Tuesday, May 18, 2010

CRIMINAL CHARGING AFFIDAVIT

Against
Deputy District Attorney, Jack C. Liu #248963

Case No. MWV903720

PEOPLE V. STEPHENS
Court Room 7

8303 Haven Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Sharon Stephens [will] personally appear and will testify to the following under oath:

Deputy District Attorney, Jack C. Liu #248963 did appear in Rancho Superior Court, Court Room 7 on or about May 7, 2010 for a 402 Hearing and did commit subornation of perjury, (Penal Code127), and Conspiracy with Attorney Linda Tracy Hollenbeck #145048, Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hysen to commit perjury, and present false evidence into the court record. (Penal Code 182). In this it seems large scale evils require the cooperation, and conspiracy of the many against the few.

According to the state supreme court, “[i]t is misconduct… to elicit or attempt to elicit inadmissible evidence… Because we consider the effect of the prosecutor’s action on the defendant, a determination of bad faith or wrongful intent by the prosecutor it is not required for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct.” (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Ca) 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 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.)

Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include (Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:) "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists." (People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].) "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void. Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered, (B & C Investments, INc. v. F &amp; M Nat. Bank &amp; Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App.Div 3, 1995). "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) 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)

Prosecutor, Jack C. Liu was aware that the testimony given by Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hysen was not in the original trial record as he had a copy of the transcripts. Rather, their testimony was well couched by the attorneys, Prosecutor Liu, and Attorney Linda T.Hollenbek, and fabricated for the appearance of the witnesses at the hearing, by all witnesses: Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, Karen Brooks, Frank Reyes and Judy Hyaen.

“The most obvious misconduct is to present false testimony or false evidence.” Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264; United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1993) 17 F.3d 1201; United States v. Valentine (2nd Cir. 1987) 820 F.2nd 565; SEE: Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d); Penal Code § 1473(b), and Rule 5-200, Rules Prof. Conduct of State Bar.)

Due process is violated when false evidence is presented, whether offered intentionally or inadvertently. “Under well-established principles of due process, the prosecutor cannot present evidence it knows is false and must correct any falsity of which it is aware… even if the false evidence was not intentionally submitted.” (Giles v. Maryland (1967) 386 U.S. 66… Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264… People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 33 …” People v. Seaton, 26 Cal.4th 598, 647; see People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213-214; People v. Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1192-1196.) “Rulings made in violation of Due Process are void.” (Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461)

Prosecutor, Jack C. Liu ignored his responsibility of "due diligence" and his competentancy in "knowing the law:" Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200, Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 Deception to Court -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 – 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 practitioner."

IF Prosecutor Jack C. Liu had of done a due diligence search of this case, and of evidence in his own office he would have known: 1. The restraining order was void as the statue of limitations expired and the Judge Victor, as well as ignoring the law of CCP 527.8, had no subject matter jurisdiction to issue such an order. 2. An identical case, #CIVRS90016 brought by Attorney Hollenbeck against defendant Sharon Stephens, with two other Briarwood Manor employees, was dismissed immediately as she "did not make her case." 3. A San Bernardino Sheriff's Case # 89090068, against Ms. Hollenbeck for battery against the defendant, Sharon Stephens, in front of a witness. 4. An Elder Abuse case delivered to the District Attorney by Adult Protective Services that involved Briarwood Manor, Attorney Hollenbeck, Karen Brooks, and Logan Property Management. 5. A City of Montclair police report involving the conspiracy of Attorney Hollenbeck, Briarwood Manor employees, and Logan Property Management employees to commit a crime so as to hurry her eviction. ALL OF THESE OUGHT TO HAVE RAISED A RED FLAG IN THE EYES OF PROSECUTOR JACK C. LIU and violates Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-110 Failure to Act Competently.

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., then the abused victim and the laws that protect the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has, or has not 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.

This is NOT “harmless error,” rather it is unethical, blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct, and may be moral turpitude, malum in se, (State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109).

