(1) San Bernardino County Grand Jury sends letter dated July 30, 2010 (not sent until August 3, 2010 per the postal meter) saying in relevant part: "[i]t has been determined that your complaint is not within the jurisdiction if the Grand Jury and no further action will be taken at this time. No further correspondence will be sent to you by this Grand Jury."
Comment on (1) Interesting comment by the Foreman (who signed the July 30, 2010 letter to this blogger) when the statute (Election Code 15640 et seq) specifically says the grand jury of the county has the power to petition the court for a manual recount; also of interest is the changed reference to "no further correspondence will be sent to you by "this Grand Jury" (someone else looking)?
(2) California Department of Justice State Public Inquiry Unit sends a letter to this blogger dated June 22, 2010 (mailed June 25, 2010) says in relevant part "the Secretary of State's Office has primary responsibility to investigate cases of alleged criminal misconduct and to determine if a violation has occurred."
Comment on (2) Passing the buck (sorta); the Secretary of State was sent a copy at the same time as was the Attorney General/DOJ and to date nothing has been said to this blogger; I won't hold my breath--the last time I reported irregularities [previously in re the Sequoia counters], without checking with observers that documented jambing, multiple ballot feeds, refeeds without resetting or adjusting for the partially counted ballots, the Secretary of State gave the County of San Bernardino her blessing that all was well and ok. Also the date of mailing was done so that the letter would not be received until AFTER the registrar would certify the election!!
(3) San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors - has never acknowledged receipt of the complaint, much less advise re any action and or disposition
Comment on (3) Actually maybe there was a bit of retaliation by the Board of Supervisors; I live next to a County Senior Center that we give some support to, attend lunches or breakfasts at, etc; the Hinkley Senior Center recently "lost" their "meal" contract over a technicality (that Mitzelfelt forgave the Pinion Hills Senior Center for) and are being forced to accept Barstow's Senior Center's meal service, which has taken away the independence and autonomy of the senior center, the related ability to fully service its area seniors with local people and have the added benefits resulting therefrom; also a playground was forced upon the senior center's land; input was given, after other locations where most of the children live in the service area were proposed by numerous community leaders, but was illogically rejected. The County was asked to place its playground to the North of the Senior Center building so as to not disrupt the senior center's operations; a vote was taken and all center members supported locating the playground to the north end, if it must be put on senior center property at all; the plans came back from the county and they want to locate the playground guess where--to the South end of the senior center, which will interfere with the center's operations and be guess what, is also next to my fenced parcel where I live---nothing like moving to the country for peace and quiet and having a playground located next door to you. I of course voiced my objection to placing the playground there before the plans were drawn (when the seniors all voted to put it on the North end)--I guess that was as good as assuring it would be placed on the South end. That the County appears to want to retaliate against this blogger for making a complaint, well, you get the picture.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
All's Not Well (?) # 4
San Bernardino County Grand Jury prepares a letter (sent to this blogger) acknowledging they received my complaint (about the election counts and the software) and said they will look into it the next session of the Grand Jury (which starts in July??) when they have time, then dates their letter June 18, 2010 (within the time the grand jury had to direct the DA to file papers to order a recount or some other appropriate remedy) but holds and mails the letter on July 27, 2010. What's up doc?
Friday, July 23, 2010
All's Not Well (?) # 3
In a July 16, 2010 article in the San Bernardino Sentinel (p.1) "Former Sheriff Gary Penrod accumulated compromising information and materials pertaining to district attorney Mike Ramos which was then utilized to blackmail Ramos and head off an incipient effort by the district attorney’s office to file criminal charges against Penrod pertaining to a host of criminal acts the sheriff was himself involved in". Its an interesting read of maybe why Penrod quietly exits stage left (or in this county exits stage right) and Ramos' ineffectiveness in getting political corruption convictions (e.g. the Rex Guttierrez case??). Sounds like the Sheriff's office (which is now headed up by Hoops) suppressed the record to help Ramos get re-elected? My o my ! The article contains much much more. The website is www.sbcsentinel.com
All's Not Well (?) # 2
In the San Bernardino County Sentinel "Ramo's Supporters Targeted in Illegal Bail Bond Solicitation Probe" (July 23, 2010, p. 6 -- go to www.sbcsentinel.com)
All's Not Well (?) # 1
An interesting post on one of Ramos' people? Check out (and verify plz) http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2010/05/charging-affidavit.html;
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 re quires 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 & M Nat. Bank & 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).
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 againstAttorney, 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.
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
PO Box 9475
Alta Loma, CA 91701
760.835.8210
PEOPLE V. STEPHENS
Court Room 7
Court Room 7
8303 Haven Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
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 re quires 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 & M Nat. Bank & 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.
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
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.
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 againstAttorney, 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
PO Box 9475
Alta Loma, CA 91701
760.835.8210
Monday, July 5, 2010
Kari Verjil's June 18, 2010 Response...........the public be d*mned.
1. (in response to "Election Night Percentages" in Registrar Verjil's June 18, 2010 letter - link to PDF letter), the letter admits there is an unexplained pattern of non-deviation from the percentages in past elections (from beginning to end on election night) which is not only statistically unlikely in one race in a demographically diverse county such as San Bernardino, but in all county-wide races? 1400 plus precincts times the number of county wide races times over the last 10 years? The chances are better winning the lotto.
