Thursday, August 12, 2010


Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701


County of San Bernardino
8303 North Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Case NO: MWV90372


The Defendant, Sharon Stephens wishes to proceed in this case pro se.

The right of self-representation finds support in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, as well as in the English and colonial jurisprudence from which the Amendment emerged. In California law, as in Federal courts, any defendant who makes a knowing intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel to represent themselves as long as they are competent to stand trial. When "a motion to proceed pro se is timely interposed, a trial court must permit a defendant to represent himself upon ascertaining that he has voluntarily and intelligently elected to do so, irrespective of how unwise such a choice might appear to be. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

Furthermore, the defendant's 'technical legal knowledge' is irrelevant to the court's assessment of the defendant's knowing exercise of the right to defend herself." People v. Windham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 121, 128, 137 Cal. Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187 [*8] (Windham), quoting Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 836. Erroneous denial of a Faretta motion is reversible per se. McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168, 177, fn. 8, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, 104 S. Ct. 944.

How often we hear, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

To that it is often said, "He who is represented is usually taken for a fool."

September 17, 2010
Court Room 7
8:30 Am


Monday, August 2, 2010


Sharon Stephens

PO Box 9475
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701

"In Pro Per"

8303 Haven Avenue
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

PEOPLE                                                          CASE NO.: MWV903720
                                             NOTICE OF MOTION AND     v                                                    MOTION 
TO VOID, July 2, 2010 ORDER
                                                      DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CASE WITH
                                                      PREJUDICE, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, 


                                              Court Room:


     Defendant, Sharon Stephens gives Notice of Motion, and moves and requests this court to apply controlling law and declare void the Temporary Restraining Order, and Stay Away orders that caused Judge S. Sabet on May 25, 2010 to place the defendant into an unlawful incarceration. Also, that all orders rendered on the basis of those void orders also be declared void. This motion relies upon decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, California statutes and rules of court, federal laws and multiple constitutional protections, and related points and authorities, and Defendant’s Declaration.


     In thousands of ten to twenty minute hearings held all over the Country, judges are now able to do what the Marxists have only dreamed of doing before now, and could never hope to do before they were able to use the pretext of 'violence' to issue restraining orders. However, the real violence is almost always to the rights of the defendant, and to the Constitution itself. However, when a judge does not follow the law, the judgment is void.

      May 7, 2010:
Judge Sabet was assigned to hear a 402 Hearing. At this hearing she stated she did "not know the law on void judgments" but proceeded to retry the void restraining order issued by Judge Rex Victor. Not only did Judge Victor issue the order without the needed legal criteria to make the order valid, but Attorney Hollenbeck missed the filing date for the hearing by three [3] days making the order also invalid, and the TRO void.

     Judge Sabet allowed Attorney Linda Hollenbeck (who was on "The Witness List) to sit at the table with Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu (making her a co-prosecuter) and to continually feed him questions that were not in the original transcripts of the trail. Judge Sabet, Attorney Hollenbeck knew this, as did prosecuter Liu as they all had a copy of the transcripts. Attorney Hollenbeck and Jack Liu also brought in two witnesses that were never a part of the original trial.

     The witnesses' trufully testified under oath that I had never done anything violent, nor even threatened any violence. That is the criteria to issue a Workplace Restraining Order under Civil Code of Procedure 527.8.

     The average person looking at this situation would see a bias toward the defendant based on unsupported fabricated and provable subordinated perjury brought by Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu's and Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck's witnesses, of which Judge Sabet did willingly listen to, accepted as true, and allowed to influence her.

     May 25, 2010 after a year of false arrests, harassment by Amerland Group/Logan Property Management and their resident management staff, Judge Sabet, after stating she "did not know the law," had a legal research team make a finding on this void judgment and then on those findings had to legally declare the restraining order void and dismiss all counts. (The TRO was still undecided but I address that void order here as it is at issue.) However, Judge Sabet had already listened to several hours of subrogated perjury by "witnesses" that was instigated by Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu, and Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck, When hearing a motion to dismiss a void judgement, the court may only consider the judgement roll. Judge Sabet's attitude toward me indicated she had already been influenced by the subrogated perjury.

     However, Judge Sabet then took me [unlawfully] into custody on May 25, 2010 on a [void] Stay Away Order at the insistence of Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu, who was accompanied by Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, for Logan Property, Karen Brooks, Resident Manager of Briarwood, and Martha Enrique, owner, Amerland Group and Logan Property Management.

     In the May 26, 2010 order to incarcerate me, she still did not know the law of void judgments, 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).

     The Stay Away Order had been piggy-backed on a void restraining order by Judge Libutti in June 2009, when I brought a motion to dismiss the judgment as void. Both the TRO and Restraining Order were already void at this hearing. I had sent emails to Attorney Hollenbeck, the owners, and resident staff that the order was void. They continued to have me falsely arrested for such things as getting my mail, making complaints, asking for a key when I was locked out, or claiming falsey I was trespassing.

