Ain't It Beautiful

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

2009-10-19T11:28:00.000-07:00

COMPLAINT
Prosecutorial Misconduct
CASE NO: MWV903720

To: District Attorney Michael A. Ramos
316 N. Mountain View Ave
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0004

From: Sharon Stephens
Box 9475, Alta Loma, CA 91701

DEFENDANT ASKS PROSECUTOR FOR FAIR EVALUATION

The District Attorney and Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, 5 (1983) (amended 1998): … competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

An attorney's professional responsibilities, whether prosecutor, or defense
are set forth in, Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 2668; People v. Pope(1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; as In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal 4th 924.)

I am 69 years old, a heart patient, and homeless after being illegally evicted for complaining about unsafe living conditions, and criminal behavior on our low income property. That case is now in the Appellant Court Court of Appeal No. ACIAS 900001and Superior Ct. No. UDRS802820. It comes on calendar in November. However, I am considering filing a Motion to Vacate the Eviction As Void, I have been sleeping in my car since February 27, 2009: “A void order is "a dead limb on the judicial tree," which has no provisional or interim effect. Hence, even though an appeal there from is pending in an appellate court, the trial court which rendered it may vacate it at any time. Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 C.A. 2d 638, 641, 239 P.2d 650.

I took on a big Corporate Bully known as Ameriland Group, and their managers Logan Property Management, and a very unethical attorney, Linda Hollenbeck. When I began to complain I didn’t realize that they were in a million dollar lawsuit in Los Angeles with a property named The Alexandria Hotel where there were 36 criminal counts against the Ameriland Group related to fire code violations, and five people died. Many of the elderly who complained were “forced out of the hotel,” and consequently made homeless. [© Los Angeles Downtown News, page 6, 2/9/2009: and, AMERILAND GROUP http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html] -- I was complaining about lack of fire safety regulations in our building; I am now homeless.

The unethical and dirty tricks this company pulled on me to get me out before the actually eviction were beyond belief: elder abuse, perjured documents, false police reports, and then when I approached the Appellant Court with a Writ to be able to stay until the Appeal was heard, they went into court on an ex parte and charged me with “Work Place Violence” – with no credible proof. They weren’t happy with one; they took out two identical TROs. However, one judge saw through their scheme and dismissed it immediately as “void” because they “did not meet the burden of the law.”

This second one is also void, and that is where I am at today trying to fight this in court with a judge, and District Attorney who either don’t know the law, or ignore that law.

Unfortunately, Judge Rex Victor made it clear he did not know the law of CCP 527.8, and he ignored the criteria to issue such an order. It is a void order.

I have been falsely arrested four times for “constitutionally protected or legitimate business” on this void order, and now I am in criminal court and trying to be heard: “Protected and/or legitimate activity, is not “harassment.” Byers v. Cathcart, 57 Cal. App. 4^th 805 (1997) – but The District Attorney’s Office seems bound to “get me” and refuses to listen, or to research the law.

It’s hard to say what is more disturbing – the fact that despite being a Deputy District Attorney Marbi Laverne Burnette #119595 ignores the law or in the alternative that she is ignorant of the law, or, she just makes up the law. Certainly, today, September 24, 2009 in Court Room R7, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, where I was challenging this void order, she influenced the court by making up the law, stating that “A void judgment must be appealed in order to be recognized as void.”

No such law exists! This is just downright untrue and a deception on the court on the part of Ms. Burnett. CAL STATE BAR Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. This is NOT “harmless error” on the part of Attorney Burnette; rather it is unethical, blatant and deliberate and willful misconduct .

It is acknowledged that certain constitutional rights are "so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as ‘harmless error’." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

I have served three Formal Complaints regarding Attorney Burnette misconduct to the Rancho Cucamonga District Attorney’s Office. I can only presume they are being ignored as Ms. Burnette is still on this case with what can only be described as an egregious case of prosecutorial zealotry. Therefore I am calling a Grand Jury, and making a Cal State Bar Complaint against her. Attorney Burnette has lied in court, and even to the Public Defender, Michael Camber without any fear of the consequence of discipline for violation of civil liberties and statutes. With this lack of conscience I am wondering if she may suffer from the disorder known as "pseudologia fantastica.''

The American justice system is designed to err on the side of allowing the guilty to go free rather than incarcerate the innocent. But when an innocent defendant enters the criminal justice system, grievous mistakes can occur, if the prosecutor suffers no long-term repercussions from convicting an innocent person. It has been said, “The one most likely to abuse power is the one who thinks they are above doing so.”

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.

Too harsh?: If you think so, consider that these prosecutors who are so willing to send me to jail, or prison for crimes I did not commit, based on evidence from police reports that are untrue and tainted, and grossly incomplete, witnesses who provably lied, and an attorney who committed fraud on the court to get a bogus restraining order - and then to not to give me due process in a fair and impartial manner, refusing to do their job of “due diligence” to make sure the Defendant receives a fair trial -- “Too harsh?”

Would it really be so unfair for them to have a small taste of the confinement they have been willing to subject me to? Real punishments are needed for those who employ false claims, and turn our judicial system into a series of Kangaroo Courts.

Judge Christopher B. MARSHALL won’t be a judge to do that as he made it clear he did not even research on the law presented in my motion, and was influenced by, and went along with Attorney Burnett, adding insult to injury he ignored the law, and denied my motion; one does expect a judge to follow the law. When a judge does not follow the law, they are a trespasser of the law and 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); 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 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821); When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)

I am filing a lawsuit against Judge Marshall, and reporting him to The Judicial Commission.

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

I realize that Judge Marshall will not do his job on this point either, so I shall report Attorney Burnette to the Cal State Bar, and report him for not compiling with the law.

It is quite obvious that the real sanction that keeps most lower court judges from following precedent is professional pride. Everyone within the legal community knows when a trial or intermediate judge gets smacked down; some judges have thicker skins than others, but most don't want to appear unlearned and unprofessional, and not following the law. Judge Marshall’s attitude is, “I don’t need to follow any stinken law!” This is a dead giveaway that he knows he has lost. Judges are not supposed to set aside the law and use their own judgment, or the judgment of the District Attorney’s Office--and in the few cases where they do, they make a real effort to show how their decision was forced because the law in question was in conflict with some other law. That is not the case here.

The law is clear: MOTIONS to vacate void judgments may be made at any time after judgment. County of Ventura v. Tillett,133 Cal. App. 3d 105, 110; Void on the face judgments "never die" in the State of California, and it can be set aside at any time after its entry. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194; 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). NO APPEAL IS NEEDED TO CHALLENGE A VOID ORDER! I CAN CHALLENGE THIS VOID ORDER IN ANY COURT WHERE IT IS AN ISSUE, and IN THIS CASE IT IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS FILING A FRIVOLOUS CASE AGAINST ME. (I would ask: If the trial court may ignore or vacate its own void order at its pleasure, by what judicial whim does that order bind a party to obedience? )

Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett’s credibility is strained beyond tolerance and this case is just another example of why the confidence of most Americans in our Country's legal and judicial systems has been and is being shattered. We cannot tolerate a District Attorney and/or Deputy District Attorney who refuse to do their job of “due diligence” to know the law and the cases they are prosecuting. Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case -- Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049

The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law: A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ... the prosecutor represents “a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.;’ ” People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820 ; “Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... ‘The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence...’ ” People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378.; “The prosecutor’s job isn’t just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules.” United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323. “As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility… to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial…” United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.

Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett has in her possession “proof” that plaintiff’s, Logan Property et al, and their Attorney Linda Hollenbeck #145048 through provable conspiracy did seek a bogus and sham TRO on February 14, 2009 after I served them with an order on February 13, 2009 for their conspiracy, elder abuse and other crimes. Their sham TRO was a totally retaliatory order, it never met the burden of the law, and was misused and abused – and now The District Attorney’s Office is refusing to follow the law, or to seek justice, and District Attorney Burnette is suppressing this evidence, which she has a duty to reveal: Cal State Bar, Rule 5-220

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

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon  one because of their exercise of Constitutional Rights."
 It most certainly does appear that The District Attorney’s Office, and Deputy District Attorney Marbi Burnett in particular has an interest in protecting the large corporate entity of [Ameriland Group]  Logan Property and their fellow attorney, Linda Hollenbeck rather than seeking justice in this case,  and have ignored not only the law, but also the evidence that I am the victim: and its agents making  it unlikely that the Defendant can receive a fair trial. A conflict under Penal Code1424 "exists  whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the DA's office may  not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner. Thus, there is no need to  determine whether a conflict is 'actual,' only that it gives an 'appearance' of conflict."  People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal.3d 141, 148.

    1. The District Attorney has assigned three Deputy District Attorneys, HINSON, BURNETT and HILDALGO to this criminal case ALL of whom have ignored the law in Case #CIVRS 900198  and in this, therefore the void criminal case, and, ignored other reports that show the malicious and  vindictive behavior of the plaintiffs and their attorney, and then,even presented false law to the court. [SEE: Formal Complaint; Marbi Burnett]

     2. Plaintiff’s  Attorney Linda Hollenbeck did commit a Battery on the defendant, in front of a witness in the hall outside the court room and a report was filed with the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office, Case # 89090068, (This is moral turpitude, malum in se State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109)  The District Attorney has ignored the report.

     3. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck and her secretary, Ms. Brenda Eiden did provably deceive,  commit perjury, and commit fraud on the court in filing for the Temporary Restraining Order, and  the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office: Case  # 800900150 has taken the case to the District Attorney.  The District Attorney has ignored the report.       
      4.  ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES provided the District Attorney’s Office with an  “Elder Abuse Report.“ re: Logan Property Management. The District Attorney has ignored the  report. 
      5.  A “Conspiracy Report” re: Logan Property Management was provided to Deputy District  Attorneys, Hildalgo and Burnett. The District Attorney has ignored the report.
      6. In accepting the police reports as valid in the case where the Defendant was falsely arrested  while pursuing constitutionally protected activity, and/or legitimate business;  [Schraer v. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n,, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.] The District Attorney has  ignored the law of all restraining orders on these two points. The acts she was charged with were  not “crimes.” EXAMPLE: The Plaintiff’s had the Defendant arrested after she was locked out of her  apartment, for complaining to the office that she needed to have her heart medication; legitimate  business. They refused to give it to her and she went into angina. Martha Enrique of Logan Property  Management had her arrested in the ambulance. AGAIN, The District Attorney has ignored  the law.

Please take Notice:  As stated in the Defendant’s, June 19, 2009, and  September 24, 2009  Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil  Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, “Work Place Violence” was not met by the plaintiffs in  Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several  reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost subject matter jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face. Judge Victor ignored the law of  work place violence that states there must be violent acts and/ or credible threats of physical violence – there were never any such threats made by the defendant, and no evidence of such  presented to the court ;there are no affidavits filed by the plaintiff’s against the defendant, nor any  police reports of violent behavior.
Judge Marshall has committed treason: When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to  act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become  trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. The Court:  Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates,  Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)  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 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5  L.Ed 257 (1821)
AND: “Any judge or attorney [Ms. Burnette]  who does not report a judge for treason, as required by  law, may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason…” 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

The Defendant has committed no wrong doing. Particularly she has committed no criminal acts. This case has been an exercise in injustice from the beginning.

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. The District Attorney has ignored the law.

SHOULD IT NOW BE STATED: We in the District Attorney's Office are committed to seek justice and accountability for all who violate the law in our county except unless it be for politically powerful friends, and fellow attorneys.

In the State of California we have a Constitution that is akin to the federal constitution that guarantees ALL be allowed “justice,” and many of the individual rights clauses in the state constitution have been construed as providing rights broader than the Bill of Rights in the federal constitution, e.g., Article 1… defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy, and in Section 7:(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; I have clearly been a victim, yet I am have not been afforded equal protection from The District Attorney, or the court. Section 28 (a) (2) [ALL] Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b).

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of their exercise of Constitutional Rights.

The status quo has left Citizens with a justice system that is not affordable, confusing, hostile and indifferent to the cause of justice. The status quo has left many thinking they are powerless to do anything about an abuse of discretion and power they experience. Justice has become a process of back room deals, manipulations and closed door sessions with Citizens being shut out of the process. Misconduct often occurs out of sight, especially in cases that never go to trial. Those cases by definition do not generate appellate opinions However it is not a safe assumption that cases ending with guilty pleas are absent prosecutorial misconduct.

Because exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary and when any lawyer, or pro per in diligent pursuit of a fair disposition of a case, dares to stand up to Bad Judges, the "system" locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer, or pro per for bucking the “Lawyer’s Club.” The system's remarkable resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding.

Where does one go when they are not being provided with justice by the very people we elect, or appoint, and/or hire to assure justice -- the judges and the district attorneys?

I DO DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE THE TRUTH TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

October 18, 2009 _______________________________________

Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
760.835.8210

JUDGE H. L. PLUKIN -- A LACK OF ETHICS

2009-10-19T08:52:00.000-07:00

COMPLAINT

HARRY L. PLUKIN (Judge)
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA

Logan v. Stephens
Case #UDRS802820

Judge Harry L. Plukin is tampering with the records in the court, and has illegally and unethically removed the original Minute Order of December 22, 2008 from the computer electronic file that shows he recused himself, and declared a nunc pro tunc. The Minute Order can no longer be retrieved on the computer.

December 22, 2008, Case No. UDRS 802820, I made a MOTION TO
RECUSE JUDGE HARRY L. PLUKIN for not following the law. [See: Attachment 1]

Judge Plunktin did recuse himself and attached a portion of the transcript to the Minute Order to show he declared a nunc pro tunc, a Latin expression in common legal use in the English language. Now for then; a court ruling of "nunc pro tunc" applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling.

Judge Plunktin’s judgment became void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., he did not follow the law. When a judge does not follow the law they are a trespasser of the law, the judge 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)

December 23, 2008: The case, along with The Motion to Vacate The Void Restraining Order of Judge Rex Victor, then went to Judge Keith Davis. Judge Davis ignored the attachment of Judge Pulkin, and he went according to the old order to evict me, only giving credence to Attorney Linda Hollenbeck [See: Attachment 2]

Neither Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, or Judge Davis understood the term, nunc pro tunc. They both insisted it meant that the order Judge Plukin originally made was in force. [See: Attachment 3]

Davis did have a change of mind, and he recused himself when it was pointed out to him: “When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.” The Court: Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962); “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 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Judge Davis’ order became void, and the eviction he prescribed for December 26
became void as well. He refused to address the motion against Judge Rex Victor.

I realize that the real sanction that keeps most lower-court judges from following precedent is professional pride. Everyone within the legal community knows when a trial or intermediate judge gets smacked down; some judges have thicker skins than others, but most don't want to appear unlearned and unprofessional, and disciplined for not following the law. However, Judge Plotkin cannot be allowed to set aside the law and use his own judgment on how to decide a matter of jurisdiction, and law.

Judges must FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL. Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge.

The original Minute Order of December 22, 2008 MUST be made available for all who wish to access it on the internet court record site may do so.

I do declare under the laws of perjury of the State of California that the above is the truth to the best of my ability.

Sharon Stephens

ATTCHEMENT #1

SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
County of San Bernardino
8303 North Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Case No. UDRS 802820

December 22, 2008

Logan Property Management
vs.
Sharon Stephens

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE HARRY L. PLUKIN,
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, AND DEFENDANT’S DECLARATION

(Truncated) _______________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #2

COMPLAINT

DECEMBER 23, 2008

JUDGE KEITH DAVIS
California Superior Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
San Bernardino, CA

Logan v. Stephens

Case #UDRS802820

On December 23, 2008 I appeared before Judge Keith Davis in Department 9, Superior Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (Transcripts to follow)

I had been before Judge Barry Plunktin, and the case was transferred to Department 9. Before Judge Plunktin recused himself he changed his Minute Order, and attached a portion of transcript to show the change he made on his previous ruling. Judge Keith Davis ignored this attachment, and went according to the old order.

Judge Davis also refused to allow me to write an Opposition to the Plaintiff and present facts that would disprove their claim, which I had only received at 8:30 AM, on December 23, in the café of the court house. If I had of been giving the opportunity to write an opposition I would have presented Declarations, under oath, of witnesses that totally dispute Ms. Alvarez’s Declaration, as well as possibly even the police report, and other evidence.

