You are on page 1of 244

MELISSA BALIN 10153 Riverside Drive Suite 465 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Pro Se, Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DIVISION
MELISSA BALIN Plaintiff, Case No. LAM-13M00544 Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL; & PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Defendant. Plaintiff herein opposes the motion to quash subpoenas for appearance by LAPD Chief of Police Charlie Beck and Commander Andrew Smith, submitted by City Attorneys Carmen A. Trutanich, Carlos De La Guerra, and Jess J. Gonzalez, as one with no merit and utterly frivolous. The Motion is loaded with untrue and irrelevant material, representing mostly an attack on the Plaintiff and an attempt to prejudice the court against the Plaintiff. The Motion is vague and does not present any specific recognized justifiable reasons to quash the subpoena, and was intentionally and unethically submitted by attorneys inappropriately, in the one remaining venue of Small Claims Court that does not allow for the unfair advantage of attorney privilege within the allegedly invaginated Los Angeles Superior Court System. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs Opposition To Motion to Quash Subpoenas & Motion For An Order To Compel (denoted as EXHIBIT A), the Attorneys for Real Parties in Interests Motion should be denied as one without merit and frivolous; and OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 1

attorneys Carmen Trutanich, Carlos De La Guerra, and Jess J. Gonzalez should be sanctioned for their abuse of the courts time, when ALL parties know full well that attorneys are not allowed to present or be heard in Small Claims Court. The Plaintiff, on behalf of The Good People of California, request that the Court enter an order compelling the Respondents to immediately produce the subpoenaed material and that a bench warrant be issued by the Court for the testimonies of ALL Subpoeaned Public Servants, should they fail to appear again. ARGUMENT 1. Attorneys for the Defendant state that: A. Neither Chief Beck nor Commander Smith have any connection with plaintiffs case nor are they percipient witnesses to any events in plaintiffs case and B. Chief Beck is a high level official and General Manager of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) with supervisory responsibility over more than 13,000 sworn and civilian personnel. 2. Attorneys for the Defendant claim that, It is Chief Becks responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Los Angeles. They also claim, making an inferential leap that is understandable, but incorrect, that To compel him to testify in this proceeding will distract and remove him from these primary duties all to the detriment of the public safety. It is indeed relevant and of material importance, if the policies and orders of the Chief of Police are in fact, placing the public in danger of continuing Constitutional violations; then his giving of testimony IS a primary duty and keeping Chief Beck OR Commander Smith from testifying in ANY court of law, would be the real detriment to public safety. 3. City attorneys Trutanich, De La Guerra and Gonzalez go on to perjure themselves under oath, when they state to the Court, Real Parties in Interest have no connection to the case whatsoever, they are not percipient witnesses to any events in the case and do not possess information relevant to the underlying case, except as to that which they may have learned from their subordinates. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by multiple international OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 2

television news cameras that were at the scene of the alleged International Tort on November 29th and 30th, 2011, placing Chief Beck, Mayor Villaraigosa AND Commander Smith as first-hand witnesses to the unconstitutional military operation conducted against its own peacefully assembled citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights as protected by the Constitution, from inside the walls of City Hall itself (denoted as EXHIBIT B). 4. City attorneys Trutanich, De La Guerra and Gonzalez, claim that Chief Beck and Commander Smith have no relevant testimony to offer, do not personally know the plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding her Small Claims lawsuit. The attached photograph of Chief Beck and the plaintiff taken the first week of November 2011 (denoted as EXHIBIT C), and multiple telephone conversations betweem the plaintiff and Commander Smith, would indicate that they most certainly DID personally know the plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding her Small Claims lawsuit. 5. The City Attorneys office, in an abuse of taxpayer resources of the ink and paper to print such lies willfully and intentionally crafted to suppress evidence of a malfeasance of Justice; in such a manner as is unbecoming a member of the California State Bar, under the guise of acting under Color of Law, boldly state, The subpoenas served on Chief Beck and Commander Smith demonstrates a blatant example of plaintiffs abuse of the courts subpoena power and should not be countenanced. 6. It is in fact, the City Attorneys offices bald and unapologetic perjury under oath, that should not be countenanced, and should be discouraged with an appropriate order to compel discovery and sanctions against the aforementioned City Attorneys for their interference In Justice For All in orchestrated prosecutorial misconduct amounting to continuing violations of the Constitution for the United States of America and The California State Constitution of 1849, worthy of Federal investigation, just in case anybody in Congress or the Department of Justice or that third governing body that are supposed to provide a checks and balance for these sorts of things, is actually OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 3