On May 26, 2010 I sat in Court Room 7, at the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court and listen as Judge Sabit, who has now been made aware of the law through a legal research team, and, must dismiss 28 counts of this bogus and void restraining order brought against me by the vindictive, retaliatory and unethical, Attorney Linda Hollenbeck,an Amerland Group ("slum lords" personified) morally corrupt lackey who is beyond having a conscience for her illegal activities, Martha Enrique, an owner of Amerland Group and a sister in evil collusion's, along with Briarwood Manor Manager, Karen Brooks -- just a dumb, and easily manipulated broad -- and "win at all costs" Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu. They all sit blankly, staring straight ahead as all the counts are read, one by one, and dismissed.

But the second one, heard by Judge Rex Victor, a Juvenile Court Judge went forward. It was obvious from the beginning it was a void order as Victor did not follow the law of work place orders, and, Hollenbeck had even missed the filing date by three days, making the order automatically void. I challenged the order as void at least twice in court. I warned Hollenbeck, Enrique, Brooks, Ochsner and the other property owners, on several occasions that the order was void, but all ignored me and continued to have me falsely arrested for just appearing to get my mail, or to make complaints, or seek services from the apartment management. (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.). (Burns v. Municipal Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 596, 599.)

As the finally count is dismissed, I smile at Mike Camber, Public Defender and exhale; it is over.

Well, then up jumps Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu. "But there is this Stay Away Order issued by Judge Libutti back in June and Ms. Stephens violated that by contacting Karen Brooks, victim, and Cassandra Oseth-Ochsner, victim this last week." He presents a police report taken at Briarwood when I visited resident Carol Colgrove, and a document from an online Facebook communication Mrs. Ochsner and I had a few days ago. Brooks and Ochsner are "victims" of nothing -- it is a void restraining order, from the beginning and every count has just been dismissed. AND A void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void:30A Am Jur Judgments '' 43,44, 45. Henderson v. Henderson, 232 NC 380, 100 SE2d 227.) This is just more vindictive retaliation from people who ignore the law, and to a judge who does not know the law.

Now Judge Sabit excitedly jumps right in, again almost giddy: "You are being incarcerated with Bail set at $150,000 (Excessive Bail: Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. (1951) the U.S. Supreme Court, Ajudge or justice may be censured for "setting 'grossly excessive' bail and [thus] showing a 'severe attitude' toward witnesses and litigants," as the Michigan Supreme Court did to a trial judge recently : Debra Cassens Weiss, writes, "Judge Censured for Excessive Bail, Severe Attitude", ABA Journal, February 8, 2008). Judge Sabit's bias toward me is more than obvious.

Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu takes advantage of Judge Sabit's bias.

Judge Sabit becomes quite rude, not hiding her bias toward me when she says with venomous implications, "Read my lips, IF YOU SHOULD MAKE BAIL...'" I am too stunned to listen to the rest. Judge Lubutti had piggy-backed this order on the already void restraining order during a hearing in June 2009 when I had made a Motion to Dismiss, and I now know that "no order made on an unlawful, void order is valid!" But this judge, by her own previous admission "Does not know the law of void orders."

Deputy Jack Liu again has not done his obligation of due diligence
to know the law.

I am incarcerated for ten days with grave results to my physical and mental health.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION: A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom. Justice Mosk began Rappleyea with a succinct statement of the question before the Supreme Court and its answer: “The question is whether a default must be set aside and a default judgment reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion. The question before us is the same. And so is our answer. (Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.) "We conclude that they must be.” ( Rappleyea supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 978.)

The human condition, which can be ignorance and fallibility -- especially for those in authority, perhaps 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.

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).) and, ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

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 this prosecutor, and Attorney Hollenbeck, and their witnesses who are so willing to send me to jail, or prison for crimes I 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 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?”

“Attorneys should be disciplined for conduct that violates clearly established law, or conduct so outrageous that its illegality is obvious,” as stated in the Cal State Bar Court case against Attorney, Benjamin Thomas Field [#168197] where he “disregarded prosecutorial accountability in favor of winning cases,” The three-judge panel upheld the recommendation of hearing Judge Pat McElroy and urged that Field be given five years of probation. Field left the DA’s office and is now chief of staff with Working Partnerships USA, a San Jose company that addresses the needs of working families in Silicon Valley.