Instead, he allowed Attorney Linda Hollenbeck to present a provably perjured Declaration by Logan Property Management, employee Edith Alvarez, on which Judge Keith D. Davis made the order of a lock-out to take place on December 26, 2008 by 3:30 PM, based on paragraph 2, of Ms. Alvarez’s perjured statement.

Judge Davis ignored the attached transcript of Judge Pluktin. When the defendant told Judge Davis that Judge Pluktin had changed the order, Attorney Hollenbeck was very well this was true, but choose to keep silent – allowing for the lock-out to take place. And she also kept silent when defendant brought to the attention of Judge Davis that Judge Pluktin had agreed to look at the transcripts from the original hearing, and if he thought I could win, he would allow me to stay beyond January 12^th. Ms. Hollenbeck was in the court room when Judge Pluktin made that statement, but she choose again to remain silent to the truth. I have now requested the transcript addressing the statement by Judge Plotkin.

What he did allow was to let Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck’s, through somewhat sophomoric theatrics, unsubstantiated, corrupted and incompetent testimony to alleged facts of which she had no personal knowledge, to influence the court.

Judge Davis allowed for this, even though I objected, and he then made the rude comment that this “isn’t court television!” He refused to let me object.

In other words, I was denied due process, and Judge Keith D. Davis only gave me two days to move out.

I am 68 years old, disabled heart patient, who must sleep with a B-Pap machine at night to breath properly, but will now be sleeping in my car.

I believe Judge D. Davis is incompetent, mean-spirited, and sadistic. Certainly he is not interested in justice.

Further report to follow: I declare the laws of perjury, of the State of California that foregoing is true to the best of my ability.

Most sincerely,
Sharon Stephens
____________________________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #3

MINUTE ORDER OF JUDGE DAVIS
[Transcripts not scanned into my computer]
Case UDRS802820 - LOGAN -V- STEPHENS

December 23, 2008 Top of Form

Bottom of Form

EX PARTE HEARING RE: MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF LOCK
12/23/2008 - 2:00 PM DEPT. R6
KEITH D DAVIS PRESIDING.

CLERK: JULIE BRIGUGLIO

COURT REPORTER KAREN DIGGS KAREN DIGGS

COURT ATTENDANT RICHARD UNGER

APPEARANCES:

ATTORNEY LINDA T.HOLLENBECK PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.

DEFENDANT SHARON STEPHENS PRESENT

PROCEEDINGS:

PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

EX PARTE APPLICATION ARGUED.

EX PARTE ORDERS ARE GRANTED. STAY OF LOCK OUT IS ORDERED LIFTED.

THE COURT FINDS THERE IS A SHOWING BY PLAINTIFF OF A HARASSMENT BY DEFENDANT SINCE JUDGE

NO SOONER THAN 12-26-08 AT 3:00PM.

ACTION - COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

__________________________________________________________________

ATTACHMENT #4

Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Alta Loma, CA 91701

March 15, 2009 CIVSS 90098
UDRS 802820
Honorable Jon Ferguson
Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
401 North Arrowhead Avenue INFORMAL MOTION
San Bernardino, CA 92415 -0063 FOR RECONSIDERATION

Most people today are stunned at the lack of justice in the courts, unethical attorneys who twist and lie about evidence to win a case at any cost, and have little care or concern for the people they are opposing. Linda Hollenbeck may be one of the worst, but the courts allow her to go on, with no reprimand. (SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. (I will be filing a Cal Bar Complaint against Ms. Hollenbeck, and the attorneys that oversee her legal behavior.]

1. I would be concerned about an attorney who does not even understand the meaning of nunc pro tunc [to return to its original meaning]. Judge Plotkin was recused because he tried to change the law, and needed to return it to is original meaning.

2. Only five residents [not nine] showed up at the Eviction Hearing, and were never heard, but talking with them afterwards NONE of them were there to testify that I was harassing them. [I was not allowed due process to question them.]

3. Hollenbeck was given two ex parte [behind my back] TROs: One was vacated in court as void; the second one, the same law, is before Judge McGuire to be heard and vacated. Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convaescere -- That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253

4. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that I have harassed anyone at Briarwood!!! In fact, Ms. Hollenbeck was let go from her law firm for this kind of dishonesty, and for stating under oath she was going to have me arrested on her void TRO. There is evidence [three police reports that I have been more than harassed.]

5. I am NOT a vexatious litigant. The attorney and homeowner association that brought those charges were suspended as a corporation, and could not bring or defend a lawsuit. "A corporation suspended for failure to file a required information statement with the California Secretary of State, may not prosecute or defend a lawsuit.” Palm Valley Homeowners Assn. v. Design MTC (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 350. The Vexatious Litigant charge is void! 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. Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761 I am waiting for a certified copy of the Secretary of State Suspension to have this case dismissed, along with other void cases involving this homeowners association. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck is going to be charged with barratry on this case.

No one can be punished for disobedience of avoid 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 (order in excess of jurisdiction).

6. I was at first granted a stay of eviction based on “hardship” by Judge
Ferguson. My hardship has not changed. I am a 68 year old, handicapped woman, who needs a breathing machine at night [I provided all of my medical evidence, and Attorney Hollenbeck and Briarwood Manor is aware of my hardship – yet they will lie, present unproven evidence, and put me on the street to live in my car. Why? Because I complained of unsafe living conditions and uncovered the fact that a friend of theirs was falsely holding himself out as a doctor.

7. My rent was $240. A month. [I live on $740 @ months] I was saving this. But a man in the building vandalized my car and I needed to get it repaired -- $350. I have put out more than $800. in legal expenses which I cannot recover because I am not an attorney. I cannot rent an apartment for $240. A month, and even if I could no one will accept me with this bogus eviction on my record.

I am only a lay person, and a very poor one at that, along with being elderly and handicapped, and I just wanted you all to know that there is no one out there in the legal field fighting for us.

~Sharon Stephens

cc: Commissioner Ronald J. Gilbert, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Hon. Keith Davis, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Hon. RYMOND Haight III, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse
Logan Property Management, Real Party of Interest

THE AGENTS OF LAW & ETHICAL DILEMMAS

2009-10-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

Ethical dilemmas are dilemmas of a certain kind of conflict between the rightness or wrongness of actions
and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions.

What complicates the issue, as it happens, is the difference between duties of omission and duties of commission.

Duties of Omission imply negative rights of others, e.g. abused victims ignored.

Duties of Commission imply positive rights of others. e.g., abused victims protected.

There are fundamental differences between the two kinds of duties. For a duty of commission to be binding, someone, an agent of the law, i.e., police, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys must be able to carry it out. However the ability verses the consequence of responding are often problematic and become matters of judgment which can blur the nature of such duties and result in duties of omission.

Example: Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorney all belong to the “Lawyer’s Club,” and they may all consider the “protection” of each other rather than the consequences of not doing the right thing for the victim as morally more important. This is the kind of dilemma that arises from human limitations, and a partiality of friendship, not from the structure of value itself. Now, all in the legal field know they ought to be impartial; that is the essence of legal morality -- they all tell themselves that. But this belief can be rejected if these agents of law resolve that in partiality of friendship there is a more moral importance to each other that permits, and perhaps even requires partiality in some circumstances to protect each other from the consequences of their omissions of justice.

The human condition, which is ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office" -- is what makes the presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for it is the basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing for the lay citizen to have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.

Now a situation can become a dilemma when we want to make duties of commission matters of law, as in "Good Samaritan" law where one can be sued for following their moral standard of giving aid to a person in need. The person giving aid is faced with a ethical dilemma: to get involved, or not get involved. Attorneys and judges are faced with a dilemma that may involve them to ignore their own moral standard and a breach of ethics and a duty of omission occurs.

When a breach of ethics, and a duty of omission results in a wrong of commission, it is often because of ignoring empirical evidence, i.e., the abused victim and the laws that protects the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has been committed through empirical evidence, and the law -- but if the agents turn a blind eye to both evidence and the law, justice is lost.

When this sort of a breach of a duty of commission results in a wrong of omission, which by its very nature will produce no legal causal effects to the agent it means no one will ever even know that a wrong has been committed -- the evidence is ignored, and the law is not followed, and nobody notices. The Minute Order will simply read “Motion Denied” and no one, apart from the agents will ever know that a wrong was involved.

This is an important point to consider in relation to the nature of law. Someone who is prosecuted, or sued, or retaliated on for being a "Good Samaritan" is not guiltier than the unnoticed callous agents who are caught up in an ethical dilemma, and perhaps more guilty for ignoring the good of helping someone in need. The Good Samaritan is simply more legally unlucky. However, legal sanctions ought not fall more heavily on the unlucky than on the guilty. That makes for a bad law.

Good Samaritans have a strong sense of their duty of commission involving an obligation to do the right thing but may very well become a victim of a system where agents ignore their obligation to do the right thing. By that very omission agents may not produce enough evidence, or even give false evidence, which means no one can never know how many of the guilty, even grossly guilty -- like callous agents, escape the consequences of their behavior.

Furthermore, since ability and fear of consequences cloud the very nature of duties of commission, it becomes very easy for agents to distort the evidence, or to unfairly second-guess a victim who did the right thing and throw that victim to the prosecutorial wolves, who, as they now operate, go for convictions rather than the truth, and would be perfectly happy to portray the real victim who did the right thing as a dangerous violator of the law, all for the sake of winning.

The whole project of examining moral dilemmas is a relatively modern one. We don't find it in Plato or Aristotle who propounded relativism. With them, as now in life, what we just really want to know is what a person is like morally -- are they a good person or a bad person? If they are a good person we want to believe they will try to do the right thing, and the occurrence of dilemmas will not subtract from their goodness.

Most lay citizens do not come across such dire legal situations that present such ethical, moral dilemmas, but it is always a very interesting exercise to consider a dilemma and what our reaction to it may be.

Large scale evils require the cooperation, and conspiracy of the many against the few. A very large number of people are just going to go along with the crowd, afraid of being different and/or victimized by the agents themselves. However if even one example can give heart to those then a right action can suddenly produce the best effects.

MY CASE TO RECUSE THE DISTRCT ATTORNEY

2009-10-12T10:11:00.000-07:00

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON STEPHENS

CASE NO: MWV903720

NOTICE OF MOTION, AND MOTION
TO RECUSE THE ENTIRE SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICE; POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES; AFFIDAVIT, and
DECLARATION OF
SHARON STEPHENS

Date: October 13, 2009

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept: 20

----------------------------------------------------------------

TO: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter "Defendant" will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant's case herein.

The Defendant asserts that this motion is necessary because an apparent conflict of interest exist that would render it unlikely that the Defendant would receive a fair trial as set forth in Penal Code section 1424, and the cases that have applied this statute.

This motion is based on this notice of motion, the evidence attached to the motion, the court herein and such matters as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. Since this motion must be supported by an affidavit the Defendant has provided one, which is to be used for the purpose of supporting this motion.

October 1, 2009 Sharon Stephens ,pro per

BACKGROUND

The Defendant is a 69 year old disabled woman with a heart condition and sleep apnea, and was illegally evicted by Briarwood Manor/Logan Management through their Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck for complaining about unsafe living conditions, criminal behavior at Briarwood Manor, and, for writing a newsletter then revealing that one of their friends was not a doctor all of which are constitutionally protected activities. Consequently that Case # ACIAS 900001 is in the Appellant Court and due to be heard on calendar in November, 2009.

When the Appellant Court said it would be a severe hardship if the Defendant was to be evicted, before appeal, Logan Property Management and Attorney Hollenbeck went after her with a vengeance to the point of perjury, fraud and deception to the court, battery, tampering with the US Mail, and finally a provable conspiracy where they filedagainst her with bogus restraining orders, which allowed for false arrests even for constitutionally protected andlegitimate activity. (The District Attorney has a copy of the Conspiracy Report, and an Elder Abuse Report but refuses to act on them.)

FAQ: Restraining Orders are the most misused and abused court documents, often just handed out like candy canes on Christmas morning by judges who have no regard for the required statutory and case laws that regulate them, and how they can ruin a person's life. The Defendant is still fighting such void orders by her homeowners association in Riverside County, and, suing the judge for not following the law, and she is considering such legal action in this case against the judges involved.

As stated in the Defendant's, June 19, 2009, and September 24, 2009 Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, "Work Place Violence" was not met by the plaintiffs in Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face.

However, on January 14, 2009 Judge Victor told Attorney Hollenbeck he "Did not think [Defendant's behavior] was sufficient to not give her notice of the hearing, i.e., She had NOT committed any violence and there was no "Credible threat of violence."

First and foremost, for there to be a valid order the plaintiffs had to meet the criteria and case law of CCP 527.8 which clearly states there must have been clear and convincing evidence of a threat of great bodily harm. No such threat was ever made by the Defendant to the plaintiffs Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, and in fact a quick perusal of Case CIVRS 900198 will show that both plaintiffs provided provably perjured declarations and documents, as did their Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, who deceived the court and signed declarations that she claimed were written by her clients.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR RECUSAL OF PROSECUTORIAL STAFF
OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

The Defendant submits the following facts to support her motion.

1. The District Attorney has assigned three Deputy District Attorneys, HINSON, BURNETT and HILDALGO to this criminal case ALL of whom have ignored the law in Case #CIVRS 900198 and in this therefore void criminal case, and, ignored other reports that show the malicious and vindictive behavior of the plaintiffs and their attorney, and then, even presented false law to the court. [SEE: Formal Complaint; Marbi Burnett]
2. Plaintiff's Attorney Linda Hollenbeck did commit a Battery on the defendant, in front of a witness in the hall outside the court room and a report was filed with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office, Case # 89090068, (This is moral turpitude, malum in se State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109) The District Attorney has ignored the report.
3. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck and her secretary, Ms. Brenda Eiden did provably deceive, commit perjury, and commit fraud on the court in filing for the Temporary Restraining Order, and the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office: Case # 800900150 has taken the case to the District Attorney. The District Attorney has ignored the report.
4. ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES provided the District Attorney's Office with an Elder Abuse Report re: Logan Property Management. The District Attorney has ignored the report.
5. A Conspiracy Report re: Logan Property Management was provided to Deputy District Attorneys, Hildalgo and Burnett.The District Attorney has ignored the report.
6. In accepting the police reports as valid in the case where the Defendant was falsely arrested while pursuing constitutionally protected activity, and/or legitimate business; [Schraer v. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.]

The District Attorney has ignored the law of ALLrestraining orders on these two points. The acts she was charged with were not crimes. EXAMPLE: The Plaintiff's had the Defendant arrested after she was locked out of her apartment, for complaining to the office that she needed to have her heart medication; legitimate business. They refused to give it to her and she went into angina. Martha Enrique of Logan Property Management had her arrested in the ambulance. AGAIN, The District Attorney has ignored the law.

Please take Judicial Notice: Motion to Dismiss June 19, 2009, and Addendum to Motion to Dismiss, September 24, 2009.

The Defendant has committed no wrong doing. Particularly she has committed no criminal acts. This case has been an exercise in injustice from the beginning.

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. The District Attorney has ignored the law.

It appears to the Defendant that the San Bernardino County District Attorney, and particularly Deputy District Attorneys HINSON, M. BURNETTE, and HILDALGO has given and continues to give preferential treatment to the politically powerful Logan Property Management [ Ameriland Group], and its agents thereby resulting in a conflict of interest which makes it unlikely that the Defendant can receive a fair trial.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: [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 complaints 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)

Penal Code section I 424(a)(1) provides in part that the notice of motion to disqualify the district attorney shall contain a statement of the facts setting forth the grounds for the claimed disqualification, the legal authorities relied upon by the moving party, and be supported by affidavits of witnesses who are competent to testify to the facts set forth in the affidavits.

The standard for granting the motion is stated in Penal Code section 1424(a)( 1) as follows: "The motion may not be granted unless the evidence shows that a conflict of interest exists that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial"

A conflict under section 1424 "exists whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the DA's office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner. Thus, there is no need to determine whether a conflict is 'actual,' only that it gives an 'appearance' of conflict." People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 141, 148

Defendant has demonstrated that fair treatment by the office is unlikely. People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 86. The standard is "likelihood of unfairness."

