This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The People petition the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Mandate, or Other Appropriate Immediate Relief, against all lower courts in the Case of #1CA16847-02 for the following grounds: 1. The falsified contempt of court arrest of the identified member of the media, Melissa Balin, in full public view at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center at approximately 12:15pm on November 14, 2011, was unlawful and therefore there is no crime and no charges to prosecute. 2. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department knowingly withheld medical attention, legal counsel, and a “call to her mommy”, from a pregnant woman, for more than 53 hours, purposefully misspelling Balin’s name in the files, in order to thwart the efforts of bail bondsmen and attorneys searching for the unlawfully incarcerated journalist, thereby shackling and detaining her unconstitutionally, in violation of the pregnant woman’s Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amednment rights; protected against cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail, and in flagrant and continuing violation of her due process of law, and that of her miscarried unborn fetus, for which there is no remedy.
Melissa Balin had repeated correspondence with Internal Affairs beginning in December 2011, acknowledging that they had yet to assign any of her multiple arrests for her known association with the Occupy movement, for investigation, and assuring she would be assigned an investigator “soon”. To this date of petition, over ONE YEAR LATER, there has yet to be an investigator assigned or an investigation launched into the evidentiary allegations of excessive force, falsified arrest reports, and politically motivated selective prosecution by Los Angeles City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich (who has been lying to the good people of Los Angeles with impunity since April 2011 as confirmed by http://thetrufacts.com/) to “make a lesson out of Melissa Balin and any potential Occupy Sympathizers with jail time”; for ANY of the Melissa Balin’s three arrests over the thirty day period by Los Angeles County Sheriffs, LAPD, AND Long Beach PD, resulting in the unlawful termination of her first pregnancy; or her continuing unconstitutional harassment and deprivation of her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; by law enforcement officers in Los Angeles County, including, but not limited to, FIVE detentions WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE in a 24 HOUR period as recent as the One Year Anniversary of Occupy LA the weekend of October 1, 2012 by NHPD, LAPD AND General Public Safety, and an ONGOING criminal investigation being conducted by Public Information Officer Andy Smith and the LAPD for Balin’s
First Amendment protected chalking on public sidewalks, as evidenced in the Los Angeles Times. 4. “[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774  5. Melissa Balin’s right to due process as protected by the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution for The United States of America, has been continuously and willfully violated in full public view FOR OVER ONE YEAR, through being withheld exculpatory evidence material to her defense, continuing mandamus, and being most recently neglected ANY legal counsel appointed by the courts from October 19, 2012 until November 26, 2012. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, while not particularly religious, Prays for the California State Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, or other appropriate injunctive and declaratory IMMEDIATE RELIEF against the lower Superior courts of Los Angeles County from any and all charges in Case 1CA16847-02 and any and all other potential charges looming from Filmmaker Melissa Balin’s exercising of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Press, in 2011 and 2012 as is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.
In light of the irreparable damage being caused by continuing kangaroo court proceedings at the very location of Balin’s unconstitutional arrests, and exacerbated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as diagnosed by Balin’s primary physician Dr. Keith Kauhanen of the Motion Picture Health Center; from the documented threatening statements and continuing lies under oath made by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, from December 3, 2011; including, in front of bar panel attorney Johnny Lai on multiple occasions as documented in his Pitchess motion, until as recently as November 7th, 2012 in front of bar panel attorney Mark Lowerre; Balin faces long-term debilitating mental health concerns and is currently in fear for her life and the immediate safety of her family. In light of continued threatening confrontations by the very Sheriffs’ deputies involved in Balin’s initial assault and kidnapping coordinated by the “Bad Lieutenant” Watch Commander Mack, who continues to carry a badge and gun and work on active duty without any further investigation, other than the LACSD Use of Force Report that HE SIGNED OFF AND APPROVED HIMSELF, at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, in spite of perjuring himself under oath as witnessed and testified to by officers of the courts, in the Pitchess motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, and witnessed in full public view by the good People of California, the Petitioner Prays for a Stay from any further proceedings to take place at the “scene of the crime itself”, the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, and requests that any and all future proceedings be held by the Supreme Court itself, or an otherwise LEGALLY
