1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. C/O Message Address Fifteenth Judicial District 6190 Skyway Paradise, California (530) 877-1265 In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT1
DIVISION ____________ ___________ TERM

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

] ] Petitioner, ] ] Against ] Superior Court, State of California, ] County of Butte ] ] Respondent ] ] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ] By their attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, ] District Attorney for the COUNTY OF BUTTE ] ] Real Party in Interest ] ] COUNTY OF BUTTE, by their attorney, ] Michael L. Ramsey, District Attorney for ] the COUNTY OF BUTTE, Ms. Susan Sloan, a.k.a. ] fiction “SUSAN SLOAN” ] ] Real Party in Interest ] ________________________________________________]

CASE No. CM 010607

EMERGENCY ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION

FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT: 21

To the honourable presiding Justice and the

honourable associate Justices of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, for 22 23 24
1

the Third Appellate District,

GREETINGS:

25

The “COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT” shall be Concurrent with and Equivalent to the district court as created in Article I, Section 1, Constitution for California of 1849, see: Stats. 1872, ch. CXIV, p. 116 and Digest of Laws of California – XXII. COURTS OF JUSTICE, III.-THE DISTRICT ,OURTS, Article 632, Section 12, No. 15. [Am. April 25, 1857; R.S.St. 1855, 117; St. 1854, 74; St. 1853, 289; St. 1851, 11; St. 1850, 93; C.L. 740.]

WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 1 of 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION Petitioner, Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., a common law New York State Citizen petitions this Court under the Constitution for the State of California (1849) under Article VI, Section one under the Judicial Powers Clause, notwithstanding the Gold Fringe Flags and adornments of said court, as a common law Judicial Powers court and demands instant remedy for this court to issue a Writ of Prohibition directed to the Superior Court, State of California, County of Butte, for instant relief as failure to do so will cause your petitioner instant and irreparable harm and damage.

Your Petitioner, the accused and greatly aggrieved party in this matter Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., under personal knowledge and belief, petitions this court to take note of the following facts and represents that the Superior Court, State of California, County of Butte egregiously and maliciously and criminally erred in fact at law and seeks relief in accordance by this writ under Krueger v. Superior Court (1979) 89 CA3d 934, 152 CR 870, See also Star Motor Imports, Inc. v Superior Court (1979) 88 CA3d 201, 151 CR 721:

PETITIONER Your Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., in Propria persona, sui juris, the accused and aggrieved party in this matter; is a natural born, free white citizen of Queens County, state of New York, and thereby a State and American Citizen within the original meaning of the Constitution for the united States of America 1787, and is not a “PERSON,” SUBJECT or CITIZEN within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, under the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 2 of 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Petitioner is an ordinary white Christian male inhabitant, a member of the posterity of this country, living at peace, about the land, during a time of profound peace.

PETITION
RESPONDENTS Respondents in this matter are: 1.) Michael L. Ramsey, who was acting in both his professional and personal capacities within the COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as the Butte County District Attorney for all his acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts jurisdiction. 2.) THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, was an incorporation or undefined fiction whom was present in the COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and was acting in both its professional and personal capacities for all its acts and/or omissions in this matter, and was resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts jurisdiction. 3.) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, was an incorporation or undefined fiction whom was present in the COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and was acting in both its professional and personal capacities for all its acts and/or omissions in this matter, and was resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts jurisdiction. 4.) Ms. Susan Sloan, a.k.a. SUSAN SLOAN, was a natural born person residing within the COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and was acting in both her professional and personal capacities in this matter for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, and was a resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts jurisdiction. 5.) John and Jane Does 1 through 100 were joinder parties to this matter by act and/or omission, and either natural born, fictitious, or corporate WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 3 of 63

to wit: Sec. 1985 That on or about February 15. and each of the justices thereof. Susan Sloan at my home at WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 4 of 63 . Applegate. and thereby come under this courts jurisdiction.) 7. to issue a writ of prohibition preventing a lower court from proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction arises under Article VI. Your petitioner. in county courts. my son was intentionally. corporations. organizations. when the legality of any tax. of the peace. and in all criminal cases amounting to a felony on questions of law alone. “The supreme court. and were resident or had business within the COUNTY OF BUTTE. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this Court lawfully sitting in term. 5 Cal.“The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars. And the said court. They shall also have power to issue all other writs and process necessary to the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. and maliciously stolen and/or kidnapped from me by one Ms. All respondents are the alleged real party in interest.) entities.” Sec. state actor. 4. Robert Lindsay.” People v. and shall be conservators of the peace throughout the state. state or federal or third party agencies and were acting in both their personal and professional capacities in this matter. toll. 1985. STATE OF CALIFORNIA in this matter. Sections 1 and Section 4 of the Constitution for the state of California. as well as all district and county judges. 295. other inferior judicial power of this state shall be vested in a in district courts.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6. or impost or municipal fine is in question. (1849). 1. Cheney Jr. and in justices The legislature may also establish such municipal and courts as may be deemed necessary. state agents. has been factually driven into indigency due to the illegal and unlawful acts and/or omissions by respondents in this matter. STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AND SUPPORTING RECORD: FEBRUARY 15. shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of any person held in actual custody.

I called the authorities: both the Butte County Sheriff’s Department. My son at this time was intentionally and criminally hidden from me. State of California. In the first instant. Michael L. Ms. I hired a lawyer named William Colligan of Chico. who told me “You cannot get your son back. Ramsey and to appear in “Family Court.” I was complete broad sided. which was a reasonable request as I had clean hands in this matter and as the crime had been done to me. his father. Because Ms. she’d have to be a drug addict with a needle stuck in her arm. Sloan had no license or privilege to so criminally abduct my son. Ramsey. who introduced himself as a judge. Windsor Scott Cheney. to which they both stated “get a lawyer” and refused either to take a report or to do any actions in returning my son to me. [See Defendant’s Exhibit 092]. both Departments corporate entities within the County of Butte. and I did not see him for approximately two (2) months until I received a summons to go to court upon this matter. from the County of Butte District Attorney. and just had started out in a job at the University of California at Chico. Michael L. Sloan had irresponsibly and criminally left me with all the responsibilities and obligations of the house and other contumacious engagements. and demanded lawful redress in the form of the return of my son to me.” I lawfully attended that unknown tribunal I consistently presided over by “Judge” Gilbert. and betrayed by the systematic organized crime syndicate of Butte County. I was betrayed by this tribunal as my demands directly mandated by the common law as WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 5 of 63 . County of Butte. and the Chico Police Department. and insistently demanded my son at this proceeding. I could not properly address this issue and acts of fraud and criminality by the prosecution as I was legally crippled with no car.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14955 Clearcut Lane in Forest Ranch. being under the additional and unfair duress of the constant harassment and attacks of the Butte County District Attorney.

Then shortly when thereafter. I lost my career at the university. Cheney.” The prosecution. the executive and judicial.” which he ‘gave’ me “Joint Custody” (when under the law I had complete custody. (the Brady Dayton Cumbuss Jail murder). Meanwhile the prosecution filed a fraudulent case against me on or about February 22. except in cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. Susan Sloan’s criminality for profit. I sought out help or redress from the complete aegis of government and was ignored in violation of law. a black father. He ordered “arbitration” due to my demands in this court. and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others. 1986 P3747 demanding Child Support and more money. In “arbitration. and an outright fraud. in overt violation of Article III of the Constitution for the state of California (1849) to wit: Section 1.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawfully enumerated by the California Civil Code § 7004(a) demanded the return of my own son to me. Mr. in May of 1995 I was almost killed in a heinous motorcycle accident to where a ¾ Ton truck ran a red light at 50MPH and broad sided me at an intersection light (the truck ran the red light—never hit his brakes. It was in fact only an unconscionable contract verifying and enjoining Ms. Robert Cumbuss. and demanded as such). unlawfully garnished my wages up until December of 1994 due to a new supervisor. have I got a deal for you. The prosecution conspired with the Butte County “Family Court” system. Gilbert stated “Mr. The powers of the government of the state of California shall be divided into three separate departments: the legislative. sought out my aid as his son had been brutally beaten and murdered in the Butte County Jail.” I also made the same demands to a female “arbitrator” and in returning to court. and my fathers rights group whom had helped several people before in all types of WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 6 of 63 . This ‘deal’ was a lie.) Directly after that.

” [See Exhibit 049]. 1996: SOUTH BUTTE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT—After 10 years of having petitioners wages forcibly garnished. Howell stated on the record: “I have no jurisdiction in this matter. without any warrant. petitioner submitted a motion entitled: NOTICE OF DEFECTS IN PRESUMPTION OF FACTS. 1996: SOUTH BUTTE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT—Appearing in front of “Judge” Steven Howell. and verbally placed in the record viva voce. whom I did not know and was not a duly elected Judge of Butte County. Cumming. was then presented to me. as we publicly excoriated the Butte County public officials whom had continuously and malfeasiantly allowed these illegal actions to lead up to this death. Article VI. that he just stated “I have no jurisdiction in this matter. aided this gentleman. Judicially noting said Judge and noting the time and date.” I then filed a charge against the Butte County WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 7 of 63 . and my motorcycle accident. This led to Sheriff Mick Grey resignation in disgrace. and marked me in Butte county for political persecution. and spending approximately nine (9) months recuperating. I was unlawfully arrested at my home. APRIL 29TH. for “Failure to Provide. I was unlawfully and forcibly arrested at my home without a warrant and imprisoned for a Penal Code §§ 270 and 166(a)(4) violations. 1996 SOUTH BUTTE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT—A foreign “Judge” named Richard C. Susan Sloan. citing California Penal Code § 277. and it was unlawfully refused by the court clerk and stamped “Received but not Filed.” He then attempted to set another hearing date. which has gone unabated for the past four years. in accordance with the Constitution for the State of California. I then stopped the proceeding and demanded the court reporter read back his statement of ‘no jurisdiction.” MARCH 10TH.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 matters. I then wrote the record. I filed a kidnapping charge against Ms.’ Both she and the “Judge” remained silent. Immediately after this debacle. APRIL 4TH. to which Mr.