2. (in response to the use of the term "winner" referenced in Verjil's letter of June 18, 2010), Registrar Verjil's letter talks about "technological errors with the voting equipment" and then gives no basis for the conclusion "no results were either intentionally or negligently manipulated and no winners were picked by this office" (after telling the Sun's reporter, Joe Nelson, that she had no idea how the software worked) but does not deny the computer labeled the eventual winners in the county wide races with less than 40% of the vote in, nor does she suggest any changes could be made to purge the appearance of a race being called nor even an appropriate explanation to the public if an innocent phenomenon was being captured);
3. Its not "winner on the website" as referenced in Registrar Verjil's letter--the pages copies showed the coded instruction pages consistent with picking a winner.
4. While software for counting and tabulation (and the scanners) can be approved, the State does not approve voter dilution.
I could go on for hours--I won't because I really don't think anyone much cares about the integrity of the count, tabulation and reporting of what is put in the ballot box. The problem is bigger than one race and goes to confidence in the system.
The corruption machine rolls on.
2. (in response to the use of the term "winner" referenced in Verjil's letter of June 18, 2010), Registrar Verjil's letter talks about "technological errors with the voting equipment" and then gives no basis for the conclusion "no results were either intentionally or negligently manipulated and no winners were picked by this office" (after telling the Sun's reporter, Joe Nelson, that she had no idea how the software worked) but does not deny the computer labeled the eventual winners in the county wide races with less than 40% of the vote in, nor does she suggest any changes could be made to purge the appearance of a race being called nor even an appropriate explanation to the public if an innocent phenomenon was being captured);
3. Its not "winner on the website" as referenced in Registrar Verjil's letter--the pages copies showed the coded instruction pages consistent with picking a winner.
4. While software for counting and tabulation (and the scanners) can be approved, the State does not approve voter dilution.
I could go on for hours--I won't because I really don't think anyone much cares about the integrity of the count, tabulation and reporting of what is put in the ballot box. The problem is bigger than one race and goes to confidence in the system.
The corruption machine rolls on.
Monday, June 28, 2010
THE LIE IS FINAL....BAD VOTE COUNTING/TABULATION/ AVERAGING/PROJECTING WINNERS WITH 40% of VOTE COUNT ONLY IN NOTWITHSTANDING
Registrar certifies election results
Posted: 06/27/2010 08:31:33 PM PDT
Updated: 06/27/2010 09:16:14 PM PDT
The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters has certified the results of the June 8 primary election.
Other counties have yet to certify their election results, so final and official results are not available in all races, but results for county races are now final.
Voters can call for a recount but must do so by 5 p.m. Tuesday. A ballot recount is done at the expense of the person making the request. For information about requesting a recount, call 909-387-8300 or visit www.sbcrov.com.
At least one candidate, district attorney hopeful Robert Conaway, has said he wants a recount. He said he believes the county registrar's computer system was either hacked or tilted.
He requested that District Attorney Michael A. Ramos ask the county Superior Court to order a recount.
Registrar Kari Verjil said Conaway is free to request a recount but that the county's vote-counting procedures are aboveboard.
VOTE 2010
PRIMARY RESULTS
The following are highlights of final results from the June 8 primary election. The winners of each race appear in bold, with an asterisk indicating the incumbent(s) in that race.
San Bernardino County
District attorney
Ramos* 54.0%
Guzman 19.2%
Conaway 26.8%
Sheriff/coroner
Schrader 21.5%
Averbeck 11.6%
Hoops* 66.9%
Superintendent of schools
Thomas* 60.1%
Ramirez-Dean 17.2%
Delgado 22.1%
Assessor/recorder
Draeger* 73.4%
Palazzo 26.6%
Auditor/controller
Mason 29.1%
Walker* 70.9%
Superior Court, Office 11
Hosking 66.0%
Lemkau* 34.0%
Superior Court, Office 29
Stull 57.5%
Montgomery 42.5%
Central committees
61st District Democratic
Boudreaux 11.7%
Sanders 15.2%
Wall 10.6%
Weilein 9.8%
Avila 12.1%
Rangel-Ortega 11.1%
Crowe 5.8%
Curry 11.8%
Kelly 11.9%
62nd District Democratic
Baca 15.1%
Navarro 10.2%
J. Sandoval 5.6%
M. Sandoval 4.8%
Zambrano 4.8%
Velasquez 4.4%
Alvarez 6.3%
Garcia 6.7%
Givens 6.9%
Chavez 7.3%
V. Marquez 5.4%
C. Marquez 5.8%
Montes 4.5%
P. Mengler 7.5%
J. Mengler 5.4%
........................................................................................................................................................................
P.S.
(1) Complaints have not been responded to by either County Board of Supervisors, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Sheriff's Office, District Attorney or Grand Jury--in fact no explanation was provided of why a computer that is supposed to be doing an ongoing count and tabulate was declaring winners with roughly 40% of the vote in and why the percentage of change for county wide races stayed the same (plus or minus 1% over the course of the night)--wow!!
(2) To throw down the gauntlet of pay for your own recount is the height of institutional arrogance; only a wealthy man can pay for a recount and they know I was a grass rooter (less than $5,000 raised and spent and I came within 4 percentage points of being in a runoff against a well-funded political hammer); contributors (and other candidates) were scared away by Ramos and his backers (one of which just put a gun to his chest in Vegas) from the gitgo; conservatives that agreed there were irregularities are scared by the establishment "republicans" (Jerry Lewis, Brad Mitzelfelt, Gary Miller, Biane, Ovitt, Josie Gonzales, Joe Baca)
(3) Rufus will someday get a quote from this blogger right--the request was made to the County Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors to direct Mike Ramos to Petition the Superior Court for a manual recount; I requested nothing of the DA and the basis of the request was the California (state) Election Code. Nothing will change in this county with such shoddy and reprehensible newspaper reporting. Who needs a political consultant when you have the San Bernardino Suc?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)