CONSTITUTED COURT, essentially issuing a WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO against any and all proceedings being held at the currently corrupt kangaroo court named after the woman who introduced the very concept of the Public Defender. WHEREFORE, Melissa Balin suffers irreparable professional, physical, emotional, and financial, material damage from her unconstitutionally impeded access to observe as a member of the media, as flagrantly demonstrated under the strictest of scrutinies; during her own one year-long unconstitutional “trial by ordeal” (a process internationally deemed a cruel and unusual punishment in the 1600’s), the Petitioner Prays for injunctive and declaratory relief from any future unconstitutional detentions, unlawful searches or seizures without cause, arrests, impeded access to observe, and/or prosecutions under Color of Law; and Prays for a Writ of Mandate against any and all future threats to Melissa Balin’s life and/or safety, and the life and/or safety of Melissa Balin’s immediate family members, made by law enforcement officers or officers of the court; and that any and all complaints by Melissa Balin be assigned to an FBI Special Agent In Charge in order to be handled immediately and with grave seriousness for investigation with regards to any and all allegations of police, sheriff, and/or prosecutorial misconduct as well as any and all suspicions of malfeasance of justice. WHEREFORE, The Faretta Waiver outlines the “Dangers and Disadvantages to Self-Representation, including but not limited to, “that if I am permitted to represent myself it will be necessary for me, WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER OR THE COURT, to follow all the technical rules of substantive law, criminal procedure,
and evidence.”, and WHEREFORE, the Petitioner has not met all of the qualifications to take the State Bar, but has taken a sworn oath as one of only fourteen declared political candidates running for Mayor of Los Angeles, and WHEREFORE, the Petitioner appears more respectful of the Court and familiar with the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct than many of the prosecutors of Los Angeles County, and is California State Identified Highly Gifted with an IQ of over 160 (California qualifying Stanford Binet exam taken by Melissa Balin in 1980 and internationally recognized by MENSA in 2005), and WHEREFORE, the Petioner has clearly not been afforded adequate, competent, OR effective counsel for the duration of the continuing violation of her due process, with no other recourse or remedy than to “read for the law” under the fleeting elevator mentorship of barred attorneys that Melissa Balin as a defendant could not afford to hire for proper representation, for MORE THAN ONE YEAR; the Petitioner Prays that the courts will bestow the defendant, Melissa Balin, with the privileges and authority of a bar panel attorney as is within the Court’s authorities, if only for the ability to represent herself in this case only, “WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LAWYERS AND THE COURT”, for the purposes of her own representation, even if limiting the full privileges of a barred attorney with regards to any other cases or the ability to give legal advice to anyone else, now or in the future. In light of the irreparable damage of the miscarriage of Melissa Balin’s first pregnancy, for which there is NO remedy, the Petitioner also Prays for an immediate investigation into the continuing cruel and unusual punishment of pregnant women currently incarcerated in
Los Angeles County in the hopes of saving the unborn children of Lynwood who currently have no ability to petition the courts on their own behalf.
ARGUMENTS “Under California law, an officer is not lawfully performing her duties when she detains an individual without reasonable suspicion or arrests an individual without probable cause.” (Nuño v. County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp .2d 1127, 1134.) The arrest of identified member of the press, Melissa Balin, was unlawful. Judge Korn told the officers to “remove the woman from the courtroom”, NOT to remand the woman into custody, as is evidenced in court transcripts, revised and conflated Sheriff reports, and video evidence. Another audience member WAS remanded into custody by Judge Korn at the same time that Melissa Balin was asking if she was being arrested (approximately 7:51 minutes into video discovery), making it further clear that the Court NEVER found Melissa Balin’s behavior to be contemptuous, and that Sheriff Deputies acted outside of their scope of jurisdiction in a malicious and willful manner so as to falsely detain, kidnap and imprison a pregnant member of the media; rather than allow Balin to file a formal complaint against them with their supervisor, Sheriff Leroy Baca. The Misdemeanor Complaint warrant, which was not submitted until November 16, 2011, cites a violation of P.C. § 166 (a)(1), which states: (a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), every person guilty of any contempt of court, of any of the following kinds, is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1)Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in the
immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority. According to Masinter 355 So.2d 1288, the power to jail for contempt is given "on the assumption that it will be judiciously and sparingly employed". Due process requires dismissal when the government’s conduct is so grossly shocking that it violated that “fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal standard of justice mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1973)). The federal courts have long recognized outrageous government conduct as a viable defense, based on a violation of the due process clause (Greene v. U.S., 454 F .2d 783 (9th Cir. 1971)) Examples of such outrageous conduct have occurred when law enforcement agents used a friend to induce a defendant to commit a crime [citations], physical abuse (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952)); and interference with attorneyclient relationship (Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 422, 233 Cal. Rptr. 487 (1986)). In U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-436, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366, 93 (1973), the Supreme Court recognized that situations may arise where the “conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction.” Although no California court has directly found on this ground, the courts have recognized there can be situations in which the