even reading this stuff to investigate and review any outstanding malfeasance of justice allegations, in light of years of alleged tea party justice within the Los Angeles Superior Court System under the recently-retired-amidstinvestigation, Supervising Clerk, John Clarke. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Response to Point I of Motion To Quash Entitled INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: Several of the assertions made by attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest are intentionally untrue and designed to prejudice the court against the Plaintiff. The fact that the Plaintiff has a work and home address in 2013 has no bearing on her address in domicile at 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 (Los Angeles City Hall) for over 30 days in November 2011 with the complicit understanding of the landlord/City of Los Angeles; nor does it refute the Plaintiffs claims of Tenancy-AtWill, or wanton destruction of private property, in any way. The statement, Plaintiff appears to be a self-styled member of We the People, a fringe group of individuals who engage in demonstrations, protests, sit-ins and general civil disobedience. (lines 11-13), is both unverified in any way whatsoever, and seems designed to obfuscate facts, especially when there is no reason to believe that the Plaintiffs reference to We The People, is not with regards to We The People, Of The United States of America, as protected by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. They also state, After a significant period of time and millions of dollars of damage to the lawn, City officials determined that it was time to clear the City Hall lawn of the Occupy L.A. squatters due to a number public safety concerns [sic] not the least which was a public health concern. While these are all certainly words in the English language, it is their combined usage and order that make them gibberish. What is the definition of a significant period of time, when then President of LA City Council and current Mayor-elect, Eric Garcetti, said, Stay as long as you like... It would appear their insouciant misusage of the word squatter, defined by Merriam Webster as: (a) : one that settles on property without right or title or payment OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 4

of rent or (b) : one that settles on public land under government regulation with the purpose of acquiring title NEITHER of which are accurate to the factors at hand, considering the attached copy of Resolution 33, (denoted as EXHIBIT D); will show that the group known as Occupy LA and the Sovereign Nation of Freedom & Peace DID INDEED HAVE EXPLICIT AND COMPLICIT PERMISSION TO BE ON THE CITY HALL LAWN EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. Irresponsible use of a word such as squatter, with the malicious intent to incite prejudice against the Plaintiff within the Courts, is not just slanderous libel, but a thinly veiled attempt to ask the Court to overlook that there is an absence of evidence in support of their claims in defense against Tenancy-At-Will; and therefore NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER CALIFORNIA TENANCY-AT-WILL CASE LAWS FROM HOMESTEADING TO MODERN DAY. Lines 14 24 of the attorneys motion, essentially amount to a fairy tale of what the LAPD desperately needs the Los Angeles Superior Courts AND the Court of Public Opinion to believe in order to justify its unlawful acts of domestic terrorism against its own citizens and their property. It is unclear to us why this conflagration of unmitigated subjugation is being complacently dismissed as an issue of "illegal camping", when this is clearly a globally relevant issue of an International Violation of Human Rights. It is worth noting, that they fail to mention anywhere that the plaintiff was hospitalized at the Good Samaratin Hospital, PRIOR to her formal arrest OR processing, while being detained with the use of excessive force by LAPD Officer Winter, who refused to divulge his badge number; and that Balin was later released into custody hours after her photo was the top-of-fold cover of the LA Times (EXHIBIT E), with the diagnosis of a threatened Miscarriage, citing instead only, The reasons are unclear why she was not formally charged and prosecuted. The City Attorneys erroneously state that, Though some complied with the LAPDs orders, plaintiff was one of the recalcitrant occupiers who refused to disperse. Plaintiff failed to disperse after a lawful order was made by the LAPD. When she did not OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 5

