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, and I will add you as an author on Restraining Order Blog.


Domestic Violence Resources Tampa FL

If you are the victim of Domestic Violence in the Tampa Florida area, here are some resources for you.

Tampa FL Domestic Violence  Resources

Domestic Violence Tampa 

The Spring Of Tampa Bay Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter
If you are in need of help, please call their 24-Hour
Domestic Violence Hotline for assistance at 813-247-7233

Tampa Domestic Violence Shelter services include case management, individual/group crisis counseling, 24-hour hotline, community referrals, legal advocacy, emergency financial assistance, and safety planning.

  • Safe and secure 102-bed facility
  • Case management and domestic violence counseling
  • Support groups – parenting, domestic violence/relationship issues, self esteem, etc.
  • Childcare center
  • Onsite K-8 Hillsborough County Public School for resident children
  • Children’s after-school programs
  • Domestic Violence Legal services provided at no cost to residents
  • After-hours domestic violence injunctions may be filed by deputized staff between hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays, weekends, and holidays.

Alpha House of Tampa FL, Inc.
201 S Tampania Ave
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel. (813) 875-2024
Tel. (813) 875-3307
For pregnant women in
Domestic Violence crisis situations

Center Against Spouse Abuse Florida (CASA)
P.O. Box 414
St. Petersburg, Fl. 33731
Tel. (727) 895-4912
Fax (727) 821-7101
Florida Domestic Violence Crisis Line (727) 898-3671

Child Net Florida
839 W Dr MLK Jr Blvd
Tampa, FL 33613
(813) 232-1343
(813) 752-1335
For mothers of children less than 5 Y/O and pregnant women

Clerk of Cicuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida
Hillsborough County Florida Domestic Violence
Victim Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing
Tel. (813) 272-6423

Hillsborough County Florida Sheriffs Office
Tampa Florida Domestic Violence Intervention Services
PO Box 4772
Florida 33677
Tel. (813) 247-5433
Tel. (813) 247-7233

Intervention program for domestic violence assailants
Prevention Projects, Inc.
13701 Bruce B Downs Blvd Ste 110
Tampa, FL 33613
Tel. (813) 978-3960
Tel. (813) 866-7355

Tampa Florida Anger management and domestic violence intervention
Project Dove Florida
405 N Reo Ste 260
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel. (813) 287-2210
Psychological rehabilitation program for children who have witnessed domestic violence

Spring of Tampa Bay
Outreach Services/Consumer
Domestic Violence Counseling
5118 N 56th St Ste 131
Tampa, FL 33610
Tel. (813) 621-7233
Tampa Florida Domestic violence support groups, counseling, and case management

The Spring of Tampa Bay
Confidential Florida
Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter
PO Box 4772
Tampa, FL 33677
Tel. (813) 247-7233
Tel. (813) 247-5433

Tampa Florida Police Department 
Domestic Violence  Victim Assistance Program
700 E Twiggs St Rm 711
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (813) 272-6472
Tel. (813) 272-6472

Tampa Domestic Violence Shelters:

Domestic violence support groups, counseling, and case management

Spring of Tampa Bay
Confidential Emergency Shelter
PO Box 4772
Tampa, FL 33677
Tel. (813) 247‐7233
Tel. (813) 247‐5433
Spring of Tampa Bay, 24‐Hour Domestic Violence Hotline: 813‐247‐SAFE (7233)
Alpha House of Tampa, Inc.
201 S Tampania Ave
Tampa, FL 33609
Tel. (813) 875‐2024
Tel. (813) 875‐3307
For pregnant women in
Domestic Violence crisis situations
Child Net
839 W Dr MLK Jr Blvd
Tampa, FL 33613
(813) 232‐1343
(813) 752‐1335
For mothers of children less than 5 Y/O and pregnant women
Hillsborough County Domestic Violence
Victim Assistance
Tel. (813) 272‐6423
Domestic Violence  Intervention Services
PO Box 4772
Tampa, FL 33677
Tel. (813) 247‐5433
Tel. (813) 247‐7233
Intervention program for domestic violence assailants
Prevention Projects, Inc.
13701 Bruce B Downs Blvd Ste 110
Tampa, FL 33613
Tel. (813) 978‐3960
Tel. (813) 866‐7355
Anger management and domestic violence intervention
Victim Assistance Program
700 E Twiggs St, Rm 711
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (813) 272‐6472
Tel. (813) 272‐6472
Joshua House
Domestic Violence Home Society
Tel. (813) 949‐8946
Emergency shelter and counseling center for abused children