In People v. Merrit, 19 Cal.App 4th 1573, 24 Cal Rptr 2d 177(1993), the court confirmed that the term "conflict" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1424 as "evidence of a reasonable possibility the district attorney's office may not be able to exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner." the Merritt case also states that when it appears that misconduct has been committed by the district attorney, then the burden shifts to the district attorney to show that sanctions are not warranted because the defendant has not been prejudiced by the misconduct.

Although recusal of an entire prosecutorial office is a serious case, there is a showing that such a step is necessary to assure fair treatment of the Defendant. People v. Hamilton (1989)48 Ca.3d 1142 1156 259 Cal Rptr, 701

The California Supreme Court stated in People v. Superior Court (Greer) 19 Cal. 3d 255, 269 that a trial judge may exercise its power to disqualify a district attorney from participating in the prosecution of a criminal charge when the judge determines that the attorney suffers from a conflict of interest which might prejudice him against the accused and thereby affect, or appear to affect, his ability to impartially perform discretionary functions of his office.

Defendant believes that there is ample evidence in this case for the court to recuse the entire prosecutorial staff in light of the standards set forth above, and she believes that it is unlikely that she can receive a fair trial.

CONCLUSION

Deputy District Attorney HINSON suggested at our first meeting that the Defendant has no right to be considered a victim or to be given protection in this case? Deputies HILDALGO and BURNETTE have in their behavior, in and out of court reiterated this belief. And, the entire District Attorney's has turned a blind eye to Defendant's complaints regarding their misconduct.

In effect, The District Attorney is saying it is not relevant whether the People's witnesses are lying or have a motive to lie because they are involved in an appeal that will result in a lawsuit for a great deal of money, that also involves crimes of perjury, false arrest, conspiracy and more. This is a deliberate attempt to convict the Defendant without a fair trial and shows the length that the DA will go to in order to "win."

However, the Defendant and the public have a right to demand the highest ethical standards for its public servants, particularly those acting on our behalf in the legal system. Unfortunately, today's courts fall short of ensuring accountability for attorneys who commit ethics violations and ensuring public transparency of the process. Both areas are critical in maintaining integrity and public confidence in a self-regulating profession.

"Without any question, the legal system has become a tool for bullying in this country," said Philip Howard, chair of the legal reform group Common Good. "And if you're a lawyer, [Linda Hollenbeck] and you don't have to go out and spend money for another lawyer, [because the District Attorney is protecting you from prosecution] you can use it as a hammer."

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.

Too harsh? If you think so, consider that these prosecutors who are willing to send the Defendant to jail, or prison for crimes she did not commit, based on evidence from police reports that is untrue and tainted, and grossly incomplete, witnesses who provably lied, and an attorney who committed fraud on the court to get a bogus restraining order - and then to not to give the Defendant due process in a fair and impartial manner, refusing to their job of due diligence to make sure the Defendant receives a fair trial -- Too harsh?

Would it really be so unfair for them to have a small taste of the confinement they have been willing to subject the Defendant to?

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

America needs judges willing to say "NO!" to the lawyer bullies.

The system as a whole doesn't do what we count on it to do, which is to sort out the guilty people from the innocent people. It doesn't do that because the guilty people and the innocent people are ALL faced with the same pressure to plead guilty.

If the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is allowed to remain on this case it is likely that the Defendant will not get a fair trial.

October 1, 2009

Respectfully Submitted, Sharon Stephens ,
pro per

ADDENDUM

TO: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter Defendant will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant's case herein, and present this Addendum to Motion.

As stated in the Defendant's, June 19, 2009, and September 24, 2009 Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, "Work Place Violence" was not met by the plaintiffs in Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face. Judge Victor ignored the law of work place violence that states there must be violent acts and/ or credible threats of physical violence there were never any such threats made by the defendant, and no evidence of such presented to the court; no affidavits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, nor any police reports or violent behavior.

The court and the Office of the District Attorney have insisted that the restraining order was valid at the time of my arrests for allegedly violating the order, even though the Defendant showed Deputy District Attorney HINSON the law of void orders, as follows, he obviously ignored the law.

Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convaescere -- That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time.Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253

Such void on the face judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored [by defendant] 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.).

The District Attorney and Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, 5 (1983) (amended 1998): competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

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

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. (John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC; "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with Self-Represented Litigants"
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/selfrep07/Ethical/May_07_Ethica l_Issues.ppt.>

CONCLUSION

It is really not the Defendant's desire that anyone be incarcerated in this case; not anyone from the District Attorneys Office, nor her declared and obvious enemies in this case: Logan Property Management [Ameriland Group], Briarwood Management: Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth; nor even the worst of them all, because she knows, or should know the law, Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck. [Though it is apparent she ought to lose her California State Bar License, and, the Defendant is filing a complaint against her next week, and believes the court needs to do its duty.] A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

The Defendant spent a year of hellish [and recently 44 days] incarceration in solitary confinement in Riverside County Jail because of an unethical District Attorney, [She is seeking to recuse that office]; Inadequate Public Defenders [She will never rely on a public defender again!], and, Judges who ignored or did not know the law of void judgments [They lose their immunity when they don't follow the law, and, are open to a lawsuit]. She is still fighting that case. She expects to win, but all of this has taken its toll on her health, and financial standing. As a 69 year old woman in poor health she ought not to have to fight for justice because she stood up tocorporate bullies who retaliated on her with an illegal eviction and sham restraining orders when she did the right thing in her community in reporting unsafe living conditions and crime. [However, not even for my worst enemies do I wish to see them in jail or prison.]

FAQ: The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world. "Every 1 out of 100 Americans are incarcerated. As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated." -- "New High In U.S. Prison Numbers". By, N.C. Aizenman. February 29, 2008. Washington Post. In 2005, the average cost of incarceration per prisoner in the United States was $23,876. That comes out to $65.41 per day. At least 10% of those incarcerated are believed to be innocent. Department of Justice statistics [1999].

Something in very wrong with the judicial system in America.

In this case the Defendant is looking for justice from the court, and, for the District Attorney's Office, and their agents to do their job of seeking justice.

October 7, 2009 Sharon Stephens, pro per

MORE LAW ON VOID JUDGMENTS

"The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal" Valley v Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal."Williamson v. Berry, 8 How 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

"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

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."

Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

DECLARATION
Defendant
SHARON STEPHENS

I Sharon Stephens the defendant in this case declares as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, unless stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify to those facts I could and would competently do so.

2. I am 69 years old, a heart patient having undergone open heart surgery, suffer from ongoing angina, sleep apnea for which I am suppose to sleep with a breathing machine at night, and Post Traumatic Stress and suffer from severe stress and anxiety for which I am under the care of a physician. I am sleeping in my car due to the void eviction and this void restraining order.

3. I am making this Motion to Dismiss the entire San Bernardino District Attorney Office based on prosecutorial misconduct against me as they refuse to do their job to make sure I will receive a fair trial, as stated in the motion. The judgment they seek is void for subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, lack of due process, lack of due diligence, and prosecutorial misconduct, and is based on a judgment that is void. CIVRS 900198, in which I was illegally arrested, and charged with crimes that did not exist.

4 I will not receive a fair and impartial trial with this District Attorney's Office, and, in the interest of justice they need to be recused from this case.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

October, 7 2009

SHARON STEPHENS, pro per

A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS

2009-09-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

TEN STEPS AMERICA CAN TAKE TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION FOR UNREPRESENTED PARTIES.

1. The senior justice of every court shall ensure that each court maintain a website that has the procedural rules and the applicable for all cases to be heard in that court. Forms for use in every possible step of the procedural path of a case should be downloadable from the website.

2. Each court shall have a reading room where law books, forms and an Internet access terminal shall be available for unrepresented litigants.

3. Laws must be enacted at the state and federal level to guarantee due process and equal protection for unrepresented parties.

4. Laws, procedural rules, and decisions must be written in plain English at the level of a high school graduate.

5. Juries shall be read instructions to refrain from construing a party's non-representation against the unrepresented party.

6. Judges must refrain from refusing to allow an unrepresented party to speak on the grounds that the party is unrepresented.

7. Individuals with power of attorney or a certificate of corporate vote or trustee's authorization should be allowed to represent entities without being licensed members of the bar.

8. No person shall be denied the right to have assistance of counsel on the basis of the selected counsel not being licensed to practice law.

9. Each state shall have an office with its Court Administration system to be responsible for the co-ordination of pro se services and the monitoring of the rights of the rights of pro se litigants. Clerk's offices shall have made to be sensitive to the needs of pro-se litigants and shall distribute pre-printed information, syllabus and forms to litigants as is sensible.

10. Congress should take appropriate steps to ensure that federal courts are completely user friendly for unrepresented parties,that entities be permitted to have non-lawyer representatives and that discrimination against litigants who are unrepresented cease.It should be understood that discrimination may take many forms, ranging from being told "this is too complex for a non-lawyer, you'd better hire an attorney," to writing decisions that are incomprehensible for non-lawyers to understand.

TO SUE A JUDGE

2009-09-22T17:27:00.000-07:00

Sharon Stephens
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx

September 21, 2009

DEMAND LETTER
FOR MONETARY COMPENSATION:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT;
ELDER ABUSE.

RE: Case INF054715 Defendant 92846

[Judge] THOMAS N. DOUGLASS
Riverside County Superior Court, Indio
Dept. 3N
46-200 Oasis St., Indio, CA 92201

July 15, 2009 I did present the court with a MOTION TO VACATE A VOID CRIMINAL JUDGMENT. I asked if you had read the motion; you did not indicate that you had. Rather you responded, in what I have come to experience with you in all of our court room experiences -- an angry and demeaning manner – and with no due process, “It is untimely and I am incarcerating you!” I replied, “Void Judgments never die.[ Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194].” I was then shackled and taken off to county jail and incarcerated for forty-four [44] days. (On that very night in the jail I did almost die due to an overdose of medication given by the guards, and had to be transported to JFK Hospital where I was kept for four days.)

Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.

August 12, 2009 an oral motion was made to reconsider Defendant’s motion and it was denied, again as “untimely.”

Either you do not know the law judge – incompetence, or, you ignored the law – unconscionable!

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. 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).

(Burns v. Municipal Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599.) “The most important is jurisdiction of the subject matter. ‘No person can be punished for a public offense, except upon a legal conviction in a court having jurisdiction thereof.’ (P.C. 681.) In other words, the court in a criminal trial, like the court in a civil proceeding, must have jurisdiction of the subject matter” (4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Jurisdiction and Venue, § 1, p. 86, citing, inter alia, Burns v. Municipal Court, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599.)

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); 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 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821); When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)

You have lost your immunity: 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 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) 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].

I shall be writing a motion to have your ruling against me dismissed, and again presenting my Motion to Dismiss the Void Criminal in the near future.

THEREFORE I am making this thirty [30] day demand for $150,000.

Most sincerely,

Sharon Stephens

How to Sue a Judge

2009-09-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

How to Sue a Judge

By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney
Common Law Copyright © 1994 All Rights Reserved

Has a judge violated your constitutional rights? Have you been discriminated against by being treated differently than other people in similar situations by reason of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or political opinion? Have you lost certain rights without a meaningful hearing or even an opportunity to be heard?

Have you been deprived of any other constitutional protection? Have you been subject to Court action for the purpose of intimidating you from exercising an opinion, or practicing your faith? Don't let them get away with it.

Although it is almost impossible to recover monetary damages from a judge (unless you can prove he or she acted ultra-vires beyond his or her legal jurisdiction) it is in fact possible to obtain relief in equity against a judge through civil rights actions. Equitable relief includes:

declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judges actions.)
injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.

As a general rule, however, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done in the exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be. (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86) A minority of decisions have held that if an inferior judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509.

Federal Civil Rights statutes, and possibly Bivens actions, appear to offer the best path for redressing constitutional grievances with state and federal judges, respectively, in Federal Court. As a practical matter, such cases will usually be brought by pro se litigants. Neither the politics nor economics of law practice permits lawyers to pursue such cases nor makes them affordable except to a small elite of citizens.

However, lawyers who do successfully sue state judges in federal court in Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 cases can recover attorney's fees from judicial defendants provided they can show time sheets kept contemporaneously with their work.

The most important step you have to take in beginning your lawsuit is in writing the complaint that will be conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (available in every Government Bookstore or from the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC.)

Properly drafted complaints need not be prepared by a lawyer. All that is required is a very fundamental understanding of a few basic constitutional principles and a typewriter and paper. Handwritten complaints can also be filed in court.

Each federal court publishes its own local rules which can impose some additional requirements, but essentially there are only a handful of things you need to know. 1. Each complaint has a caption reading "United States District Court, District of (name the jurisdiction e.g. Southern New York or Eastern California.) 2. Each complaint includes a caption indicating the name of the plaintiff, and the name of the defendant. The words "individually and in his official capacity" should appear after the name of the defendant judge. The words "Verified Complaint" should appear on the right side of the caption. Your caption should appear like this:

United States District Court
District of (State)
Civil Docket No. _______

John Doe,
Plaintiff
vs. VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Bobby Roe,
individually and in his/her official capacity as Justice of the Superior Court ) of [*****] County,
Defendant

A couple of spaces below, you must begin to spell out your reasons for bringing your complaint to Court. Make an outline of your case. First, state your "Jurisdictional Basis" in Paragraph I. I usually write as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL BASIS

I. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution. Next you should write Paragraph II stating the precise Statutory Authority why you brought the case. If you are suing a state judge, you will state:

II. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments (select which apply) of the federal Constitution, by the defendant under color of law in his/her capacity as a judge in the Superior Court of (****) County.

If you are suing a federal judge, state:

"Plaintiff brings this action against (name), a federal judicial officer, pursuant to Title 28 U.S. Code § 1331, in claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the (fill in) amendments to the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)."

Be aware that the issue of whether federal judicial officers can in fact be sued under this authority is unresolved, but my opinion is that there is a strong implication in the affirmative based on the language in many cases.

Your complaint should then have a section entitled "Parties". The next two paragraphs would read:

III. Plaintiff (Your name) is a natural person residing at (Your address), (County), (State).

IV. Defendant is a Judge presiding at (fill in.)

Following this you must now describe your claim in detail, giving legal and factual basis for your case. This portion of the case is entitled "Statement of Case"

What kind of factual pattern would give rise to a successful claim under the federal civil rights law? Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the defendant judge acted unconstitutionally or outside of his/her jurisdiction. If the judge engaged in an egregious discrimination against males in a divorce court, minorities in state criminal cases, members of an unpopular religious group in confrontation with government authorities and treated suspiciously in court or members of a "fringe" political group, these situations can give rise to a claim of denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

If a judge permits an ex parte attachment, i.e. seizure of real estate without giving you notice of a hearing in a state court proceeding, this is a deprivation of property without due process, violating the Fifth Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ex parte restraining orders forcing men or women out of their homes based on abuse allegations in state courts are a primary and rampant example of violations of constitutional rights today, and certainly actionable in federal court.

The first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are self explanatory. Violations of any of the rights described in these amendments give rise to causes of action, both against state judges under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arguably against federal judges in Bivens actions.

Pro se litigants should give a clear and concise description of what happened in chronological order, identifying the judge, the date, time, and place of his or her action, and specifying which acts violated which constitutional amendments.

The complaint finishes with a section entitled "Prayer for Relief." In such a case you can ask for an injunction ordering another judge to so something, or to refrain from doing something. Successful use of these suits has been made to nullify attachments, end incarcerations, declare laws or court practices unconstitutional and scare the heck out of black robed tyrants with gavels. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1983).

I often phrase my prayers for relief as follows:

Wherefore plaintiff prays this Court issue equitable relief as follows:

1. Issue injunctive relief commanding defendant to . . .

2. Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate just.

3. Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

4. Award plaintiff his costs of litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

(Your signature)

Your name printed
Your address
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone No.

Statement of Verification

I have read the above complaint and it is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Your signature

Complaints are filed in the Civil Clerk's Office in the United States District Court for your district.

Federal rules now allow for service of process by certified mail. You will be required to serve the defendant judge and also your state attorney general if you are suing a state judge.

The pro se road will be easier if you study the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, obtain a Black's Law Dictionary and familiarize yourself with legal research methods. You must also read the Local Rules of the Federal Court where you are suing, and learn Constitutional law fast.

Using a lawyer as a coach is helpful. Bear in mind that your lawsuit is disfavored because it is against a judge. Nevertheless, our system of "justice" is in such tough shape that suits against judges are a socio-political necessity.