government’s conduct in investigating, arresting or prosecuting a defendant is so outrageous a conviction would deny the defendant due process of law. (People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1138, 1142-1144, 274 Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990); People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4th 48, 85-86, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d 506 (2000); People v. Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1757, 1767, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547 (1996)) “California cases have treated this defense as viable.” (People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789 (1989)) As the California Supreme Court observed in People v. McIntire, 23 Cal. 3d 742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d 527 (1979), “sufficiently gross police conduct could conceivably lead to a finding that conviction of the accused would violate his constitutional right to due process of the law.” The courts have identified four factors that should be considered in determining whether due process principles had been violated by outrageous police conduct: “(1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal activity [citations]; (2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice [citations]; (3) whether the defendant’s reluctance to commit the crime is overcome by appeals to humanitarianism instincts such as sympathy or past friendship, by temptation of exorbitant gain, or by persistent solicitation in the face of unwillingness [citation]; and (4) whether that record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction with no reading that the police motive is to prevent further crime or protect the populace.” (People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1142, 274
Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990)) It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody. Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given at that time. Their vigilance to this rule means less chance of a case being overturned in court due to poor procedure on their part. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he or she wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the individual states that he or she wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him or her present during any subsequent questioning. Melissa Balin begged continually for OVER TWO HOURS for BOTH medical attention AND legal counsel, while Sergeant Dancel #402115 continuef to interrogate her WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNING. It is worth noting that this exculpatory video evidence that was INDEED most material to the defense, was DENIED REPEATEDLY BY SERGEANT LUCAS #230303 AND OTHER DEPUTIES UNDER OATH AS EVEN EXISTING, until it was finally handed over in discovery in JULY OF 2012 WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE DENIAL OF ITS EXISTENCE NOR THE DELAY IN DELIVERY TO THE DEFENSE. In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v. California, 370
U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'." * The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. * "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." * "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." * "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual, [if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty." In the case of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were "disproportionate" in duration to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and
(iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), established the principal that the deliberate failure of prison authorities to address the medical needs of an inmate constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". It held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'...proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." In the case of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), Justice Blackmun’s opinion states, “Where a legislature refuses to fund a prison adequately, the resulting barbaric conditions should not be immune from constitutional scrutiny simply because no prison official acted culpably. [...] The responsibility for subminimal conditions in any prison inevitably is diffuse, and often borne at least in part, by the legislature. Yet, regardless of what state actor or institution caused the harm and with what intent, the experience of the inmate is the same. A punishment is simply no less cruel or unusual because its harm is unintended. In view of this obvious fact, there is no reason to believe that, in adopting the Eighth Amendment, the Framers intended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments only when they were inflicted intentionally.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967), a case that established that children in juvenile court have the right to due process, the Court reasoned, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court." Associate Justice William O. Douglas once wrote, "[W]here police take matters in their own hands, seize victims, beat and pound them until they
confess, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 ). According to P.C. § 636(a): Makes it a felony to eavesdrop on, or record, by means of an electronic device, a conversation between a person in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer, or who is on the property of a law enforcement agency or other public agency, and that person's attorney, religious advisor, or licensed physician. (See In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 930, 937-938, fn. 3; People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2nd 223, 248.) Deputy Ferreira #507739 eavesdropped on Melissa Balin’s conversation with paramedics of Ambulance #804, in order to obtain her name, and then intentionally misspelled her last name as “Balis” in order to make it impossible for family, legal counsel, bail bondsmen, and concerned media, to locate her, effectively kidnapping the international activist for 53 hours. If physical evidence is collected by the prosecution, which appeared to be material to the case, and then destroyed, the defense may make a motion for sanctions. The standard under which such a motion is judged is set forth in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1988) and California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984) and not under the less stringent standard of People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 3d 641, 117 Cal. Rptr. 9, 527 P .2d 361 (1974). Under Trombetta and Youngblood, a defendant may obtain sanctions for the police loss or destruction of