obey the lawful order to disperse, she was taken into custody, processed and released with a date to appear in court. This is a fictional narrative woven by City Attorneys in an attempt to prejudice the Courts, as evidenced by the Plaintiffs repeated video interactions with the LAPD throughout the evening, as a member of the media and former producer of Police Officer of The Year for COURT TV, and the time of her alleged arrest of 3:15 AM AT THE LOCATION OF FIRST & BROADWAY; NOWHERE NEAR CITY HALL AND SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE DISPERSAL ORDER THEY ALLEGE THE JOURNALIST FAILED TO OBSERVE; on any other planet, would appear to be prosecutorial misconduct and suppression of evidence worthy of a phone call from the U.S. Justice Department; and granting of their incompetently researched and filed Notions of Motions would send the wrong message of First Amendment Freedom of Press case law, from here to both Oceans. Not only did the plaintiff, Melissa Balin, comply with LAPDs unlawful orders, Balin also identified herself as an International member of the media, and asked for supervising officers to address the excessive force being used against her while she was attempting to legitimately record the names and badge numbers of the arresting officers of the OLA 292, in the event (as did indeed happen), that LAPD refused to provide information or intentionally obstructed information regarding the arresting officers. Balin also identified that she was pregnant and repeatedly begged for medical attention after Officer Winter impaled the pregnant member of the media against the thorns of the shrubbery (see EXHIBIT F). It was not until the Plaintiff Mic-Checked for medical attention that an ambulance was finally summoned to the scene. Mic-Checking during mass unlawful arrests, can be used as a process of a crowd repeating the immediate and/or life-threatening needs of an arrestee; so that the needs of one become recognized through the voices of many. During the MicChecking that bounced from the arrestees to the legal observers across the street on the other side of the police barricade, the plaintiff shouted, I am pregnant and begging for medical attention and I am getting no response. Officer Winter was overheard saying How does that make you feel. The plaintiff, then mic checked, I am pregnant and begging for medical attention and getting no response and Officer Winter here just asked how does that make me feel? That doesnt make me feel good and I think I am having a OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 6

miscarriage. Can someone please get me some medical attention? This process went on for several minutes before Balin received paramedic assistance and was finally taken to the hospital. Willfully and intentionally withholding medical attention from a fetus for several minutes can make the difference between life and brain death. It is also worth noting, that the City Attorneys fail to mention that Balin begged to be accompanied to the hospital and be guarded by a female officer instead of the sadistic Officer Winter, and that instead, she was forced to urinate blood into a hospital bedpan while shackled in front of the sadistic officer, while he told his supervising officers, Wow, I didnt know she was really pregnant. While the City Attorneys say only, The reasons are unclear why she was not formally charged and prosecuted. She then filed the instant Small Claims matter against the City of Los Angeles on January 16, 2013 for damage to an itemized list of her personal property. They are wildly representing BOTH their involvement in prosecutorial misconduct that amounted to stalking and the intentional and malicious curtailment of the plaintiffs and 291 other peoples liberty that night in a manner far greater than if they had remained in the criminal justice system; AND that they were in the midst of their own unconstitutional Trial By Ordeal of the Plaintiff, as deemed Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the 1600s, involving falsified criminal charges, continuing mandamus, and suppression of evidence FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN MONTHS UNTIL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WERE FINALLY DISMISSED, WITHOUT A SPEEDY OR FAIR TRIAL, ON FEBRUARY 25, 2013. It is worth noting that much of the itemized list involves art by Internationally Recognized Artists and Activists, such as Shepard Fairey, Mama Sunshine, SABER, Richard Eastman, Dennis Peron, Will Palomares and Mark Celentano; being curated by the Plaintiff, Melissa Balin, for the Sovereign Nation Of Freedom & Peace Museum & Memorial To The Tongva People. Sublimating such priceless cultural items as an itemized list of her personal property is BOTH PEJORATIVE AND RUDE as well as yet another example of the City of Los Angeles flagrant violations of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which specifically prohibit against wanton destruction of civilian property with military use of force. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 7

It is worth noting that Melissa Balin was never actually formally arrested, and instead was hidden from the other 291 Occupy LA raid-night arrestees; being held at the Metro Detention Center instead of Van Nuys, and forced to stay in a top bunk (as deemed unconstitutional treatment of pregnant women), when she should have been immediately released on her own recognizance for a misdemeanor or infraction, and given the opportunity to reclaim her personal and curated property. NONE of the property was saved or properly preserved as evidence by LAPD and was instead disposed of by Hazmat and City Sanitation Trucks (EXHIBIT G), and taken to the LA City Dump; including but not limited to Melissa Balins personal and curated property, which was protected by several signs statingTHIS IS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE AS PROTECTED BY THE 4TH AMENDMENT (see EXHIBIT H) and in spite of phone and e-mail communications with LAPD PIO Commander Andrew Smith (see EXHIBIT I), that they should get the City of Los Angeles to stop putting trash on top of the personal belongings and cultural art of Los Angeles citizens, including a hard drive with video and digital evidence and testimony stored on Civil Rights Attorney Bruce Margolins firms laptop. Response to Point II of Motion To Quash, Entitled A MOTION TO QUASH IS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO TEST PROPRIETY OF A SUBPOENA: The attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest reference People v. Clinesmith (1975) 175 Cal. App. 2d 911, 912-13 (emphasis added), that one who [contests] the right to [it], its demands or their scope, [has] two options. He/she might refuse to comply; or he/she might move to quash the subpoena. Upon the hearing of the matter, the court may modify or quash the subpoena. It is worth noting that the Real Parties In Interest REFUSED TO COMPLY IN FAILING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON APRIL 30, 2013 AND KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY IMPROPERLY FILING A MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS, as submitted by attorneys on April 12, 2013 and scheduled to be heard on September 26, 2013 in a ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenji Machida, that overlooked perjury on the part of the