liberty and property. One year and Six months in the county Jail for the published California Penal Code §§ 270 and 166 alleged violations.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 District Attorney.1(a)(6)(C). Misdemeanor hearing. my time incarcerated by six months and by his own motion attempted to take off the Penal Code § 166(a)(4) violation to which I by written motion opposed as factually there was no jurisdiction in this matter. Section 1 natural born rights to life. this was a monumental conspiracy against a Father in protecting I did his Article I. Star Chamber tribunal. made a motion to reduce. Jack Schafer. or no-one entering my name or responding to my lawful name on the record. . Clearly. Petitioner then immediately arrested said “Judge” and remained silent. There were 43 government employees at this Said Judge found me guilty by outright fraud. being stamped: “Received but not Filed. and the Constitution for the State of California. and two undercover officers came outside the court. and my counsels of choice immediate A bailiff fired him on the record under CCP 170.” I even filed a Writ of Prohibition to the Everything I did was not Superior Court which was met with silence and ignored. on public property and forcibly dragged me back into court and across the bar. an “Appearance without an Appearance” at this tribunal and my counsels of choice handed him a contract to sign simply stating he would abide by his oath of office. without me ever addressing the court. and the Constitution for the united States (1787-1791). and that was also refused. In a fraudulent. APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH LATER—The Deputy District Attorney whom prosecuted this fraud. sham. accepted. and sentenced me to the maximum to which I refused and did not consent to. for substantial cause. He refused to sign. citing Government Code § 1027.5. said foreign arrested and recused “Judge” forced a perverse unlawful tribunal upon me. in insolent and direct contradistinction to law and procedure. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 8 of 63 I was not brought into court. and my hand written motion was not addressed.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 9 of 63 .” CURRENT MATTER CM 010607 March 25. telephone calls. 1998 Petitioner received an incorrectly addressed envelope from Butte I did not open it. Deputy District Attorney. and placed me into jail. citing no violations of law to me. but rather. only water and salt to protest these acts of war. both past and future. no paper.10. though I vituperatively demanded one. let me out of jail. not see him until he was 18. as they had placed me into solitary confinement due to the fact that I would not book. I could have no pencil. whom is well known for using his version of law for his own personal predilections. [See Exhibit 081] As I had done no crime. I then. With five days left completion of that Sheriff’s Parole. and placed me again on Sheriff’s Parole. and illegalities against me. and allow the “new” father to adopt him. implemented by the Butte County District Attorney Michael L. I flatly refused this extortion. and my son had been On day 72 they simply factually kidnapped from me. even again. no I did a 63 day hunger strike (no food. again. the Butte County Sheriff Mick Grey put me on Sheriff’s Parole. To vituperatively demanded to know why and demanded the underlying instrument or warrant that allowed this and was met with silence. about day 65 of this hunger strike. published California Code of Civil Procedure. in accordance with County Consolidated Courts. they again came to my home and arrested me without a warrant. and political and personal vendetta’s against me.370 and CRC § 1234. Jack Schafer attempted to “make a deal” with me. §§ 418. I again. he said that the prosecution would drop all charges.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nor had any chance to defend myself. In this deal. no law library. and then ‘graduated’ me from that parole with a certificate stating that I had “obeyed all laws. to protest this On or act of war.) stop my hunger strikes. and let me go free—if ‘only’ I would abandon my son. 116. Ramsey. underwent at 72 day hunger strike. all child support obligations.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 10 of 63 . several times a warrant. 1998 The very next day. William Raymond Patrick. unannounced and uninvited. refused to answer me in accordance with his own code just stated. Rusk also demanded to see a warrant.” What he found was that the warrant had been “Recalled” and that the court had stated that there was “No Probable Cause. and immediately issuing a warrant for my arrest! MAY 11.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [See Exhibit ] In overt violation of his own law. attempting to arrest me without any warrant. and Mr.” With that information I then. we had a group telephone call at my home which was recorded by and with consent of all parties involved. sent the district attorney additional demand to know the nature and cause of what he was attempting to do. the “Judge” in this matter. to which he continually replied: warrant. defective. [see Exhibits ]. stating him viva voce the constitutional law and mandates that he have a warrant. a Butte County District Attorney II with the Butte County District Attorney’s office. and Brad Runt did not have one. and identified himself to be Brad Rundt. at any time. Mr. giving them more time.” I demanded “I don’t need any I vehemently disagreed. MAY 12.” He then stated that “even if it was I then had Frederick Earl: Rusk investigate this “warrant. that he agreed to the law we quoted to him over the phone and that “no court in the land would uphold it” and that he had a warrant that “complied with all the legal requirements of the Penal Code.” I then gave him a fax number and demanded he fax it to me. came to my home door. Rundt admitted in this session that he had knowledge that my son was kidnapped. 1998. in He then refused. warrant was at the Sheriff’s department. my neighbor. and stated that the accordance with published Penal Code § 842. it would be forced upon [me]. unlawfully communicated ex parte with the prosecution. but rather. an unidentified gentleman wearing civilian clothes. 1998 On or about May 11. then shut the door and called Frederick Earl: Rusk.

To this.” upon me. a timely Bill of Particulars. in violation of law. or crime done against the law. demanding to know the nature and cause of the instant accusation against me. the venue. with a gentleman named William Raymond Patrick. In the Municipal Court in an unidentified tribunal in the COUNTY OF BUTTE. to support and unlawful organized crime and new form of slavery and debtors prisons for profit. criminal duress of which nobody within the aegis of government would protect me from as a matter of law. Again. On or about August of 1998. 1999 Petitioner was arraigned on a one count misdemeanor complaint No. 1998 I had my Counsel Carl H. I could no longer support myself because of this insane. 2000. invented charges against me. 2000. and the real party of interest. file in the first instance of this matter. Their assertion from my lawful response to their fraud was to lie and charge that I fled my home the instant Mr. et al. refused to answer my Bill of Particulars. Thereby. the Butte County District Attorney. and substantive redress. to where the Butte County District attorney maliciously lied and specified it as a Felony.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 18. CM 010607 alleging violation of California Penal Code section 270. had your petitioner arraigned innumerable times in this matter. maliciously. and no less than four (4) times in the Butte County Consolidated Court hearings from May 9. Brad Rundt “attempted to serve a warrant. and with criminal intent to deprive me of substantive due process of law. to October 31. Andersen. DECEMBER 30. he was not and recused WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 11 of 63 . with no lawful supporting affidavits. not being able to pay rent. [See Exhibit ] At no time during this matter has he complied with this simple and reasonable demand from me. the prosecutor. I went home to re-establish myself and heal (as I was still recovering from my motorcycle accident and my two hunger strikes). and that I was a fugitive. whom identified himself as a “duly elected Judge” which I found out later. To support this outright fraud. the jurisdiction. the Butte County District Attorney. verified criminal complaint.

2000 Your petitioner was then brought to a secret unidentified tribunal. presided over by Mr. and he refused and affirmed he WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 12 of 63 . times if he was in fact a “duly elected Judge” and he said he was.’ MAY 9. whom identified himself as a “Judge. several times demanding he properly identify himself. and demanded to know the nature and cause of the accusation against me.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 him at law under a CCP § 170. I stood on my Bill of Particulars. and a “Booking” picture. and in direct. against my will and authority. with excessive force—leading to a sprained wrist that needed to be wrapped. 2000 I was unlawfully brought from the federal jurisdiction into the California jurisdiction. of which he had no knowledge or information as to what this tribunal was. Nelson. Patrick denied me all access to law. I demanded to immediately be brought to the magistrate. that “Judge” Barbara Roberts had been recused by the District Attorney. 2000 I reserved all rights and gave up none at this tribunal. and held hostage to give my finger prints. I was then brought into the same tribunal with a different person I asked him several I asked this whom identified himself to me as “Judge” Steven R. due process of law. and brought against my will and over my objections. oath of office. did not engage this tribunal. overt violation of the law. to which Mr. pen. in the State of California. County of Butte. I was forcibly beaten. and was denied. paper. without my knowledge or due process or redress. and denied all substantive I was denied seeing my counsels of choice. to the Butte County Jail in Oroville. and then read to me a false complaint that had been submitted allegedly by Daniel T. and just held in total isolation in which to ‘break me. and bond requirements. MAY 8TH. McNelis.” At this tribunal I was informed. I was then placed into solitary confinement.1(a)(6)(C) motion and I later defaulted all his proceedings as he factually and lawfully is not a Judge in accordance with his filed paperwork. telephone calls. William Raymond Patrick. MAY 23. with no lawful documentation.

2000 refused to let me speak in this matter. and recused him for cause. He then “arraigned” me. without prior notice to me. 1849 as the Sheriff of Butte County must be a Judicial officer. and sprinted out of the court as he said them. a clear violation of my rights as I stated on the record that “You are recused…I DO NOT ACCEPT YOU!!!” This last sequence in the court was criminally.1(a)(6)(C) disqualification. or kidnapped illegally. (again for the third. and intentionally not placed into the record— WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 13 of 63 . saying he wanted to get a few things done first. a violation of separation of powers under Article III of the Constitution for the state of California. to which he lied and stated: “I can’t do that. even though this was prima facia evidence and lawful requirements to this proceeding. and I formally upon that finding. he ‘allowed’ me to speak. to which was resisted. Sheriff Scott MacKenzie.” Later. my counsels found NO supporting or lawful documentation for said “Judge” McNelis.. but later defaulted upon. McNelis denied me due process of law. to which being denigrated to a point to where I had to recuse Mr.” He maliciously allowed both the Butte County District Attorney to Amend his complaint. and did not mention that there was no probable cause for my arrest. Robert Mackenzie. McNelis completed I then asked him: “Are you a duly He then got frightened. Mr. and allowed a man named Ross Pack to give false testimony. arrogantly returned and SEPTEMBER 21. He then allowed the Butte County Counsel. fourth or fifth time). his treason against me. that I was in an improper venue. and did not engage this judge in accordance with the tantamount stipulation doctrine. babbled a few phrases at his bench. McNelis for cause viva voce. “He would let me say anything I had to say. and then. [see Exhibit ] Now “Retired ‘Judge’” McNelis.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was a “Judge” at each and every time I demanded the truth. to quash my Subpoena Duces Tecum against the Sheriff of Butte County. made written motion for a CCP 170. Mr. elected Judge?” When Mr.

Collusion between the parties. in the Great Empire state of New York. and to protect all state actors in their acts and/or omissions they proactively and maliciously applied against me in violation of law. cogent. and are not the whole truth. in respect to the proceeding. to whom consistently made unlawful. Queens County. without warrant. Any Judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of Jurisdiction in the Court Judicial Officer. and to prove the facts by witnessing affidavits and petitioners exhibits. On or about December 29. 1999 I was kidnapped at my home at 51-15 43rd avenue in Woodside. without supporting affidavits. NO INCORPORATION OF PROCEEDINGS: All the proceedings at the preliminary hearing were transcribed by several official court reporters. as no one is stopping this organized crime syndicate clothed under color of law. without verification or lawful WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 14 of 63 . CCP § 1916—Judicial Record—Impeachment—Manner of Impeaching a record. The transcripts are entered into this record to prove these acts and/or omission crimes against me. and I also include my Exhibits and also all my pleading’s and/or motions I lawfully submitted to the Superior Court of Butte County in order to prove both the prosecution and Judge’s (and court reporters) reprehensible and unlawful acts and/or omissions in this matter. under color of authority of the Butte County Consolidated Courts.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as the court transcriptionist intentionally conspired with the court and district attorney to stop me by any criminal act or omission. and forcibly. or fraud in the party offering the record. and egregious errors and omissions in the transcripts in which to paint a false light of the “proceedings” in which to enjoin with the Butte County District Attorney and the Judges to both aid in his malicious and vindictive prosecution of your petitioner.

and all due process of law intentionally. did ‘testify’ to ROBERT LINDSAY CHENEY JR. in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA manufactured a charge by having Mr. Ross Pack (a man whom I don’t know nor have ever met) working for the Butte County District Attorney. maliciously prosecuted. 2000. and kept imprisoned as my own counsel. I did lawfully disqualify him under a CCP § 170. having no factual knowledge of any legal crime having occurred and using hearsay upon hearsay. and especially my counsels of choice. he must. I then in the first instance. (et al) allegedly committing a crime. testified and openly lied to place a false in this secret unknown tribunal to me. by viva voce motion.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submission at law of any lawful supporting documents by the prosecution. and said “I can’t Which under the law and by his Judicial Canon’s. McNelis was acting in bad faith and with no good faith to your petitioner.” He lied and ignored this at law motion. demanded a at law tribunal. and also demanded the Bill of Particular to which he lawfully filed in the first instance that would inform him of the nature and cause of the instant accusation to be filed with him so that he could be informed of this invention of the prosecution. and maliciously lied in that claim. Petitioner was “arraigned” in an unknown tribunal on May 23. Pack did conspire to go along with this open fraud over my objections. was falsely imprisoned. McNelis. as a conspired program to deny me my rights and prohibit me from properly defending myself at law. invented by his employer. a person whom identified himself to me on the record as being a “duly elected Judge” and whom overtly. and denied access to pen and paper. in Propria Persona Sui Juris. UNLAWFUL INFORMATION FILED On May 23. the prosecution. for profit. 2000 by one Steven R. Your petitioner. and WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 15 of 63 . Mr. law library. do that. as Mr.1(a)(6)(C) motion.