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

However, is that what I really want? Of course not! I spent a year of hellish [and recently 44 days] incarceration, mostly in solitary confinement in Riverside County Jail, and several weeks in Patton State Hospital because of an unethical District Attorney, a judge and a public defender, Melanie Roe, who were ignorant of, or ignored the law, for crimes I did not commit. I lost my home, $100,000, and much of my health due to the abuses of this legal system. I would not want that for anyone.

May 16, 2010: Fox News revealed Reggie Deshawn Cole was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life in prison. On this date he was released after 14 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. The California Innocence Project, based at California Western School of Law in San Diego discovered he was convicted on false evidence.

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 is very wrong with the judicial system in America.

Real punishments are needed for those who employ false claims, and turn our judicial system into a series of Kangaroo Courts.

What I do want is for judges, prosecutors, defence attorneys and their witnesses to know they MUST know and follow the law, and tell the truth.

I declare under penalty of perjury the aforementioned is true to the best of my ability, and that I can and will testify to such if called upon to do so.

Sharon Stephens, Homeless

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

WHY LAWYERS [e.g., Linda Hollenbeck] LIE -- According To A Psychiatrist.

As one person said, "I'm no psychiatrist, but being a parent, not to mention having been a teenager my experience tells me people lie for two reasons: they think they can't get caught and/or they are more afraid of the truth." Such as when they are protecting their jobs and pressured by their boss they will even perjure themselves in court, ignoring the consequences to themselves, and certainly with no care and concern for what the harm is they do to others.

The following article spends a lot of time discussing the first reason for lying and also addresses the competitiveness of the adversarial system as an explanation for lawyers lying, but what appears more important -- their narcissism.

Suppose a judge calls both the prosecutor and defence lawyer into private chambers before a criminal trial and asks, “Come on, let’s move this along. Did he do it or didn’t he?” [Not as uncommon as you may believe.] Allan C. Hutchinson in his text, “Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility”.

The defense lawyer is presented with an "ethical dilemma." To respond in the generally accepted manner, which is simply to politely draw the judge’s attention to the abject impropriety of the question, might actually prejudice the client, since the judge might retaliate against the lawyer by making findings contrary to the lawyer’s client where there is close evidence on each side. So he responds with a “doctrine of mental reservation”, to justify his responding to the judge “… I have no doubt that my client is innocent.” The statement is calculated to mislead the judge, and is not ethically acceptable, and both know it. [Judges were practicing attorneys.]

Richard Ratner, a board-certified psychiatrist has many lawyers as patients in his clinical work and also serves as a forensic psychiatrist in bar disciplinary cases and other types of litigation. He says a lot of "psychopathology" takes place in litigation, for a variety of reasons.Lawyers will use the psychological defenses of "rationalization" and "denial" to enable themselves to intentionally mislead -- and even lie -- if they believe that is the only way to win. Ratner states that as a result of this rationalization and denial, they do not see themselves as having done anything wrong. Instead, they see themselves as justified, because they were acting for a "higher purpose" of "defending their client's." He explains that the power of rationalization can be enormous.

Rationalization can even be seen in such horribly extreme examples as with the deaths of innocents in hotel fires, and purposely making the elderly and handicapped homeless by their slum lord clients seem as "heroic."

WHY DO LAWYERS LIE -- ONE WORD: NARCISSISM!
Arthur D. Burger
New Jersey Law Journal
August 22, 2008
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1202423955810

How many of you have deliberately misstated important facts to a court? Silence. Mmm hmm.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

As a litigator myself, I can easily think of two examples when opposing counsel did just that.

When I was a very young lawyer handling my first evidentiary hearing, my client, whose alimony obligations I was trying to reduce, had a housing allowance of $4,000 per year as a government employee living abroad -- which we fully disclosed. The lawyer for my client's former wife kept bringing up the allowance, and each time he did so, somehow what came out of his mouth was $40,000, not $4,000. Each time I had to stand up and correct him. Surely, stating the wrong number once could be an honest slip, but how could one explain the repetitions?

Much later in my career, in a hotly contested lawsuit, opposing counsel repeatedly accused me in motions papers of "altering documents," without bothering to mention that the so-called "alterations" were plainly marked redactions pursuant to the rules, properly identifying in each instance the claim of privilege being invoked.

I wondered, "What are these lawyers thinking?" Even from a Machiavellian standpoint, how could they expect to gain anything from such easily rebuttable distortions?