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

representatives for the City of Los Angeles, and might indicate a continued inability to be impartial with regards to this case. In a letter dated April 11, 2013 (EXHIBIT J), with a postmark date of April 12, 2013, signed by Chief Charlie Beck on behalf of Martin Bland, yet suspiciously similar to the signature of Greyr Berberyan, a private attorney who represents the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, it is erroneously inferred that the court-ordered fee waiver is not applicable as it only relates to costs incurred within the Los Angeles Superiro Court and not those incurred as a result of request associated with LAPD records or personnel. This is not only untrue, but would be in direct violation of making public records available and transparent for the People of California. LAPD officers are Public Servants and giving truthful testimony in court is as much a part of their duty to protect and serve the Constitution for the United States of America as well as the California State Constitution of 1849, as jury duty and Jury Nullification, is the right and duty of all citizens. Regardless of whether or not the issue of the witness fees had been resolved, none of the subpoenad officers made contact with the court or the plaintiff, with regards to being put on call, NOR their failure to appear; and it would appear that certain members of the LAPD and the LA County Sheriffs Department may think that they are So Sovereign as to be Above the Laws of following a subpoena or a court order. Response to Point III of Motion To Quash, Entitled, THE SUBPOENAS SHOULD BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE REAL PARTIES HAVE NO RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO OFFER: The attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest admit, She was not prosecuted for reasons unknown to this writer. It would appear this is not the only thing unknown to the writers. It would also appear that the writer does not know that Chief Beck and Commander Smith (1) DO INDEED HAVE RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO OFFER, (2) DO PERSONALLY KNOW THE PLAINTIFF, AND (3) DO INDEED PERSONALLY KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HER SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT. The Office of the City Attorneys misrepresentation of the true facts to the Court and the Good People of California, while under a sworn oath to protect and serve OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 9

the California State Constitution of 1849 and the Constitution for the United States of America, demonstrates a blatant example of how their office regularly abuses its powers against its own citizens under Color of Law, and should not be countenanced. Response to Point IV of Motion To Quash, Entitled, REAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO RENDER ANY TESTIMONY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PROCEEDING: Given that Chief Beck is proclaimed to be a high level official and General Manager of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) with supervisory responsibility over more than 13,000 sworn and civilian personnel.; it is important to send a clear message that NO officer of the law is themselves Above the Law in any way; and failing to appear or showing Contempt of Court should not be tolerated by either the highest OR lowest ranking official representing the great City of Los Angeles, and should be discouraged with an appropriate order to compel requested documents and testimony, immediately if not sooner. CONCLUSION: The Plaintiff, Melissa Balin, respectfully requests that the Motion to Quash Subpoenas be denied pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1985 and 1987.1, and in the alternative, that a Motion to Compel Discovery be ordered immediately to produce the requested documents and digital files, as well as that the Court issue a bench warrant for the appearance of both Chief Beck and Commander Smith should they fail to appear in front of the Court again; and a Writ of Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Mandate, or Other Appropriate Summary Judgement. DATED: May 29, 2013 Respectfully submitted, Melissa Balin OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 10

By___________________________________________ MELISSA BALIN, Plaintiff

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

11

POINTS & AUTHORITIES


CASES Nuo 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)
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 12

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 [1951] 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. First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 13

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? 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
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 14

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.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

15

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 officers performance of his/her duty. Abraham Lincolns 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. All Court Reporters Transcripts of Proceedings in Case 1CA16847-02 (NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY) 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 1CA16847-02 Pitchess Motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, in September 2012 Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balins violation of due process in public view from Clara Shortridge Foltz and Lynwood County Jail NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY (formally requested in writing

