This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Some posters are court ordered to have no contact of any kind with the person having a Restraining Order against them. Meaning no third party contact as well. If you by chance know a person one of our posters/authors is discussing to share their experiences with others, we ask you to respect our rights to free speech, under the United States Constitution. Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, intimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way. Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way either. If you feel there is anything here that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. We will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed for removal in a timely manner. If you have a story to share, email me at ka7niq@yahoo.com, and I will add you as an author on Restraining Order Blog.












8/06/2010

Motion To Declare Temporary Restraining Order Void

This is from a 69 year old woman who was thrown out on the street by a Temporary restraining order!

 

 

MOTION TO DECLARE A JUDGMENT VOID

Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
760,835.8210

"In Pro Per"
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
8303 Haven Avenue
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

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

SHARON STEPHENS                  DECLARATION, AND ATTACHMENTS
Defendant.                     

                                                          Date:
                                              Court Room:

                                              Time;
_______________________________________/

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

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

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

     Judge Sabet allowed Attorney Linda Hollenbeck (who was on "The Witness List) to sit at the table with Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu (making her a co-prosecuter) and to continually feed him questions that were not in the original transcripts of the trail. Judge Sabet, Attorney Hollenbeck knew this, as did prosecuter Liu as they all had a copy of the transcripts. Attorney Hollenbeck and Jack Liu also brought in two witnesses that were never a part of the original trial.
    
     The average person looking at this situation would see a bias toward the defendant based on unsupported fabricated and provable subordinated perjury by Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu and Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck, of which Judge Sabet did willingly listen to, accepted as true , and allowed to influence her.
     May 25, 2010 after a year of false arrests, harassment by Amerland Group/Logan Property Management and their resident management staff, Judge Sabet, after stating she "did not know the law," she had a legal research team make a finding on this void judgment and she had to legally declare the restraining order void and dismiss all counts. However, she had already listened to several hours of subrogated perjury by "witnesses" that was instigated by Deputy District Attorney Jack Liu, and Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck,  When hearing a motion to dismiss a void judgement, the court may only consider the judgement roll. However, Judge Sabet had already been influenced by the subrogated perjury.

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

     In the May 26, 2010 order to incarcerate me she ignored the law of void judgments, and set Bail at $150,000 (Excessive Bail: Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. (1951) the U.S. Supreme Court: A judge or justice may be censured for "setting 'grossly excessive' bail and [thus] showing a 'severe attitude' toward witnesses and litigants," as the Michigan Supreme Court did to a trial judge recently: Debra Cassens Weiss, writes, "Judge Censured for Excessive Bail, Severe Attitude", (ABA Journal, February 8, 2008).
     The Stay Away Order had been piggy-backed on a void restraining order by Judge Libutti in June 2009, when I brought a motion to dismiss the judgment as void. Both the TRO and Restraining Order were already void at this hearing. However, I knew a void judgment or proceeding founded on a void judgment is void: I was stunned at her decision to incarcerate me, her apparent bias attitude toward me in her demeanor and language, and then her excessive Bail of $150,000 that may have been "retaliation under color of law" by Judge Sabet. (See; Motion to Recuse Judge Sabet)

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


     Then Judge Sabet then became quite rude, not hiding her bias toward me when she said with a curled lip and venomous implications in her tone, "Read my lips, IF YOU SHOULD MAKE BAIL...'" She then made implications in this ruling where she made a number of fact findings and mixed fact and law findings that were simply contrary to the evidence, or, the lack of evidence, presented by Deputy Jack Liu and Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck in unsubstantiated, corrupted and incompetent testimony to alleged facts heard in subrogated perjury by witnesses.
     Instead of meeting the lawful requirements to protect the person suffering harm from the unlawful acts -- the void injunctive orders that had deprived Defendant, who was suffering great harm from bogus violations of the void orders, and protection in law, it seemed the parties perpetrating the violations and unlawful acts were being protected in spite of subrogation of perjury, presenting perjured documents on a void TRO and restraining order which resulted in false arrests, harassments and elder abuse and harmed the interests of the defendant by subverting legal and constitutional protections. I, the defendant became the victim and never received any protection from the District Attorney, or the court.

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

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

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

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

     Judge Sabet did not follow the law in any of her rulings: When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. A judge may only look at the judgment roll record; she may not retry the case and allow for any "new testimony, etc." Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861:

     Judge Sabet needed to learn about void judgements before she came to court. "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off..." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448].
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS VOID

     Findings of fact and conclusions of law were necessary legal requirements for rendering an injunction, and this requirement was also violated by Judge Rex Victor. The law requires that the judge rendering an injunction make findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing each of these requirements. Judge Victor ignored the legal criteria to issue the order and this is obvious in the judgment record. This was never done. Federal Rule 52(a) requires that the court granting or denying a preliminary injunction "shall set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action."

     In Granny Good Foods, Inc. v. Bth=d of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County (1974) 415 US 423, 994 S Ct 1113, 39 L ed2d 435, the court held that where a temporary restraining order had been continued beyond the time limits permitted by Rule 65(b) and the required findings of fact and conclusions of law had not been set forth making the order invalid.
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. (b) Temporary Restraining Order. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry — not to exceed 14 days — that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.

     After 14 days the TRO was void.
 