So as a lawyer, I went to someone who I thought could explain this phenomenon. That's right -- a psychiatrist. And he was not at a loss for words.

Richard Ratner, a board-certified psychiatrist since 1973, has many lawyers as patients in his clinical work and also serves as a forensic psychiatrist in bar disciplinary cases and other types of litigation. He says a lot of "psychopathology" takes place in litigation, for a variety of reasons.

First, he notes that lawyers, generally, and litigators, in particular, tend to "have generous helpings of narcissism," which he says can be both good and bad. Narcissistic people, he states, "want to go out of their way to shine and make themselves look terrific." This is a good thing to the extent it motivates them to work hard and be prepared.

The problem, he says, comes when you put such people in the crucible of litigation, which after all is a competition with winners and losers. He says that this competition aspect creates a polarization of issues and, for narcissistic people, places their fragile egos directly onto center stage.

Ratner explains that extremely narcissistic people are so "needy for the affirmation of success," that the idea of losing is seen as unbearable. They will therefore use the psychological defenses of "rationalization" and "denial" to enable themselves to intentionally mislead -- and even lie -- if they believe that is the only way to win.

Ratner states that as a result of this rationalization and denial, they do not see themselves as having done anything wrong. Instead, they see themselves as justified , because they were acting for a "higher purpose." He explains that the power of rationalization can be enormous. It can even be seen in such horribly extreme examples as when the killing of innocent civilians by terrorists is seen as "heroic."

It is useful to understand this dynamic in our adversaries so we know what we are up against , and see the element of insecurity and desperation driving such behavior. It is also useful, however, to examine ourselves and look for similar symptoms.

None of us likes to lose, and nearly all of us, at times, get carried away in litigation by a certain "bunker mentality," through which we see our side as "good" and the other side as "bad." Ratner says that it's important to take one's own temperature during the course of a contentious case to assess whether you have maintained perspective. One good way to do this, he says, is to discuss the case with a colleague or at least to take time to calmly review the record and look at the facts.

Indeed, I recall instances where I have feverishly scrawled angry epithets in the margins of my copy of opposing counsel's briefs, filled with righteous certainty that they have misstated the record or mischaracterized a court decision -- only to review the record, or look up the cited case, and see that, at least to some degree, they had a valid point that needed a thoughtful answer.

Without taking a few moments to review the record or read the cited case, I might have been prepared to lunge out with angry misstatements of my own. Who knows? Perhaps at times I have done so.

Being aware of Ratner's observations provides a tool for us to periodically look at ourselves, which should work to our benefit by allowing us to avoid court sanctions, see the strengths of an opponent's case or simply avoid looking silly.

Our clients want us to fight hard -- and to win. But we can do that best if we keep our wits and see reality. If that requires putting our egos in check, so be it. After all, it's doctor's orders.

Arthur D. Burger is a director at Washington, D.C.'s Jackson & Campbell and is chair of the firm's professional responsibility practice group. He represents law firms and lawyers in matters related to professional ethics.

CAN LAWYERS [LEGALLY] LIE?
by Adam Freedman
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx

Can lawyers tell lies? Professionally, that is.

Is it ethical for a lawyer to commit perjury if he thinks it’s in the best interests of his client?

That’s a great question, and it touches on the age-old suspicion that lawyers are, at best, often tempted to lie or, at worst, professionally obligated to lie. The quick answer is that lawyers are not supposed to lie, but they can’t necessarily prevent their clients from lying.

What’s the Difference Between Perjury and Plain Lies?

First, let me clear up the terminology. In his email, Are lawyers allowed to commit “perjury.” The term “perjury” refers specifically to making a false statement under oath. It’s rare for lawyers to commit perjury for the simple reason that lawyers generally do not make statements under oath--that’s what witnesses do. Instead, lawyers make arguments based on the testimony of witnesses, but they don’t do so under oath.

But even when a lawyer is required to make a statement under oath (such as when the lawyer is himself a witness), it is never proper to make a false statement. Perjury is a crime no matter who commits it.