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

16

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
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 17

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 Attorneys Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments 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.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL 18

Faretta Waiver Dangers and Disadvantages to Self-Representation Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation, received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits A R 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.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

19

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 Opposition to The Notion of Motion To Quash Subpoenas, and Motion To Compel, and Points & Authorities in Support of a 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 May 29, 2013 Melissa Balin (under sworn oath)

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL

20

Opposition To Motion To Quash


List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J City Attorneys Motion to Quash Subpoenas & Motion to Compel Photos of Chief Beck and Commander Smith on the scene as firsthand witnesses the evening of November 29 and morning of November 30, 2011 photo of Chief Beck, Richard Eastman & Melissa Balin taken November 2011 LA City Council Resolution 33 Cover of LA Times on November 30, 2011 Location of excessive force exerted on a handcuffed pregnant member of the media photo of Hazmat wanton destruction of civilian property under Color of Law 4th Amendment Protection photos e-mail correspondence with LAPD Commander Andrew Smith 12/08/11 LAPD witness fees bill

EXHIBIT A D

EXHIBIT B D

EXHIBIT C D

EXHIBIT D D

EXHIBIT E D

EXHIBIT F D

EXHIBIT G D

EXHIBIT H D

EXHIBIT I D

EXHIBIT J D

MELISSA BALIN 10153 Riverside Drive Suite 465 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Pro Se, Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DIVISION
MELISSA BALIN Plaintiff, Case No. LAM-13M00544 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Defendant. TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND ALL PARTIES HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the Court deems the matter may be heard, in Department 90 of the aboveentitled Court, located at 11 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Plaintiff, MELISSA BALIN (hereinafter Balin), will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter CCP 437c), for summary adjudication/judgement in favor of the MOVING PARTY and against the Defendant, The City of Los Angeles (hereinafter City of Los Angeles), and for costs of suit incurred herein and such other relief as may be just. The motion is made on the grounds that a Summary Judgement based on the undisputed and uncontested cause(s) of action by the City of Los Angeles against Balin, will further the interests of judicial economy, by reducing the time to be consumed in trial, or significantly increase the ability of the parties to resolve the case by settlement. CCP 437c(s)(2). NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 1

ARGUMENT: Please see the attached notarized Statement of Uncontroverted Facts which shall also serve as a Declaration, (Points 1-39 and Exhibits A-W) in Support of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities) that would clearly indicate TO ALL PARTIES that this is a civil case governed by existing California Tenancy-At-Will case law pertaining the following FIVE (5) ISSUES: 1) INDIGENOUS CITIZENS OF LOS ANGELES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MELISSA BALIN, PUBLICLY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF FREEDOM & PEACE, DID NOT PAY RENT FOR THEIR TENANCY OF THE CITY HALL LAWN. 2) INDIGENOUS CITIZENS OF LOS ANGELES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MELISSA BALIN, PUBLICLY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF FREEDOM & PEACE, LIVED IN DOMICILE FOR MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS IN TENANCY ON THE CITY HALL LAWN. 3) INDIGENOUS CITIZENS OF LOS ANGELES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MELISSA BALIN, PUBLICLY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF FREEDOM & PEACE, HAD THE IMPLIED (SINCE OCTOBER 1, 2011), ACTUAL (SINCE OCTOBER 12, 2011) AND CONSTRUCTIVE (TO THE DATE OF THIS WRITING AS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT) CONSENT OF THE LANDLORD OF CITY HALL AND THE SURROUNDING LAWN, THE PUBLIC ENTITY CURRENTLY KNOWN AS THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS LANDLORDS AND STEWARDS OF THE LAND, THE TONGVA PEOPLE. 4) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR "EXTENSIVE DESTRUCTION AND APPROPRIATION OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 2

