Cathcart, Aug. 12, 2010. 

Goldstein, who was convicted of a 1979 murder in Long Beach, spent 24 years in prison before being released after a federal judge ruled that Los Angeles County prosecutors withheld evidence of deals with a jailhouse informant and failed to correct perjured testimony.

Goldstein sued the prosecution, 
Long Beach police officers and the City of Long Beach,asserting that former Los Angeles County district attorney John Van De Kamp and his chief deputy failed to adequately train and supervise their deputies on their obligations relating to informants and failed to establish a system that would have facilitated information-sharing among deputy prosecutors.  
Although the Supreme Court rejected Goldstein’s argument 
and expanded the prosecutorial actions covered by absolute immunity to activities that cast them “in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of advocate,” Van de Kamp, 129 S.Ct. 855 at 861

Goldstein was permitted to pursue his lawsuit against 
Long Beach, resulting in the settlement.


The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Thomas Goldstein, an ex-marine who was convicted of murdering his neighbor.
Goldstein served 24 years before his conviction was thrown out when the main witness against him was shown to have lied. That witness was a lifelong criminal who was given a deal on his own charges in exchange for testimony that Goldstein confessed to him in a jail cell. Goldstein alleges that the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case routinely used the testimony of so-called "jailhouse snitches" prosecutors knew or should have known were not reliable.
Goldstein's case is unusual because he's not suing the prosecutor who convicted him, but John Van de Camp, the district attorney who supervised that prosecutor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed Goldstein's case to go forward, causing the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear it.
Goldstein's lawsuit stems from Federal Law 42 U.S.C. 1983, which states that "…[e]very person" who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right shall be answerable to that person in a suit for damages," and provides a means for those wronged by government officials to file suit in federal court.
But there are exceptions to Section 1983 suits. In the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out a wide exception to the law to exempt prosecutors. The Court said common law tradition grants prosecutors have what's known as "absolute immunity" from civil rights suits, meaning that they can't be sued, provided they're acting in their capacity as prosecutors. Few people enjoy such protections in their own line of work (judges have absolute immunity as well).
But this complete shield from accountability is especially problematic when we're talking about prosecutors. It's a job that's already plagued by incentive problems. We tend to measure a prosecutor's performance based on how many people he's able to throw in jail, not necessarily by how well he metes out justice.
Rarely, for example, does a prosecutor get public recognition for the cases he doesn't take. So we have people in a position where they have the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, incentives nudging them to err on the side of prosecuting aggressively, and absolute immunity from lawsuits should they overstep their bounds.
It's a recipe for abuse.
Generally speaking, it is smart public policy to shield prosecutors from lawsuits when it comes to determining in which cases they'll pursue charges. If we hamstring prosecutors into factoring potential lawsuits into determining whom to charge, we run the risk of bringing politics or the wealth and status of the accused into what should be a question of law, context, and propriety (any more than these things are already factor into such decisions, anyway).
But you could make a good case that absolute immunity takes this idea too far. Even police officers are given what's called "qualified immunity" from civil rights suits, which in 1983 the Supreme Court determined meant, "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
That sets a hurdle for lawsuits against the police, but not a wall (some would argue that this hurdle is also too high). It might be time to consider applying that standard to prosecutors, too.
But the Goldstein case doesn't even seek to overturn the 1976 decision in Imbler. That would take an act of Congress—and again, perhaps that's something Congress should consider.
Instead, the suit targets Mr. Van de Kamp as the manager of the district attorney's office. It says that he's guilty of negligently overseeing his office, and allowing his subordinates to use unreliable, uncorroborated testimony from prison inmates.
Such misconduct Would include knowingly putting on false testimonywithholding exculpatory evidence from defense attorneys, and coercing witnesses, among other transgressions.
"The District Attorney's Office denied Goldstein a fair trial:" Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block said in November, 2002. The ruling was upheld by a federal judge in Los Angeles and three 9th Circuit judges.
Punitive damages are award-able in cases where a defendant has been found "guilty" of intentional, reckless or malicious wrongdoing, such as fraud, defamation or false imprisonment. 

Friday, December 17, 2010

Misconduct Still In Riverside County District Attorney Office re: Deputy District Attorney, Earl Lee Roberts SB #251043

Today a new judge gave me another opportunity to amend the void criminal  case INF054715 but need to show on the record what was said in court to prove the judgment is void on the face, so need to get the transcripts into the record to prove I was falsely arrested on void judgments by District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss.

 The judge did not appear too happy with the Deputy DA, Earl Lee Roberts, SB #251043 who ignored the law,  lied and presented false evidence in his written "Opposition" to my Motion to Dismiss, and in verbal comments during the hearing -- setting up a smoke screen to confuse and deceive the court -- essentially committing  fraud on the court with the written "Opposition" that was just absurd. It had nothing to do with the law of CCP 473  that addresses void judgments, under which I filed, i.e, Attorney Roberts did not even have the correct law; it was just rather bizarre.

Attorney Roberts  tried to insult me -- calling me "self-serving." I wonder if he even  understands what that means and how it would not apply to me. I am only trying to clear my name from the lack of justice of his minoans in the Office of Riverside County District Attorney. How is that self-serving?

The judge did not even address The Opposition  -- it was totally unrelated to my motion --  the judge stayed focused on void judgment law, and ended with what I needed to present the next time. It went very well  and the judge allowed me to talk and get a lot "on the record ." He waited until the end of morning session to hear my motion and he acknowledged the "void case" issue here -- ignored the DAs Opposition --  but he needs those certified transcripts. So, again, my case was "temporarily dismissed with out prejudice."

Attorney Earl Roberts had his own little fellow DA Deputies Peanut Gallery sitting in the back of the court room -- about five or six of them -- vultures  waiting to descend - I suppose to give him "support?" -- but wouldn't it be nice if they learned something from all of this as to what their responsibility is to a defendant to make sure they present a fair trial. Now it is all about wining at any cost.

The road in the legal system is an uphill battle for an elderly, mentally challenged, indigent pro per suffering from Post Traumatic Stress, who has had no legal help and no money to get transcripts. The system needs to change to be more fair-minded.

I tried to do this case without the transcripts using just certified written records because I didn't have the money -- guess I will need to go panhandling on Christmas Day to get the money so as to get  back into court in January with the transcript evidence on my  Second Amended Motion.

BTW: I have my own personal stalker -- "Cory Johnson" is a man who has stalked me and my daughter for years, always directing his taunts at me since this bogus criminal case began, even writing to my neighbors, and harassing Jeanine at work.  We suspect he is a Cathedral City cop, or a board member from our old HOA. Whoever he is he seems to be mentally ill and obsessed with me and my life. It is a little scary to have this person lurking, and bullying me and my family from the cyber shadows.

Anyway - it is all positive albeit still ongoing when I thought it would be finished by the end of the year.

Thank you for your ongoing thoughts and prayers on my behalf.

~Sharon Stephens