physical evidence only if the following requirements are met: 1. 2. The evidence possessed an exculpatory value that was apparent before its loss or destruction. The evidence was of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means; and 3. The police acted in bad faith losing or destroying the evidence. Because the standards set forth under Trombetta/Youngblood are mandated under the due process clause and affect exculpatory evidence, Proposition 115 does not effect them. (Pen C 1054(e); People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4th 86, 165, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 825 P .2d 781 (1992)) If a convicted defendant's federal constitutional rights were impacted by a lower court error, the Chapman Standard requires that the prosecution show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless; otherwise, the conviction must be reversed. The Chapman Standard also referred to as the “Chapman Harmless Error Standard” comes from the Supreme Court case entitled: Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18. When the use of force results in the death of another person, a "homicide," or a "killing of a human being by another human being," has occurred. (People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 79, 87.) See CALCRIM, # 500, "Homicide: General Principles”. Use of excessive force by an officer gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense, and negates the element of "acting in the performance of his or her duties" for any potential charge where this element must be proved. (E.g.;
P.C. §§ 148(a), 243(b) & (c), and 245(c) & (d)) An officer who uses excessive force is subject to prosecution for a felony (P.C. § 149) and/or, if the victim is a prisoner and the officer is guilty of "willful inhumanity or oppression towards (the) prisoner," a $4,000 fine and removal from office (P.C. § 147), in addition to any other applicable assault or battery violations. With regards to the miscarriage of the Melissa Balin’s first pregnancy; while it may be unclear as to when a fetus becomes a “person”, there is NO DOUBT that there is NO justifiable defense for an unlawful termination of pregnancy at the hands of law enforcement officers abusing their authority under Color of Law, and modern case law no longer allows such a liberal application of the justifiable homicide defense NOR the currently unadressed chasm between the definition of “homicide” and “the unlawful termination of a pregnancy by another human being other than the host body.” Today, the use of deadly force is specifically limited to defending against, or in the attempt to arrest someone, for "forcible and atrocious" crimes only. (People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3rd 470, 478; Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 12-15 [85 L.Ed.2nd 1, 10-12]; People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App.3rd 1111, 1124; and CALCRIM # 509: "Justifiable Homicide: Non-Peace Officer Preserving the Peace." TRUE STATEMENT OF FACTS (as evidenced and corroborated by various reports, video and/or witness testimony referenced below) The controversial sovereignty Case #1JB07173 was heard as
Day 10 of 10 by Judge Renee F. Korn in Department 45 at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. Melissa Balin identified herself to the court as a member of the media and requested to file a Form MC-500 and MC-510 with less than the required 5 days notice due to extenuating circumstances of the trial being scheduled to Judge Korn’s courtroom only one hour prior. Balin’s request for the forms was summarily denied by the clerk, who erroneously stated that the forms were not available directly from the court. At approximately 10:52 am, due to unruly disturbances in the courtroom, of which the defendant HAD NO PART; Judge Korn ordered the courtroom to be cleared, taking a recess from the bench. For more than ONE HOUR, in direct contempt of the court’s order, more than thirteen Sheriff deputies make absolutely NO attempt to clear the courtroom, instead filming and debating the protesters in the courtroom. During the one hour break, Lieutenant Mack argues with Melissa Balin about whether or not he is required by law to provide a business card for the purposes of identifying himself for a complaint to his supervisor, and whether or not he is required by law to provide the office number for his supervisor, Sheriff Leroy Baca. Case 1JB07173 is called again at approximately Noon and the Defendant Falantoonzadeh is denied his right to represent himself under his own Objection (see Court Reporter’s transcript, page 8, lines 10-11). The court notes his objection (see Court Reporter’s transcript, page 8, line 15) and the court holds a sidebar without the defendant. Upon the defendant’s further objections, the sidebar is resumed in