                                      STAY AWAY ORDER IS VOID

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

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

        Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980 )

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

     The Defendant is not bound by any void orders made by Judge Sabet: Such void on the face judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored as they neither bind, nor bar anyone. "Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]"  7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment, § 286, p. 828.).
                                                          CONPIRACY
     I believe Deputy District Attorney, Jack Liu, Attorney Linda T. Hollenbeck, Martha Enrique, Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth-Oschner are all guilty of a conspiracy to bring a false case against me. California Penal Code Section 182 (a) If two or more persons conspire: (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.

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

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

                   VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT                             
                                 The Civil Rights Act

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


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

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

    Judge Sabet has an apparent bias attitude toward me in her demeanor and language, and then her excessive Bail of $150,000 that may have been "retaliation under color of law."


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

     The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].

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


     "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of...rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. 242." Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 37. "Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335(1871) 
       Void on the face judgments "never die" in the State of California

     CCP 473 and 473a has no direct reference to void judgments: Because the order of dismissal was void on its face, it can be set aside at any time after its entry, and the six-month time limitation in section CCP 473 for relief from improper orders is not applicable here. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194

    CCP Section 473 does permit a trial court, on noticed motion, to set aside void judgments and orders. Courts also possess inherent power to grant such relief. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.

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


                                               PRO SE PLEADINGS
    It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)

     "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."   


                  DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF


      ALL void judgments rendered by Judge Sabbet to be recognized as "dismissed with prejudice:" "It is well settled that a judgment or order which is void on its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment-roll or record to show its invalidity, may be set aside on motion, at any time after its entry, by the court which rendered the judgment or made the order. [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (Ibid; accord Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761

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

     That the court take Judicial Notice of both attached Criminal Charging Affidavits and act accordingly.
DECLARATION
I, Sharon Stephens, the Defendant in this case, declare under penalty of perjury, and can testify that all of the statements made in this motion are true, partly from my own knowledge, and partly from knowledge and belief.


August , 2010                                      ___________________________


                                                            Sharon Stephens
Posted by Sharon Stephens at 9:34 AM

6 comments:

  1. They have a policy in the courts and the attorney abide by it. The policy may not have been made a law by our law making branch of government. Judges and attorney forcefully allow themselves to advocate in times when it be unjustice or lawless. Judges and attorney have to be judged by outside parties.

    Judges have opinions and they are not in favor of different things. Of course, if they get a chance they may enforce their beliefs and opinion even when it is contrary to the written law and that sat down by judges above them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would be very interested in maintaining contact with you regarding your case. I am attacking judgements in my family law case as null and void and am on a similar path. Look me up sometime; Kufc Lanciforia on facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  3. law, the parents of a minor child are legally required to provide support for that child. In California, child support is calculated using the Guideline Formula.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the San Jose Superior Court, Family Division,
    I was given a TRO, after I had mediated between two arguing ladies. I had talked to each separately, about half an hour, then when they thought I was recording the conversations, they both became hysterical and called Sherrifs.
    I had a sweeping TRO imposed on me, and I haven''t even been able to communicate with my children for THREE months, with no threats or history of violence by me ever, or any evidence of any danger I posed!!! The judge is known to be lazy and not knowldgeable of the law, did not even note that NO reports were made by the Sherrifs, since they gave no credence to the slanders, libels, as well a took no note of the emotional distress the two women inflicted on all concerned. The TRO is one the reasons the Calif Judicial Council opposed its adoption. And, I shall complain to them, the media, the state DOJ, the ACLU, the Fed DOJ....because my civil rights have been grossly violated for NO actions on my parts.....simply unproven FALSE allegations by two hysterical women - who are the ones who should've been restrained. If I had only the sense to strike first, requesting a TRO, the tables would be turned!
    dofaust@gmail

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im also interested with that.I am now in custody battle family court.Judge put RO on me for 5yrs,but TRO on the other parent was dropped.Inspite of her being arrested twice for DV.City Atty.filed charges on her spousal abuse etc. but dropped after 2months.I was never properly served with documents and every vital info.being hidden from me.My civil rights have been violated from day one untill now.

      Delete
  5. Wrote a private message toa friend, venting about the behavior of another friend. Said that she better watch her mouth or soenoe was gonna crab pot her ass! A man had already said that he wanted to do it to her, alive even! I wrote that on Dec 29th. Somehow, SHE read it! She had the friend's password, and my friend didn't know she could get into the mailbox. So, now she's read something she was not supposed to read. It made her angry, and she was aleady looking for a way to discredit me since she believed I was turning her husband in to the State Dental Board. The judge may have coached her but she also then said, she called me to tell me to stay away. LIE! She never called me. TRO was issued on Dec 31st, for her HUSBAND, the dentist, served on New Years Day. Her's was seved on Jan 2, 2013; permanent hearing set for Jan 18th. I tried repeatedly to get the ex parte hearings transcripts but they were not ready until .. FEBRUARY 1! I went into the perm hearing NOT knowing she lied about the calls! The judge, after the hearing had begun, interrupts the proceedings to ask me if she should be recused since she was their patient, too! I WAS SO SHOCKED! i lost it. lost train of thought, lost all, went into a panic attack. YET AGAIN. Been having them since Dec 3rd when she violated HIPAA like crazy, attacking me in the waiting room at the clinic! Wnat to file a motion to dismiss. HOW?!? Toss out te lies, toss out the message since I did not write it to HER, judge said itwas reader's interpretatoin that mattered. but what if reader was NOT intended recipient? Intend to file against judge for misconduct, and want TRO against woman who is in an acute manic episode, and now ARMED!

    ReplyDelete