But what about when the lawyer isn’t under oath? The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states: A lawyer “shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.” In other words, lawyers aren’t supposed to lie--and they can be disciplined or even disbarred for doing so. But notice, the key word here is “knowingly.” A lawyer cannot “knowingly” lie.

Do Lawyers Know if Their Clients Are Lying?

There is, however, no rule that requires a lawyer to know what the truth is. As a result, lawyers are sometimes torn between the rule against lying and a separate ethical rule requiring lawyers to represent their clients “zealously.” Here’s what happens: a client approaches a lawyer. He’s being sued by someone, or is being criminally prosecuted by the state. The client tells the lawyer his version of the facts.

Lawyers shouldn’t lie, but they don’t have to fact-check their clients. [Except for a Deputy District Attorney who who must do "due diligence" ot make sure theyhave a case.] The lawyer is skeptical of the client’s story, but he’s under no obligation to fact-check the client. Rather, the lawyer can argue [rationalize] that it is his duty as a “zealous” advocate to accept the client’s version of the story, and try to produce evidence to support that story.

Confidential Communications are Off-Limits

What about clients or witnesses who only tell part of the truth, rather than the “whole truth?” The Model Code requires that lawyers must disclose important facts “when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.” So, in theory, if a lawyer sees that his client is misleading a court or another person by omitting important facts, the lawyer is supposed to disclose the missing information. But there’s a big exception to this rule: there is no duty to disclose facts that a client told his lawyer in confidence. And generally, most facts that the lawyer learns from the client will have been learned in a confidential lawyer-client conversation.

Can Lawyers Defend Clients They Know are Guilty?

Okay ... What about the big enchilada? Can a lawyer defend a client in a criminal trial when he knows the client is guilty? The answer is: yes, but the lawyer has to proceed somewhat carefully.

If the client confesses his guilt to the lawyer, but wants to plead “not guilty,” a lawyer can represent him within ethical bounds. The reason is simple: in the eyes of the law, every person is innocent until proven guilty, [lots of laughs] and it is the state’s obligation to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is nothing unethical about a lawyer demanding that the state meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s everybody’s right, and they do it on TV all the time.

One thing a lawyer cannot do, however, is encourage the client to get up on the stand and give false testimony. In that situation, the client commits perjury, but the lawyer commits a distinct crime known as “suborning perjury,” and it’s a very serious offense. [When a lawyer is presented with documentationfrom an opposing side that shows their client is lying, or declarations from clients that are perjurious, and the lawyer goes forward anyway, knowing their client is lying... It is "fraud on the court" to present declarations from their clients, e.g. Karen Brooks and Cassandra Oseth-Oshsner, that are provably perjurious, and collateral estoppel can come into play.]

Recap: Can Lawyers Lie?

So, to recap, a lawyer should not lie, commit perjury, or encourage others to lie or commit perjury. But a lawyer is entitled to accept his client’s version of the facts and is positively required to maintain the confidentiality of all communications with the client. Ethics aside, my advice, whether you’re the lawyer or the client, is: always tell the truth. It’s the easiest thing to remember!