PROPERTY NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY AND CARRIED OUT UNLAWFULLY AND WANTONLY"; IE: THROWING THE PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS DIRECTLY INTO THE CITY DUMP WITHOUT A WARRANT OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIME SCENE. (see EXHIBIT X) THIS IS CONSIDERED A "GRAVE BREACH" OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTIONS, PROVIDING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A "WAR CRIME". 5) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWINGLY VIOLATING THE 1ST, 4TH, 5TH, 8TH, 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS. There is no triable issue of material fact and Balin is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar 11. Atlantic Rlcheld Co. (2001) 25 Gal/ith 826, 850). To show that The City of Los Angeles does not have any evidence in support of its affirmative defenses, Balin will need to demonstrate that she asked for this evidence and got nothing of substance in response, as evidenced by the Declarations of LAPD Custodian of Records, Michael Novak, (see EXHIBIT Y) on April 24, 2013. (Scheldlng 1/.Dt'muiddie (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81 (we can infer nothing at all with respect to questions which were neither asked nor answered); Weber -0. john Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-1442. Factually devoid discovery responses like these can, by themselves, be enough to shift the initial burden in a Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Andrews 1). Foster I/Wteeler LLC. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 101.) A discovery response that indicates the answering party has no evidence demonstrates that there is an absence of evidence in support of that partys claims. (Andrews at p. 106.) Since the defendant must disclose the evidence supporting these defenses in response to discovery requests, if it fails to do so, the logical inference is that it does not possess any evidence. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.030(a)(2) and NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 3

2030.070(a), the Defendant should please identify any additional later-acquired or supplemental information necessary to make a response to judicial Council Form Interrogatory 15.1 correct and complete as of this date. The opposition must produce admissible evidence that a triable issue of material fact exists for each as to each of the affirmative defenses in a motion for summary adjudication. (437c, subd. (b)(3) and 43'7c, subd. (f)(l).) This can include evidence not disclosed in discovery, unless the failure to disclose was willful. (Biles u ExxonMobil Corporation (2004) 124 Cal.App/ith 1315, 1329). CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court should GRANT the motion for summary judgement. In the alternative, the Court should GRANT the motion for summary adjudication on the FIVE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT THAT DETERMINE THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF TENANCY-AT-WILL, WHICH REMAIN UNCONTESTED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. DATED: May 29, 2013 Respectfully submitted, Melissa Balin

By___________________________________________ MELISSA BALIN, Plaintiff

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

POINTS & AUTHORITIES


CASES Aguilar 11, Atlantic Rlcheld Co. (2001) 25 Gal/ith 826, 850 Scheldlng 1/.Dt'muiddie (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81 Weber -0. john Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-1442 Andrews 1). Foster I/Wteeler LLC. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 101 Biles v. ExxonMobil Corporation (2004) 124 Cal.App/ith 1315, 1329 Nuo 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)
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 5

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 [1951] 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.

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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. First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America 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? 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)
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 7

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

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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 officers performance of his/her duty. Abraham Lincolns 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. All Court Reporters Transcripts of Proceedings in Case 1CA16847-02 (NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY)

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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 1CA16847-02 Pitchess Motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, in September 2012 Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balins 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
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & 10 PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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 Attorneys Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments office dated June 22, 2012. The letter is regarding the
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & 11 PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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 Self-Representation Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation, received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits A R 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.

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & 12 PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

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 Notice of Motion For Summary Adjudication/Judgement and Points & Authorities in Support of a 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 May 29, 2013 Melissa Balin (under sworn oath)

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT & 13 PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

EXHIBIT B D

EXHIBIT C D

EXHIBIT D D

EXHIBIT E D

EXHIBIT F D

EXHIBIT G D

EXHIBIT H D

EXHIBIT I D

EXHIBIT J D

EXHIBIT K D

EXHIBIT L D

EXHIBIT M D

EXHIBIT N D

EXHIBIT O D

EXHIBIT P D

Petition for a WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF
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 Balins 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 womans 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.
1

3.

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 Balins 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 Balins
2

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 [1951] 5. Melissa Balins 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 Balins 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.
3

In light of the irreparable damage being caused by continuing kangaroo court proceedings at the very location of Balins unconstitutional arrests, and exacerbated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as diagnosed by Balins 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 Sheriffs 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 Balins 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
4

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 1600s), 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 Balins life and/or safety, and the life and/or safety of Melissa Balins 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,
5

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 Courts 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 Balins 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
6

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. (Nuo 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 Balins 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
8

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 governments 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
9

governments 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 defendants 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

10

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
11

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
12

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".[1] 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 Blackmuns 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
13

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 [1951]). 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 Balins 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
14

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"
15

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 Balins 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)

16

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 Korns courtroom only one hour prior. Balins 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 courts 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 Reporters transcript, page 8, lines 10-11). The court notes his objection (see Court Reporters transcript, page 8, line 15) and the court holds a sidebar without the defendant.
17