4 Bin “A right cannot arise from a wrong. n.” Lex nemini operatur inquum. 7 Co. and a sanguine requirement and mandate of the Constitution of the state of California. 2411.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 properly defend himself.  “The law never works an injury. (1849).  Qui male agit. proceed in evil. by an improper judge is of no moment.”  Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti. 176. No Butte County employee or agent or state actor or agency. Jenk. wrong done to himself. Jus ex injuria non oritur.  Lex nemini facit injuriam. odit lucem. nemini facit injuriam.” “The law always gives a remedy. Cent. 40. “The Law does wrong to no one. “He who acts badly. Inst.  Judex non potest inuriam sibi datum punier. office or jurisdiction no obedience is due. “ judgement given  Judici oficium suum excedenti non paretur. 11 Co. “The law pnishes falsehood. 76. Lex semper dabit remedium. every complied with reason or the simple requirement of the law and answered the Bill of Particulars as mandated by their oath of office.” Jenk. Cent. Cent. 66. “Right and fraud never go together. “No one is allowed to WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 16 of 63 . hates the light. 113. 639. or does him a wrong. 139. “It is better to recede than to Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. incapacitate himself. 22.” 12 Co.” 3 Bouv.  Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare seipsum.   Jus et fradem numquam cohabitant. “A judge cannot punish a   Lex punit mendacium.” 4 Inst. “To a judge who exceeds his Jenk.

even for a just price. Inst. 287. “No one can hve a servitude Dig 8. 50.” 1600. “No one is punished  Nemo punitur sine injuria facto. “No one  Nemo punitur pro alieno delecto. “No man is bound to accuse himself.” “No one shall take advantage  Nemo ex suo delecto melioroem suam conditionem facere potest.  Nemo tenetur sssseipsum accusare. seu defalto. 50. 26. 33. 2 Bov. over his own property. “He does not appear to have retained his consent. pg 38.  Non videtur consensum retinuisse si quis ex praescripto minantis aliquid immutavit. 1856. 2. if he have Bacon’s changed anything through the means of a party threatening. of his own wrong. sell his property. 17 Mass. himself at the expense of others.  Nul ne doit s’enrichir aux depens des autres.” 2 Co. “No one is bound to Sed vide Eminent Domain. 443. “A citizen cannot be taken by force Dig. from his couse to be conducted before a judge or to prison.” Dig.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Nemo Cogitur rem suam vendere. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 17 of 63 . can improve his condition by a crime.” Inst. crime or wrong of another. 2  Nulli enim res sua servit jure servitutis.  Nemo de domo sua extrahi debet. 17. Reg. unless for some wrong act or default. 137.” “no one ought to enrich  Nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne. 17.” Bouviers Law Dictionary. Inst. “No one is to be punished for the Bouviers Law Dictionary.” Max. n. etiam justo pretio. pg 40. 66.

a tutela removendus est.  Sublato fundamento cadit opus.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Quod initio vitiosum est.Cent. 1856. 65. “If the principal be taken away. there is no authority to enforce.” 69. “He who derives a benefit 2 Bouv.Litt. rules. ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. “A [father] commanding not too  Remisus imperanti melius paretur. pg.” “In default of the law. pg. there is no authority to obey. the adjunct is also taken away. si deficit lex. 1433.   Regula pro lege. Inst. from a thing. the structure or Bouviers Law Dictionary.” 62. “The solemnities of law are to be Solemnitas juris sunt observandae. “What is proved by  Quod per recordum probatum. 29. 1856.” 3 Co. n. 72. non debet esse negatum. strictly is best obeyed. sentiere debet et onus. the record. work fall. pg.  Sublato principali tollitur adjunctum. 389.” Co. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 18 of 63 . “Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. “Where Dav. 50. “If a  Si quis custos fraudem pupillo fecerit. guardian behave fraudulently to [her] ward. 39. 233. [she] shall be removed from guardianship  Jenk. Bouviers Law Dictionary.” Jenk.” “Remove the foundation. Cent.” Inst. observed. ought not to be denied. non potest tractu temporis convalescere.  Que sentit commodum.  Ubi non est condendi auctorias ibi non est parendi necessitas. 17. the maxim Bouviers Law Dictionary. 1856.” Dig. 13.

” “A punishment inflicted on a 22 Vin. 4 Co. 12 Co. 1 Bouv. 1856. 3 Co. non debent trahi in consequentiam.”  Quae contra ratioonem juris introducta sunt. 75. 167. 1856. 20.Litt. mother.Litt. the common law if to be preferred. estimated by the intention of the doer. interpreted. 550. few. 379. metus ad omnes perveniat. n. pg. “Power ought to be strictly  Potestas stricte interpretatur. children follow the condition of the father. Bouvier’s Dictionary. 52. 4 Co. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 19 of 63 . causes a dread to all.”  When the common law and the stature law concur. 78. 502.  Quae praeter consuetudinem et morem majorum fiunt. “Every ct is to be  Omne actum ab intentione agentis est judicandum. necque recta videntur. “Offenses against nature are the  Periculosum est res novas et inusitatas inducere. “Things introducted contrary to the reason of the law. neque placent. 234. “The offspring follow the condition of the This is the case of slaves and animals. 71.”  Pecata contra naturam sunt gravissima. 45. but with regard to freemen. neither pleases nor appears right. always a fraud.. 539. Partus sequitur ventrem. Inst.” pg. introduce new and dangerous things. magistrates ought not to be sold.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Officia magistrates non debent esse venalia. “What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors.” Co. 13 Vin.” “The offices of Col. “It is dangerous to  Paena ad paucos.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. gravest. Ab. Ab.   Once a fraud. Inst. ought not to be drawn into precedents.

unknown to the petitioner. nor to be placed into any jeopardy. 2000 in Department B08 of respondent court.” With substantial facts of both the prosecution and Judicial malicious crimes against me in this matter. Petitioner was threatened with immediate trial. 2000. which was ‘continued’ by the courts own fraud. The motion for dismissal was never heard by any lawful judge. when in fact. and to pretend it gained jurisdiction by forcing me to ask for the trial to be set ahead. At that hearing. Court then forced your petitioner to trial on the 19 th. overt violation of law. said unknown and unidentified tribunal ignored these lawful motions. the motion was calendared to be heard. William Raymond Patrick falsely acting as “Judge”. Mr. in accordance and under the protections and alignment with the majesty of the Constitution for the state of California (1849) under the protection of Almighty God. and on July 18. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 20 of 63 . even though no petitioners motions were heard. petitioner moved for a Motion to Dismiss. Your petitioner on __________________ 2000. only to ignore the motion for dismissal. I wanted no trial at all. informing your petitioner of the nature and cause of the instant accusation against him.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALL REQUESTS FOR LAWFUL RELIEF OR REDRESS DENIED TO PETITIONER On July 6. moved for a motion for dismissal under California Penal Code § 991 (e) to wit: “A second [probable cause] dismissal pursuant to this section is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense. and no motions were heard at all which would factually have dismissed this matter at any point. the petitioners Bill of Particulars was never responded to by the prosecution. in direct. a direct an reprehensible contempt for the laws of a free and just people.

656. in Chico California on November 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GROUNDS This petition for peremptory Writ of Prohibition is based on an unlawful ruling. and “sentenced” me for two Penal Code §270 violations. Suite #114. §§ 602. Reg. “The right of blood and kindred cannot be destroyed by nay civil law. 2000. Your petitioner in fact motioned the above mentioned tribunal to adhere to its own Published California Penal Code.” located at 1370 Ridgewood Drive. Cheney Jr. 11. and all person’s and state actors have criminally conspired in this matter. and 666 et seq. ALL PARTIES NEVER PROPERLY JOINED The parties directly involved and affected in this matter have never been properly admitted. even though your petitioner has continuously supplicated to know the nature and cause of this matter. nor addressed by this court. which is operating in abject contradistinction of law and reason.S. “Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi possunt.. (only in that spelling and WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 21 of 63 . this “Superior Court” upon its own motion. 17. Respondent tribunal “trial” and all decisions should be struck down as a matter of law and as of a matter of right nullified void in ab initio as they have obeyed no law in accordance with the Constitution for the state of California (1849). 9. the venue. the jurisdiction and the real party in interest. Your petitioner whom at all times lawfully and properly identified himself as Robert Lindsay. et seq. Bacon’s Max. and by the fact that both the prosecution. Title 42. 2000. “Title IV-D” “Welfare Enumeration” schemes that involve criminally destroying the “Non-Custodial” parent (usually the Father such as myself)..C. On or about October 31. for a profit based industry based on U. et seq. released me from prison. which it refused to do.” Dig 50. in an undefined rogue court. and then ‘ordered’ me to the “Chico Parole Office. which petitioner complied with under protest.

under an unconstitutional 23 published California Penal Code § 24 25 270 and unlawful in the first instance by continuous acts of fraud. nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Petitioner went so far as to join this matter under CCP This is and was insolently denied. the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel. 1787-1791. Section 8 of the Constitution for the state of California (1849): “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment. and CCP 474. Your petitioner demanded proper spoken forms as enumerated in the Judges Trial Benchbook. and thereby this fraudulent matter taken by force of arms against your petitioner. 981. an arrogant and insolent violation of Substantive Due Process of law as secured by Amendment the Fifth. and also Article I. and in any trial in any court whatever. without due process of law. as in civil actions.) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace and in cases of petit larceny under the regulation of the legislature. treason and outright war WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 22 of 63 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 capitalization) was arrogantly refused by both the court and the prosecution from identifying the real Defendant in this matter. and in cases of militia when in actual service.” Petitioner as a New York State Citizen and unlawfully kidnapped thereby. is in fact null and void. under the Constitution for the united States. and the land and naval forces in time of war. nor be deprived of life. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. liberty. or property. § 389 and it was met with silence and not address by this unknown tribunal. is factually not within the jurisdiction of said court. Your petitioner placed a Motion under Penal Code §§ 953. § 1.26 and was insolently refused. No persons shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.

No person can be punished for a pubic offense except upon a legal conviction in a Court having jurisdiction thereof. secundum libertatem respondendum erit. 17. AND FACTUAL EXHAUSTION OF LAWFUL REMEDIES No other petition of Writ of Prohibition has been submitted by your petitioner as he has been maliciously. 502. before conviction to any more restraint than is necessary for his detention to answer the charge. 20. n1. 173 CR 520.” § 688 Unnecessary restraint “No person charged with a public offense may be subjected. “Whenever there is a doubt between liberty and slavery.” Quotiens dubia interpretatio libertatis est.1 2 3 4 5 against your petitioner and thereby is subject to instant dismissal at the appellate courts discretion. 521 n1. the decision must be in favor of liberty. see Cooper v Superior Court (1981) 118 CA3d 499. imposition only upon legal conviction “No person punishable but on legal conviction. in violation of the published California Penal Code §§ 681 and 688! § 681 Punishment. and criminally forced isolation and criminal confinement to prohibit him from defending himself. 50. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 23 of 63 . Dig. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 into prison for 270 days before 14 lawful trial and kept in solitary 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  NO PRIOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION SUBMITTED.

Ed. Rauscher. been kidnapped upon a lie committed by “That right as we understand it. 199 U. or adequate remedy at law. No appeal lies from the order ‘extradited’ of which the prosecution claims. 234.1 2 3 4 5 of the respondent court denying 6 petitioner’s motion to set aside 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California Penal Code § 270 count as 14 of December 28. 24 25 for both a personal and political vendetta.S. and has factually manufactured this crime against your WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 24 of 63 [United States v. 7 S. or after trial and acquittal. see also Ahad v. has immunity from additional counts accruing from the asylum state’s point of extradition. United Arab Emerits (Citations Omitted)] Petitioner has factually. 407. 425 (1886). is that he shall be tried only for the offence with which he is charged in the extradition proceedings. a person NO OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW Your petitioner has no other plain. Michael L. et al. Ramsey. and that if not tried for that.Ct.” counts two and three of the pending information. of which was only one . and for which was delivered up. speedy. 1999: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the Butte County District Attorney’s 23 office. By law. he shall have a reasonable time to leave the country before he is arrested upon the charge of any other crime committed previous to his extradition. 30 L.

The prosecution. v. 10 Wend.” [Williams v. Murray . 40 Ohio St. Compton Ault & Co. is maliciously at this time attempting to fraudulently push 6 your petitioner into additional 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 violation and direct arrogance to 14 your petitioner’s constitutional and 15 clearly defined and understood stare 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “Until an extradited person has had reasonable time in which to return to the state from which he was brought.Y. 130 (1883)…especially where extradition was procured by connivance or in bad faith…Where one who was brought here on extradition. he is exempt here from civil process…Murray v. 638 (N.W. 97 N. he is privileged from the service of civil process. is admitted to bail and returns to his home state. nor by the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Wilcox supra. 1087 (1904). Wilcox. 1834) decisis case law extradition decisions. Wilder. Bacon. This is overt abrogation jeopardy in yet another civil matter.1 2 3 4 5 petitioner using Penal Code § 270 for a purpose not intended by the State Legislature. and did attempt to ‘serve’ your petitioner on the hearing of October 26th. 2000 in open court when the petitioner was still falsely incarcerated in the Butte County Jail as a prisoner in insolent to law under extradition: WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 25 of 63 . 122 Iowa 188.