Friday, February 19, 2010

THE BEGINNING OF SORROWS

Homeowner Battling Her Homeowners Association Is Again Arrested and Jailed
Predatory homeowner association laws creating volatile disputes and putting a load on communities
May 3rd, 2005
Cathedral City, California -Sharon Stephens' troubles began with battles with her homeowners association in California. It has escalated into battles with her government representatives and her police department. Now the very people she feels should be protecting her have restraining orders against her and liens on her home. Yesterday she was again arrested by the Cathedral City Police Department. They say she violated the restraining order. Ms. Stephens reports that on Thursday, April 28, 2005, she went to the Cathedral City Police after making an appointment with Sergeant. Earl Moss to review and get copies of two police reports the police had written about her. She said the police asked her for $42. Because she did not have enough money with her, she asked permission to read them. As they refused, she told them she would return on Monday with the money. She called Sergeant Moss on Friday April 29, 2005 to confirm her appointment and got his recorder. She told him she was coming in on Monday and asked that he call her if he could see her on Monday. She went in at 10:30am on Monday assuming she had an appointment. Watch Commander Luna told her "O.K. I am arresting you" and took her downstairs into a cell ignoring her protests that she did make an appointment with Sergeant Moss. She claims that Sergeant. Moss and Sergeant Laura Hanlon followed "laughing". The stress, she said, created an angina attack. She undegone two heart surgeries recently. Paramedics were called and she was taken to Eisenhower Hospital where she was given an EKG and nitroglycerine. She said that the security guard at the hospital is the ex-police chief of the Cathedral City Police Department. Sergeant. Earl Moss from the Cathedral City Police Department says that Sharon Stephens is the only citizen out of a population of 50,000 that they have obtained a restraining order against. He said that they did so to prevent her from tying up the police phone lines, including 911 lines, with constant calls that they began receiving from her. Under the restaining order, the police department has set up a special phone line for Ms. Stephen's calls and all calls are to be handled by Sergeant. Moss. Ms. Stephens can call 911 for emergencies such as break-ins, fire, and accidents. Otherwise, she must make an appointment before coming into the police department for any reason. Sergeant Moss claims that Sharon is difficult to deal with, and, because of her medical problems, they have a standing order to call the paramedics when they arrest her for violations of the restraining order. Some homeowners point out that exploitive and predatory homeowner association laws are creating abuses and explosive interactions in local communities. In 1998, an Arizona, who claims that he was repeatedly harassed by the developer-controlled board and homeowner association lawyer, went on a shooting spree and killed several board members at a members meeting. In 2004. an Illinois immigrant who found his belongings sitting on the curb for getting behind on his maintenance dues, shot and killed the board treasurer as she drove into the association parking lot after attending a family member's funeral. Cathedral City is one of the many fast growing desert cities in Riverside County. Most of the housing is in homeowner associations. The disputes, liens and foreclosues have been a bonanza for many homeowner association lawyers. Ms. Stephens claims that she was forced to pay $22,000 to Brian Moreno of Duke,Gerstel and Shearer , the lawyer for her homeowner association when she disputed the board's rules over plants in her yard. In addition, she claims that the Cathedral City attorney, Kendell Berkey - a private lawyer doing contract work for the city - has obtained a $67,000 judgment and put a lien on her home for obtaining the restraining order. Some homeowners take the position that all these battles with their associated liens and foreclosures may be manna for lawyers and politicians, but they are putting a heavy strain on families and police and other community services.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

LINKS OF VALUE

statute that authorizes IRS to sieze real property and money. Good template for a letter writing campagne. May be the only route to take to stop the IRS's campaigne of domestic terrorism.
One person presses IRS to settle their financial claim for IRS violation of their Rights. Another good template for a letter writing campagne. If you cost them more than they can get from you, they just may leave you alone.

REGARDING JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Or more appropriately, the lack thereof...

http://voidjudgements.net/

“[T]he judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress.” See SUING JUDGES, A Study of Judicial Immunity, Abimbola Olowofoyeku, Clarendon Press Oxford, at page 77. “Absolute immunity from criminal liability involves immunity even in cases of alleged malice and negligence. Fraud, corruption, and other inherently criminal acts…. are not covered. SUING JUDGES, id supra at page 78. See also, United States v. Hastings, 681 F. 2d 706 at 711, n.17 (11^th Cir. 1982), Oshea v. Littleton, 38 L.ed 2d. 674 at 688 (1974), and Cooke v. Bangs, 31 F. 640 (US Cir. Ct. Minnesota, (1887) at page 642.

“ No man in this country is so high that he is above the law.” No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. It is only supreme power in our system of government, and every man, who, by accepting office, participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. See INTERNATONAL POSTAL SUPPLY COMPANY v. BRUCE (05/31/04) 194 U.S. 601, 48 L.Ed. 1134, 24 S. Ct. at page 609. But immunity from suit is a high attribute of sovereignty – a prerogative of the State itself – which cannot be availed of by public agents when sued for their own torts. The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under color of their office, they have injured one of the State’s citizens. To grant them such immunity would be to create a privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened. Public agents must be liable to the law, unless they are to be put above the law. See OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY v. CITY SEATTLE ET AL. (06/01/26) 271 U.S. 426, 46 S.Ct. 552, 70 L. Ed at page 431. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 and Burton v. united States, 202U.S. 344.