Complaints should be photocopied, disseminated to the legislature, the media and political action groups.

Perhaps the cumulative impact of these suits will bring a healthy radical change for the American people.

The author is an attorney in private practice in Boston.

Constitutional Business
Post Office Box 90
Hull, Massachusetts 02045
Tel. 617-925-5253
Fax 617-925-3906
Copyright ©1994 All Rights Reserved

Limited License:
The right to publish this article off-line in print, or via CD-ROM, floppy diskette, tape, laser disk, or any other media, electronic or otherwise, can only be granted by the author and must be in writing. Online usage is unrestricted as long as this article, including the byline, copyright notice, publisher's address, and limited license, is published in its entirety.

Kimball, Tirey & St.John LLP

2009-02-13T06:48:00.000-08:00

HOAs and HUD

AMERILAND GROUP

What happens when attorneys who represent homeowner associations [HOA] also represent HUD elderly, disabled and low income residents?

They pull the same dirty, and often illegal tricks on both, and bully people into silence.

When I lost my home in Shadow crest HOA because of a less than honest attorney, Brian Moreno, (French, Bryant and Green). Only later did I discover the association was suspended for failure to file a required information statement with the California Secretary of State, and could not prosecute or defend a lawsuit. (Palm Valley Homeowners Assn. v. Design MTC (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 350) I am now prepared to take Shadow Crest HOA back into court and take back all of the money they stole from me during that period of time.

Where does a handicapped and elderly, 68 year old woman go when she loses everything? To a low-income HUD/Sec8 apartment, and, I went to Briarwood Manor in Montclair; a building owned by AMERILAND GROUP of whom I was unaware owned many buildings and was in legal trouble for illegally evicting their residents, and under suspision for the deaths of three people in a fire.

I became involved with Resident Council, an approved HUD suto-government group of tenants, htat is also allowed according to the lease agreement of the property, who gather to help in the management of the property.

When I began to complain about unsafe living conditions at Briarwood, and criminal behavior for which there is a legal duty, which every person owes to others: "...a duty to refrain from conduct that imposes an unreasonable risk of injury on third parties" (Lamden v La Jolla Shores Clubdoninium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249)

Instead, I found myself retaliated on by AMERLAND owner, Martha Enriquez, who is also the President of LOGAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, who is required by law to protect residents, but instead I was suffering much distress, and unable to sleep: Residents, particularly elderly have a "right...to be free from acts constituting duress" (Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d. 195) and the propriety of a "cause of action for wrongful acts in the nature of duress...examples of such wrongful acts include a bad faith threat to breach a contract ..." (Rich Whillock v. Ashton Development, 157 Cal. App. 3d at p.1159)

My HUD/Sec8 rental contract was about to be breached.

Soon I was contacted by AMERILAND attoney, Linda Hollenbeck, a partner in Kimball, Tirey & St. John. She was less than pleasant to me, and always seemed to have an antagonistic bent in the way she talked to me, so, I researced the law office and found they were also HOA attorneys, who provides counsel on an array of homeowner association matters and it seems has the same mind-set in the way they deal with people who complain -- if the complaints weren't to their advantage. My complaints were ignored, and I was labled as a trouble-maker.

Complaints to HUD were ignored as well.

In July 2008 I was served with an Eviction, claiming I had harassed a man, Stan Harris, the self-appointed "head" of Resident Counsel, and a close friend of Martha Enriquz. He was claiming to be an MD doctor and giving out dangerous and illegal, medical advice to the elderly and handicapped residents. I revealed he was not a doctor, and for that I was being evicted. (The California Medical Board sent me a letter thanking me for notifying them of his behavior, and "saving others from him.")

Stan Harris, and his little Lord of the Flies band of terrorist are allowed to run roughshod over the other tenants, screaming and hollaring, using filty language and even threatening phyical violence against them and their guests -- in spite of ongoing complaints, including a Petition with 24 names to have him put out of office of Resident Council, which again was ignored.

Soon I was in court and Attorney Hollenbeck brought "paid for" witnesses, including Stan Harris who provably perjured himself in court. One advantage for me, they didn't meet the burden of the law of proving harassment, and now we are in Appeal.

In the interim, Attorney Hollenbeck, AMERILAND, and Logan Property Management have filed four bogus TRO's against me, in which they again did not follow the law, and I have been falsely arrested twice on these sham TROs, and ended up in the hospital on both occasions.

No different than other HOA attorney complaints.

HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

2008-07-21T16:09:00.000-07:00

RE:
HONORABLE B.J. BJORK
Larson Justice Center
46-200 Oasis Street; Indio, CA

When I purchased my home in Shadow Crest Homeowners Association (HOA) in Cathedral City, California in 1996 I knew nothing about HOAs being entities that exist purely for the development, sale, and administration of residential real estate, and that every aspect of my life within the HOA would be governed by the association, and I certainly had no idea that what I had initialed at Closing was a binding adhesion contract with a private corporation and that I had surrendered my constitutional rights and civil liberties to the will and whim of the HOA, and its vocal and active, albeit minority of the board of directors, a management company, and, the all pervasive legal wolves who could snatch my home in non-judicial foreclosure with out ever going to court. It would be months later that I would come to truly understand that I did not even own my own property, but was only a shareholder in a non-profit corporation.

However, in my ignorance, the first few months were wonderful, and peaceful, and I loved my home.

When a drug family, related to a board member moved in across the street, I found little help from the HOA board, HOA attorneys, Wayne Guralnick, Kendal Berkey, Ron Green, Jeffery French, and Brian Moreno, my neighbors, the police, or the courts. Later I would discover that there is a well-grounded government system in place -- a type of shadow government -- that supports the the infrastructure of HOAs, rather than the people who live in them. The more I delved into the laws that regulated HOAs, and the more I tried to find some common ground for mutual communication, the more obvious it became that I was upsetting some sort of corporate boat that was not going to allow itself be rocked, and, would retaliate in the worst of ways against anyone who dare challenge them.

When I approached Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, she refused to help, and then provably conspired with Cathedral City, City Attorney, and my HOA board to drag me before judges, who handed them bogus, void-on -the-face restraining orders; orders with no judisdiction that did not meet legislative statatory, or case law to be granted. All to keep me out of meetings, surpress my writing of a newsletter, and even to try and keep me from making complaints to the police, or legislature. I was working on getting all of these orders dismissed, and in the process had made complaints against judges and commissioners for handing out these void judgments.

JUNE 8, 2006 I was falsely arrested while going into court to dismiss a void-on-the-face restraining order, by Riverside County District Attorney, Rich Twiss on a 422.6 (A) PC, Misdemeanor hate crime action. There was absolutlely no basis for this charge, and I was ont allowed to ask why I was being arrested. Twiss handcuffed me, refused to let me appear in court, and would not hear what I had to say; he literally marched me through the court house, to the HONORABLE B. J. BJORK, who imposed on me the excessive, unconstitutional, unreasonable bail of $500,000 -- on a unproven misdemeanor! The Eighth Amendment itself does not speak of any right to bail, but it does prohibit the imposition of excessive bail.

I asked Judge Bjork for release on my own recognizance (O.R.), and told him the order is void. In a most rude, and insensitive manner, Judge Bjork denied me O.R., and told me, You had better hope the order is void! and then he had me incarcerated in jail, where I was not allowed even a phone call until June 22, and remained for over a year, suffering much well-documented abuse. Ilost my home, thousands of dollars, my health, and my reputation.

MAY 23, 2008: I filed a complaint against B.J. BJORK with the California Commission on Judicial Performance charging him with recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice, and elder abuse in his actions against me.

BACKGROUND ON B.J. BJORK

MARCH 1994: Judge Bjork granted a judge's family member traffic school rather than have them answer for driving while not in possession of a valid driver 's license and a failure to appear. This was done again a second time based on a request by the same judicial colleague, which is contrary to Canon 2A of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and Canon 2B, which provides that a judge should not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment, and that a judge should not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them.

Judge Bjork consented to public admonishment.

FEBRUARY 1997: B.J. BJORK was the judge in an alleged fraudulent foreclosure sale of New York attorney George Harder's Palm Springs home by David Peters of Peters & Freedman. Some have reported that Peters has been selling the homes he forecloses to his long time associate Carlos Sosa, a lawyer in Los Angeles. Bjork denied George Harder 's request to postpone his trial to come from New York for the case in Riverside, California. Bjork held the trial without Harder and ruled for Peters & Freedman and Sosa. George Harder lost his home.

JUDGE, B.J. BJORK TODAY: Judicial Council Assignments for Riverside Superior Court: Judge B.J. Bjork, Retired, Superior Court, Riverside Assignment #TBD; June 9 through June 20, Dept. 1CI

The California Commission on Judicial Performance has promised an investigation.

I am filing a motion for dismissal of my case.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Effects of Incarcertaion

2008-07-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

The prison population in the United States is growing at a rate so rapid it has superseded the rate of incarceration in all industrialized nations. There are currently over 2.2 million people confined to the state and federal prisons of this country. One in thirty-two United States citizens are presently incarcerated, on probation or parole. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Prisons are overcrowded and rehabilitative services are being eliminated from budgets regularly. The effects of overcrowding, correctional officer brutality, gangsterism, and vulnerability can lead to lasting psychological effects on an individual even after their release. Ex-convicts may experience anxiety, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, emotional numbing, isolation and depression that are related to their prison traumas.

The events experienced by a person while they are incarcerated can be so traumatic that it can lead to post traumatic stress disorder. Treatment by correctional officers can increase an already high level of anxiety while incarcerated. There is an increase in the number of inmates being deprived rehabilitative programs and being abused physically, psychologically and emotionally by correctional officers. There is also an increase in the number of inmates who are being held in solitary confinement for extended periods of time. Extended periods in solitary confinement leads to sensory deprivation and increased psychological trauma.

An increase in the rate of incarceration as well as the implementation of harsher sentences has lead to the concern in regard to the long-term effects incarceration has on an individual. Dr. Stephen Richards, an Associate Professor of Criminology at Northern Kentucky University, has also served nine years in Federal prison. He has formed a group of ex-convict professors, together they have published books and journal articles, and have conducted research and studies on the effects of incarceration. They conclude, “Many still struggle with the guilt of surviving prison, while old friends are still incarcerated, and the pain they may have caused others, including their own families and loved ones. Some may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder relating to remembering their former criminal activities and time incarcerated.” (Richards, 2001). During a telephone conversation with Dr. Richards he expressed to me that “the lack of rehabilitation will lead to a noted increase in the inability for ex-convicts to readjust to society after they are released. We will also see a dramatic increase in ex-offenders with clinical diagnosis such as PTSD.”

Many ex-offenders report victimization while they were incarcerated. Power and control issues often lead to violence by inmates and correctional officers. “When violence erupts in prison, oppression of violence justifies the abuse of offenders, albeit innocent bystanders or not.” (Mostert, 2003). Inmates who are more vulnerable often lack such things as the knowledge of prison societal rules and physical strength. They have a higher chance of being sexually abused by other inmates as well as correctional officers. Understanding and appreciating the complex human dynamics between staff and inmates gives insight into the issue of sexual misconduct in prisons. The ultimate power of the correctional staff can lead some unethical staff to engage in sexual misconduct. Prison is a very sexualized environment. The inability for one to express their natural sexual desires is abnormal. This leads to an unsatisfied libido and an increase in sexual frustration. The two most prominent reasons for correctional officers being terminated or placed on disciplinary leave is the introduction of contraband into the facility, and sexual misconduct with an inmate or another officer on facility property. (American Correctional Association, 2002)

A typical adult has the ability to make general decisions such as what time to eat and whether or not they would like to turn the lights off in a room. When stripped of these basic rights some may become agitated and aggressive. This may lead to them seeking other means of obtaining a sense of control, in turn leading to victimization of other inmates. Once released the ability to make these simple decisions can be extremely overwhelming. “Ex-convicts may experience unexplained emotional reactions in response to stimuli that are psychologically reminiscent of the painful events that occurred during incarceration. Some may relive especially stressful or fear-arousing events that traumatized them during incarceration.” (Craig Haney, 2002)
Limited contact with family members and other loved ones reduces inmate morale. Correctional officers use threats of taking away such things as telephone and visitation privileges as well as placement in solitary confinement as a way of controlling inmates. A fear of being unable to have contact with loved ones, or being held in segregation can lead to adverse reactions and outburst by some inmates as well as giving into inappropriate demands of officers and by other inmates. Correctional officers in some facilities can issue “tickets” to inmates for things such as not shaving or tucking in a bed sheet appropriately. These “tickets” can lead to loss of good time and directly effect an inmates release date. Thus the struggle of power and control becomes a daily ritual.

Judith Herman M.D. has suggested a new diagnostic category termed “complex PTSD”. “This diagnosis would be used to describe the trauma-related syndrome that prisoners are likely to suffer in the aftermath of their incarceration” (Craig Haney, 2002). She feels that this specific diagnosis is a direct result of “prolonged, repeated trauma or the profound deformations of personality that occur in captivity.” (Herman, 1992).

Terrence T. Gorski is considered an expert in substance abuse, mental health, violence and crime. Through clinical consultation work with the criminal justice system and incarcerated prisoners he conceptualized Post Incarceration Syndrome (PICS). “The Post Incarceration Syndrome is a set of symptoms that are present in many incarcerated and recently released prisoners that are caused by being subjected to prolonged incarceration in environments of punishment with few opportunities for education, job training, or rehabilitation. The symptoms are most severe in prisoners subjected to prolonged solitary confinement and severe institutional abuse.” (Gorski, 1999) The symptoms of PICS include: institutionalized personality traits, post-traumatic stress disorder, antisocial personality traits, and social-sensory deprivation.

Those ex-offenders with PICS have a higher rate of relapse related to substance abuse and mental health disorders as well as recidivism. “The effect of releasing this number of prisoners with psychiatric damage from prolonged incarceration can have a number of devastating impacts upon American society…” (Gorski, 1999). Gorski states that PICS is a direct result of the policies and procedures of the criminal justice system and can only be reduced by a change in the length of sentences and punitive environments the inmates are subjected to. Such changes should include converting most federal and state correctional facilities into rehabilitative program with education, vocational, substance abuse and mental health programs, leaving only a small number of super-max type facilities for the most dangerous offenders. This should also include pre-release programs to assist offenders with transitioning back into the community. The programs should be staffed by professionals with the knowledge, and experience to evaluate the offenders' needs and implement the appropriate treatment plans.

Funding for education and child welfare has been cut drastically across the nation. While in Florida alone, Governor Jeb Bush has recently taken $65 million from reserves to fund the construction of more prison facilities. At the same he has cut all educational and drug treatment programs in these institutions. It seems to me that the prison system in this country is becoming more of a business than a system of corrections. Many wealthy Americans have invested in stocks such as Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company. They have also invested in the companies that provide contracted medical and food services to state facilities such as Aramark Food services in Florida. Long-term incarceration therefore becomes beneficial to them financially.

We should all be concerned with the effects incarceration has on an individual. Last year approximately 800,000 inmates were released back into the community. Close to 90% of all inmates will one day be released back into the community and be our neighbors. If they are denied the basic skills needed to function in society and stripped of their self worth, what kind of neighbors will they be? Harsh sentences and the “lock them up and throw away the key” theory is not working. We, as citizens, are responsible to ensure the mental health of our population. By ignoring the need for change in the criminal justice system we will not resolve these problems. If we continue to ignore the effects of incarceration we will continue to see an increase in the number of Americans in need of social services. Incarceration affects the families of 2.2 million people in this country. The families and children of inmates are subjected to the direct effects that incarceration has on their loved ones. As PTSD is more widely recognized and addressed and more ex-offenders are diagnosed with the disorder, I hope to see a change in the structure of the criminal justice system in this country.

Thursday, June 9, 2005 America's Newest Subculture: The InnocentBy Meaghan O'Neill
After Innocence" explores the post-incarceration lives of men who were wrongly convicted of crimes and set free, only to find themselves with no support, no money, and still carrying a criminal record for a crime they didn't commit. On November 6, 2002, Scott Hornoff walked out of the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institution a free man. After six years, four months, and 18 days in a maximum security prison, he was free to drive a car, play with his three sons, and kiss his girlfriend. But unlike any other prisoner who might have been released that day, Hornoff was not entitled to the financial help, employment services, or even parole officers that former inmates are given. Why? Because Scott Hornoff did not leave jail a guilty man who had served his time. He left as a man who had been exonerated for a crime for which he'd been wrongfully convicted.