“Failure to Provide. That petitioner be granted such other and further relief as may be appropriate and just. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 26 of 63 . PRAYER FOR RELIEF A peremptory writ of prohibition to be immediately issued. prosecutions. and all persons acting by and through its orders or supposed orders from taking any further steps or proceedings. 5. or omissions. 1. 4. To vacate and stay Count 1 and 2. including trial or any other civil action.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED: November 4. or any contact in any way shape or form with petitioner—to place a permanent restraining order against his criminal activities via “IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” and protect your petitioner from his vindictive acts and malicious prosecutions. To prohibit the Butte County District Attorney from any further acts.” Under double jeopardy and fraud. and expunging both the alleged ‘conviction’ and any probation or state parole requirements. unfettered so that I may take this miscarriage of justice and fight it up through the higher courts and take the Published California Penal Code § 270 and/or § 166(a)(4) and challenge their constitutionality at law. a California Penal Code violation § 166(a)(4). 2. so that I may constitutionally challenge Penal Code § 270 and/or § 166 (a)(4). To vacate Count 3. 2000 6.” Under double jeopardy and fraud. Allow me to return to my native homeland the Empire State of New York. restraining the respondent court. and setting aside all Judgments in this matter. all its officers and agents. 3. a California Penal Code violation § 270. “Contempt of Court.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SEAL: _______________________________________ Robert Lindsay. Cheney Jr. California State Republic. County of Butte: I. are true of my own personal knowledge. exhibits. exhibits or other documents. OR: I am the petitioner in this action. the undersigned. -. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 4. or other documents. Cheney Jr. are true of my own personal knowledge. say: I am the petitioner in this matter. All facts alleged in the above document not otherwise supported by citations to the record. California RESERVING ALL RIGHTS. _______________________________________ Robert Lindsay. GIVING UP NONE COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ] ] affirmed VERIFICATION State of California. at Butte County. In Propria Persona.AT LAW In Propria Persona. Giving Up None SUBSCRIPTION 25 Subscribed and sworn before me on November 4. Sui Juris Reserving All Rights. All facts alleged in the above document not otherwise supported by citations to the record. Sui Juris Fifteenth Judicial District 6190 Skyway Paradise. being first sworn. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 27 of 63 . County of Butte. 2000 at the State of California. 2000.

County of Butte Respondent THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 740. a. California (530) 877-1265 In Propria Persona. 1853.L. Against Superior Court. 15. St. see: Stats. 117. St.OURTS. 93. CM 010607 EMERGENCY ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION 25 The “COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT” shall be Concurrent with and Equivalent to the district court as created in Article I. Ramsey. 1851. Susan Sloan.. CXIV. p. Sui Juris OFFICE: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT2 DIVISION ____________ ___________ TERM Robert Lindsay.S. ch. Article 632. by their attorney. St. Ms. 1850. 289. Constitution for California of 1849. 11. Cheney Jr. Section 1. Michael L. fiction “SUSAN SLOAN” Real Party in Interest ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] CASE No. No. III.] WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 28 of 63 . April 25.-THE DISTRICT .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 _______________________________________ Signature of Notary SEAL: Robert Lindsay. District Attorney for the COUNTY OF BUTTE. COURTS OF JUSTICE. Cheney Jr. Section 12. District Attorney for the COUNTY OF BUTTE Real Party in Interest COUNTY OF BUTTE.St. Petitioner. By their attorney. 1857. R.k. Michael L. 116 and Digest of Laws of California – XXII. 1854. [Am. State of California. C/O Message Address Fifteenth Judicial District 6190 Skyway Paradise. Ramsey.a. St. 74. C. 1872. 1855.

88 Wis. 40 S. 32 N.E. Levy v. 112. 522.S. State v. 545. 26 S. 2d 735. commanding them to cease from the prosecution of the same. 252. Packard. 199 U. State v. or in equity. Evans.W. Johnston v. § 1102. Hunter. 376. Calhoun.A. 424. An extraordinary writ. Albott v. directed to an inferior court or tribunal exercising judicial powers for the purpose of preventing the inferior tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not lawfully vested. 756. 120 S. Jackson v. Stanfield.2d Niagara Falls 421. v. Savord. State v.Va. 156 Ga. 155 N. Crollott. 142 P. 45 N. 55 N. 301.Y. when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal.D.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________________________________________________] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROHIBITION.Cal. 115. 50 W.E. Proc. 736. 115.R.Cr. 13 L. 756. boards or person. issued in cases of extreme necessity where the grievance cannot be redressed by ordinary proceedings at law. 11 Okl.S. may. It arrests the proceedings of any tribunal. be exercised against public officers. The name of a writ issue by a superior court. 147. 584. Ga.Ct. Medler. 156. or by appeal. 74 Md. 120 S. 143 Ohio St. 3 Bl. Jackson v. but to the cognizance of some other court. 448. board or person. State v. Power Co. 13. Prohibition.W.Comm. 666. upon suggestion that the cause originally. issue by a superior court to an inferior court to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction either by prohibition it from assuming jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no control.E. Code Civ. 161. 52. 19 N. 181 Misc. 50 L. directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior court. Casualty Co. The writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of mandate. corporation. An extraordinary judicial writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction. 22 A. 451. 60 N. 519. 317. where the action sought to be prohibited is judicial in its nature. 667. Inhibition. 114.M. State ex rel. 143 P. or some collateral matter arising therein. or from exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. In Practice. Calhoun. does not belong to that jurisdiction.Ed. interdiction. corporation. Halpin. 580. from assuming or exercising jurisdiction over matters beyond its cognizance. It is only Alexander v.E. 395. 114.. 377. State ex WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 29 of 63 . or form going to beyond its legitimate powers in a matter of which it has jurisdiction. 433. 255.

said respondent’s have knowingly and intentionally violated your petitioners right as a matter or due course and over act and/or omission—for profit.W. there is no need to determine whether a conflict is ‘actual’ or only ‘gives the appearance of conflict. 143 CR. “All political power is inherent in the people. and has overtly been denied any palpable redress at law. West Publishing Co.3d 148. Harty. among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty. Section 1 of the Constitution for the state of California states: redress throughout the courts. AND USING THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE FOR A PURPOSE NEVER INTENDED BY LAW Article I. v. Thus. and throughout the complete aegis of government. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 30 of 63 . 838. Conner. 1968. a conflict “exists whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the District Attorney’s office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner. 276 Mo. 583. “All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights. Section 1. or simple redress of grievances in direct contradistinction to the rule of law and our form of governance as a free and just peoples. acquiring. 835. RESPONDENTS IN THIS MATTER HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST YOUR PETITIONER AND ARE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PC2117-(b) Under PC 1424. and maliciously and in overt violation of the law. Your petitioner has supplicated USING LAW TO SUPPORT THEIR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST PETITIONER FOR PROFIT. ©1891 &etc. whenever the public good may require it. 34 C.1 2 3 4 5 rel.” Intentionally.” People v. Government is instituted for the protection. possessing and protecting property. “Revised Fourth Edition” p.” Section 2. 208 S. substantive due process rights. [ Blacks Law Dictionary. security and benefit of the people. 1377] I. and they have the right to alter or reform the same. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

(1971) 19 C. 1013 7 Summary (8th) Equity § 115. Proc.” has never been lawfully done in my matter. People v. making objections to questions of counsel for the minor or parent. “Only a court with jurisdiction of the offense in a criminal prosecution of that offense can convict and punish a person for a crime.2d. giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. 97 Cr. (See People v. If a Judge takes over a hearing conducting the examinations of witnesses.”… WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 31 of 63 . 206. before granting or modifying custody orders—to ascertain whether a child has been reported missing or abducted. (See Lois R. 158. 681 supra.”… “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution. and ruling on objections and motions he improperly assumes functions as an advocate.A.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CC4605. v Superior Court. Proc. 872. P2d. 2 Cal. therefore a court exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction cannot evade this jurisdictional limitation and deprive the accused of a [trial by jury] by granting an injunction. and unacknowledged by our laws. As a general rule. 1 Wharton Crim. 118. COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION No court has lawfully established jurisdiction in this matter in accordance with the mandates of law and reason. 40 P2d. (P. 880. Lim (1941) 18 C3d.A. This II.5—Requires courts ‘in specified cases. Steele (1935) 4 D. 898. 959.C. Law Rev. §1822). 208.R.) “Element of Due Process—In a criminal trial.2d 946. §22. 41 P. (The criminal Act) as contempt. 78 Harv. 3d 895.” The Constitution for the state of New York (1777) states in pertinent part: “””We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. 472. an impartial judge is a requisite of due process.

2d 134 (7TH CIR. which is acquired by actual service of process. 19 Ariz.2d 961 (1972). “jurisdiction” which has been challenged at every point in this proceeding—and which has never been proven. All of the state actors/respondents have refused to present any findings of fact or conclusions of law. is the subject of a Judgement. Booth. over the parties. and over the thing. Coronado Cattle Co. State of Ind. The Jurisdiction necessary in a The Jurisdiction sufficient to sustain a record is Jurisdiction When a specific thing over the cause. Neff. 122 Ariz. ISREAL 776 F. Jobar WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 32 of 63 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: JURISDICTION: "Jurisdiction must be either of the subject matter. Constitution's Amendment 14 requires that a defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state so that forcing him to defend the action will not violate fundamental principles of fairness. within the territorial limits of the sovereignty. See also Magidow v. the due process clause of the U. 62 U. or personal appearance of the defendant… Jurisdiction in a personal action cannot be obtained by service on a defendant outside of the jurisdiction. App.. WALBERG v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SEE CCP § 1917—Judgement—Jurisdiction necessary. 506 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "The United States Constitution limits a state's ability to achieve personal service outside its borders by means of a long-arm statute. judgment. Pennoyer v. v. nor palpable evidence as to their lawful.S.2d 698 (1979). 38. 596 P. 1985 ) ( “UNCONDITIONAL ) RELEASE” APPROPRIATE IF “ THERE IS NO JURISDICTION TO DETAIN THE APPLICANT ” Ableman v. which is acquired by exercising powers conferred by law over property. 95 U." .S. Inc. Amba Marketing Systems. Chavez v. or of the person. 714 The courts of one state have no jurisdiction over persons of other states unless found within their territorial limits "The process of a State court or judge has no authority beyond the limits of the sovereignty which confers the judicial power.S. 560. for Logansport State Hospital. 504 P.

S. 154. 56 L. “At English common law proceedings in court without jurisdiction were deemed ‘coram non judice’—“before one not a judge. App. 2d 132 (1978). Kulko v. Superior Court 436 U. At all times your petitioner appeared specially. 365 (1975). 98 S. 66 S. 551 F. and does not have personal jurisdiction over Petitioner. Pulliam v. and not generally.2d 784 (9th Cir.Ct. 112 Ariz. 442 P. 441.2d 528 (1984). 1057 (1945). Booth. 1977).Ed. through the on-point Kulko v.Ct. App. 542 P. Garlitz. v. 139 Ariz. 5. lawfully answered the Bill of Particulars in which to inform the petitioner of the nature and cause of the matter that he was being charged with. Washington. 156. 745 P. 1690. The Court has the power to enforce the agreement. Ohio. 94.R. “All questions of Judicial qualification…involved constitutional 21 22 23 24 25 validity. 437. The whole line of Long Arm Jurisdictional cases. See Rutledge v. Rodriguez v. 84.Ed. which is binding upon the parties pursuant to ARCP Rule 80(d).” 749 (1927). 98 S. 161 A." Tumy v. 18 Ariz. 273 U. Houghton v. 523. and conferred no jurisdiction at any time—as neither the prosecution nor the Judge. 155 Ariz.2d 604 (1987). 90 L.S. The result of Respondent's having sought relief in this improper forum is quite properly that she must reassert her claims in a forum that does have personal jurisdiction.2d 169 (1968). Garn. 510. 95. Rozar. 87 Yale L. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 33 of 63 . beginning with International Shoe v. 62 U.J. 165 (1977). 147 Ariz.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 International. Ableman v. 326 US 310. 84.L. Superior Court 436 U. Arizona Board of Regents. 47 S.Ct. 500 P. 71 L. 1690.2d 1207 (1985) and Garn v.Ed.Ct. makes it abundantly clear that this court never had. 2d 132 (1978). 8 Ariz. 343.Ed. 56 L. 711 P. 534. 164. Pulliam.2d 354 (1972).2d 24.S. Rodriguez. Piper Aircraft. 678 P. 506 "The process of a State court or judge has no authority beyond the limits of the sovereignty which confers the judicial power.S.” Note: “Filling the Void: Judicial Power and Jurisdictional Attacks on Judgments.