     However, I knew a void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void: I was stunned at her decision to incarcerate me, her apparent bias attitude toward me in her demeanor and language, and then her excessive Bail of $150,000 that may have been "retaliation under color of law" by Judge Sabet. (See; Motion to Recuse Judge Sabet)

     Findings of fact and conclusions of law, by the judge were necessary legal requirements for rendering an order on a void injunction, and this requirement was violated. The law requires that the judge rendering such a decision on a void injunction make findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing each of these requirements, according to the judgment record of the injunction. Judge Sabet did not do this.

     Then Judge Sabet then became quite rude, not hiding her bias toward me when she said with a curled lip and venomous implications in her tone, "Read my lips, IF YOU SHOULD MAKE BAIL...'" She then made implications in this ruling where she made a number of fact findings and mixed fact and law findings that were simply contrary to the evidence, or, the lack of evidence, presented by Deputy Jack Liu and Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck in unsubstantiated, corrupted and incompetent testimony to alleged facts and heard in subrogated perjury by witnesses.

     Instead of meeting the lawful requirements to protect the person suffering harm from the unlawful acts -- the void injunctive orders that had deprived Defendant, who was suffering great harm both emotinally and physically with several hospitalizations for heart problems brought on by alleged bogus violations of the void orders, and had no protection in law, rather, it seemed the parties perpetrating the violations and unlawful acts were being protected in spite of subrogation of perjury, presenting perjured documents on a void TRO and restraining order which resulted in false arrests, harassments and elder abuse and harmed the interests of the defendant by subverting legal and constitutional protections. I, the defendant became the victim and never received any protection from the District Attorney, or the court.

     Judge Sabet did not follow the law: California law holds that an order rendered in violation of law or without jurisdiction is a nullity.

     July 2, 2010 I am brought back before Judge Sabet, where I am offered what I only realize later is a plea bargain. I am in a terrible state of shock, and suffering a psychotic break with reality due to the abuse and torture I endured while incarcerated for 10 days. (Please Take Judicial Notice of attached  Complaint to San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept.) Although I apparently appeared normal at the hearing, I was not. I still do not have much of a memory of what is said. I know, I was not understanding what I was being charged with. I do believe I hear Judge Sabet take away my constitutional right to bring a law suit against "them," i.e., Logan Property Management, Amerland Group, and Briarwood Manor. I learn later I am being charged with trespassing on a police report that is over a year old. Prosecuter Liu made his case for incarceration by saying I had "contacted the victims a week ago, and violated the year old, and now void Stay Away Order."


     It is remarkable how many judges, deputy district attorneys, public defenders, and defense attorneys don't know or understand "void judgments." It has been estimated that the number of void judgments on the books in America’s courthouses is so great, there is no practical way to estimate how many there are! What I have learned about the legal system -- particularly void judgments -- in the last ten years has left me literally stunned, but feeling particularly qualified to address this in this motion.

     I have been incarcerated three times on void judgments, by judges who either ignored the law, or did not know the law. Judge Sabet made it clear from the start that she "did not know the law of void judgments and could not make a ruling." She did however listen to several hours of subornation of perjury (where much testimony was introduced that was never in the original hearing by "witnesses" -- two of whom were not even at the original hearing) instigated by Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu, and Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck, both whom Judge Sabet allowed to sit together and act as prosecutors, and both of whom had transcripts and knew the testimony they were bringing in was not in the original hearing.

     Judge Sabet did not follow the law in her rulings: When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. A judge may only look at the judgment roll record; she may not retry the case and allow for any "new testimony, etc." 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:

     When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges 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)

     Judge Sabet needed to learn about void judgements before she came to court. "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..." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].


     Findings of fact and conclusions of law were necessary lawful statutory requirements of workplace violence, that being "violence!" for rendering an injunction, and this requirement was violated by Judge Rex Victor. The law requires that the judge rendering an injunction make findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing each of these requirements. Judge Victor ignored the legal criteria to issue the order and this is obvious in the judgment record. he even stated on the record 'She has doone nothing that bad she shouldn't be here, and order Attorney Hollenbeck to notify me." She never did. Federal Rule 52(a) requires that the court granting or denying a preliminary injunction "shall set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action."

     In Granny Good Foods, Inc. v. Bth=d of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County (1974) 415 US 423, 994 S Ct 1113, 39 L ed2d 435, the court held that where a temporary restraining order had been continued beyond the time limits permitted by Rule 65(b) and the required findings of fact and conclusions of law had not been set forth making the order invalid.