In 1996, Warwick police detective Scott Hornoff was convicted of murdering a woman with whom he'd had a brief affair. The case, as many Rhode Islanders will remember, was a news media blockbuster. Hornoff was 33 years old at the time of the conviction, with a pregnant wife, two young sons, and a heap of bum luck. (The murder had taken place seven years earlier, when Hornoff was just 26.) And though the mystery of the murder of Vickie Cushman has since been cleared up — former boyfriend Todd Barry eventually confessed in 2002 — life for Scott Hornoff and his family has not.

One of eight stories featured in the documentary film "After Innocence," which screens at the Newport International Film Festival on Saturday, Hornoff's is one of many that has slipped through the cracks of our legal system. Directed by Jessica Sanders, the film explores the difficult post-incarceration lives of men who were wrongfully accused and convicted of rape, murder, burglary, kidnapping, and other horrific crimes. With the help of the Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic and criminal justice resource center that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, these men have been freed from their physical chains. The weight of the world, however, continues to shackle them.

"The number one problem is that they're not provided for after they get out," says Sanders, whose heartfelt film took the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. "Guilty people get support, but exonerees get nothing." With no job, no money, and criminal records that haven't been expunged, the men struggle to reenter society, find jobs, and raise families. Struggling with their very manhood, they've got their freedom, but have no lives. And sadly, the justice system seems unwilling to help them out.

"Monetary support would be very helpful. But the most simple thing would be an apology," says Sanders, whose documentary short "Sing!" was nominated for an Oscar in 2002. "It's a huge part of the healing process." Unfortunately, prosecutors, judges, juries, and reporters seldom provide one. "I'm still in a position where I can't provide the way I'd like for my family," says Hornoff, who is owed more than $500,000 in back pay, according to Superior Court, which also ruled that he be reinstated on the police force. The City of Warwick, however, has filed a suit against the order, leaving Hornoff in limbo. And even if he eventually gets the money, after taxes, legal fees, and alimony, there'll be little left to start a new life.

"I want to give my kids so much — everything they deserve," says the soft-spoken Hornoff, who divorced while in prison, remarried in 2003, and is expecting a baby girl with wife Tina in September. For a former cop with a B.S. in Administration of Justice from Roger Williams University, who is currently working on his master's degree in Criminal Justice through an online program at Boston University, and who isn't a felon, one would think pounding the pavement might not be too difficult. But Hornoff, who now suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, has been looking for a job for more than two years. And even though he thinks most people understand that he's not guilty and never was, he still feels a strong "undercurrent of negativity" in his community.

In a way, this isn't so surprising, because for the men in "After Innocence," exoneration doesn't mean a fresh start, or even a clean record. Most exonerees have been waiting years for their records to be expunged. That means they that when they fill out a job application, they still have check "yes" in the box that asks if they've been convicted of a felony. Despite exoneration, the system continues to fail them. And according to the Innocence Project, at least one percent of all prisoners in the U.S. corrections system are innocent — that's at least 22,000 people. The Innocence Project, which took on Hornoff's case in 2001, primarily works on cases where conclusive post-conviction DNA testing proves convictions wrong. A decade ago, DNA testing was still in its infancy. But despite the fact that evidence is often lost or not preserved, the Innocence Project has helped exonerate more than 150 people.

In Hornoff's situation, white lies, timeline discrepancies, a flurry of circumstantial evidence, a botched police investigation, and persuasively negative local media all fell on the wrong side of his luck. And in 1996, seven years after the murder of Vickie Cushman, when Hornoff was being tried, DNA testing was barely being used. After the Innocence Project got involved, Hornoff's case was the first post-conviction DNA case to be brought forth in Rhode Island. (His conviction, however, was eventually overturned due to Barry's confession.)

While he looks forward to rebuilding his life, Hornoff, who will attend the Newport screening this week, knows he still faces an uphill battle. His past inextricably affecting his future, he's quiet, with a spirit that's been damaged, to some extent, beyond repair. As a man who spent six years wrongfully incarcerated, Hornoff speaks more with caution than expectation. "It can happen to anybody and it does every day. Exonerees are America's newest subculture." Despite his grievances, for Hornoff, who decided at age 12 to become a cop, justice still reigns supreme. His faith in the justice system, however, certainly does not. Though he'd like to be a cop again, he doesn't think he could ever accuse or arrest anyone for a crime unless he saw it committed himself. "I'm still pro-law enforcement, but I realize now how much we need to protect the innocent

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, Eight Bogus Restraining Orders, Conspiracy and False Arrest

2008-05-26T12:57:00.000-07:00

The Assemblywoman Garcia from Cathedral City, California

is NOT a friend of homeowner associations,

or, the people she has taken an oath to defend.

Falsely Jailed by aide of Bonnie Garcia
on bogus and void restraining order

SUMMARY OF EVENTS:

December 7, 2004: Press Conference with Pat Cooper, aide to Senator Ducheny, Kim Trone, a reporter from the Desert Sun, and a documentary film maker, Madelene Hunter-Patterson. We also had a number of homeowners from other association at the meeting. Candy, from Bonnie Garcia's office called and said she was coming. She never did make the meeting, and did not even call to apologize. So, I went into the Garcia office in Cathedral City to try and make an appointment with Mrs. Garcia, with the stated purpose of speaking to Homeowner Association problems. I was given an appointment with Mary Brhel.

January 29: I went into Ms. Garcia's office in Cathedral City for an appointment with her aide, Mary Brhel (wife of ex-Deputy District Attorney, Martin Brhel) about involvement with the problems with homeowner associations. [Hispanics are the most foreclosed group of people in the State of California.] She refused to let me address the problems of HOAs in general. Rather she wanted to hear, and insisted I tell her my "personal" story! So, I told her all about Shadowcrest HOA, and the problems we were experiencing, including void restraining orders to keep me out of board meetings, my false arrests, stalking and battery by board members, perjury, false and illegal fines, and of course the attempts made on two families for non-judicial foreclosure. Brhel acted rightly, and truly shocked, as do most who hear these stories of out of control HOA boards, unethical attorneys, and greedy management companies. We had a good conversation, and she even gave me a bouquet of flowers and congratulated me for being "an activist".

However, before going to the Garcia Office that morning I had been in the Cathedral City Police Department (CCPD), at their request; they had called me in on a ruse, as I would discover months later, telling me they were "doing an investigation of a complaint" I had made against Sergeant Hatfield, for his participation in a false arrest, abuse of process and abuse while in custody and I told two officers, Sgt. Charles Robbinson, and Captain Kevin Connor I was going to the Garcia Office that morning; CCPD is next door to the Garcia Office.

February 2: Mary Behel called me back, stating "You have made all kinds of problems with the Cathedral City Police Department, and other government agencies, and you are a threat, and I am placing you on a list in Sacramento as a threat"! She hung up on me without telling me where she had received this information.

February 3-5: CONSPIRACY begins between the Garcia Office staff, the Cathedral City Police Department, my HOA Board of Directors, and stretching all the way to the Riverside County District Attorney's office in Indio began.The proof of this conspiracy is well documented by Cathedral City Attorney, Kendall Berkey in the 65 page Memo of Cost in Case No. 0424575 ROBINSON v. STEPHENS, Riverside Count Superior Court, Indio, CA.

February 9: Madelene Hunter-Patterson called Ms. Brhel at her office and was given to Richard Harmon, Chief of Staff. He told her that "We had a couple of officers in here that said, 'Sharon is crazy, and has been arrested multiple times. She is a threat, and you should not talk to her'".

Because of this, I was interviewed by Edwin Olavie, Investigator with the California Highway Patrol: Mr. Olavie "Did not consider me a threat"!

April 6: Ms. Garcia sent me a rude letter, that basically said, "I can do nothing to help you, stay out of my office!"

April 8: LETTER SENT TO BONNIE GARCIA:

Bonnie Garcia
PO Box 942d849Sacramento, CA 94249-0080
Re: In response to your April 6, 2004 letter

Dear Mrs. Garcia;
1-Last Tuesday I spent an hour talking, [taped] with Investigator, Edwin Olavi, CHP [213-897-4564], regarding Mary Brahby's bogus accusations against me when I stopped by to tell her, "There is going to be an investigation into the officers who went into the office in Cathedral City and slandered me". I have already been publicly in front of the City Council addressing this issue, and I intend to push for further investigation. I also intend to continue to tell all I meet just how you responded to this, without every asking for my side of the story, You are basically an untrustworthy politician, who does not take responsibility to discover all of the facts.
2- I have NEVER asked for "your assistance"! Your Cathedral City officer had an invitation to attend a meeting in my home with Senator, Denise Moreno-Ducheny's aid, Pat Cooper, Kim Trone, Desert Sun reporter, Madelene Patterson, documentary filmmaker, along with several homeowners from various associations regarding HOA problems of non judicial foreclosure. Your officer called and said she would attend and NEVER came. So much for YOUR interest in the problems of "the people" -- Hispanics are the most non-judicially foreclosed on group of people in America.
3- I have no interest in ever contacting your office again. It is quite obvious you have no interest in this cause, even though it is right in your own back yard.
STOP sending me YOUR political propaganda - I will never vote for you! In fact, I and many others in HOAs will be supporting any candidate who challenges you, and telling them, and everyone else what you have done to me.
Let this letter serve as final notice to you to remove my name from your mailing list, and, stop harassing ME!

Cc: Senator Denise DuchenyEdwin Olavi, Investigator, CHP; Sergeant Laura Hanlon, "Professional Standards"CCPD; AHRC. com All other interested parties

Investigator Olavi has found me to not be a threat!

May 14: Ms. Garcia, out of mean-spiritedness filled 8 petitions for a restraining order against me, with no police reports, no proof of statutory criteria, and in violation of my constituionally protected rights.

May 2006: The restraining order of Bonnie Garcia is void on the face, and Commissioner J. McCoy agreed to dismiss it as such if I would have Brhel and Harmon personally served. One of Garcia's office workers, "Candy H." was in court during these proceedings, yet I was still falsely arrested when I went to the Garcia office -- to challenge this bogus, void on the face order, and at a Preliminary Hearing, the Garcia staff member lied, and did not bother to tell the court the truth of this being a void order!

June 2006, Bonnie Garcia's aide then went into a Preliminary Hearing, RE: People v. Sharon Stephens; Case: INF054715 , and lied, stating I had violated [a void on the face] restraining order by going to her office, to make a complaint.

I am filing a petition to have all of these bogus orders dismissed, but I spent over a year in jail, much of it in 24 hour a day solitary confinement, as is documented on this blog, with much abuse.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia could dismiss these void orders on her own, but refuses to do so.

TAKE NOTE: Constitutionally protected activity, such as making police reports, or complaints of any type are excluded from the meaning of "course of conduct" with regards to a restraining order. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal.App.3d 719 (1989). Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 763 (1991)

Course of conduct" is defined as a "pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(b); see also Leydon v. Alexander, 212 Cal.App.3d 1, 5 (1989)

A trial court may not issue an injunction against harassment unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment already exists in fact. Code of Civil Procedure ß 527.6(d); Schraer, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d 719.

Constitutionally protected activity is excluded from the meaning of 'course of conduct', Code of Civil Procedure 527.6(b), there is no need to entertain the traditional inquiry as to whether clear and convincing evidence exists warranting injunctive relief.

There must be medical, psychological, or other evidence establishing that the 'harassing' activity is the cause of "substantial emotional distress" within meaning of C.C.P. 527.6(b)). Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 763 (1991)

Elder Abuse Law: Penal Code 368: Elder abuse protection applies to any resident in California who is 65 years of age or older; Broadly speaking, abuse includes physical abuse, neglect, fiduciary abuse, abandonment, isolation or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering...

I want Bonnie Garcia's bogus and void order dismissed, and my name removed from the "Threat List" in Sacramento. I shall continue to pursue this.

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, Â 286, p. 828.

MRS. BONNIE GARCIA, Assemblywoman from Palm Springs California is NOT a friend of homeowner associations, or the very people she has taken an oath to protect.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, and Cindy Uken's Yellow Journalism

2008-05-25T12:51:00.000-07:00

Homeowner requests fair news reporting by the Desert Sun
June 19, 2004
By Sharon Stephens
Cathedral City, California -

The following is a letter to Ciny Uken, the opinion editor of The Desert Sun in Palm Springs, California from a homeowner, Sharon StephensDear Cindy Uken,Re:

Your "story" PHONE, FAX OPEN DOOR TO WOMAN'S 'HARASSMENT' What a slanderous and slanted piece of commentary this is!!! And, you didn't even ask me for my side of the story.

You are a journalist?

Then there are the FACTS:Bonnie Garcia , my local State Representative, was not in court on Thursday. However, she will be on July 19, at 8:30 AM to answer to this blatant SLAPP suit.

Garcia didn't file for these 8 Restraining Orders, using taxpayer's money of over $2,000 until after I said I would "not vote for her, and would tell everyone what she did to me. Now Garcia is using individuals from my homeowner association as her "witnesses." These are men named in my cases against the homeowners association for battering me and other illegalities. These men are her "witnesses"; even though they are being sued right now, and have cases pending in the District Attorney's office for battery. Great guys to associate with Bonnie!

As for the Cathedral City Police, they filed a Restraing Order against me when I demanded an investigation into the Bonnie Garcia incident, where two officers went to Garcia's office and slandered me to her staff. I have a witness, [Madelene Hunter-Patterson.]

They want me to "shut up" about this incident, and, what better way? ALL of the phone calls I made were to make a legitimate police report, and the dispatcher continued to hang up on me, refusing to take the report, or to connect me to an officer who would take the report.

Wonder if the Desert Sun will allow me to answer this piece of yellow Journalism?
I doubt it; they have continuously refused to do stories on real homeowner association problems.

The readers of the Desert Sun need to ask, WHY they sensationalize "stories" that refuse to present both sides of the issue?

.

COMPLAINT: HONORABLE B.J. BJORK; Riverside County, CA

2008-05-23T19:04:00.000-07:00

TO
Commission on Judicial Performance

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400

San Francisco, California 94102

May 23, 2008

From:

SHARON STEPHENS

760.835.8210

RE:

HONORABLE B. J. BJORK

Larson Justice Center

46-200 Oasis Street; Indio, CA

Riverside County:

People v. Stephens; Case # INF054715

On June 8, 2006 I was falsely arrested while going into court to dismiss a void on the face restraining order, by Riverside County District Attorney, Rich Twiss on a 422.6 (A) PC, Misdemeanor hate crime action. I have no idea on what basis that charge was made.

A quick reading of the case, Trylson v. Stephens INC57008 would have proved it was void on the face, and, Commissioner J. McCoy had already agreed to dismiss it; this is all in the court record, and, in fact there was a Charging Affidavit for Perjury against Trylson, and her witness, Kent Robins.

The truth and evidence was there for District Attorney Investigator Twiss to ascertain.

Investigator Twiss detained me from going into court on official proceedings: 18 U.S.C.1515 (a) (1), (i) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States which is Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C 1503, which is also a Perversion of Justice, PC 182.5, which is also Contempt of Court. And, I received no Miranda rights: California v. Prysock 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

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

Twiss handcuffed me, refused to let me appear in court, and would not hear what I had to say; he literally marched me through the court house, to HONORABLE B. J. BJORK, who imposed on me the excessive, unconstitutional,unreasonable bail of $500,000 -- on a unproven misdemeanor!

The Eighth Amendment itself does not speak of any right to bail, but it does prohibit the imposition of excessive bail.

I asked Judge Bjork for release on my own recognizance (O.R.), and told him the order is void. In a most rude, and insensitive manner, Judge Bjork denied me O.R., and told me, You had better hope the order is void! and then he had me incarcerated in jail, where I was not allowed even a phone call until June 22, and remained for over a year, suffering much well-documented abuse.

An officer may detain a person for a reasonable time to conduct their investigation, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Rich Twiss did no investigation; he in fact ignored me. And, Judge Bjork could have looked at the case, on the computer to see it was void, and, he could have allowed me to continue on into court.