331 15 16 17 18 19 20 III. 118 P2d 846. and the persons or things to be seized. 49 P. “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. Municipal Court of Los Angeles. 300 P.” WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 34 of 63 . Dillon. Kelly.” Hahn v. 171 P2d 8.” houses. Chambers 53 C 6351. 1666. against unreasonable searches and seizures. NO PROBABLE CAUSE 21 22 23 24 25 The Constitution for the united States of America (1787-1791) states: Amendment the fourth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons.” “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property. 732.1 2 Norwood v Kenfield. 34 C 329. 45 CA 191. for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act. its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. papers and effects. 187 P 27. 114 CA 557. 132. but upon probable cause.” Re Application of Wyatt. and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.Ct. 28 C 2d 460. Dillon v. shall not be violated. 91 L. 117 C 573.Ed. and no warrants shall issue. US 549. 67 S. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Rescue Army v. where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act. 34 C 391. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio. Ex parte Giambonini. “Thus. 47 Ca 2d 698. supported by oath or affirmation. Re Cavitt. 1409. and particularly describing the place to be searched. Belcher v.

114 L. California and united States of America constitutions. and superior to. (1991) 500 U. as on “Judicial determination of probable cause for warrantless arrest must be made within 48 hour of arrest. shall not be violated. both the attempted arrests by Butte County California and the extradition by California and New York. but on probable cause.Ct. 1661. McLaughlin. against unreasonable seizures and searches.”… declaring us out of his protection. County of Riverside v.Ed.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Constitution for the state of California (1849) states: Article I. and no warrant shall issue. Section 19. particularly describing the place to be searched. supported by oath or affirmation. houses. June 1999.”… offences. are null. by against us.” “He has affected to render the military independent of. 124 California Judges S. the civil power. no probable cause exists in this matter.18 Arraignment] Handbook—Criminal Procedure Supplement. 44. and the persons and things to be seized.” The Constitution for the state of New York (1777) declares: “He has obstructed the administration of justice. by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.”… “He has abdicated government here.”… Factually. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. 2d 49 [§ 1. to become the executioners of their friends and brethren. With no probable cause as a required and fundamental mandate of the New York. papers and effects. 111 p. to fall themselves by their Lands.S. and factually—the crime of kidnapping: WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 35 of 63 . and waging war “For transporting us beyond seas. taken captive on the high seas. to be tried for pretended ”He has constrained our fellow-citizens. to bear arms against their country. void in ab initio.

California (1849) states in pertinent part: Court record of proceedings. pg.S.. The official collection of all the trial pleadings. 1.Supp. v. orders and word-for-word testimony that took place during the trial.” Jones v. Id. 00-1881 Argued September 6. [ Blacks Law Dictionary.] “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment. C. Ex parte Gladhill.J. 2000—Decided October 2. THE COURT WAS NOT A COUIRT OF RECORD 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 V. U. Revised Fourth Edition. Ramsey.Ct.. 220. sec. pg. No. Mass. and in cases of militia WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 36 of 63 .] “A court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it. at 288. The Court found that interstate extradition ‘was intended to be a summary and mandatory executive proceeding.’ as derived from the language of Art. The Extradition Clause and the UCEA incorporate the general principles of comity and full faith and credit that appear in Art. 282 (1978). Doran. Section 8. its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. [Blacks Law Dictionary. 1389. 8 Metc. the verdict. The “record” includes pleadings. of the Constitution. 2000] IV. 2. Inc. PETITIONER DEMANDED TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSOR AT LAWFUL TRIAL AND WAS DENIED THAT 23 24 25 RIGHT AS MANDATED BY LAW. the process.” [Behr v. 175 S.App. Sixth Edition. 439 U. Jones188 Mo. The Constitution for the state of Article I. 1388. sec. Cust.S. 1273. 347 F.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 “The governing analysis is the one set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan v. At 287-88.S. 229. Tower & Sons of Buffalo. IV. IV. where the asylum state (there Michigan) were empowered to nullify an executive grant of extradition if the demanding state failed to enunciate a factual basis to show probable cause for the charges. exhibits.. 168. 227.W. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. 426. the judgment and such other matters as by some statutory or other recognized method have been made a part of it. 439 U. and proceeding according to the course of common law..

without due process of law. by reason of their generality. Fed. 133 P. do not give. VI. the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and against himself. IN DIRECT OVERT VIOLATION OF LAW “The office of ‘bill of particulars’ is to give the adverse party information which the pleadings.1 2 3 4 5 when in actual service. 763. in any criminal case to be a witness 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 public trial.P. nor shall he be compelled.” WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 37 of 63 .Crim. or property. Amendment the Sixth. 114 Mont. and in cases of petit larceny under the regulation of the legislature. nor be deprived of life. and in any trial in any court whatever. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. as in civil actins. to be confronted with the witnesses against him…” See also. when a charge is general. of the Constitution for the united States (17871791): “In all criminal prosecutions. or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace. liberty. and the land and naval forces in time of war. 22 23 “A prosecutor. 7.) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. by an impartial jury of the state and districts wherein the crime 14 shall have been committed…and to be informed of the nature and cause of the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sun. Wong accusation.2nd 761. is frequently ordered to give the 24 25 defendant a statement of the specific acts charged (bill of particulars). the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel. No persons shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the 6 same offense. State v. 185.R. See Bill (Bill of particulars). PETITIONERS BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS NEVER ANSWERED AT ANY TIME BY THE PROSECUTION.

Clark (No. the effect of which is to prevent the unsuccessful party from having a trial or from presenting his case fully. or where a party. Form or means of discovery in which the prosecution sets forth the time. place. 4866) (1922) 210 P. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ignorance of the action.2d 602. as keeping him away from court. sells out his 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Clark v. the witnesses of his adversary are forcibly or illegally detained from court or bribed to disobey the subpoena served upon them.1 2 3 4 5 Bill of particulars. 22 23 Untimely Appeal: 24 25 Person entitled to take proceeding looking to reversal or modification of Judgment is prevented so by fraud or duress of the other party until it is too late. or who is prevented from taking appeal by circumstances over which person has no control as entitled equitable relief from WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 38 of 63 client’s interest.Crim. or where an attorney fraudulently pretends to represent 14 a party and connives at his defeat. or where a judgment is obtained in violation of an agreement between the parties. residing without the jurisdiction of the “’Fraud. or being regularly employed. or purposely keeping him in Mervin. v. 93. or where.’ within the rule that judgments may not be set aside except for fraud that is extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the court.P. through the instrumentality of the successful party.” . is induced by false pretenses or representations to come within the jurisdiction for the sole purposes of getting personal service of process upon him.R. court. which is extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried by the court. 552. particulars” is to give notice to the accused of the offenses charged in the bill of indictment so that he may prepare a defense. is fraud. Fed. Com. It is one method available to defendant to secure The purpose of a “bill of default of charge against him. 326 A. avoid surprise. 605. manner and means of the commission of the crime as alleged in complaint or indictment. 7.Super. or intelligently 6 raise pleas of double jeopardy and the bar do the statue of limitations. 230 Pa.

215-216.Rptr. Holohan." 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured.2d 1349 5 VII. the concealment of material facts that one. 317 U. but remains silent. is that a charge of fraud is maintainable where a party knowing material facts is under the duty. Rico (1975) 15 Cal. SEE FAGAN v WASHINGTON 942 F.S. under the circumstance.1 2 3 4 judgment…Hollister Convalescent Hosp. 675. 2d 1155 ( 7TH CIR. UNFAIR. v. Such a contrivance by a State to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation. 125 Cal. AGAINST YOUR PETITIONER FOR PROFIT AND KNOWINGLY INFLICTED A FRAUDULENT. one of the fundamental tenants of Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of truth SAID RESPONDENTS.S. under the circumstance. 542 P. 1991) INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY. AND SHAM OF A “TRIAL” AND UNLAWFUL PROCEEDINGS: Mooney v. 103. to speak and disclose his information. 37 Am Jur 2d Sec.." "Unquestionably.3d 660. where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process: WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 39 of 63 . is bound to disclose may constitute fraud. 213. IN DIRECT COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH 6 7 37 Am Jur 2nd Sec. 757. TRIBUNAL WAS ENGAGED IN OUTRIGHT FRAUD. 144 8 9 10 11 (suppresso veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood (suggestio falsi) . Indeed. 146 "The principal in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure.. 112. 294 U. Kansas. "In Pyle v. we phrased the rule in broader terms: AS SUCH THERE IS SELF EVIDENTLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROCEED TO TRIAL. Inc.

the whole body of law.” 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 28U. Lord. (1932) 214 Cal. 434. “Ancient maxim applicable in civil or criminal cases that no person ought to be a 6 judge in his or her own cause. IN EVERY COURT. “Conduct of trial judge must be measured by standard of fairness and impartiality.” Greener v. Pother. “Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 104.App.Ct. in which case they may be WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 40 of 63 .Ct. Right.S. also Toullier. San Diego (1898) 121 Cal. 570. 456 F. THAT IS 17 18 19 20 21 DROIT. Bank of Italy. law. at 441. or give it an ethical content. 562. considered as the foundation of all rights. these terms answer to the Roman “jus.” On the one hand.A § 2411. Meyer v. Droit. AS A MATTER OF PRE-EMINENT RIGHT. Cadenasso v. substantial. Pfizer v. 6 P. (1972) 15 16 VIII.Mn. equity. pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in this case.1 2 3 4 5 “It certainly violates the fourteenth amendment…to subject [a person’s] liberty or property to the Judgement of a court the judge of which has a direct. 96. 2411. S. cert denied 92 S. 14 U. n. IN HIS OWN WRITINGS AS BOTH A PERSONAL AND RELIGIOUS CONVICTION AND RESPONDENTS IN COLLUSION HAVE UNJUSTLY AND UNLAWFULLY DENIED PETITIONERS RIGHT TO HIS OWN SON WHICH HE HAS CONSTANTLY AND CONTINUALLY DEMANDED UNDER LAW AS A MATTER OF LAW AND RELIGIOUS CONVICTION. The term exhibits the same ambiguity which is discoverable in the German equivalent “recht” and the English word “right.” Or nouns.—1972). personal.Ct.” Tumey. In French law.S. –Pa. 22 23 24 25 a right. or the complex of underlying moral principles which impart the character of justice to all positive law. in which case they re equivalent to “just”. AT ALL TIMES YOUR PETITIONER HAS DEMANDED HIS OWN SON. 102.” and thus indicate law in the abstract. Green.2d 1279 (U.App. 53 P. HIS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND IN LAW. IN EVERY PROCEEDING. Taken in this abstract sense. IN PUBILIC DISCOURSE. at 523.Ct.2d 944.C.S. justice.2d 532. the terms may be adjectives. 460 F.