“The objection is that, as the real party cannot be brought before the court, a suit cannot be sustained against the agents of that party; and cases have been cited to show that a court of chancery will not make a decree unless all those who are substantially interested be made parties to the suit. This is certainly true where it is in the power of the plaintiff to make them parties; but if the person who is the real principle, the person who is the true source of the mischief, by whose power and for whose advantage it is done, be himself above the law, be exempt from all judicial process, it would be subversive of the best established principles to say that the laws could not afford the same remedies against the agent employed in doing the wrong which they would afford against him could his principle be joined in the suit.” See IN RE AYERS.; IN RE SCOTT.; IN RE McCABE. 123 U.S. 443, 31 L.Ed. 216, 8 S.Ct at page 512.

The liability of state judicial officials and all official participants in state judicial proceedings under § 2 was explicitly and repeatedly affirmed. The notion of immunity for such officials was thoroughly discredited. The Senate sponsor of the Act deemed the idea “akin to the maxim of the English law that the King can do no wrong. It places officials above the law. It places officials above the law. It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion [the Civil War] was hatched.” Cong. Globe, 39^th Cong., 1^st Sess., 1758 (18660 (Sen. Trumble). Thuse, § 2 was “aimed directly at the State judiciary.” Id., at 1155 (Rep. Eldridge). See also id. At 1778 (Sen. Johnson, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee).There was “no difference in the principle involved” between a civil remedy and a criminal sanction. Ibid. See BRISCOE ET AL. V. LAHUE ET AL. (03/07/83) 460 U.S. 3325, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed. 2d 96, 51 U.S.L.W. at page 359.

The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action by a judge is in the exercise of his judicial function. … it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse. When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges’ orders are void, of no legal force or effect.”

The United States 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 volative of the Federal constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of the 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. A judge’s private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a judicial act. Although a party conniving with a judge to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding may deal with him in his “judicial capacity,” the other party’s expectation of judicial impartiality is actively frustrated by the scheme. It is the antithesis of the “principled and fearless decision-making” that judicial immunity exists to protect. Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9^th Cir. 1980) cert. DENIED, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S. Ct. 2020, (1981), Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87S. Ct. 1213 (1967), and Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F. 2d 59 (9^th Cir. 1974).

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

RE:

Prosecutorial Misconduct

San Bernardino County District Attorney

CASE NO: MWV903720

November 9, 2009

To: CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Department of Justice

Attn: Public Inquiry Unit

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

From: Sharon Stephens

Box 9475, Alta Loma, CA 91701

ABUSE OF DISCRETION: A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Justice Mosk began Rappleyea with a succinct statement of the question before the Supreme Court and its answer: The question is whether a default must be set aside and a default judgment reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion. We conclude that they must be.
Rappleyea v. Campbell(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 The question before us
is the same. And so is our answer. (8 Cal.4th at p. 978)

BACKGROUND

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 of Appeal, No. ACIAS 900001 and 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. Great or irreparable harm must be proven. Nebel v Sulach (1999 4th Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 1363, 1369, 87 Cal Rptr 2d 3851 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 make their case.”

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. 4th 805 (1997) – but The District Attorney’s Office seems bound to “get me” and refuses to listen, or to research the law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

HAS ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION
AND TRYING TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT PERSON

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.)

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, 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.

JUDGES PARTICIPATE IN ABUSE OF DISCRETION

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 complying 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.

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 Rex A. Victor and Judge Marshall have 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 and/or Hollenbeck] 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 LAW OF VOID JUDGMENTS CANNOT BE IGNORED

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, Reid v. 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

DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUST NOT ABUSE THEIR DISC RETION

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.

Berrger 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 reports February 7 through 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 her 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.

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).

Article I, Section 28 (b) mirrors the similarly enacted provision(s) of California Penal Code 679-679.02 (also known as Marsy's Law -Mandatory Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crimes) --- however, the Constitutional origins of Article I, Section 28 (b) may have more teeth since all of the purported immunities invoked by public employee(s) and the like appear and are believed to be inapplicable and moot if "unconstitutional" mischief has transpired.

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.

NOVEMBER 9, 2009 _______________________________________
Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475; Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
760.835.8210

Ain't It Beautiful

Blog Archive

About Me