Top
Dear community,
One of our most misunderstood members, the one who went to jail for trying to get law enforcement to enforce the terms of his easement, is again in need of observers for his hearing. The situation has escalated to him losing a million dollar property, which was auctioned to the easement violators for $50,000; having his horse killed, and then jailed, not a citation, in jail for 1 day for not removing it properly.
Unfortunately he does not trust lawyers to represent him.
I have found that having a number of community members present at hearings and civic meeting can make a big difference in getting closer to social and environmental justice.
If you have the time, please be there today. If you don't have the time, but you have helpful advise or support, please share it.
There are many, many layers and levels of injustice, not easy to unravel or understand.
It can be easy to help those who are friendly; but when trouble hits those outside our circle, community support is not as abundant, but could make a significant difference.
For some reason, I find myself connecting with some of the most challenging personalities and problems. When I take the time to listen and research the issues, I discover why people distance themselves, but I know that unless we get involved, the injustice will grow and spread to infect many other people and natural resources.
Hearing details:
Date: January 4, 2010
Time: 2:00 PM
Place: Dept. 17, 3035 Cleveland Ave., Santa Rosa, California (this is next to Empire College)
Much thanks!
Petition for justice
Abuse News #4346
Herding Evil
through six California Superior Court
cases in Sonoma County against
'da 9-11 Bounty Hunter
filed by tree killing spendthrift
Paul Hobbs Winery, L.P.
Any person who reads these court
filings and does not get angry
about legalized persecution,
harassment, fraud, seizure, terrorism,
and mass murder in favor of
fascist agenda and
organized crime
through corrupt courts
under rule of law
is part of 'da problem.
By 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign, Graton, California
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Abuse News #4325
Petition to
~ end mass murder
&
unreasonable seizures
of congressional choice,
not necessity,
that favor fascist agenda,
population management,
religious genocide,
Paul Hobbs Winery,
and others in organized crime,
and to
~ save our economy,
all by establishing the Constitution.
By 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign, Graton, California
[email protected]
$10 donation covers mailing to elected dictator Barack Obama, 358 law abiding members of Congress, concerned state and local legislators, and shadow president Willie Brown.
Here is the petition:
JOHN JENKEL, Named Codefendant
P. O. Box 1822, Sebastopol, California 95473
Phone: 707-823-7083 #4325 (A#4330, D#4330, O@4341)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA,
PAUL HOBBS WINERY, L.P., a
California Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN JENKEL, and DOES
1 through 15, inclusive Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. SCV-238697 (42nd month)
PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE
JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE
(1st Amend., Sec. 3, Art. 1 & Sec. 13, Art. VI, CC)
Date: January 4, 2010 (35th Hearing)
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 17
Attendance required
TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD
The Petition is based on the Notice of Petition, this Petition, DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES THAT SHOW DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AGAINST THEM WERE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE, and DEFENDANTS' DECLARATION REGARDING TERRORISM AGAINST THEM BY PLAINTIFF, COUNTY, STATE & U.S. TO FAVOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS OF CONGRESSIONAL CHOICE served and filed herewith, the record on file, and evidence as may be presented at the hearing on why miscarriages of justice should not be set aside.
Judges Dean A. Beaupre, Raymond J. Giordano, and Elaine Rushing conspired with Plaintiff and public officers against Defendants' constitutional rights in this case and prejudged them. They are not qualified to rule on this issue raised by movants, who are 9-11 Bounty Hunter John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign.
Date: December 23 , 2009
By: ________________
John Jenkel
PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
DEFECTIVE JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Abuse News #4341. Here is what the petitions seeks.
JOHN JENKEL, Named Codefendant
Post Office Box 1822, Sebastopol, California 95473
Phone: 707-823-7083 #4341 (P#4325, D#4331, A#4330)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
PAUL HOBBS WINERY, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1
through 15, inclusive,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
Case No. SCV-238697
ORDER SETTING ASIDE
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND
DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Named codefendant John Jenkel was seized by the County of Sonoma in favor of Plaintiff on September 5, 2006 and on September 8, 2009 while exercising his inalienable rights to protect his property, privacy, and posterity. He was deprived of his property by the county's unreasonable seizures on November 26, 2007, March 22 through June 13, 2008, June 20, 2009, and November 4, 2009. All of these seizures were without due process of law, warrants, court orders, or trials by jury, and were based on improper admission of evidence, improper procedures, or improper pleadings which are detailed in Defendants' Declaration and Points and Authorities in support of their PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE. In light of the above, the court finds good cause to set aside the DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT of April 16, 2008, the CORRECTED DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT of April 22, 2008, and to set aside Defendants' default status in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Date:
By ____________________________
Judge of Superior Court
ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS
AND DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Abuse News #4330. Justification for the above proposed order:
JOHN JENKEL, Named Codefendant
Post Office Box 1822, Sebastopol, California 95473
Phone: 707-823-7083 #4330 (P#4325, D#4340, O#4341)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
PAUL HOBBS WINERY, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1
through 15, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________/ (Appearances required)
Case No. SCV-238697
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS & AUTHORITIES THAT SHOW
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AGAINST THEM
WERE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
Hearing #35, with no trial by jury
Date: January 4, 2010
Time: 2:00 PM
Place: Dept. 17, 3035 Cleveland Ave., Santa Rosa, California
POINT 1. Defendants have inalienable rights. Plaintiff has none.