or demand. Rep. Right. – Franklin v.E. A person was said to have droit droit. See Jus. faculty. (Ohio—C. 47 11 O. 348. the fee. In old English law. plurimum juris. 86 SW 786 (W. while granting a hearing to other parents. 1905) Parker v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paraphrased by the expressions “justice. injustice.E. and plurimum possessionis. unless such right has been relinquished or forfeited. Campbell 35 W. Crabb. a writ of right. and incident upon another. 208. a power. 212.” or “equity. [j] (Mass. page 585] Chun v. Carswell. and will be awarded possession of his person. Law. it is an improper exercise of discretion to render Judgement depriving on of the custody and awarding it to another. Recht. Wiggins. 103 Ga. 1899) In re Coons.A. 658. 698 14 S. and there is no evidence to the contrary.) The American Digest 1897 – 1906 §99 Custody of Infants (1) In General [a] The father is the natural guardian of his child.Litt.Va. Co. droit (or recht or right) is the correlative of “duty” or “obligation. Hist. or the sum total of a number of individual laws taken together. 553. or the absence of law. Ct. 20 Ohio Cir. unless he is unworthy. Revised Fourth Edition. 645. 843 [c] (Ga. 1893) The father is entitled to the custody of his child during minority.” In the former sense. when he had the freehold. [d] (Ga. where there is undisputed evidence of the right and fitness of the former to have such custody. and the propery in him.D. privilege. 405 U.” On the other hand. 406. Carter v. 29 Am. (Tex. 116 Ga. Brett. 29. it may be considered as opposed to wrong.Va.S.E. S. Civ. Determinations of Particular issues or question – Custody of Infants. 1834) WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 41 of 63 . App. and incompetent to discharge the trust imposed upon him. (Stanley. that is.E. In the latter signification.R.L.C. 476. 114. supra. 1902) On the hearing of a writ of Habeas Corpus to determine the custody of a minor child. Droit has the further ambiguity that it is sometimes used to denote the existing body of law considered as one whole.C. 158b. they serve to point out a right. St. R. was also "inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. 553 (a) The purpose of CC206 is to protect the public from the burden of supporting a person who has a parent or child able to provide support (pg 594) n7 Four justices further concluded that the state's denial of a pretermination hearing to the unwed father. [Blacks Law Dictionary. right.3d 589. inherent in one person.” “morality. 42 S. 235 Cr. Chun (1987) 190 C. 1891) Green v.

in order to prevent a party entitled to the custody of a child from seeking it by force or stratagem. unless in a clear and strong case of unfitness on his part to have such custody. nine. 19 20 21 IX. the court will so far interfere as to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus and inquire into the circumstances of the case.Supp.C. custody and nurture of their 9 children 10 violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the United States. Cheney Jr. 33 Mass. 1897 – 1906] “The rights of parents to the care. U. Briggs. – Ferguson v. -Commonwealth v. and sch right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments five. [American Digest.) 203 [k] (Mo. 2479. (16 Pick. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 42 of 63 WELFARE AND GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO HIS LIFE—SO THAT ALL RESPONDENT’S COULD GAIN PROFIT. 472 US 38. Ferguson 36 Mo. AND POWER FROM THOSE PLANNED ACTS AND/OR OMISSION ACTED IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OVERT COLLUSION WITH RESPONDENT’S TO ACT IN BAD FAITH AND IN WILLFUL CRIMINAL DISREGARD AGAINST Robert Lindsay.Ct. Jaffree.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In general. and fourteen.D. Doe v. as the Father is by law clearly entitled to the custody of his child. 1985). 1865) Upon a petition for Habeas Corpus to determine to whom the custody of certain minor children shall be given. 197. 105 S.’s Wallace v. 1247. “The several states has no greater power to restrain individual lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” 18 (1985).S. 4441 F. DIRECT BENEFIT. of Michigan. where the law has placed it. AND TO BE A FATHER UNFETTERED BY 24 25 AGAINST PETITIONER. And the court will feel bound to restore the custody to the father. YOUR PETITIONER HAD HIS SON KIDNAPPED. is of such character that it cannot be denied without freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of . AS RESPONDENT SUSAN SLOAN CRIMINALLY 22 23 NATURAL CAN COMMON LAW RIGHTS TO HIS OWN SON. the court has no authority to order the Father to pay any certain sums of money to a trustee for their Support. Irwin.

Com.R. the child of partents divorced. Ch. et deq.t. 434. generally. ch. 1 Corinth. 3 Bl. to divorces among the Romans. Parerg. svi. 200. Clef des Lois Rom h. ch. 15. 425. 441. of Matthew. 225. 4 Yeates’ Rep. part 1 ch 3. V. & R. 6 Toullier. With regard to the ceremony of divorce among Eng. C.L. see Story’s Confl. Comm. of Mark. Ridley’s View. C. vs. ch.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bouviers Law Dictionary states the lawful and moral determination of where the child of two parties must go: DIVORCE: 12. pa. 18. that no member of this State shall be disenfranchised. sect. 1 Bl. 308. Index.. Merl. or the judgment of his peers. 7. is to be brought up by the innocent party. Baron and Feme. 191. 228. Vii. & Gran. Ab. in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State. where the divorce was decreed. Coop. At to the effect of the laws of a foreign state. 12. The Constitution for the state of New York states in pertinent part: “XIII And this convention doth further.. 1 Bro. Ayl. Vide. determine. see Troplong. Civ. 3. Of Laws. at the expense of the guilty party.t. Xix. ch. 205.) By the civil law. V. Dig. h. & R. 32. 9S. ch 6. 205. see 1 Mann. 4 Vin. p.” WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 43 of 63 . Rep. x. v..t. V. cites 8th Collation. No. 9. C. and declare. V. unless by the law of the land. 440. ch. And Divorce. Com. 39. Justin. 249. And as the Jews. Poynt. ordain. 11. 86. 94. 5 Serg. 428. On Marr. H. Gospel o fluke. 294. de l’Influence du Christianisme sur le Driot Civil Des Romains. or deprived of any the rights or privileges secured to the subjects of this State by this constitution. 375. 9. Law.

464. as her immoral and criminal conduct was a direct causal factor that led to her WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 44 of 63 . 33 A. note 78) and a fraud upon the court (Id. 70 Mont. Hall. 404. Mont. “Out of fraud no action arises.C. 386. 349. Sparrenberger v.J. it is doubtful whether it would have been so had the defendant resisted the action.” Grush v.469. 460.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “Attempted award of permanent alimony to wife for whose offense divorce is granted is void. and would thus amount to extrinsic fraud. might sua sponte have set it aside (Hall v. 496. 15 R. 2d 402.R. 464).L. 226. 66 Mont. Grush. 85. 210 P. District Court. Clark v. 67923 (1931) 3 P. Brrom’s Max. The evidence of the defendant shows an agreement between the two that plaintiff should prosecute his action and that she would not defend in consideration that plaintiff’s promise to pay alimony should be incorporated in the decree. Ex dolo malo non orittur action. No.L. 64 For the court to grant plaintiff the relief sough might serve to assist plaintiff in perpetrating a fraud upon defendant and thus the court become an instrument of injustice. P. 343. 214 P. 763. As she had an affair with another gentleman. and the court. Such an agreement savors of collusion and is opposed to public policy (13 C. 447). Clark. State ex rel. 93. and tends to conceal what might have been found to be the true cause of the divorce. and gotten pregnant behind my back.” Cowper. 463. The effect of the divorce by sustaining plaintiff’s motion would be to permit him to obtain keeping defendant away from court by what then be false promises reduced to writing to pay alimony to her and to incorporate such provision in the decree. even though parties consent thereto…Wile the decree of divorce on its face is based upon the willful desertion of the wife. if satisfied that the decree was based upon such an agreement.

67 (1983) See In re Marriage of Baltins (1989) 212 Cal. be clear. in the beginning cannot be rendered good by time.” Fuentes v.” Co.” Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua Propria. advantage of his own wrong.” pg. 210 US 43 Quod ab initio non valet. 403 (Order granting motion to set aside property and support provisions of dissolution of marriage judgment on grounds of duress and extrinsic fraud or mistake. 148.) “…individuals rights existed long antecedent to the organization of the State. the expense of others. “No one shall take “A waiver of (secured) constitutional rights in any context must at the very least. Litt. on its face amount to a waiver.” “No one ought to enrich himself at Nul ne doit s’enrichir aux depens des autres. 260 Cal. 73. “No action arises on an immoral contract.Rptr.” Hale v. Seven. have unclean hands. “The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizen of the several states and WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 45 of 63 . 1856. in tractu temporis non convalescere.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stealing my son from me. and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Hinkle. “What is not good Bouvier Law Dictionary. she and the COUNTY OF BUTTE. contractual language relied upon must.S.App. and cannot benefit from the law in this matter: Ex turpi contractu non oritur actio. 3d 66. 60. 407 U.

” 14 Ga. v. 438 (1854) Padelford . HAVE ACCOMPLISHED UNLAWFUL ACTS. AND HAVE LIED. other issue.3d 641. Miscarriage Constitution. if the evidence was obtained by methods that were so egregious as to shock the conscience. 372. All acts and/or omissions in this matter stem from the pen of the Butte County District Attorney.S. 463 P. and they implant in the mind of an innocent 22 23 24 25 person the disposition in order to commit they 287 may the alleged offense Id. The City of Savannah. comparison of equities as between the guilty official and the guilty WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 46 of 63 . of Justice: Article VI § 13 of the California State (c) However.S. that function does not include the manufacturing of crime…However. 435] with the commission Sorrells that prosecute. United States. “The function of law enforcement is the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals. No and at induce its the criminal design originates [411 U..’” at 442. U. Manifestly. ‘A different question if presented 20 when 21 officials of the Government.R. to invent crime for profit. 83 C.. 382. The prosecution has enjoined with all respondents in this matter and in SAID DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALONG WITH ALL RESPONDENTS HAVE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 overt conspiracy for profit have attacked your petitioner for doing no crime. COMMITTED PERJURY AND OTHER MALICIOUS ACTS AGAINST PETITIONER IN ORDER TO FRAUDULENTLY SECURE A FORCED TRIAL WHERE GUILT WAS PREDETERMINED. et al. quoting no v. (1970) 1 C.2d 734. X. 423. “We might well conclude that the constitutional demands of due process could not countenance any government use of such evidence…” Board of Prison Terms In re Martinez. MANUFACTURED CRIME. RESPONDENTS THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH. Fay & Co.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence.

9 There can be no retreat from that principle here. 411 U. at 459. The standard for bad faith awards U. Mooney v. 360 U. 103. v. albeit novel legal claims. Holohan. 423 (1973)] “More than 30 years ago this Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot tolerate a state criminal conviction obtained by the knowing use of false evidence. Pyle v.” 287 U.2d at 1435.' [citation omitted]. 213. 28. Ltd. Russell. Texas. or for other improper reasons. for purposes of harassment or delay.2d 1433 (10 Cir. 386 is stringent to permit colorable. cf.S. 744F. has any place in the enforcement of this overruling principle of public policy. PATE. Friendly National Bank." 744 F. Sterling The Sterling Court found that "[a] party acts in bad faith only when the claim brought 'is entirely without color and has been asserted wantonly. 294 U. at 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or 25 “Referring both to the objective and subjective elements.S. Illinois. There has been no deviation from that established principle.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 defendant.S.” 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 requires a finding by the trial judge of subjective bad faith.. and generally WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 47 of 63 . Note: or “good faith”) would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [petitioner]. 317 U. Alcorta v. 264. 1984). 17 Energy. [United States v.S. 1 (1967) MILLER v. Kansas. or if he took the action with page 1437. we have held that qualified immunity (Ed. 355 U.S.S. Napue v.S.