closed chambers, impeding the access to the media present in the courtroom and violating the Defendant’s due process to a fair trial. Supervisor of Public Defender’s Office, Mr. Joel Lofton, makes an objection in chambers later placed on public record. The court does not hear Mr. Lofton’s objection, citing Judge Verastegui’s evaluation as the reason, but Mr. Lofton is NOT remanded into custody OR arrested for making his objection to the court, as evidenced by Court reporter’s transcript page 14, lines 16-18) “WE’RE OBJECTING WE WERE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THIS PERSON WHO ISN’T AN INDIGENT. I DON’T BELIEVE HE WAS IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE APPOINTED. USUALLY, WHEN OUR CLIENTS CAN AFFORD THEIR OWN COURT REPORTER, THEY DON’T QUALIFY.” To which, Judge Korn replied, “UNDERSTOOD. ALTHOUGH AT THIS POINT IN TIME, HE’S APPOINTED. JUDGE VERASTEGUI MADE THAT EVALUATION…” (Court Reporter’s transcript, page 14, lines 21-22) When the court returns to public forum, and refuses to acknowledge both the Defendant’s objections and the objections of the Public Defender that he was not accepting, Balin attempts to respectfully place her own objection on the record on behalf of The People of California, “You’re out of order, your Honor.” While Balin’s behavior may have been improper or unwise, it was not unlawful. It is worth noting, there is no supporting precedent or code that suggests anything other than that the People DO indeed have a right to RESPECTFULLY make a public record in the courts. The only Points & Authorities that CAN be found authoritatively on this
subject, happen to be the words of the great Abraham Lincoln, another autodidact of the law, who said, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” It is irony, at its best, and a sad statement about this great Nation’s educational system at its worst, that this statement made by a member of the audience (who was also remanded into custody at the time of the incident), to assert his exercising of the First Amendment in a respectful manner in accordance to the courts rules and regulation as well as the Constitution for The United States of America, was entered incorrectly onto the record by the court reporter on that fateful day of November 14, 2011, and conflated instead with a “HE-MAN” television quote, “I AM THE RIGHTFUL MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND OWNER OF THE COURTS” (court reporter’s transcripts page 18, lines 23 & 24). From approximately 5:47 minutes until approximately 6:34 into the video evidence, Melissa Balin can be seen and heard arguing with supervising officer Sergeant Lowe #447572 regarding Deputy Miles #528112 and De Leon #493187’s Use of Excessive Force to grab Balin prior to even asking her to leave the courtroom of her own accord, and questioning their right to impede her access to observe the trial as a member of the press., by the act of removing her. At approximately 6:30 minutes into the video evidence, Watch Commander Lieutenant Mack can be heard ordering, “Get her out! Pull her out!” There is an unaccounted SEVEN SECONDS OF VIDEO where BOTH deputies filming the incident, inexplicably jerk their cameras AWAY from the incident from 6:34 until 6:41, but
during this time, a resounding thud can be heard as Balin’s body and coccyx is slammed against the ground and she is then dragged to a standing position. A woman in the audience can be heard audibly gasping at the shocking and unnecessary violence. At approximately 7:51 minutes into the video evidence provided reluctantly by Sheriff deputies months after perjuring themselves under oath that there was NO video evidence, two male deputies walk Melissa Balin back INTO and THROUGH the courtroom into a stairwell to lock-up, when there were obvious and alternate ways to go that would not have been in direct violation with the court’s order to “remove her from the courtroom”, including but not limited to, the adjoining and EMPTY Courtroom 46. Melissa Balin can be heard asking, “Am I being arrested?” At the exact same time, Judge Korn can be seen and heard remanding suspect John Doe into custody for Contempt of Court charges, so there can be NO CONFUSION amongst the Sheriffs’ deputies that Judge Korn has any interest whatsoever in remanding Balin into custody for Contempt of Court charges, NOR does the Judge show any interest in placing the matter on calendar for an order to show cause at this point, or any other point in time EVER. At approximately 9:27 minutes into the video evidence provided reluctantly by Sheriff deputies months after perjuring themselves under oath that there was NO video evidence, Melissa Balin can be heard begging for a video camera to record the unlawful search & seizure being conducted by male deputies, but the female deputy refuses. Still, the audio can be heard of the ensuing and disturbing incident, involving the smashing of Balin’s abdominal area
against obstructions seen in the structure of the wall, and the sadistic confiscation of Balin’s expensive Chinese Laundry brand boots, while deputies made Balin walk up several flights of stairs without shoes, instead of taking an elevator, while she complained of injuries. It is worth noting that Balin’s expensive boots were not returned to her until a much later date than her release from Lynwood on November 16th, 2011, and only after filing a complaint for lost property. When the deputies ask Balin for her name, which she had already stated in full public view during the court proceedings, Balin asks, “Am I required by law to answer that question?” To which, deputies respond, “oh, it’s another ‘Sovereign’- just book her as Jane Doe!” From approximately 12:27 pm, until approximately 2:43 pm, Melissa Balin was chained to a bench doubled over, begging for medical attention with a hoarse whisper, while an unidentified deputy, who looked similar to Sergeant Dancel, stood fifty yards away, taunting, “What’s that? I can’t hear you.” In the hopes that an oathkeeper would overhear her cries, Balin continued to cry for help every three minutes, stating to the effect, “It is 12:32 and I am asking for medical attention and receiving NO RESPONSE.” And so on, until Balin overheard a deputy say, “somebody move her to a cell where she can’t see that g-ddamned clock!” At this point Balin was moved into a holding cell where she is seen being interrogated by Sergeant Dancel, in the video evidence that was begrudgingly handed over in discovery almost six months after a request was filed, and after repeated deputy perjuries under oath, stating that there was NO FURTHER video evidence.