Upon the defendants further objections, the sidebar is resumed in closed chambers, impeding the access to the media present in the courtroom and violating the Defendants due process to a fair trial. Supervisor of Public Defenders Office, Mr. Joel Lofton, makes an objection in chambers later placed on public record. The court does not hear Mr. Loftons objection, citing Judge Verasteguis 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 reporters transcript page 14, lines 16-18) WERE OBJECTING WE WERE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THIS PERSON WHO ISNT AN INDIGENT. I DONT BELIEVE HE WAS IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE APPOINTED. USUALLY, WHEN OUR CLIENTS CAN AFFORD THEIR OWN COURT REPORTER, THEY DONT QUALIFY. To which, Judge Korn replied, UNDERSTOOD. ALTHOUGH AT THIS POINT IN TIME, HES APPOINTED. JUDGE VERASTEGUI MADE THAT EVALUATION (Court Reporters transcript, page 14, lines 21-22) When the court returns to public forum, and refuses to acknowledge both the Defendants 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, Youre out of order, your Honor. While Balins 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
18

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 Nations 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 reporters 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 #493187s 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
19

their cameras AWAY from the incident from 6:34 until 6:41, but during this time, a resounding thud can be heard as Balins 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 courts 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
20

disturbing incident, involving the smashing of Balins abdominal area against obstructions seen in the structure of the wall, and the sadistic confiscation of Balins 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 Balins 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, its 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, Whats that? I cant 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 cant 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

21

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 Ferreiras 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 Balins private information. It appears that Ferreira went on to falsify reports of the defendants 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.
22

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 Balins 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 Balins 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 Balins 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 youll never get your phone call, given a K-6 Keep-Away designation,
23

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.

24

Melissa Balin is faced with an unconscionable thwarting of Discovery Requests and Continuing Mandamus by Judge Inejijikians 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
25

prejudice in violation with the understanding that the courts dismissal based on a clerical error not caused by the defendant, Melissa Balin, was a violation of the defendants 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 Herrifords 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 Balins 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
26

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 Defenders 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
27

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 Attorneys 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.

28

POINTS & AUTHORITIES


CASES Nuo 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)
29

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 [1951] 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)
30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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 officers performance of his/her duty. Abraham Lincolns 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 Reporters Transcripts of Proceedings and All Video for Case 1JB07173 All Court Reporters 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
34

Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balins 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
35

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 Attorneys Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments 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
36

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.

37

38

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)

39

EXHIBIT Q D

EXHIBIT R D

EXHIBIT S D

EXHIBIT T D

EXHIBIT U D

EXHIBIT V D

EXHIBIT W D

EXHIBIT X D

EXHIBIT Y D

Statement of Uncontroverted Facts


List of Exhibits

EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT O EXHIBIT P EXHIBIT Q EXHIBIT R EXHIBIT S EXHIBIT T EXHIBIT U EXHIBIT V EXHIBIT W EXHIBIT X EXHIBIT Y

Resolution 33 signed by LA City Council LA Weekly Article announcing Balins change of address (10/24/11) Photo of Melissa Balin with LAPD Chief Beck Photos of Prop 215 Peaceful Protest Confirming Tents as Domiciles LA Times Article regarding the possibility of eviction (11/24/11) Photos of Countersign & No-Duel annoucements Cover of LA Times (11/30/11) False Bench Warrant Issued By City of LA against Melissa Balin Photos of 4th Amendment Signs Identifying Domiciles E-mail correspondence with LAPD Commander Andrew Smith (12/8/11) Facebook Note regarding International Tort (12/10/11) Letter to UN Rapporteur Maina Kiai (12/10/2012) City of Long Beach denial of claim on false grounds (see postmark) of timeliness Rendition of Rory Murrays megaphone being held by LBPD for more than one year Photo of the Hemp Hoodlamb jacket being held by LBPD for more than one year Writ of Prohibition filed with the California Supreme Court (11/26/12) Denial of Stay of Proceedings Denial of Petition for Relief Exculpatory evidence material to Balins defense dated 12/8/2011 Court Order approving the involuntary commitment & forced medication of a defendant charged with a non-violent misdemeanor, without ANY forensic evidence Small Claims suit filed by Balin against the City of Los Angeles on 1/16/13 Continuance granted to the City of Los Angeles without valid proof of service Media Request as Received by Judge Machida on 4/30/13 Evidence of War Crimes Against Humanity Declarations of Michael Novak