Tampa Runaway and Transitional Housing:
Metropolitan Ministries (web site)
2301 North Tampa Street
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 209‐1077
(Family assistance and single women)
Salvation Army, Hope House
1514 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 226‐0055
(Serving adult men only. Transitional Housing)
Salvation Army, Hospitality House
1603 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 226‐0055
(Serving women and children only. Transitional Housing)
Salvation Army, Red Shield Lodge
Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter
1514 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 226‐0055 (Serving adults only)
Gates ‐ Women Shelters Florida
3110 Clay Mangun Lane
Tampa, FL 33618
(813) 264‐3807 (Transitional living for girls ages 16‐20)
Haven W. Poe Runaway Center for Youth
207 Beach Place
Tampa, FL 33606
(813) 272‐6606
Tampa Sexual Abuse Services:

Crisis Center of Tampa Bay (APPLE)
Sexual Abuse Treatment Program
209 S. Morgan St
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (813) 228‐0011
Tel. (813) 264‐9955

Family Justice Center
9309 North Florida Avenue, Suite 109
Tampa, FL 33612
Phone: 813‐935‐2015
Hillsborough Co. Crisis Ctr.
2214 E. Henry Ave
Tampa, FL 33610
813‐238‐7273 (RAPE)
Office 813‐238‐8411

If you, or someone you know, are the victim of Real Domestic Violence in the Tampa Florida area, we hope this ever growing list of options available to you might help. .


Accused Of Stalking In Tampa !

Here is an email from someone accused of Stalking in Tampa.


I read your stalking blog with great interest.  My concern is similar but I am being accused of stalking my daughter's ex-boyfriend in Tampa.  She says I sent pictures to his school in Tampa of him engaing in underage drinking.  The fact is, this boy has used and lied to my daughter for 9 months straight, and I sent him a facebook message asking him to stop and to leave my daughter alone.  His mother is upset about him getting in trouble at school and that is why I believe she has filed this claim with Tampa Police.  I cannot afford a lawyer and the hearing is tomorrow in Tampa.  Do you have any specific hints for someone falsely accused of Stalking in Tampa?

Thanks, (name hidden to protect privacy from stalking charges)


Temporary Order Of Protection NYC, NY

 I just received this email from a reader in NYC.
""I'm hoping you may be able to send me in the right direction.  I am a 42 year old woman, I own my own retail shop in NYC, I have lived w/ my boyfriend for a year. He was drinking got aggressive bruised my elbow.  Next day he showed up at the shop drunk and making a scene, cop drove by and saw this.  Had my partner sit, asked me what was going on and I said he was drunk and could he make him leave because he gets stupid and aggressive. Cop asked me what I meant and I said look at my bruise, he gets stupid. Cop arrested him, told me I had to close up and fill out paperwork, I did and Temporary Order Of Protection was placed. charges were not filed for Domestic Violence but for contept ( he came home, police showed up and arrested him again) I pleaded with the DA to remove Temporary Order Of Protection to no avail. In an attempt to force him into a 18 month program, Temporary Order Of Protection was attached to contempt charge. He plead guilty to that and a five year Order Of Protection was placed , minutes say can be lowered to limited when treatment facility sees fit. Problem is he has been sitting in jail for 3months and may be better off finishing jail time in Feb.
We need to fight this Temporary Order Of Protection crap. We have never called the police. We have never had any other fights. The court simply wanted to use this law as leverage to get my boyfriend to do as they wished.
I have 20 affidavits from the community stating that they have never witnessed a problem including our family doctor.
Who can help me fight this Order Of Protection? Please help me, we are a family, he worked with and lived with me.  Please eemail or call me if you can I am desperate to get my family back together.""