I believe, Judge Bjork and Mr. Twiss was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice in this commission of abuse against me.

Elder Abuse Law: Penal Code 368: Elder abuse protection applies to any resident in California who is 65 years of age or older; Broadly speaking, abuse includes physical abuse, neglect, fiduciary abuse, abandonment, isolation or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering...

On April 4, 2008, at 8:30 AM, I was back in DEPT. 3N before Judge, B. J. Bjork. He was his usual rude self.

It has taken me months to emotionally begin to pursue the necessary complaints in this case, and, there are many -- which I have had served, and are now recorded in the court record of this case.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DA INVESTIGATOR MISCONDUCT

2008-05-14T14:51:00.000-07:00

FORMAL COMPLIANT
Penal Code 148.6

RICH TWISS
Investigator
Riverside Co. District Attorney
82-675 Highway 111,4th Floor
Indio, CA 92201

RE: People v. Sharon Dale Stephens
Case: INF054715
MAY 14, 2008
MAILED MAY 14, 2008

FROM: Sharon Stephens:

District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss met with Jill Reed, and Darlene Trylson on May 24, 2006. He certainly had more than enough time to "investigate" whether these women were telling the truth, e.g., was the order of Trylson "valid" as she claimed? A quick reading of the case, INC57008 would have proved it was NOT! It was void on the face, and, Commissioner J. McCoy had already agreed to dismiss it, and this is all in the court record. And, in fact there was a Charging Affidavit for Perjury against Trylson, and her witness, Kent Robins.

The truth and evidence was there for District Attorney Investigator Twiss to ascertain, but he was so anxious to win, that he went on to allow the District Attorney to ignored my right to a fair trial, and never did the required investigation of the cases they were prosecuting me for. SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998 competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

June 8, 2006: Consequently, false arrest! A false arrest consists of unlawful restraint of a person’s liberty without proper legal authority-- there is no authority for false arrest. The doctrine of qualified immunity, under which a public officer will not be held liable for a federal civil rights violation if he or she acted in good faith, has no application to a claim based on Civil Code Sec. 52.1, and triable issues exist as my civil rights were deprived by means of threats, intimidation, or coercion.

Investigator Twiss detained me from going into court on official proceedings:18 U.S.C.1515 (a) (1), (i) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States which is Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C 1503, which is also a Perversion of Justice PC 182.5, which is also Contempt of Court. And, I received no Miranda rights: California v. Prysock 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

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

Twiss refused to let me go before the judge; instead he had me incarcerated in the county jail, with an unconstitutional, unreasonable $500,000 Bail. I did not argue or resist, though I did try and tell him, with alacrity, the case was void. An officer may detain a person for a reasonable time to conduct their investigation, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Rich Twiss did no investigation; he in fact ignored me.

In Emmett Cartier v. California State Highway Patrol, et al, jury instructions sited, People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 C.A. 4th 961, 966, stating it is not a willful delay, obstruction, or interference with the duties of an officer to fail to follow the orders of an officer "with alacrity."The Random House Dictionary defines "alacrity" as,cheerful readiness, promptness, or willingness...along with the right to silence, a private citizen has the First Amendment right to question and criticize the actions of an officer even at the scene, so long as his actions do not interfere with the officer's duties.

Mr. Twiss was guilty of recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice in his commission of abuse against me.

Elder Abuse Law; Penal Code 368: Broadly speaking, abuse includes physical abuse, neglect, fiduciary abuse, abandonment, isolation or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering...

Elder abuse protection applies to any resident in California who is 65 years of age or older; "dependent adults" who are defined as any person residing in California between the ages of 16 and 64 who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.

I have read and understood the above statement.
___________________________________
Sharon Stephens

cc: DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROD PACHECO
4075 Main Street; Riverside, CA 92501

COMPLAINT FOR MISCONDUCT

2008-04-15T13:35:00.000-07:00

PATTON STATE HOSPITAL
and
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

RE:

Patton State Hospital;
Riverside County Public Defender;
Riverside County District Attorney;
Riverside County Superior Court; Indio, CA

Sharon Stephens
PAT 1590355
Case: INF054715

TO: Paula McCord, Patient Rights Advocate; Carlos Luna, Executive Director; Gary Windom, Chief, Public Defender; Rod Pacheco, District Attorney

FROM: Sharon Stephens; 3022 Lime Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (Cell) 1.760.835.8210

I was referred to the Patton State Hospital, Office of Patient Rights, Paula McCord by the State of California, Ombudsman For Mental Health:

California is presently cash and income strapped by at least $14.5 billion dollars with proposed cuts to be made in every State Department. Keeping that in mind, nothing is laudable or applaudable about the Public Defender's Office, with support from the District Attorney, and the courts to committ, and then warehouse defendants in criminal court cases in Patton State Hospital because there is no time to work on their case. This has resulted in a battle-scarred group of people who will be detrimentally affected and stigmatized for life as mentally ill.

It seems, neither the public, or the media, nor even the government is aware of these cruel and immoral shenanigans.

I recently went to the Department of Mental Health to be evaluated on my mental health. I have a letter that states I do not meet any criteria for services, i.e., I am NOT mentally ill. [SEE: Attachment #1]

When I arrived at Patton the intake people I spoke with had no idea why I had been sent there; I did not meet any criteria for mental illness at Patton either.

Now, I want this complaint recorded, as an Addendum to my Patton records, to offset the lies and fabrications that are in my Discharge Papers. The truth needs to be told. I have copies of all of the complaints I made while in Patton, that were ignored and never answered by staff.

June 9, 2006: I was falsely arrested by Riverside County District Attorney Investigator, Twiss while on my way into court to have a provable void on the face restraining order dismissed, INC 057008 Trylison v Stephens, Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA. This invalid order was obtained by the perjury of a Gold Coast Management employee, Darlene Trylison, and a Shadowcrest HOA board member, Kent Robins. HOA attorney, Jan "Gen" Wangler also sat in court, I presume to defend the two against the Charging Affidavit for Perjury I had filed. The judge had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was just a matter of appearing in court. The order was void because Judge Olfield had not let me present my side of the case in court, and, Trylison had not met the statutory criteria for a civil restraining order. The order was void!

Twiss refused to let me go before the judge; instead he had me incarcerated in the county jail, with a $500,000 Bail, where -- documented in written complaints -- I was not allowed a phone call for several days, was strapped into a prostraint chair when what I needed instead was medical help for angina, and I suffered terrible physically and emotionally abuse, denial of medical treatment for a heart condition, and later, a deadly staph infection.

With no advocacy and no one to protect me I fell into the hands of the Riverside County Public Defender's Office, Indio, CA and sent through the kangaroo-court process of a Preliminary Hearing where I was not allowed to speak, and neophyte attorney, Neil A. Harrison had no idea of how to defend me.

Much of the case could have been resolved at this hearing based on challenges to the void on the face nature of the cases against me. Every person who testified against me committed provable perjury, and another neophyte, Deputy District Attorney, Kristi Belcher knew it, and still knows it, and is working hard to put me back in jail, rather than look at the facts, or admit to her mistakes.

I am filing a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct, in which I shall show that I ought NOT to have been held criminally liable for any actions involving void on the face judgments, and that Ms. Belcher acted in an inappropriate and/or unfair manner, by knowingly witholding evidence and permitting false testimony, among other charges.

There needed to be experienced counsel from both sides, given the opportunity to discuss with a judicial officer the just resolution of my case. These void orders then would have been brought to light. No one can be punished for disobedience of avoid 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).

My case was then turned over to Public Defender, Melanie Roe.

I would have done better to defend myself, but that was impossible in jail.

When Deputy Public Defender, Melanie Roe did not have time to review my case -- she never met with me, not once, nor did she even speak with me by phone even though I left her a message I had laid on the floor of my cell for hours, deathly ill with numerous boils from a staph infection, and was refused medical treatment. Roe was working on a murder case, and in the process of building and protecting her image in order to advance her career, so, she simply had me committed to Patton State Hospital, stating I was incompetent to go to trial -- even though I had won a four-day criminal jury trial in 1999, INM 089407, People v Stephens, Riverside CountySuperior Court, Indio, California, as a pro per, and, as a lay-person, and was well versed in court procedures.

I was hardly court incompetent!

Attorney, Melanie Roe called upon court-appointed psychologist, Michael E. Kania, Ph.D., [he is paid to find FOR the court]. He spent just twenty [20] minutes on a Sunday, (double-time pay for him!) talking with me in jail. He did no testing of my mental state, did not record any of my conversation in his report, nor did he look into any of my documented records for evidence of what I told him. He simply supported attorney Roe's request, called me paranoid and recommended to the court for my commitment. [SEE: Attachment #2 Complaint, Kania]

Patton State Hospital lists itself as: A prison hospital for the criminally insane and people charged in criminal cases who are so disconnected from reality that they are
unable to participate in their own defense at trial.

But is this statement true?

Once at Patton State Hospital I discovered that ALL fifty [50] of the "patients" in Unit 72 had been placed there under this blatant miscarriage of justice, commitment by the court, based on a recommendation by their Public Defenders. We all knew the reason - no time to work on their case.

I do not recall meeting one person who was disconnected from reality.

An attorney's professional responsibilities, whether prosecuter, or defender are set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 2668; People v. Pope(1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; and In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal 4th 924.

State Bar of California Guidelines on Indigent Defense Services Delivery Systems (2005 – 2006) ...An attorney representing an indigent criminal defendant owes allegiance, first and foremost to his or her client. If the attorney cannot represent the client's interests, due to a conflict or otherwise, he or she must refuse the appointment, or immediately withdraw from the case.

Attorney, Melanie Roe had a responsibility to withdraw.

The patients of Unit 72 spent the majority of the day going to multiple, useless, and often laughable, repetitious hour-long "classes" on How to Recognize -- who is the judge, the jury, the Public Defender, the District Attorney, etc., in a court setting -- something that can be learned in about a forty-five minute lecture!

THE DISCHARAGE PAPERS I RECEIVED FROM PATTON ARE FILLED WITH DOWN-RIGHT LIES AND FABRICATIONS:

There is no work, no "group therapy", no "private therapy" and no "assessment" of a person's mental condition, yet we were all labeled as court incompetent and often terribly abused by seclusion, super-powerful psychiatric drugs --against our will, and/or restrained by shackles to beds, with denial of patients'rights, all at the cost to tax payers of about $1,500 a day. Along with this there is a prevalence of illicit drugs, and open, and unwanted sexual advances from other patients.

While there I was physically attacked by another patient [ I am still in touch with a person who witnessed this attack on me] and even though there is to be a zero tolerance position against violence the person was never arrested and she went on to attack three more women. Patton fails to provide a reasonably safe environment for its patients; patient-on-patient violence is commonplace, and I witnessed it several times. I did not receive any medical treatment for my injurys from this woman, and my complaints to Executive Director, Octavio C. Luna, and other staff, including Patients' Rights went ignored, and unanswered.

The major statutory duties of the Office of Patients' Rights are contained in Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 5510, 5512, 5513, Title 9 C.C.R. 864, and Title 9 C.C.R. 868:

May 2, 2006: The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; Special Litigation Section completed a investigation of Patton State Hospital, and notified Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/patton_hosp_findlet_5-2-06.pdf

We found significant and wide-ranging deficiencies in patient care... Patton fails to provide a reasonably safe environment for its patients. Patient-on-patient violence is commonplace at Patton... Patients also are subject to adverse environmental conditions such as potential suicide hazards and the prevalence of illicit drugs. These problems are long-standing and serious... fails to adequately address inappropriate sexual contact among individuals served at the facility, including sexual contact between staff and patients. This issue, too, is long-standing. The harm that Patton patients experience as a result of these deficiencies is multifaceted, including physical and psychological abuse; physical injury; excessive and inappropriate use of physical and chemical restraints; inadequate, ineffective and counterproductive treatment; and excessively long hospitalizations. our investigation uncovered problems in three main areas of psychiatry: assessments and diagnoses, medication management. Psychiatric assessments and diagnoses at Patton substantially depart from generally accepted professional standards of care. Psychiatrists routinely diagnose their patients as having psychiatric disorders without conducting an adequate psychiatric assessment... we found the overall approach to ongoing psychiatric assessment reflects a lack of critical thinking and clinical inquiry. In many cases we reviewed, the psychiatrist failed to evaluate important developments in a patients condition that woulds suggest that the diagnosis assigned to the patient is not accurate... Patients are routinely prescribed inappropriate or unsafe medications without clinical justification... Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-0195.

Still, men and women are being warehoused in Patton State Hospital by their Public Defenders, with the help of the District Attorneys Office, and the courts.

It seems that in this time of economic-downfall in California, someone ought to be looking very closely -- investigating, and analyzing for further review these bogus commitments -- and considering a solution to this stunning waste of money, and perpetuation of social evils at Patton State Hospital.

Also, the following people need to be investigated: Octavio C. Luna, Executive Director; Gary Hahn, Hospital Administrator; Joseph Malancharuvil, Ph.D., Clinical Administrator, and, other staff members who continue to manipulate, and file false reports, filled with lies and fabrications in order to continue and hold people for three to six months, some even longer -- in order to collect these huge sums of money from the State of California.

And, what about the people who fall victim to these remarkable unconstitutional violations of human and civil rights?

Sharon Stephens
cc: Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Department of Justice; Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section; 950 Penn. Ave.; N.W.; Washington D.C. 20530
.

PROSICUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, Riverside District Attorney

2008-04-14T20:27:00.000-07:00

PROSECUTIORIAL MISCONDUCT
A FORMAL COMPLAINT
TO BE MAILED, WEDNESDAY April 16, 2008
Riverside District Attorney, Indio CA
82-675 Highway 111,4th Floor
Indio, CA 92201

RE:
Assistant District Attorney, Sue Stetting
Deputy, District Attorney, Kristi Elise Belcher
Deputy District Attorney, James Michael Graff-Radford
District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss

RE: People v. Sharon Dale Stephens
Case: INF054715

FROM: Sharon Stephens:
TO: Whom It May Concern:

cc: Shanetta Y. Cutlar, Department of Justice;
Chief of the Civil Rights Division's; Special Litigation Section;
950 Penn. Ave.; N.W.; Washington D.C. 20530

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
FIRST AMMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

I am 67 years old, a mother and grandmother, and have always been an asset in any neighborhood where I have lived. I have no criminal record. I have worked hard all of my life in jobs in social services where I have tried to be a help those less fortunate in society. I have worked as a case manager in battered women's shelters, shelters for the homeless, and as a child advocate.

When I bought my first home in 1996, along with my daughter Jeanine, my grandson Chris, and an elderly aunt, Beauchamp Everitt, it was in Shadowcrest Homeowners Association, 27135 Shadowcrest, Cathedral City, CA. 92234.

None of us knew anything about homeowners associations [HOAs]. It would be months later that we would come to truly understand that we did not even own this property, but was only a shareholder in a non-profit corporation. In our ignorance, the first few months were wonderful, and peaceful, and we loved loved this home.

Directly across the street lived the elderly 82-year-old widow, Marie Bockman. Marie had several renters, but in mid 1996 she allowed the Edward and Lolitta Riddle family to move in, along with their two sons, Nathan and Eddie. From the first night the Riddles moved in there were strange goings on: cars coming and going about every 15 minutes, with drivers openly picking up small packages, and exchanging money; it looked very much like drug dealing was going on.

I approached the board: they didn't want to be involved; I approached neighbors -- they didn't want to be involved, totally ignoring their legal responsibilty: There is a legal duty, which every person owes to others - that is, a duty to refrain from conduct that imposes an unreasonable risk of injury on third parties. Lamden v La Jolla Shores Clubdoninium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249.

In her ignorance, Marie put the Riddles on her Deed. Almost immediately they stopped paying any share of the mortage, and eventually Marie would lose her home, be forced to move out, but the Riddles would continue to live there for over year -- not paying any mortage, or the association fees.

Finally, frustrated! I called The Cathedral City Police: I didn't realize that it would be difficult to get the police to offer the same services to me in a private corporation, a homeowners association, as they do to those which are not HOAs. Officer Glenn Haas, working with Neighborhood Watch, asked if I would begin to take down license plate numbers and give him the list. Naively I agreed, considering it the responsible thing to do, but not considering the consequences. I thought the police would protect me. I was wrong!