1 2 3

other injury…” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. 2727 at 2737, 457 U.S. 8090 (1982)

XI. THE PROSECUTION CONTINUALLY LIED, THAT MR. BRAD RUNDT HAD ATTEMPTED TO 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing 12 the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized.” 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 seized.” 20 21 “Officer must on request of arrestee tell the arrestee why he is being 22 23 24 25 “[A] person can protect himself against unlawful arrest.” People v. arrested.” 651, 655. People v. Castain, (1981) 122 C.A. 3d 138, 145, 175 Ca.Rptr. Amendment the Fourth. “The right of the people to be secure in their The Constitution for the united States mandates: SERVE A WARRANT AGAINST PETITIONER ON MAY 11, 1998, THAT IN FACT THE WARRANT HAD BEEN RECALLED, AND THAT ‘JUDGE” ROBERTS FOUND NO PROBABLE CUAUSE. THIS OVERT LIE, LED TO BUTTE COUNTY LYING ABOUT ME FLEEING THE

AREA, AND BECOMING A FUGITIVE, WHEN IN FACT, I REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE CAUSE AND THE JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND PROPERLY DEFENDED MYSELF AT ALL TIMES. The California Constitution (1849) states: “Article I, Section 19. “The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but on

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation , and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

White (1980) 101 C.A.3d 161, 166-169, 161 Cal.Rptr. 541, 544-546. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 48 of 63

1 2 3 4 5 making the arrest must prove the circumstances that justified the arrest 6 without the warrant. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 supported 14 Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecutor Function 1.1, 3.4, 3.9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 XII. 22 23 their client’s convictions. 24 2820 81 L.Ed. 2d 758. 25 Tower v. Glover 91984) 467 US 914, 104 S.Ct. PROSECUTION’S OVERT CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST PETITIONER SO OUTRAGEOUS AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF A FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLES. Public defenders had no immunity for intentionally conspiring to secure California Evidence Code, § 664-“Official Duty Regularly Performed—It (1974); American College of Trial Lawyers Code of Trial Conduct, Rule 4(c) (1963) [Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)] by probable cause’); American Bar Association Project on See ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 7-103(a) (Final Draft 1969) (“A prosecutor ‘shall not institute or cause to be instituted Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 294 P.2d 23 (1956); Dragna v. White, 45 Cal. 2d 469, 471, 289 P.2d 428, 430 (1955) (“Upon proof of [arrest without process] the burden is on the “Under existing law there is a common law presumption that an arrest made without a warrant is unlawful. 601 (1940). Under the of common People v. Agnew, 16 Cal. 2d 655, 107 P2d law presumption, provided by a if a person the arrests person

another

without

color

legality

warrant,

[prosecution] to proved justification for the arrest.”)”

criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not

is presumed that an official duty is regularly performed—unless as to an lawfulness of arrest without a warrant.”

WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 49 of 63

1 2 3 4 5

“The United States Attorney, [the State Attorney General, the County District Attorney’s], [are] the representative no of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligations 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. As such, he is in a peculiar

6 and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two fold aim of which 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [§275] (1989) Criminal Investigation or Prosecution—Triple A Machine Shop v. California 213 CA 3d 131, 261 CR 493 (a) Discretionary authority of District Attorney When a government agent acts in an unconstitutional manner, the agent becomes personally liable for monetary damages. Second Circuit: Meriwether v. Coughlin, 879 F2d 1037 (2nd. Cir. 1989) " Supervisory liability may be imposed under Title 42 Sec. 1983, when an official has actual or constructive notice of unconstitutional practices and demonstrates "deliberate indifference", by failing to act." Supreme Court: Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 US 388, 29 Led 2d 619, 19SCt. 1999 (1970): is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. He may prosecute But while he may It is as

strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.

much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” [Burger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)]

is subject to injunctive relief only in extraordinary circumstances, such as “egregiously illegal conduct” or “a clear and imminent threat of such future WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 50 of 63

. and suppression of evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 667] .D. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892. 83. Abuse of Discretion: CCP 473 3rd.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 misconduct (213 CA 3d 146) (b) The exercise of Judicial restraint is also based on the recognition that the law provides adequate remedies for common forms of governmental misconduct in criminal proceedings.Ct. Whitley. v BAGLEY 473 U. MARYLAND 373 U. A Constitutional Duty. IN OVERT VIOLATION OF LAW: BRADY v. &c U.S. When trial court berated attorney for not providing court-ordered discovery as grossly negligent (but conduct was not within inexcusable negligence exception) Carroll v Abbot Laboratories Inc. DUTY TO DISCOVER BRADY MATERIAL “In its 1995 decision in Kyles v. such as prohibition against use of evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Whitley. v.S. J. 1555. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETITIONER WAS DENIED SIMPLE REQUESTS AND DEMANDS FOR DISCOVERY. DENIAL OF DISCOVERY WITHOUT FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. MARYLAND. irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. 1568 (1995) [Disclosing Officer Misconduct." Pp. p.Rptr 592. 86-88. 898 187 Cal.S. 83 (1963) "Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment.” Kyles v.3] see BRADY v.S.S.S. XIII. THE RECORD IS BARREN TO THESE FACTS AS WELL. by Lisa A Regini. 654 P2d 775) WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 51 of 63 . NO FULL U. 373 U. AGURS 427 U. 97 &c OR FAIR HEARINGS ALLOWED NOR FINDINGS OF FACTS OR LAW. the Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s constitutional duty to provide exculpatory evidence to a defendant includes a related duty to exercise reasonable diligence to discover or learn of the existence of such evidence. 115 S.

133 L.” 24 25 United States v. In Essence.3d 1196.S.S. and from the deliberate suppression by those same authorities of evidence favorable to him. OVERTLY AND CRIMINALLY. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 52 of 63 . will almost certainly be engaged in 19 20 21 22 initio.” (2) “Given this means testing. 317 U. 516 U. and who does not obtain a reduction or remission of 18 the award because of inability to pay. the district court below lacked subject matter 23 jurisdiction with respect to that charge. which is an integral aspect of every child support award.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 103. These by allegations the Federal sufficiently Constitution. charge and.Ct. 87] 13 14 15 16 17 child support award. 1002.S. Holohan.Ed. 2d 450 (1995). of rights entitle guaranteed would petitioner to release from his present custody. 213. 1198 (11th Cir. Denied." [373 U. Mooney v. 547. but they do allegations that his imprisonment resulted from perjured set forth testimony. 59 F. cert. 215-216 "Petitioner's papers are inexpertly drawn. knowingly used by the State authorities to obtain his conviction. A non-custodial parent who does not have the funds to satisfy the XIV.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BUTTE COUNTY AND HIS AGENTS. “no plainer error than to allow a conviction to stand under a statute which Congress was without power to enact. 294 U. Kansas.). 83. AND INTENTIONALLY AND TO MAINTAIN EXTRA LIED ON THE RECORD TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT AGAINST YOUR PENALTIES PETITIONER: Pyle v. 116 S. Walker. and consequently. a non-custodial parent should never be confronted with a situation where he is ordered to make child support payments he cannot afford. a if deprivation proven. the statute was void ab willful defiance of the state court’s child support order.

689. v. Kay v.R. That amendment governs any action of a state. 'whether through its legislature. Chicago. Mandujano. It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Alabama.S. 192 U. 564. See a like result by intimidation. 316.S. 442. Bryson v. Such a contrivance by a officers in the execution of its laws. embodies the fundamental conceptions of justice 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 state to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is an 11 inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 S. Louisiana. United States. 226. may constitute state action within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rogers v. Texas. 687. 17 S. Co. 19 233. 103.S.Ct.1 2 MOONEY v. 396 U.S. 303 25 U. 48 A. United States. United WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 53 of 63 False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. 425 U. 24 64 (1969). Knox.. 226. HOLOHAN.S. 103 (1935) “. 20 21 22 23 also United States v.Ct. We must neither reward nor condone such a "flagrant affront" to the truth seeking function of adversary proceedings. 447. 113] which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions. 166 U. 47 S. See United States v. 257. 177 U.S. 294 U.S. Chicago. Dennis v. Hebert v. Kapp. 1 (1938).S.Ct. 581. or through its executive or administrative officers. 1102. 272 U. 231. United States. 214 (1937).S..Ct. 77 (1969). 103. 302 U. And the action of prosecuting officers on behalf of the state.. like that of administrative [294 U. 396 U.' Carter v. Burlington & Quincy R. 855 (1966)..S. 24 . 20 S.S. 234 S. 576-577 (1976). 312. through its courts. Glickstein v.S. United States v. 317 S. 384 U.L.in safeguarding the liberty of the citizen against deprivation through 3 the action of the state.

if the government becomes a law breaker. NEW YORK WHERE HE IS NOW A NEW YORK STATE CITIZEN AND DEMANDS TO RETURN AND RESIDE." Ibid. crime is contagious.Ct. In any proceeding.2d.” Shore v.2d 445. “The very purpose of an illegal search and seizure is to get evidence to introduce at trial.2d 434. whether judicial or administrative. by extraneous investigation or other collateral means. Holohan. 574 (1937). 56 L. the success of the lawless venture depends eventually on the WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 54 of 63 ." United States v.” (44 C. Norris.S. “There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability. such wrongdoing is so "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice" that it can vitiate a judgment even after it has become final.S. Howard.Supp. If knowingly exploited by a criminal prosecutor. Perjury should be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases. 379. ultimately extracting the truth by cross-examination. 103. 564.) [People v. 141-142 (1911). deliberate falsehoods "well may affect the dearest concerns of the parties before a tribunal. 24 25 Also. 300 U. and delay of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 “The court held that the municipal liability could be based on custom 14 even though such a custom has not received formal approval thought that 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 court lending its aid to a “dirty business”…it is morally incongruous for the 22 state to flout constitutional rights and at the same time demand its citizens 23 observe the law. (1955) 44 C. 139. 112 (1935). 2036. 905] XV.S. 446.1 2 3 4 5 States. 222 U.Ed.” (98 S. PETITIONER WAS UNLAWFULLY KIDNAPPED FROM HIS HOME IN QUEENS COUNTY bodies official making channels. it breeds contempt for the law. 282 P. Cahan. 294 U. and 6 may put the fact finder and parties "to the disadvantage. hindrance. Mooney v. 414 F.2d 635).

664 SW 2d 900 (1984). 361... 537 P. will not result in a change of domicile.. AL. 5 Kan. Liscio. THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. 112 Ariz. NOR ANY RIGHTS OF REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. AND BOTH THE BUTTE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. ALONG WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CONSOLODATED COURTS. 134 A. 198 A. RAMSEY. Gooch v. MICHAEL L. 366. One without the other is insufficient.2d 684 at 687. 134 A. there must be an actual abandonment of the first domicile. 605. accord Valley National Bank v. Liscio.2d 686. Piper Aircraft. 453 SW 2d 60 (1970). 1971. IT ISN’T. Siebrand. 361. continuance is presumed until a change is shown. Auto registration was a factor considered in determining domiciliary intent in McCauley v. 432. Super 83. Super 83." Liscio v." Restatement 2d of Conflict of Laws. I HAVE LAWFULLY SOUGHT REDRESS FROM THE CRIMINAL KIDNAPPING OF MY SON. 365 (1975). without corresponding intent. 623 P.(husband's) employment in New York was casual and only to help defray living expense.2d 684. See Houghton v. 54 (1975)." Houghton v. 223 Ark. Super. 112 Ariz. 184 Pa. OR EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.2d 24. It is well settled that in order to effect a change of domicile from one place or state to another. Piper Aircraft. McCauley. 10 Ark. 198 A. 203 Pa. The burden of proving a change of domicile rests upon the person asserting the allegation. 203 Pa.687. App. Hart v. XVI. McCauley v. Perry v. 376." at 134 A.. 74 Ariz. coupled with an intent not to return to it and there must also be a new domicile acquired by actual residence in another place or jurisdiction. 542 P.2d 645 (1964). Super. 33 (1975) "A person does not acquire a domicile of choice by his presence in a place under physical or legal compulsion. SEE: OYLER v. 243 P. PETITIONER WAS FALSELY IMPRISONED WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Hart. McCauley. there must be residence in the new locality and the intention to remain there. Sherrod Estate. AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Perry. ET. 203 A2d 382. 366. HAVE WILFULLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 184 Pa.not with the intention of remaining but at his wife's request.2d 20.2d 645 (1964) See also Dimilia v.2d 513 (1981). 542 P. In McCauley.S. ET AL. 134 A. BOLES 368 U.384. 248 Ark. A mere absence from a fixed home. McCauley. 188. 448 ( WOULD JUSTIFY ORDERING THE PRISONERS RELEASE WITHOUT PROVISION FOR REPROSECUTION)." Liscio v. 265 SW 2d 950 (1954). "After a domicile is acquired. coupled with the intent of making the last acquired residence a permanent home. THE STATE AS WELL AS JUDGES THAT INSTRUCT THE JURY CHARGE THAT THE PUBLISHED PENAL CODE § 270 IS GENDER NEUTRAL. Super. 2d 636. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 55 of 63 . id. section 17. 366." Phillips v. ". 184 Pa. Both these requirements are necessary.2d 771.2d 684. Dimilia. McFarland. DeWitt v. 74 Ariz. the husband went to the state alleged by the wife as new domicile. McCauley v. 204 Pa.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "The burden of proof is on the party alleging that a former domicile has been abandoned in favor of a new one. "To constitute the new domicile.2d 771. 361. Gooch. Super. 54 (1952). App.