During the unconstitutional interrogation by Sergeant Dancel #402115, which was conducted without the reading of the Miranda Warning, and filmed by Sergeant Brenna Aldana ##471287; it becomes evident that NO ONE even calls for medical assistance for OVER TWO HOURS, while Melissa Balin sobs and begs for her right to medical attention and legal counsel. Deputy Ferreira #507739 obtained the information of what name and D.O. B. Balin provided by eavesdropping on her conversation with the paramedics when LA Fire Ambulance Unit #804 finally arrive, in violation of P.C. § 636(a). Melissa Balin, even in her state of duress, and while being carried out by paramedics on a spine board, was aware of Deputy Ferreira’s attempts to eavesdrop and asked the paramedics if she was required by law to give them her information in front of the Sheriffs, at which point the paramedics, asked the deputies to leave the cell in order to take Balin’s private information. It appears that Ferreira went on to falsify reports of the defendant’s name as “Balis” instead of “Balin”, in order to make her further difficult for family members and legal counsel to find the alleged defendant within the corrections system. Melissa Balin is finally taken to the Emergency Room by paramedics AFTER 4 PM, and accompanied by Sergeant Aldana #471287 and Kinura #529471. Awaiting x-rays to assess any damage from the excessive force used by deputies, it is discovered by all parties that Melissa Balin is two weeks into her first pregnancy. Melissa Balin begs emergency room physician, Dr. Meeks to call her mother, Rochelle Balin, to notify her that she is in the
hospital, but Dr. Meeks says that he is not allowed to do that, contrary to hospital patient rights #2 and #13. Dr. Meeks does note on Balin’s chart when the deputies refusal to unshackle her right wrist that is supporting an IV stent in it, in violation with hospital patient rights #14, creates a danger to Balin’s bloodflow, and has the deputy remove the right handcuff, but the doctor is unable to convince them to remove the left handcuff, although Balin was NO FLIGHT RISK WHATSOEVER and was in an emotionally vulnerable state of shock, having just found out she was pregnant for the first time. Sheriffs falsify charges of a 298.1 DNA Refusal, making an intentional and malicious clerical error, since 298.1 charges are ONLY applicable to felony arrestees. This felony charge increases Balin’s bail eligibility and falsely brands Balin as exceptionally recalcitrant. Balin is released from the Emergency Room and transferred to Lynwood Jail after midnight on November 15, 2011. At Lynwood, Balin is denied processing OR a phone call OR legal counsel OR medical attention, for over six hours while being shackled to the floor with full knowledge by all parties that Balin is a pregnant member of the media, who was just released from the Emergency Room. When Balin is overheard explaining “Jury Nullification” to the group of women prisoners on their way to court the following morning, Balin is punished, placed in a holding cell, told “now you’ll never get your phone call”, given a “K-6” Keep-Away designation, and subjected to further shackling that has since been found to be unconstitutional for pregnant women.
Contrary to the standard jail policies for the treatment of pregnant women, Balin, whose blood pressure had dropped and whose body was visibly chattering with cold; was withheld her right to: food, a bra, and a first AND second blanket, as well as being subjected to further cruel and unusual punishment for being branded during processing as “this one talks about her rights a lot” Balin is further tortured for hours when she asks for her right to speak to a doctor about the health of her unborn fetus before she consents to x-rays for a TB screening. Deputies refuse to bring Balin to the doctor for hours, while threatening her that if she exposed them to Tuberculosis they will “kill her”. Balin submitted to the damaging x-rays under duress and the threat of being hidden in quarantine for another THREE DAYS if she did not submit. No arrest warrant is issued until November 16, 2011 AFTER Balin has already been unlawfully detained MORE THAN 48 HOURS WITHOUT A PHONE CALL, ADEQUATE MEDICAL ATTENTION OR LEGAL COUNSEL, signed by Sergeant Lowe #447572, who was both directly involved in the incident in question AND in charge of the Use of Force Investigation, in direct violation of the codes and policies of LAPD AND LACSD. The City Attorney omits the unenforceable 298.1 charges in its prosecution of Balin when she is finally brought before a magistrate for arraignment after 4:30 pm, on November 16, MORE THAN 53 HOURS AFTER HER UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARREST. Melissa Balin is faced with an unconscionable thwarting of Discovery Requests and Continuing Mandamus by Judge Inejijikian’s court from February 15, 2012 until August 26, 2012, as evidenced by