The police told us that just prior to moving into Shadow Crest Lolita Riddle was allegedly suspected of arson, Case: CIV089430 - RIDDLE VS. STATE FARM INSURANCE 05/24/1996 and her son “Eddie” had already been arrested, and spent time in jail for drugs, and attempted murder, Case: ICR20863 Indio, Superior Court, Defendant 14650 RIDDLE, EDWARD, 10/07/1994; Case: ICR22594 Indio Superior Court, Defendant 14650 RIDDLE, EDWARD, 06/15/1995, and was out on probation.

I continued to write down and turn in license plate numbers to the police. One night I was caught and my life, along with my daughter's, and the hardest of all, my ten-year old grandson's life was threatened; our lives became miserable, and still, after all of these years my grandson suffers emotinally from this horrible esperience.

On Thanksgiving Day, the John Weiser family, relatives to the Riddle family moved in next door, and began that very day to join them in the persecution of my family, gathering out front with open name calling. Later they also set out to join forces with the board of directors, against me, with John soon being placed onto the board as Treasurer. (John Weiser would later hit me with his car, while I was on foot; I received no help from the Cathedral City Police, the District Attorney, or the court on this incident.)

The board still refused to act, and so did the neighbors, who refused to even look out their window when drug dealing was going on right in the middle of the street, or at the community pool. The police were not helpful, and I complained about Officer Glenn Haas in particular, he had foolishly informed the Riddles that it was me who was helping him, and their threats became even more prevelant. He then sold out all of the homeowners in Shadowcrest with regard to down-playing the need for Neighborhood Watch, in order to enhance his own image with them.

My complaints against Haas, a popular officer, would prove to cause me great harm -- from him, and his fellow officers -- in the future. He slandered, and lied about me, in order to protect himself, and set me up to being thought of as crazy.

A private defense attorney told me, You complained against the 'Boy's Club' and they will get you! They certainly have!

I started a one-page newsletter, speaking out about what was happening in the neighborhood, and the lack of help from the board. The board then authorized the association Attorney, Wayne Guralnick and his associate, Attorney, Kendel Berke, (who would later become the Cathedral City Assistant City Attorney) to send several letters to me threatening a lawsuit if I continued to write and distribute the newsletter. However, I did know that the ACLU had taken a stand on this issue: It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And, there is case law on freedom of speech at well. Smith v. Silbey (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 400, 406-407

Eddie was finally arrested for drugs and weapons a few weeks later, Case: INF027519, Indio Superior Court, Defendant 14650 RIDDLE, EDWARD 07/22/1997. But he only received a slap on the hand from a Deputy District Attorney, Archie Wong, and was soon back home. His drug dealing became more covert, his threats more frequesnt, and my ten-year old grandson was afraid to go anywhere in the community alone as the Riddles had openly said to him, We are going to hire a hit man to kill you! Although I made a police report, nothing was done.

Finally, months later, Eddie Riddle was again arrested, this time for burglary on a neighborhood home, and this time he was sent to prison. Case: INF029011 Indio Superior Court, Defendant 14650 RIDDLE, EDWARD NMN, 02/10/1998 The day he was arrested, his mother, Lollita Riddle raised her fist and shouted at me from across the street, I will get you!

Things were quiet for about a year, and then on a Saturday morning, as I returned from the store I noticed my grandson's BB gun in the trunk of the car. I also saw Lollitta Riddle watching me from across the street. I put the BB gun under my arm, and the plastic bags over my arms, and ignoring Lollita as I walked into my home to prepare breakfast for my family, and company that was soon to arrive.

Fifteen minutes later the phone rang and it was the police telling me come out with your hands visible. Lollita had lied, saying I had pointed the gun at her. Lollita Riddle then made a citizens arrest, I went to jail for the afternoon to be booked, and, a few months later I went into the Indio, California, Criminal Court, as a pro per, and conducted a four-day jury trial to defend myself. Every juror found me not guilty, and it was not because I did such a good job as a pro per in my defense, rather, it was because the evidence was so obviously in my favor, in spite of the blatant lies on the stand of Lollita, and her relatives, the Weiser family, and the presentation in court of doctored papers by the Deputy District Attorney, Archie Wong. Several jury members commented to me afterwards that they didn't understand why the case had even been brought against me. CASE: INM 089407, Indio Superior Court, California, 06/10/1999

Archie Wong, who knew the history of the Riddle family, having prosecuted Eddie Riddle more than once. After losing this case to me, he gave up his job with the Riverside County District Attorney, and moved to the San Francisco Bay Area. Today he is working for the San Francisco District Attorney.

TAKE NOTE: From the time I won this case, I have never received any help from the Riverside County Assistant District Attorney, Sue Steding, and there is proof that that Deputy District Attorney, Charles John Gianguzi Jr did conspire with C.C.P.D. Sergeant, Charles Robinson, -- who filed a provable false police report against me, and used it to falsely arrest me --and, my HOA board members to try and have me arrested on bogus charges. The judge threw their charges out of court.

The truth is, I picked up the gauntlet against the crooked Shadowcrest HOA association board, an irresponsible and corrupt Cathedral City Police Department including Chief Stan Henry, (who was sued by his own officers for civil rights violations!), Cathedral City Counsel, an unprofessional HOA management company, HOA attorneys, and even a dishonest assemblywoman, Bonnie Garcia all of whom figuratively and literally beat-me-up rather than take a stand against all the evil in my HOA.

I lost my home, my car and over $100,000, as well as over a year of my freedom in jail, and a state hospital where I suffered much abuse, all the result of the prosecutorial misconduct of the District Attorney's Office -- which includes: false arrest, prosecution on void on the face restraining orders, help in a bogus commitment to Patton State Hospital, unreasonable Bail, supression of evidence, and even prosecution on charges where I was provable the victim.

FACTS

In 1998, the most recent year for which figures are available, almost 928,000 adults were convicted of felonies in state courts. Statisitcally it is estmated at least 9,280 and as many as 92,800 innocent people were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Bureau of Justice; Statistics Report, May 17, 1999:

NEW YORK (AP) - Feb 28, 2008, Report by the Pew Center on the States: For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator... that is 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 - one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it's morethan any other nation. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars... California - which faces a $16 billion budget shortfall - spent $8.8 billion on corrections last year...

JANUARY 27, 2006: I was at my home in Shadowcrest to attend a Board Meeting the next day to discuss the illegal use of Reserve Funds while they were suspended as a corporation. The board members had already taken out Restraining Orders in an attempt to keep me out of meetings. But Restraining Orders can not be used to keep homeowners out of open meetings. So, they resorted to a more evil tactic to keep me out of the meeting. Board members, Kent Robbins, and Jim Hooten filed a false police report against me, stating I tried to run them over with my car, and I was arrested and taken to Riverside County Jail, Indio, CA.

I needed, but was denied medical treatment for angina by Corp. Maggie Beviens. When I scratched my wrist with my fingernail in hopes of obtaining medical treatment, I was stripped of all my clothing, strapped down in a Restraint Chair for more than an hour and then locked in a filthy dirty, rubberized dry cell for twelve more hours, with no cloths, no bedding, no toilet paper, no water, and still no medical treatment. Then I was transferred into a total lock-down cell, in twenty-four hour isolation, for four days. This is illegal All inmates are to be allowed at least 2 1/2 hours of recreation outside, every week. (Inmates of Riv.Co. Jail Indio v Ben Clark, as Sheriff and Appeal. 144 CAl App. 3d 850; 192 Calk Rptr. 823; 1983 Cal App - Lexis 1877 No27464)

And, Solitary confinement of inmate in dry cell to punish for self-inflicted wounds is unconstitutional. Hancock v. Avery (M.D. Tenn 1969) 301 F. Supp 786, 791)

Also, ...solitary confinement - that is, confinement of a prisoner alone in a cell for all or nearly all of the day, with minimal environmental stimulation and minimal opportunity for social interaction - can cause severe psychiatric harm. Stuart Grassian M.D.; September 1993 in Madrid v. Gomez, 889F.Supp.1146

I was released when it was decided the case needed more investigation. I filed a complaint with the Sheriff's Office, and, with the District Attorney in Indio. I received no response from either.

When I was released I went to the District Attorney's Officer and spoke with Investigator, Rick Nelson, who had worked on the Riddle case, and knew I was innocent. (He has since left the DA's Office). He called Cathedral City Police and told them to take my side of the story.

I then wrote a 30 page report that went to CCPD Detective C. DeVeas on January 1, 2006, and then it was sent to the District Attorney -- the case against me was closed. Deputy, District Attorney, Kristi Elise Belcher has a copy of the the Supplemental Report from CCPD in her case file, and she still with-held this crucial piece of evidence from the court -- she knew the case was closed, and, that I was innocent of these bogus charges by Robbins and Hooten, but she continued to prosecute me on the charges anyway in order to make her case look good in the Preliminary Hearing.

MAY 15, 2006: I was challenging a void on the void on the face restraining order of Assemblywoman BonnieGarcia, ( INC 043179, Riverside County Superior Court; Indio, CA ). The commissioner in this case said, the last time I was in court on this case, that he would dismiss the orders if I would have Mary Brhel, Garcia's aide personally served. It should be noted: Mary is married to ex-Deputy District Attorney, Martin Brhel, and he sat behind her in court adn gave her questions to ask.). Garcia, in order to protect herself, got rid of Brhel and I was unable to have her served. (This is documented in the transcripts of the case.)

So, I was arrested and booked and was supposed to be released. Instead I was locked in a 3X3 steel cage by Corp Erdralin where he deliberately provoked me, calling me names such as cunt, laughing at me, reminding me of my complaint against Maggie Beviens, and denying me my heart medication. Finally I was transferred to JFK hospital, and was battered by transporting deputies; there is a doctors report on my injuries when I was dragged across the parking lot, and then dropped on my knees in the parking lot. I filed another complaint with the Sheriff's Office. It was ignored! All of these deputies had a deliberate indifferance to my serious medical condition. Esterrle v Gamble (1976) 429 US 97 50 L Ed251, 97 S.Ct 285

My complaints to the Sheriff and District Attorney on this incident went ignored.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the American Friends Service Committee, the National Lawyers Guild, California Prison Focus, and many other groups and individuals have joined with the World Organization Against Torture to express their concern, and is currently writing a report on United States' Compliance With theUnited Nations Covenants this country has signed. For instance, the U.S. ratified the International Convention Against Torture in 1994, but still does not comply, continuing to use punitive violence and brutality in control unit facilities, cell extractions, mistreatment of the mentally ill, chemical sprays and dangerous methods of restraint. The existence and scope of these conditions are also in opposition to guidelines for treatment set in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatmentof Prisoners.

JUNE 8, 2006: I was falsely arrested by District Attorney Investigator, Rich Twiss on my way into court to dismiss a void on the face restraining order by Gold Coast Management ( Trylson v Stephens INC057008 Riverside County Superior Court, Indio CA ) The comissioner had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was void! Judge Olfield had not heard my side of the case, which automatically makes a case void, but, Trylson had not met the statutory criteria for a restraining order. There was also a Charging Affidavit in this case against Kent Robbins and Darlene Trylson for provable perjury. Twiss could have easily have discerned this by reading my paper work, or, by letting me go before the judge.

Twiss refused to let me go before the judge; instead he had me incarcerated in the county jail, with a $500,000 Bail. The District Attorney would never allow me reasonable Bail, and in effect was denying me release.

Resonable Bail permits the unhampered preparation of a defense and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction. Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence -- which every defendant ought to be able to retain -- until proven guilty -- would lose its meaning.

The Eighth Amendment itself does not speak of any right to bail; rather, it prohibits the imposition of excessive bail. Nevertheless, simple logic would indicate that a prohibition against excessive bail assumes the availability of reasonable bail.

The fairness of such a rule was questioned in the 1960 case of Brady v. U.S. The petitioner applied to U. S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Justice Douglas conceded that he was troubled by the application. While noting that the setting of excessive bail to prevent a defendant from gaining release would be a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment, and he said, ...in the case of an indigent defendant, the fixing of bail in even a modest amount may have the practical effect of denying him release. Further reflection has led me to conclude that no man should be denied release because of indigence...It would be unconstitutional to fix bail to assure a defendant will not gain his freedom.

The orders against me were easily proven void, and I could have easily helped to prepare a defense to prove that if I had been allowed Bail. Instead, I was denied that ability, and I suffered infliction of punishment prior to conviction.

After this false arrest I was supposed to be booked and released so that I could return to court to have my case heard. Instead I again fell into the hands of Corp. Maggie Beviens who refused to allow me to be booked and releashed, and would not allow me any phone calls [ I was not allowed a phone call until June 22 ] I reminded Corp. Beviens that I would file another complaint against her. She just laughed stating she had read my complaint, and locked me in a cell with no phone, and then into a restraint chair for two hours because I broke out in nervous hives, and when I scratched them she said I was self-inflicting the hives. Two hours with no medical care, no water, no toilet use where I had to urinate in my cloths, and then, much taunting from deputies who were outside the cell door. No one can imagine the fear I felt with these ongoing angina attacks -- truly, I thought I was going to have a heart attack and die; I needed nitroglycerin to stop the attacks. (I have a very bad heart; suffered a heart attack in 2002, and had open heart surgery, and still have difficulty in breathing, and with severe angina attacks. I was in the hospital just three weeks ago with my heart.)
When I was pulled out of the cell, still in the chair, and still strapped down, [There are photos of this event] and Corp Erdralin began to taunt me, and to point and laugh at me like I was an animal -- provoking me; I simply had a psychotic break with reality and just could not stand any more of this malicious and abusive torture -- I spit on him -- He came by the cell later, looked through the glass, where I still had no water, was still siting in my urine soaked cloths, with no use of the toilet, and no medical treatment; he smiled, and mouthed the words at me -- cunt.

When I was finally taken to the hospital the deputies continued to provoke me, not allowing me any water, and lauging at me when I tried to reach for water. There was no kindness in any of these deputies, and no concern for my well being.

The Court of Appeal has held that offensive conduct means behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence...People v Cohen 1 Cal. App. 3d, at 99-100, 81 Cal. Rptr., at 506.... provocation maliciously to bring about harm if resisted, which is likely to lead to retaliation. Foutch v State 95 Tenn 711, 34 SW 423

With no phone calls allowed to me, no visitors, and no ability to tell my story, charges were filed against me with no one hearing my side of the story. CASE: INF054715 Riverside County Superior Court, Indio, CA.

With no advocacy and no one to protect me I fell into the hands of the Riverside County Public Defender's Office, Indio, CA and was sent through the witch-hunt, kangaroo-court process of a Preliminary Hearing where I have never witnessed so much injustice: I was subjected to witness after witness telling blatant lies, destroying my character, contradicting their own police reports, and I was not allowed to speak, ...the court has held that it violates due process to use a defendant's silence against him, yet that is exactly what happens in this unjust process.Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)

Neophyte Public Defender, Neil A. Harrison had no idea of how to defend me in this hearing. Much of the case could have been resolved at this hearing based on challenges to the void on the face nature of the cases against me, but he refused to hear me that every restraining order being used to prosecute me, was void!

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. 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, 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.

Every person who testified against me in this Preliminary Hearing committed provable perjury, and another neophyte, Deputy District Attorney, Kristi Belcher knew it, allowed it, still knows it, and is working hard now to put me back in jail, rather than look at the facts, or admit to her mistakes.

I ought NEVER to have been held criminally liable for any actions involving void on the face judgments.

The judge slept through most of the hearing, and when I began to experience angina, he refused to let me take my nitroglycerin. The Public Defender never protested this. When I was taken back to a cell, the angina was so bad I could not breath, and an ambulence had to be called, and I was transported to JFK Hospital.

But, before there was ever a Preliminary Hearing, there needed to first be experienced counsel from both sides, given the opportunity to discuss with a judicial officer the just resolution of my case. These void orders then would have been brought to light. No one can be punished for disobedience of avoid 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 (order in excess of jurisdiction).

It is stunning how many judges and commissioners in The Larson Justice Center, Riverside County, CA., Indio issue Civil Restraining Orders, CCP 527.6 and CCP 527.8, disregarding the required legislativestatutory criteria that is well supported by case law, and they do so with no regard as to how these orders can be used to abuse and harass others.