Towers. 618. 2695. 230 CR. in all cases. that indefinite detention in the face of 5 repeated protest of innocence. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [§269] In General—CCP 527. In re Riskin v. 23 refers only to natural persons. 2694. 2d 441.1 2 3 4 Petitioner at all times. V. 616. As used in the statute. 442. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 56 of 63 . might deny the accused a speedy trial and 6 therefore 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 default and losing. 225 CR 651. he diligently attacked service by motion to quash. 203—involved an agreement which the court treated as equivalent to a confession of judgment and held void to public policy. 277. 2d 274.Ed. 148 P2d 611 Defendant has attempted all forms of lawful redress and has been left with no palpable remedy at law over his sustained and substantial amount to a derivation of liberty without due process of law. 61 L. Hertz (1986) 180 CA 3d 612. not to artificial persons such as 24 25 corporations and associations (Diamond View Ltd.6 is intended to provide a remedy for 22 harassment against individuals. the term person [§261A] Witkin Procedure—Stipulation to terminate Parents rights. over a 15 year contracted period has steadfastly maintained his innocence and at all times has demanded his son: “The court observed however.Ct. (1944) 24 Cal.A. (99 S. then sought relief from default Judgement under CCP 14 473.3d 1020. and set asked entry in Marriage of Godarzirad (1986) 185 C.) attempts: “…When defendant believed he had not been legally served with summons.

.16—(a) Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits primarily to chill the valid exercise of the Constitutional right of freedom of speech and petition for redress of 28 U.. 505 US 144 (1992) "Congress exercises its confirmed powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution.Ct.S. In re Tip-Pahands Enterprises. 455.Ct. Bankruptcy Court). 71 L. the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.Ed. 30 L.. so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances. 1064. Inc. 6 S. material to their rights.R.” 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PENAL CODE § 270 “FAILURE TO PROVIDE” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance yet.S.C. 2111. it is null and void" [§37] Unconstitutionality of former statute. see Connecticut v. if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand.A.2d 1. 12 grievances. 356. 102 S. Hopkins. 455 US 745. 2105.. 115 L. If a State ratifies or gives consent to any authority which is not specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States. 220 (1886) (emphasis supplied). 2d 599 (1982).Ct. Due process is mandatory when such right is jeopardized.. Doehr (1991) _____ US _____ 111 S. Kramer. but that tribunal appears to be 6 impartial. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 57 of 63 New York v.Ed.S. 780 (U. Parenting is a fundamental constitutional right. United States." Yick Wo v. Santosky v. It is clear that both Butte County officials and the State Legislature are cognizant of the BUTTE COUNTY CONSOLODATED COURT failures: CCP § 425. On Sniadich Rule.1 2 3 4 5 “Law requires not only impartial tribunal. 1388. 27 B.d. 118 U.

Rptr. Santosky v. Div.S. 212. (1978) 195 CA 3d 827. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 58 of 63 . unconstitutional and irreparable injury show: see Cohen v. In re Carmelata.Ct. 695 P. 416 (1983). Kramer. 102 S. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 CA 3d 447. 455 U.Ed.” [§272] Injunction against enforcement—CCP § 526(b)(4) and CC § 3423(d).2d 695. 579 P. 745. In the Matter of the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. 225 CR 114 Supp. 1388. City of Akron. Akron Center for Reproductive Health v.1966). The United States Supreme Court has struck down governmental interference with the exercise of a fundamental right where the interference could under the challenged statute last for no more than twenty-four (24) hours and the state's interference did not significantly further a compelling state interest. 2d 599 (1982). 146 Cal. The right to parent one's natural children is a fundamental right. 836. JS-5209 and NO. See Sasmalia Resources Ltd v.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “The judicial branch has only one duty—to lay the article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former…the only power it (the Court) has…is the power of Judgement. To allow such interference would make for systematic abuse of state power. General The alleged inadequacies of a parent must pose a serious risk to the child. rule applies when statute is valid.2d 876 (Mont. 413 P. 71 L.3d 199. 1. 1984). The state cannot interfere with the parent/child relationship merely because its social workers believe the challenged parent might become a better parent.JS-4963 (App. In re Viske.S. 211 CR 398. 462 U. unconstitutional manner: **Statute valid but enforced in an See Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 C. Santa Barbara (1) Statute or ordinance 837. the uneducated and cultural minorities. victimizing the poor. 623(1978). 454.2d 514. 240 CR 903. 213.

” Aptheker v. 116 US 616. 83 “Statues that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.S.” 65 N. Memphis.C. 529. 147 Also see (Watson v.” Co. “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution. Lowe. P. 301 US 292. U. 375 US 526. v.” Bennet v. 1314. Ohio Bell Tel.. because such a tax would be a direct capitation tax. Sutton. 247 US 165 "An excise tax CANNOT be imposed upon the [Natural] person measured by his/her income. 63 Minn. 10 L. a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.Ct. S. 1 Baldwin 60 (1830) “…acquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be presumed..W 262 30 ALR 660. Of State 378 US 500 (1964) “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for Constitutional Rights of the citizen. Boyd v..) State v..” 635. ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT A DEBT NOT OWED IS IN OVERT VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW Peck v. Boggs.. XVII. that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be narrowly achieved. against any stealthy encroachments thereon.U. Sec. subject to rule of apportionment and not an excise tax.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “Even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial. The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects" WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 59 of 63 .d.

"It is now firmly settled that a person's legally protected interest may not be adversely affected in a judicial proceeding `unless a method of notification is employed which is reasonably calculated to give him knowledge at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner of the attempted exercise of jurisdiction and an opportunity to be heard 'Bomford v. is an indirect tax . 443 A. but to prove that the A parent is entitled to due process whenever custodial rights would be determined by a proceeding. Sec.1 2 3 Eisner v." Costello v. 2d 599 (1982). 620 P. Pennsylvania. 252 US 189 at 205 "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original constitution and the effect before the Amendment was adopted" Tyler v.2d 1282 (1982). 497 US 502 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "It is a fundamental premise of due process that a court cannot adjudicate a matter until the persons directly concerned have been notified of its pendency and have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in sufficient time to prepare their positions on the issues involved. 319 US 105. 247 Kan. 23 U. U. 102 S. Every man has the rights to the fruits of his own industry. State v. Jur.718 (1968)" Application of Tubbs." [ 100% of the fruits] defendant is the child’s parent by only a preponderance of the evidence. Due process is mandatory when such right is jeopardized." Murdock v.. 455 US 745. 117 Ariz. 71 L. Cantor. 774. 2d. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 60 of 63 . 66.Ed. Socony Mobil Oil Co. and appropriate them against his will…" 48 Am.2d 27 (1977).2d 713. and requiring the state to prove nonsupport beyond a reasonable doubt." The Antelope. at 113 "A state [or the federal government] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.. 2 " The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a Constitutional as well as a Common Law Right. 574 P. 512. 539. 186 Conn. Rupert. Smart v.Ct.120 "…Every man has the right to the fruits of his own labor. 802 P2d 511 (A statute making nonsupport of ones child a crime. Macomber. "A tax laid upon the happening of an event as distinguished from its tangible fruits. Kramer.. as generally admitted: and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits.S. Santosky v. 1388.S.2d 384 (1980). Parenting is a fundamental constitutional right.. 440 P. Costello.

“Inability to comply with the court order is a complete defense. Deputy District Attorney.60 Nor may a state specify a fact as an element of a crime and then impose upon the defendant the burden of disproving it.3 rd 1311 (3rd Cir.” that “You’d have to believe Mr. AND WERE WORKING IN COLLUSION WITH THE PROSECUTION IN WHICH TO FORCE ME TO MOCK TRIAL. WERE EXTREMELY BIASED. 56. 2d Sec. 47 F. 752. admitted to the jurors that “[he] has no evidence.S. Rylander 460 U.1 2 3 4 5 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) State v. 651. 75-76 (1948). see also Maggio v. 454 (1975). 757 (1983). PROSECTION MUST PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF ANY ALLEGED CRIME IN THIS U. Jur. 168 16 must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt every fact necessary to constitute 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 XIX. Thus a state may not specify a lesser burden of proof for an element of a crime.S. the standard for civil contempt has been MATTER AND FAILED TO DO SO. 6 raised to one of “Clear and Convincing” evidence. see: Muniz v. Harris v.S. Hoffman. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 61 of 63 the crime with which the defendant is charged. Clay 160 W Va. Cheney hadn’t worked in seven years…” . 25 JUDGES PRESENTED TO PETITIONER IN BUTTE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COURT SYSTEM." "As a matter of due process the prosecution XVIII. City of Philadelphia. The burden of proof never shifts. Daniel T. 1995). WERE NOT LAWFUL JUDGES. Further. Zeitz 33 U.” United States v. 422 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29 Am.—JURY COULD NOT HAVE FOUND DEFENDANT GUILTY AS CHARGED UNDER LAW. 236 SE2d 230. Nelson. it remains on the prosecutor throughout the entire trial.

HON. 527. STAGE OF THE PROCEDINGS. 19 Powell v. 53 S. may so offend impaired. JUDGE MURPHY LETTER TO THE HON. 55..S.1 2 3 4 5 UNDER COLOR OF LAW. # I . PETITIONER WAS DENIED COUNSEL OF CHOICE DURING TRIAL AND AT EVERY XX. IN OVERT VIOLATION OF LAW. FEDERAL JUDGE LECHNER.R. 45. If the right to the assistance of counsel means less than this. 84 A.L. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 our concept of the basic requirements of a fair hearing as to amount to 18 a denial of due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. 60 (1942) "Even as we have held that the right to the assistance of counsel is so fundamental that the denial by a state court of a reasonable time to allow the selection of counsel of one's own choosing. Supreme Court: GLASSER v. 1985) (EN BANC 1986) “TRIAL BEFORE A BIASED JUDGE”. SEE WALKER v. WITH COLOR OF AUTHORITY.S. AND TO CRIMINALLY USURP MY SECURED LIBERTIES IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY PROFIT FROM THOSE MALICIOUS ACTS AND/OR OMISSIONS. so are we 20 21 22 23 24 25 clear that the 'Assistance of Counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment contemplates that such assistance be untrammeled and unimpaired by a court order requiring that one lawyer shall simultaneously represent conflicting interests. a valued constitutional safeguard is substantially XXI. and the failure of that court to make an effective appointment of counsel. PETITIONER HAS SUFFERED EGGREGIOUS DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONVICTIONS FOR THE SAME CRIME AND HAS SUFFERED UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT IN OVERT VIOLATION OF LAW.S. 2d 942 (8TH CIR. Ct. & c EX. 287 U." WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 62 of 63 . U. LOCKHART 763 F. Alabama. 315 U.

without lawful excuse to perform any duty imposed upon him by law. 1892. 2 Bailey.” (State v. and where it is entirely within the discretion of the law-giver. and not as a reparation to the party injured. clothing.” “When a law imposes a punishment which acts upon the offender alone. WRIT OF PROHIBITION Page 63 of 63 . A man cannot suffer In case more punishment than the law assigns. Law Publishers. of apparent hardship.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 XXII. shelter.M.” (Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England.” They are clearly without signification as employed in the section. otherwise than according to the letter. by L. Historical Notes: As enacted in 1972. edited by Wm. PENAL CODE SECTION § 270 IS NOT A FELONY original intent was only a misdemeanor under the Penal Code § 270 published penal code which is not law.K. is guilty of a misdemeanor. Hardcastle Browne.. 14 15 16 17 18 19 A.’ to perform any duty imposed upon him by law. 20 21 22 23 24 25 XXIII. 334). Stephenson. it will not be presumed that he intended it should extend further than is expressed. the section read: ‘Every parent of any child who willfully omits. “In criminal cases. p.. the crown has the power to pardon. New York. Code Commissioner Notes “The change [by the 1905 amendment] consists in the omission of the words now following the word ‘excuse. 26). Strouse & Co. and humanity would require that it should be so limited in the construction. or medical attendance for such child. to furnish necessary food. but he may suffer less. no power should be lodged in any judge to construe the law.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful