AN UNJUST JUDGE
Writ Of Habeas Corpus
Writ Of Habeas Corpus
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RANCHO CUCAMONGA DIVISION
CASE NO. MWV903720
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
RANCHO CUCAMONGA DIVISION
CASE NO. MWV903720
COMES NOW SHARON STEPHENS to submit a petition for a PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS on a sentence imposed by JUDGE SHAELA S. SABET on January 11, 2011 on a void on the face judgment. Judge Sabet had admitted, on the record she "does not know void judgment law," but refused to let me recuse her on a CCP 170.1 so that another judge might hear the case.
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
Judge Shaela Sabet imposed on me an unlawful incarceration that began with a void on the face temporary restraining order [TRO] and then became a void on the face Restraining Order.
For more than a year the San Bernardino Office of District Attorney and this court, particularly Judge Sabet has persecuted me on the void on the face restraining order. I have been in and out of false arrests and unlawful and have been drug back and forth to court like a rag doll, all the while being homeless and living in my car because of a retaliatory eviction by Logan Property Management Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck, essentially for complaining about lack of fire safety and criminal behavior on my senior apartment complex. (I am 70 years old.)
I soon discovered that five people had died in fires on another property of the owners, Ameriland Group, and Attorney Hollenbeck had evicted several people who complained - mostly handicapped and mentally disabled - from the Alexandria Hotel in Los Angeles. Later, in another fire on a property they owned three more would die in a fire in Vacaville, CA and more than 200 would be displaced. (The owners are now charged with manslaughter, and other charges, and face 18 years in prison.)
When I would not comply with the eviction, and go quietly into the night and tried to reason with the owners, Attorney Linda Hollenbeck sent me an email threatening me with a retraining order to shut me up! She then applied for two ex parte orders under CCP 527.8, Workplace Violence: The first, Case CIVRS900716 was dismissed as void as it did not meet the statutory criteria, i.e., there was no violence! The second judge was reluctant to issue an ex parte and stated on the record "she didn't do that much!" i.e., NO VIOLENCE!
I soon discovered that five people had died in fires on another property of the owners, Ameriland Group, and Attorney Hollenbeck had evicted several people who complained - mostly handicapped and mentally disabled - from the Alexandria Hotel in Los Angeles. Later, in another fire on a property they owned three more would die in a fire in Vacaville, CA and more than 200 would be displaced. (The owners are now charged with manslaughter, and other charges, and face 18 years in prison.)
When I would not comply with the eviction, and go quietly into the night and tried to reason with the owners, Attorney Linda Hollenbeck sent me an email threatening me with a retraining order to shut me up! She then applied for two ex parte orders under CCP 527.8, Workplace Violence: The first, Case CIVRS900716 was dismissed as void as it did not meet the statutory criteria, i.e., there was no violence! The second judge was reluctant to issue an ex parte and stated on the record "she didn't do that much!" i.e., NO VIOLENCE!
I was given no real opportunity to
rebut the TRO that was based upon hearsay declarations that were subject to
numerous evidentiary objections, and in fact there was an
insufficient showing of unlawful violence or credible acts of violence; CCP 527.8 requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of unlawful violence.
From the beginning the TRO was void on the face for not meeting the criteria for violence. A TRO is also void after 14 days.
Attorney Linda Hollenbeck then missed the filing date for a hearing by three or four days to issue the restraining order, therefore it became automatically void, however, we did go to the hearing and Attorney Hollenbeck allowed me to put her on as "a witness," and admitted she had tried to have me arrested while making a complaint to the owners/management. (Complaints of any kind are "protected activity" in spite of a restraining order.)
Linda Hollenbeck was fired from her law firm the very next day because of her court testimony.
From the beginning the TRO was void on the face for not meeting the criteria for violence. A TRO is also void after 14 days.
Attorney Linda Hollenbeck then missed the filing date for a hearing by three or four days to issue the restraining order, therefore it became automatically void, however, we did go to the hearing and Attorney Hollenbeck allowed me to put her on as "a witness," and admitted she had tried to have me arrested while making a complaint to the owners/management. (Complaints of any kind are "protected activity" in spite of a restraining order.)
Linda Hollenbeck was fired from her law firm the very next day because of her court testimony.
Still, no matter how much I told the owners, the management, or Attorney Hollenbeck the orders were void they continued to have me arrested for such things as getting my mail or sitting in the dinning room eating my breakfast. (I knew the management were afraid of losing their jobs and so complied with Attorney Hollenbeck's instructions to continue to arrest me.)
Finally I wrote a Motion to Dismiss Void Judgment Case MWV902119 and on June 19, 2009 went before Judge Michael R. Libutti, in which he issued a "Stay Away Order," however by this time both the TRO and the Restraining Order were void, and, the court may not attach any order onto a void order, therefore his order was void.
Then I am forced into court on a 402 Hearing and I ask that the case be challenged as a void judgment. Judge Sabet is almost gleeful at the start that she "gets to retry a case of another judge; I've never done that before," she declares. She also makes it clear she "knows nothing of void judgments," but proceeds to unlawfully retry the case anyway. (A void judgment can only be heard on the judgment roll of the original hearing.)
Judge Sabet allows Attorney Hollenbeck to sit with the Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu (in spite of protest from my attorney) and feeds him a litany of question after question to witnesses who give false, well coached, fabricated answers that were never given in the original hearing, however, they all say I "never committed any acts of violence." One witness, Ms. Oseth-Oshner totally provably perjures herself. Then they are allowed to bring in two "new witnesses" -- one a convicted felon.