Restraining Order In Tampa Florida

 Here is a Restraining Order In Tampa Florida Email I just received.

My wife filed a Restraining Order In Tampa Florida 2 months after I left due to her drinking issues.
My son was staying with me and the Restraining Order In Tampa  forced him to live with her.
She moved her adult son who has a extensive criminal record in my home and since Jan 2010 he and his mother have conducted a daily barrage of terrible words about me to my son.
My son has missed so many days of school because she woke up late and he missed the bus.
She has had drinking parties numerous times even when my son turned 14 and 6 other kids his age were spending the night.
I called Childrens Services in Tampa, but it has to be extreme for them to do anything. The Restraining Order In Tampa FL was issued on July 21st, I don't have a court hearing to defend it until August 23rd.
She don't wash his clothes, give him lunch, all after being ordered to pay her child support
What a travesty in Tampa Florida because of this Restraining Order!


Legal Child Abuse

Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, 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. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner:

The following is a letter I received recently from my daughter, Hayley, and this is the first letter from her in 8 months. What is most painful from this false restraining order issued against me by her mother is the fact that I have not seen her or spoken to her by force for an entire year now.

She makes me want to live:

Dear Daddy,

Hey- how are you? Sorry I haven't written you back. I just haven't felt the heart to do it yet.

But last night, I had a dream. In the dream, I ws here and somehow a fire started. Now, I've always promised myself that if there was ever a fire, the only two things I would grab would be my phone, of course, and also the photo that we took at the daddy-daughter dance that is sitting in my room now.

And when I couldn't grab the picture, I was completely devastated. It was the only thing I had of you. You know I love you very much, and I miss you.

And I'm sorry about what happened with you and Jacki. That's so sad. How long were you two together? And I'm also sorry about the abortion. Why did she get it? Because personally, in my perspective, I think that's totally wrong.

Well, I love you very much, and I miss you. And I hope sometime you can come see me. It's been almost a year now since I've seen you. I love you.



P.S: "Hope for faith. Pray for love. Go all the way. Never give up. Believe in yourself. Take every chance you get to live life to the fullest."

Hayley A.


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!




Sharon Stephens
PO Box 9475
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701

"In Pro Per"
8303 Haven Avenue
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

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


                                              Court Room:


     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.

     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

     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].

     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.).
     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."   


      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.
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


Tampa Domestic Violence Restraining Order

In a criminal case in Tampa it is well known that the burden of proof for the prosecution is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. While we need not go into great detail here, suffice to say that the judge or jury need to be really certain that a person has committed a crime in Tampa in order to convict them. Not so with a restraining order in Tampa. A restraining order case in Tampa isn’t really a civil case and it isn’t really a criminal case either. Because it involves the restraint of liberty (meaning that an individual with a restraining order granted against them in Tampa winds up on the sheriffs website, it is deemed a “quasi-criminal” case.
Because the victims of domestic violence in Tampa are so numerous, and because these victims are likely to continue to be victimized by the perpetrator, who is usually a family member, spouse, or significant other, the burden of proof is lower in Tampa Domestic Violence Restraining Order cases.
Domestic Violence Restraining orders, often referred somewhat inaccurately as “TRO”s (Temporary Restraining Order) comes under the Family Code. This is silent on the issue of what the burden of proof is, the Florida Civil Code states that unless otherwise stated, the burden of proof is by the preponderance of the evidence.
This is the lowest standard of proof and means that a judge in Tampa sitting as a trier of fact need only believe that it is more likely than not that the victim is telling the truth.
This is good if you are an actual victim of domestic violence. This is bad if you are falsely accused of domestic violence in Tampa, because it can literally be your word against their word. Without a skilled attorney who can impeach the credibility of the other party, perpetrators and false accusers can win.
The extraordinary thing is, that despite the fact that you could lose your job, lose your kids, and your life could be totally ruined, you still might go in there and throw yourself on the mercy of the court in Tampa. To say that this is a bad idea is like saying the economy in Tampa is good.
If you are facing a TRO in Tampa, call an attorney immediately and make an appointment.