the formal complaint letter filed with the California Commission on Judicial Performance in September 2012. Court Documents for Case #1JB07173, dated August 3, 2012 (pages 1 through 12) indicate all charges should be dropped In The Furtherance of Justice, per 1385 P.C. (pages 11 & 12). State Bar Panel attorney Johnny Lai cites “personal reasons” as to why he is unable to provide effective counsel and the only reason for unexplainable delays in filing the Pitchess motion. When Melissa Balin accuses the attorney of receiving threats from the Sheriffs’ Department against himself or his family, the attorney refuses to respond and only suggests that Balin is welcome to fire him at any time. Balin indicates that even if Lai is fired, he will have to testify as a witness in the case. At this point, counsel should have conflicted out, per Professional Rules of Conduct regarding a witness as counsel, but he did NOT file a conflict motion, instead finally filing the Pitchess motion, but waiting until one day too late, per court rules, creating grounds for dismissal based on ineffective counsel. The Court shuffles the Pitchess hearing for at least thirteen Sheriff representatives, amongst five different judges Harris, Tynan, Commissioner Kawahara, Henry Barela, and finally Michael Garcia, on the afternoon of October 10th, 2012, and does not indicate the error in filing date until the actual Date of the Pitchess Hearing, in the courtroom of Henry Barela, by the fifth Judge, Michael Garcia, “dismissing without prejudice” in what can only be seen as complete prejudice in violation with the understanding that the court’s dismissal based on a clerical error not caused by the defendant, Melissa Balin, was a violation of the defendant’s due process, and of material waste
to taxpayer dollars, to not to hear the motion on that date, when both sides were present and ready for the hearing. October 17th Judge Herriford participates in a continuing mandamus to respond to the Media Requests to Record and Broadcast the proceedings, citing the media codes themselves as the reason of refusal, on a day when AT LEAST ELEVEN CAMERAS AND media requests were approved for the “Corrupt Politicians” trial being held concurrently within the building. A Public Record is made in Judge Herriford’s courtroom where Melissa Balin states that she waived her constitutional rights to a speedy trial under duress and would like the Judge to recall the case. Judge Herriford refuses to respond and orders the case called back for another pre-trial hearing on December 5th, 2012 After repeated requests and a formal e-mail on October 18th, demanding Balin’s files as supported by the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, State Bar Panel attorney, Johnny Lai, not only DID NOT return her files, but instead took the time to file a conflict motion and mail THAT to the defendant on October 29, 2012, essentially leaving the defendant without ANY legal counsel OR her files until the conflict motion was heard on the afternoon of November 7th, 2012, after initially being “dismissed without prejudice” by the notoriously prejudiced Judge Herriford. Member of the press, Melissa Balin, was unconstitutionally withheld ANY effective legal counsel as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, until November 26, 2012 as is evidenced by court transcripts from proceedings on October 17, 2012, and November 7, 2012, as well as attached e-mail correspondence
between Balin and Cheryl Jones of The Public Defender’s Office, and Zeke Perlo of the Office of Indigent counsel. Identified international journalist, Melissa Balin, has been called back to the scene of the crime of her unlawful detention without cause, under duress and against her will on and for the following dates: 11.16.2011 11.30.2011 12.03.2011 01.03.2012 02.03.2012 02.15.2012 03.19.2012 04.05.2012 05.01.2012 05.29.2012 06.21.2012 07.13.2012 07.24.2012 07.26.2012 09.06.2012 10.10.2012 10.17.2012 11.07.2012 12.04.2012 12.05.2012 These continuing orders of the court are “in flagrante delicto”
of continuing, willful and malicious, malfeasances of justice that would indicate a shocking “brown wall of collusion” between the Los Angeles County Sheriffs’ Department and the City Attorney’s office and the employees of the Los Angeles Superior Courts, in a bizarre and continuing cruel and unusual punishment as deemed unconstitutional in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America and the California State Cosntitution of 1849 and California Government Code 11120, which states, that “We The People of The State of California, Do NOT Yield Our Sovereignty To the Agencies That Serve Us.” It is the natural right of Melissa Balin to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the remaining days of freedom still afforded her during the prime of her physical and professional life and career as a woman born and raised in the City of Los Angeles, in the Great State of California, of The United States of America.