     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. (b) Temporary Restraining Order. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry — not to exceed 14 days — that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

     After 14 days the TRO was void. But, Attorney Hollenbeck allowed me to put her under oath at the hearing, which was already three days late and already void, and admitted she tried to have me [illeglly] arrested for making a complaint to resident management about a man exposing himself. Her lawfirm fired her the very next day. "Constitutionally protected activity, such as making police reports, or complaints of any type are excluded from the meaning of 'course of conduct [re: harassment]'. Schraerv. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719. 

                                      STAY AWAY ORDER IS VOID

     No one can attach a stay away order order onto a void order, and I could not be incarcerated on the void Stay Away Order, placed on the void TRO, or Restraining Order.

     ...All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. A void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there were no judgment. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement. 30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43, 44, 45. Henderson v. Henderson, 232 NC 380, 100 SE2d 227. See Restatement, Judgments, ' 8.

        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 )

                               THERE IS A DUTY OF DUE DILIGENCE

     Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu and Attorney Linda Hollenbeck who have an obligation of due diligence to research the law,  are also trespassers of the law: Under Federal law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and ALL PERSONS concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
                          A VOID ORDER MAY LEGALLY BE IGNORED

     The Defendant is not bound by any void orders made by Judge Sabet: Such void on the face 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. [Citations.]"  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, 147.

                              CONPIRACY and COLLUSION

     I seems apparent that Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu, Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck, Martha Enrique, Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth-Oschner are all guilty of a conspiracy to bring a false case against me. California Penal Code Section 182 (a) If two or more persons conspire: (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.

    Common law – At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557–58 (1947) Moreover, a "conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense."Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997) It is enough that each person agrees, at a minimum, to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.

    Fraud Related To Rendering Orders or collusion in connection with the rendition of a judgment is regarded as rendering the judgment void: The validity of a judgment may be affected by fraud in the obtainment of such a judgment. Wyman v. Newhouse (CA 2d) 93 F2d 313, 115 ALR 460

               VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS                              

     The original intent of the Equal Protection Clause in the Civil Rights Act was to give the humblest and poorest the same civil rights as the most powerful and wealthy

     "A claim under the civil rights act expressly gives the District Court Jurisdiction, no matter how imperfectly the claim is stated." Harmon v. Superior Ct of the State of California, 307 F 2d 796, CA 9(1962)

     Judge Sabet entered an order on my probation that I must give up my constitutional rights of due process to sue the opposing side, making it a crime if I do so. This suggest some collusion on her part with Attorney Hollenbeck, Amerland, Logan Property, and Briarwood Manor. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime." Miller v.U. S., 230 F 486 at 489; "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)

     "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)

    Judge Sabet has an apparent bias attitude toward me in her demeanor and language, and then her excessive Bail of $150,000 that may have been "retaliation under color of law." It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal).Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. 

     U.S.C. 42 §12203 The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." “Prohibition against retaliation and coercion” (a) Retaliation No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter. (b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation. It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter. U.S.C. 42 §12203.

     The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "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]."When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 LRA 630 AM ST 459

     "Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871)

     "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of...rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. 242." Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 37. "Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335(1871) 


      July 2, 2010: I plead guilty to "trespass" but no violation of a trespass took place, so I could not plead guilty to a crime I did not do! That would be a legally impossible admission. People v. Soriano, 4 Cal. App. 4th 781 - 1992 - "In this case we hold that since a trial court's acceptance of a negotiated plea which patently includes a legally impossible admission it constitutes an act in excess of its jurisdiction."

People v. Vasilyan 174 Cal. App. 4th 443 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist., Div. 8, 2009.  "We cannot affirm a conviction and sentence imposed for a crime that does not exist..." (See People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 785 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 138] "...where fundamental jurisdiction is lacking... It follows that if there is no crime, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This conclusion is compelled not only by the statutes and cases interpreting those statutes, this conclusion comports with fundamental principles of justice. The notion that a person can be punished under the criminal law for committing an act that is not a crime is entirely outside our system of jurisprudence."

     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.”

When a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

                           VOID JUDGMENTS "NEVER DIE"
                           IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

     CCP 473 and 473a has no direct reference to void judgments: Because the order of dismissal was void on its face, 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

    CCP Section 473 does permit 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.

    Any court where it is at issue may dismiss this void judgment as well: "A void act or judgment may be attacked in any forum, state or federal, where its validity may be drawn in issue.' Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 [24 L. Ed. 565 ] (1878).

                                               PRO SE PLEADINGS

     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."   


      ALL void judgments rendered by Judge Sabbet to be recognized as "dismissed with prejudice:" "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. [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (Ibid; accord Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761

     Include in the order that all subsequent orders and acts that are void, that Judge Sabet relied on be declared void with prejucdice.

     That the court take Judicial Notice of both attached Criminal Charging Affidavits and act accordingly.


I, Sharon Stephens, the Defendant in this case, declare under penalty of perjury, and can testify that all of the statements made in this motion are true, partly from my own knowledge, and partly from knowledge and belief.

August , 2010                                      ___________________________

                                                            Sharon Stephens