Finally I wrote a Motion to Dismiss Void Judgment Case MWV902119 and on June 19, 2009 went before Judge Michael R. Libutti, in which he issued a "Stay Away Order," however by this time both the TRO and the Restraining Order were void, and, the court may not attach any order onto a void order, therefore his order was void.
Then I am forced into court on a 402 Hearing and I ask that the case be challenged as a void judgment. Judge Sabet is almost gleeful at the start that she "gets to retry a case of another judge; I've never done that before," she declares. She also makes it clear she "knows nothing of void judgments," but proceeds to unlawfully retry the case anyway. (A void judgment can only be heard on the judgment roll of the original hearing.)
Judge Sabet allows Attorney Hollenbeck to sit with the Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu (in spite of protest from my attorney) and feeds him a litany of question after question to witnesses who give false, well coached, fabricated answers that were never given in the original hearing, however, they all say I "never committed any acts of violence." One witness, Ms. Oseth-Oshner totally provably perjures herself. Then they are allowed to bring in two "new witnesses" -- one a convicted felon.
Oy Vey! Judge Sabet has totally lost control and sight of the law of a void judgment challenge hearing.
At the end she informs the court room she "doesn't know how to rule and the attorneys will need to bring her the law to do so." They don't know the law either! I know the law but no one is asking me.
Two weeks later we are back in court and someone has informed Judge Sabet she has totally screwed up the case; she must totally dismiss all 28 counts of the restraining order, which she does, but is obviously very upset.
Two weeks later we are back in court and someone has informed Judge Sabet she has totally screwed up the case; she must totally dismiss all 28 counts of the restraining order, which she does, but is obviously very upset.
Then, up jumps Deputy DA, Jackl Liu and Attorney Hollenbeck with the now moot, and void Stay Away Order of Judge Libutti and demands I be incarcerated on a trespass that allegedly took place under the [void] TRO? Judge Sabet, with a snarled lip and obvious pleasure sends me to jail with an unconscionable $150,000 Bail. I am 70 years old, indigent and living in my car -- she has made it impossible for me to get out of jail.
For ten days I do not eat and I am abused terribly by at least three sadistic and cruel deputies. Two public defenders see the results of that abuse: bloody wrists and more.
I am brought back into court but I am not even aware of what I am saying, or pleading to. I just know I cannot go back to jail; I am terrified.
After I am released I want to change my plea, based on my incompetent state of mind at the hearing. Judge Sabet again ignores the statutory criteria to set a competency hearing and she declares me to be competent. She has denied me due process. She sets a two year Summary Probation and declares I must give up my constitutional right, and cannot contact Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, the Attorney of Record for the owners, who I now wish to sue for what they have done to me. I KNOW I am allowed to legally sue these people. I serve Attorney Hollenbeck, with Proof of Service, an Intent to Sue Ameriland Group, and Briarwood Partners.
Judge Sabet then sentences me at a Vicker's Hearing for this contact to West Valley Detention Center for 120 days for violation of her [void] Summary Probation.
I am brought back into court but I am not even aware of what I am saying, or pleading to. I just know I cannot go back to jail; I am terrified.
After I am released I want to change my plea, based on my incompetent state of mind at the hearing. Judge Sabet again ignores the statutory criteria to set a competency hearing and she declares me to be competent. She has denied me due process. She sets a two year Summary Probation and declares I must give up my constitutional right, and cannot contact Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, the Attorney of Record for the owners, who I now wish to sue for what they have done to me. I KNOW I am allowed to legally sue these people. I serve Attorney Hollenbeck, with Proof of Service, an Intent to Sue Ameriland Group, and Briarwood Partners.
Judge Sabet then sentences me at a Vicker's Hearing for this contact to West Valley Detention Center for 120 days for violation of her [void] Summary Probation.
SUPPORTING CASES AND RULES
- CCP 473(d) Void Judgments may be challenged in any court where they are at issue.
- 30A AM Jur "Judgments" 43, 44, 45 No order may be attached or piggy-backed to an already void order: Henderson v. Henderson, 232 BC 380 SE 2d 227 See: Restatement Judgments 8.
- The Defendant raised a doubt as to her competency. The court had a duty to to conduct a competency hearing, People v. Sanberg (1981) 124 Cal. App, 3d 944,955. Judge Sabet could not declare me "competent," and her error requires a reversal of judgment. People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 508, 521.
- 30A AM Jur "Judgments" 43, 44, 45 No order may be attached or piggy-backed to an already void order: Henderson v. Henderson, 232 BC 380 SE 2d 227 See: Restatement Judgments 8.
- The Defendant raised a doubt as to her competency. The court had a duty to to conduct a competency hearing, People v. Sanberg (1981) 124 Cal. App, 3d 944,955. Judge Sabet could not declare me "competent," and her error requires a reversal of judgment. People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 508, 521.
- CCP 527.8 must show, with undeniable proof the criteria of "violence" in order to issue a TRO. No such evidence was ever presented, making the TRO void on the face from the start, and no orders could be added to this void order.
- 6 Witkin, Cal Procedure (2 nd ed. 1971) Appeal 7, pp 4024-4025: "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." Therefore, no Appeal is necessary.
- I have sought the court of Judge Shaela S. Sabet for relief. She has ignored my letter.
I am presently in pro per.
I the undersigned say: I AM THE PETITIONER IN THIS ACTION. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS AND STATEMENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT, EXCEPT AS TO MATTERS THAT ARE STATED ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS, I BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE.
February 5, 2011 Sharon Stephens