TAKE NOTE: When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are atrespasser 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) 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]. 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 ); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Any judge or attorney who does not report a judge for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason,18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

The Public Defender's Office was well aware of these abuses and did nothing to help.The public defender is all too often synonomous with ineffective assistance of counsel. (SEE: Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1 (1983)(amended 1998); A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Deputy Public Defender, Melanie Roe never came to see me, never even talked with me on the phone even when I left her a message that I had laid on the floor for hours, with boils, the dry heaves, and a deadly staph infection. Rather, she had me put into Patton State Hospital on a bogus commitment because she had no time for my case, and, when I went into court she would not let me speak to have her dismissed so I could defend myself. [SEE: Attached Complaint re: Patton State Hospital]

Melanie Roe had a blatant failure to communicate with me, her client, her communication was dismissive when I finally saw her in court, she was callous and hurried in her manner; there was no attempt at discovery; no investigation into the facts; she did not test physical evidence; did not even give minimal preparation, and, gave no advocacy for me. (SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

The court allows for this incompetent BAD LAWYERING!

THE LAW

Crime is contagious.

If the government becomes a law-breaker,

it breeds contempt for the law;

it invites everyman to become a law unto himself;

it breeds anarchy.

Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 485; Brandeis DISSENTING OP

NEW YORK (AP) - Feb 28, 2008, Report by the Pew Center on the States: For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator... that is 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 - one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it's more than any other nation. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars... California - which faces a $16 billion budget shortfall - spent $8.8 billion on corrections last year...

A person accused, most often without any true investigation, is stigmatized simply by being charged. Then, not being able to testify or defend themselves in the kangeroo-court Preliminary Hearing only adds to the the impression that his or her silence is an indicator of guilt. Presumption of innocence, and reasonable doubt are totally ignored in these court settings. Interestingly, the court has held that it violates due process to use a defendant's silence against him, yet that is exactly what happens in this unjust process. Supra: Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)

It has been noted: An unethical, overzealous District Attorney is the most powerful and dangerous person in the court room. He can make, break or ruin a person's life.

At the Preliminary Hearing, Deputy District Attorney Kristi Elise Belcher allowed her witnesses to probably perjure themselves; she absolutely heard them over and over contradict their own police reports, and she NEVER allowed for the facts of void orders, and false arrests to come out.

This is Fraud: Deputy District Attorney, Kristi Elise Belcher used Fraudulent use of process -- using legal process for fraudulent purposes such as attempting to enforce a judgment on a fictitious claim. 1 AM J2d Abuse PSS 9-12.

No one in the District Attorney's Office did their job to find the truth, or, to make sure I had a fair trial. They knew, I was falsely arrested, and that I was in court to dismiss a void order -- yet they just ignored this and prosecuted me on this case anyway.

The role of the prosecutor differs significantly from that of others who practice law, including criminal defense lawyers: A Prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she perfoms in representing the interests and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state ... the prosecutor represents 'sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartilly is as compelling as its obligatin to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done' Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78,88 (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal 4th 800, 8.

Prosecutors have a special obligation to promote justice and the ascertainment of truth. ... The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present... the evidence..."People v. Kasim (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1378

The truth and evidence was there for the District Attorney to ascertain, but the District Attorney's Office was so anxious to win, that they ignored my right to a fair trial, and never did the required investiagation of the cases they were prosecuting me for. (SEE: Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, cmt. 5 (1983) (amended 1998) competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

There was never anything fair about the case the District Attorney was building against me. As an officer of the court, the prosecutor has a heavy responsibility to the court and to the defendant to conduct a fair trial. (United States v. Escalante (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F.2d 1197, 1203.)The prosecutor's job isn't just to win, but to win fairly, staying well within the rules. (United States v. Kojayan (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 1315, 1323).

An attorney's professional responsibilities, whether prosecutor, or defense are set forth in, Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 2668; People v. Pope(1979) 23 Cal.3d 412; as In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal 4th 924.

Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convaescere -- That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253'

Every restraining order that the District Attorney prosecuted me for, was void on the face! Not one of them met the statutory criteria. And, the District Attorney had a responsibilty to ascertain the truth, and to conduct a fair trial based on the facts. 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

TAKE NOTE: Constitutionally protected activity, such as making police reports, or complaints of any type are excluded from the meaning of "course of conduct" with regards to a restraining order. Schraer v. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, supra, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.

I have the right to make complaints to the police, the state, or anyone else regarding bogus restraining orders!

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.

NOT ONE OF THE RESTRAINING ORDERS I WAS PROSECUTED ON,
MET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: - therefore they are void, and the judge, who must follow the law, had no juridiction to issue them.

1. Civil Code of Procedure 537.6 was enacted to, supplement the existing law of Torts of 'invasion of privacy' and 'intentional infliction of emotional distress,' therefore a person must prove these two elements. Grant v. Clampett (1997 2nd Dist) 56 Cal App 4th 586, 65 Cal Rptr 2d 727

2. There must be clear and convincing evidence of suffering great medical or psychological distress. Sheild vRubin (1991, 2nd Dist) 232 Cal App 3d 755, 283 Cal Rptr 533

3. Great or irreparable harm must be proven. Nebel v Sulach (1999 4th Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 1363, 1369, 87 Cal Rptr 2d 3851 We can seek guidance from the phrase "severe emotional distress" -- in the context of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress -- which has been interpreted to mean distress so severe that no reasonable [person] in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. (Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397, relying on comment to section 46 of the Restatement Second, of Torts.)

4. 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, supra, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.).

5. Void on the face judgments "never die" in the State of California, and 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, which is relied on by defendant in this appeal, is not applicable here. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194

6. Although it has been held, by analogy to CCP section 473a, that such motions should be made within one year from the date the judgment sought to be set aside was rendered this time limitation does not apply where the judgment is based on a fraudulent return. Washko v. Stewart, 44 Cal. App. 2d 311, 317,318 [112 Pd 306]; Richert v. Benson Lbr. Co., 139 Cal. App. 671, 674-676 [34 P.2d 840]

7. 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.

8. 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. Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761

9. 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.)

THE RESTRAINING ORDERS:

Trylson v Stephens INC057008 The comissioner had already agreed to dismiss the case; it was void! Judge Olfield had not heard my side of the case, which automatically makes a case void, and, Trylson had not met the statutory criteria for a restraining order. There was also a Charging Affidavit in this case against Kent Robbins and Darlene Trylson for provable perjury. Twiss could have easily have discerned this by reading my paper work, or, by letting me go before the judge.
And, The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order, and it is void!

Kent Robbins INC 040482 had already been found to have battered me, and perjured himself in this restraining order against me, and, that is part of the transcripts of our last court appearance in this case, and could have been easily discovered by the District Attorney. Robbins' restraining order is also void; The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order.

James Hooten INC044733 Who has police reports against him for harassment of women and children, and also pulled what looked like a gun on several children in Shadowcrest HOA. The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order.

Jill Reed INC039738 Had me falsely arrested twice on a TRO, in a HOA board meeting, in a public place; public places had been crossed out by the judge on her order. The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order.

Jose Liceaga INC040572 probvaly battered me on two ocassions, in front of witnesses, attemptd a battery on me on on another ocassion. Deputy District Attorney Kristi Elise Belcher had a police report on one of these events where Liceaga's own witness reported I was the victim. Belcher went ahead and prosecuted me on this event, and ignored the facts -- never presenting the truth to the court --that I was the victim. There are multiple police reports and requests for Restraining Orders against Liceaga for his harassment of women and children. And, The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order.

Bonnie Garcia [or any of her aides] INC043179 Knowing I was talking with the Garcia people, two officers from CCPD visited her office and slandered me, telling them to have nothing to do with me. Four months after visiting the Garcia Office for help, she began a provable conspiracy with the Cathedral City Police Department, and filed for 8 restraining order against me. The proof of this conspiracy is very well documented in the 65 page Memo of Cost in Case INC043437 ROBINSON v. STEPHENS. The last time I was in court with Garcia's aide, "Candy" the commissioner agreed to dismiss the orders -- if I had Mary Brhel served; Garcia moved Brhel so I could not serve her. This is all documented in the court transcripts, and could have easily been asertained by Kristi Elise Belcher if she had done her duty is to ascertain and fully and fairly present... the evidence... supra: People v. Kasim (1997) Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, and her aide has engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the adminsitration of justice in her conspiracy, and in allowing me to be prosecuted knowing her orders are void! The OrderNever met the statutory criteria for a restraining order.

ROBINSON v. STEPHENS [Judy Williams] INC043437 When I discovered that two police offiers had gone to the Garcia Office and slandered me I called CCPD and spoke with Judy Williams and wanted an investigation; she hung up on me! On this very day, February 3, 2004, as is well documented in their 65 page Memo of Costs, Attorney, Kendall Berkey, and CCPD began a conspiracy against me, behind my back, which resulted in false police reports, false arrests, bogus restraining orders being served on me that never went through the court, and refusal to do an investigation into the two officers believed to be Sergeant, Charles Robinson, and Captain Kevin Connor. I had no idea of this Memo of Costs until October 2004, after losing to them in a bogus restraining order because I didn't have enough legal knowledge to fight them. I was then served with a bill for over $65,000 that had been chalked up by Berkey in an ivestigation against me; an investigatoin that proved nothing againt me. (Now, interestingly, Berkey had obtained a restraining order against another person for CCPD, and never charged any money for that.) All of this to protect two crooked cops! I then learned that The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order, and began a fight to have it dismissed. When I was falsely arrested I was in the process of going through Appeal Court, but lost as I was incarcerated and could not fight it in jail. I lost my home, and over $100,000. Since then, I have learned 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.) The Order Never met the statutory criteria for a restraining order, and it is void!

Going into trial, I was still in 24 hour a day solitary confinement, which is illegal (supra; Inmates of Riv.Co. Jail Indio v Ben Clark, as Sheriff and Appeal; ...solitary confinement - that is confinement of a prisoner alone in a cell for all or nearly all of the day, with minimal environmental stimulation and minimal opportunity for social interaction - can cause severe psychiatric harm. (Stuart Grassian M.D.;September 1993 in Madrid v. Gomez, 889F.Supp.1146), and, greatly in need of medical treatment for heart problems -- I was not receiving any medical care in jail for my heart -- and, needing to see a doctor. Finding myself represented by defense counsel that was blatantly unprepared, unmotivated and whose incompetence was stunningly conspicuous, forced me, an indigent 67 year old woman to take whatever the District Attorney offered. Even though I was innocent. I could not chance going to prison, where I would have died for sure. I agreed to plead guilty; my Public Defender would not let me plead nolo contendere. I had to get out of jail due to my health; I was going to die.

CONCLUSION

I ought never to have been prosecuted on void orders.

I have already filed a report against Patton State Hospital, for the bogus commitment that the Public Defender initiated against me, with the support of the District Attorney; it is going to The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Divsion. I am also considering a Grand Jury as well, and Bar Complaints against all attorneys in this case.

PETERS and FREEDMAN -- HOA LAWYER WITCH-HUNT?

2008-03-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

Two days ago I was told by a friend that I am "a defendant" in, what appears now to be a witch-hunt defamation lawsuit (01CC14684; Peters and Freedman v. AHRC; Orange County, CA), against AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS RESOURCE CENTER, [AHRC] http://www:ahrc.com . However, I have no idea of what I have done to offend Peters and Freedman, and, no one in their office wants to give me any information, and, I can't seem to access the court website to retrieve the case file; I have never been served with any documents -- I thought in America we have "the right to face our accusers?"

When I called their law office in Encinita, CA., my first contact was receptionist,"Jasmine." I gave her the case number, the county it was filed in, and the name of the parties involved. She had "no idea of what I was talking about," and, refused to connect me with any person in the office who might help me.

So, I e-mailed to their office at mkim@hoalaw.com

Within an hour I received an e-mail back from Michael G. Kim, Esq. which stated, "You are a defendant!"

I responded, "What am I a defendant to?"

He quickly sent back, "I can't give you any advise -- get a lawyer!"

Just as quickly I sent him back, "I will be in pro per; I believe you have a legal responsibility to speak with me; I am NOT asking for advise!"

There has been no answer from Lawyer, Michael Kim.

So, it seems in someway I have offended the Peters and Freedman HOA lawfirm -- but I have no idea how?

TRUTH is: "The defense against defamation is the Truth!", and all I have spoken of on the AHRC website has been the truth, well supported by facts and the law, and have never mentioned the lawyers, or the law firm of Peters and Freeman.

I have spoken out on AHRC against other HOA attorneys: "Gen" Wangler, Brian Green, Jeff French, Wayne Guralnick, Kendall Berkey, so, I suspect, Lawyer Kim and his cohorts are picking up the gauntlet for all HOA attorneys, management companies, and politicians, such as Assemblywoman, Bonnie Garcia who have been exposed for their illegal, and criminal behavior regarding me, and other homeowners in these, now too many, unconstitutional little American gulags.

It seems they wish to silence us?

I am 67 years old, and spent over a year in jail in (illegal) 24-hour solitary confinement, suffered much abuse -- with a false bogus commitment to a State Hospital by my Public Defender who had no time for my case, had my home taken aways from me, and over $100,000 stolen on a void on the face restraining order by Cathedral City, CA -- the consequence of my speaking out!

I should be silent now!

NOT one government agency was willing to help, or even acknowledge my written letters to them regarding the abuses of me, my family, and others who were being subjected to abuses in Shadowcrest HOA, Cathedral City, CA! Nor have they helped with the complaints of abuse from other homeowners.

I shall continue to speak out on AHRC, and anywhere there is a forum for free speech -- we do still have the First Amendment don't we?

.

Homeowner Associations - The Return to Bondage

2008-02-26T13:39:00.000-08:00

The Collapse of Democracy in America
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. ~Scots Historian, Professor, Alexander Tyler, 1787: The Fall of the Athenian Republic

The average age of the world's greatest [democratic] civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

It seems, we are, in America are at the end of the progression, moving back into bondage at every turn.

The govenment adopted the new Patriot Act following the terrorist attack on 911. For a detailed section-by-section analysis of the draft bill read the following:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17203leg20030214.html

Within the Patriot Act, The Bush administration has developed a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system. . . . - The Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html

And, now we have a plan for Establishing Martial Law in the United States. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Establishing_martial_law_in_the_United_States

For the first time in American history, the reigns of government would not be transferred from one elected element to another, but the Constitution, itself, can be suspended.

The Department of Justice had been drafting this new legislation --titled "the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" -- in secret -- over several months -- until the documents were leaked to a journalist, and then broadcast on the Bill Moyer PBS news program, NOW on February 7, 2003: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lewis2.html

Along with the new Act it became known there over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. The government is not hiding them. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States.http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/con_camps_fema.htm

What about HOAs? Are homeowner associations [HOAs] also part of the new internmet camps of the new world order? Have millions of American's bought right into our own prison system? Under Martial Law all it would take would be a couple of military type guards at the gate, with guns and no one comes or goes. More and more neighborhoods are being turned into homeowner associations, and gates can go up and around them in a matter of hours.

It is estimated that more than 60 million people in America live in homeowner associations, and cities now require most new housing to be in homeowner associations, with layyers and politicians creating homeowner association in neighborhoods where none existed. It is a good money maker for them, and perhaps a way to have control over people in the future.

The homeowner association fraud started in California with the Davis Sterling Act. It was written with loopholes for lawyers to transfer life savings, homes and earnings of homeowners to the litigation, real estate, insurance and banking industry. These laws stripped homeowners of their constitutional and property rights and took away owners ability to limit their expenses and liabilities - the board members, lawyers and managers can fine, lien, assess, use owners homes as security for millions bank loans without the owners' consent, and charge the millions of dollars for lawyers, manager and expert fees to sue them for any reason.

Legislators and law enforcement agencies ignore homeowner's complaints of fraud and racketeering, and it appears the most powerful politicians have been on the take and have written , voted for, or failed to enforce laws.

We only have an illusion of "freedom" -- When I began to speak out against my homeowners association, and the government that is heavily invested in these little communistic-like American gulags, I found myself the victim of true injustice in and by the courts with nowhere to go for any help.

Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
San Francisco Chronicle
page B-7
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL
The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist. - Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

Watch the documentary ENDGAME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

Is it too late to turn all of this around? Perhaps. We can only make people aware, but it is the apathy of our own people that have brought us to this point in history.
.