POINTS & AUTHORITIES
CASES Nuño v. County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp .2d 1127, 1134 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 U.S. v. Russell 411 U.S. 423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1973) People v. McIntire, 23 Cal. 3d 742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d 527 (1979) People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 695-696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789 (1989) People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1138, 1142-1144, 274 Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990) People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4th 48, 85-86, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d 547 (2000) People v. Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1757, 1767, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547 (1996) Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952) Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 422, 233 Cal. Rptr. 487 (1986) Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774  In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967) Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1988) California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984) People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 3d 641, 117 Cal. Rptr. 9, 527 P .2d 361 (1974). People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4th 86, 165, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 825 P . 2d 781 (1992) People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 79, 87 People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3rd 470, 478 Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 12-15 [85 L.Ed.2nd 1, 10-12] People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App.3rd 1111, 1124 In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 930, 937-938, fn. 3 People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2nd 223, 248. STATUTES California State Cosntitution of 1849 California Government Code 11120, which states, “We The People Do Not Yield Our Sovereignty To The Agencies That Serve Us.” P.C. §§ 148(a), 243(b) & (c), and 245(c) & (d)
P.C. § 149 and/or P.C. § 147 First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America P.C. § 166 (a)(1), which states: (a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), every person guilty of any contempt of court, of any of the following kinds, is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1)Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in the immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority. According to Masinter 355 So.2d 1288, the power to jail for contempt is given "on the assumption that it will be judiciously and sparingly employed". Miranda Warning, which states, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” 298.1 DNA refusal charge for felony arrestees only P.C. § 636(a) Sixth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for The United
States of America Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10, which states: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles 14 & 16, which is binding in international law on the 72 states that have ratified it. Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy. Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."
American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 California Rule of Court 1.1150 cited with regards to filming penal codes Local Rule 2.17 cited with regards to filming penal codes Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation, include: * Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions; * Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; * Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and * Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
OTHER AUTHORITIES LAPD Procedure Manual Volume 4 Section 296.01, which states, “During the performance of official duties, Department members shall provide a business card to any person upon request, providing the action does not interfere with the officer’s performance of his/her duty. Abraham Lincoln’s words as entered again on public record November 14, 2011: “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles unnamed summary print-out for Case 1JB07173 dated 08/03/12 (pages numbered 1 through 12) All Court Reporter’s Transcripts of Proceedings and All Video for Case 1JB07173 All Court Reporter’s Transcripts of Proceedings in Case 1CA16847-02 All Videos for Case 1CA16847-02 as Provided by LA Sheriffs’ Department All Videos NOT YET PROVIDED OR ACCOUNTED FOR IN DISCOVERY by LA Sheriffs’ Department for Case 1CA1684702 Pitchess Motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, in September 2012 Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balin’s violation of due process in public view from Clara Shortridge Foltz and Lynwood County Jail NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY (formally
requested in writing by bar panel attorney, Johnny Lai, from Honorable Cecil Mills on October 16, 2012). Title 18, USC, Section 4 states, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Title 42, USC, Section 1986, states that “Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.” Title 42, USC, Section 1987 states, “The United States
attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate judges appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense. LAC/USC Medical Center Patient Rights (particularly rules 2, 11, 13, 14) LACSD Use of Force Investigation Report for Case 1CA16847-02 Definition of PTSD as defined by The Mayo Clinic Letter from Lael Rubin, Director of Bureau of Prosecution Support Operations on behalf of Steve Cooley of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense Appointment’s office dated June 22, 2012. The letter is regarding the identification and “disapproval” of exculpatory evidence material to defendants regularly being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs’ Department. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed on July 9, 2012 by ACLU attorney Jeffrey Douglas against Steve Cooley and Sheriff Leroy Baca. MC-500 Form- Media Request to Record or Broadcast
MC-510 Form- Media Request to Record or Broadcast Formal Complaint and request for investigation with California Commission on Judicial Performance, dated September 5, 2012 and received September 19, 2012. Faretta Waiver Dangers and Disadvantages to SelfRepresentation Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation, received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits “A” – “R” It is worth noting that in completely unrelated proceedings on November 5, 2012, activist Gypsy Taub, strips naked under the auspices of a protest protected by Free Speech, inside of a Federal Courtroom, during the City Operations & Neighborhood Services Committee Hearing, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, CA, and is calmly led by one arm, out of the courtroom, by ONE deputy WITHOUT ANY ARREST. 8.204 section e 2C regarding Noncomplying briefs, which states, it is not a fatal mistake to request an incorrect writ in the initial petition, so long as the petition alleges facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is prima facie entitled to one of the writs. The reviewing court can save a formally defective petition by construing it to cure the defects.”
VERIFICATION I, Melissa Balin, being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing verified petition for writ of prohibition, quo warranto, mandate, or other appropriate immediate relief, and the facts alleged therein are within my knowledge and I know them to be true, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. Dated November , 2012 Melissa Balin
(declared political candidate under sworn oath)
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.