Defendants have constitutionally protected inalienable rights to defend themselves against Plaintiff's unjust harassment in this groundless suit. Under constitutional law, Defendants' inalienable rights are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. As self-represented parties, Defendants should be able to exercise their inalienable rights in this court at will. However, this court performs under "rule of law," which is constitutional law minus inalienable rights. Plaintiff has no inalienable rights and overcomes its handicap with perversions of justice.
AUTHORITY I. Inalienable rights. Section 1 of Article I in the Constitution for, not of, the State of California ("CC") mandates:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
POINT 2. Defendants' rights to petition the court are supreme.
Self-represented Defendants "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive," hereby invoke their constitutional protect rights "peaceably to assemble" in court, "and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This court represents 1/3 of government.
The court's 1st duty is to protect the inalienable rights of self-represented Defendants, including their constitutionally guaranteed personal rights to petition government, including this court. Since Congress shall make no law abridging the rights of Defendants to petition government for a redress of grievances, neither shall the inferior Court of Sonoma County abridge Defendants' supreme rights to petition this court for relief because one codefendant is wrongfully considered vexatious.
AUTHORITY II. Right to Petition the government. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution ("USC") for, not of, the United States of America ("U.S.A.") mandates: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
POINT 3. Defendants invoke their rights to instruct this court and win extraordinary relief from Plaintiff's abuses.
Self-represented and at "all times" inclusive codefendants hereby exercise their inalienable rights "to instruct their representatives" which includes the judicial officer of this court. Defendants regularly "petition government for redress of grievances; and assemble freely to consult for the common good" with other public officers. Defendants and all people would enjoy this court's support to help:
a) end 62 years of Hoover Institute-advised mass murder through unconstitutional United States wars of congressional choice, never necessity, against CIA-fabricated enemies in favor of Plaintiff and others in the addiction industry, fascist gain, population management, religious genocide, and organized crime; and b) provide Defendants extraordinary relief by setting aside a gross miscarriage of justice against public good Defendants in a DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT, filed in this case on April 16, 2008, Exhibit A. Defendants are entitled to extraordinary relief in the proposed ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, Exhibit B.
AUTHORITY III. Instruct representatives. Section 3 of Article I in the Constitution for the State of California ("CC") mandates:
(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
AUTHORITY IV. Extraordinary relief. Section 10, Article VI, CC mandates:
The Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and their judges have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings.
Those courts also have original jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. The appellate division of the superior court has original jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition directed to the superior court in causes subject to its appellate jurisdiction.
Superior courts have original jurisdiction in all other causes.
The court may make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness as in its opinion is necessary for the proper determination of the cause.
POINT 4. The judicial officer is duty bound to respond to
Defendants' petition under constitutional law.
The judicial officer of this court is bound by Oath of Office and six year employment contract to provide justice for Defendants under supreme law ordained by we the people in the Constitution for the United States and under superior law in the Constitution for the State of California. Justice in this case includes granting DEFENDANTS' PETITION FOR SHOW OF CAUSE HEARING WHY UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE, ("Petition"). Any failure of the judicial officer to honor her or his Oath of Office or to provide justice under contract in this case denies justice for Defendants in favor of Plaintiff, and destroys the faith and credit of we the people in the judicial system for the State of California. Said failure also is perversion or obstruction of justice, and gives aid and comfort to enemies of this state.
Said domestic enemies profit from 62 years of United States mass murder, world terrorism, human suffering, and destruction through unreasonable seizures of the people's earth neighbors in over 140 unconstitutional United States wars of congressional choice advised by for-hire think-tanks like the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University against CIA-fabricated enemies. Said optional conflicts have always been in favor of fascist gain, population management, religious genocide, and organized crime at the expense of we the congressionally betrayed and now elected dictator-commanded people.
AUTHORITY V. Supreme Law. Sections 2 of Article VI, USC mandate:
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
AUTHORITY VI. Officers bound by Oath. Sections 3 of Article VI, USC mandates:
3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
AUTHORITY VII. Shall take oath. Section 3, Article XX, CC mandates:
Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of for the United States and the Constitution of for the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
AUTHORITY VIII. Faith and credit. Section 1, Article VI, USC mandates:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
POINT 5. Judicial officer conspired against Defendants' rights to create constitutionally defective default and default judgments in favor of Plaintiff who has no rights, no cause, and no case. Said favoritism is treason.
By denying justice for Defendants, destroying their faith in justice, perverting or obstructing justice, and giving aid and comfort to Plaintiff and other domestic enemies of we, the congressionally betrayed and elected dictator commanded people of the United States in court on November 21, 2007, and on February 20, 2008, as shown herein, judicial officer Gary Nadler:
a) violated his Oath of Office and breached his employment contract with we, the State Legislature-betrayed People of the State of California;
b) conspired with domestic enemies against the constitutionally protected inalienable rights of Defendants in violation of United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13 Section 241;
c) conspired with enemies of this state to pervert or obstruct justice in violation of California Penal Code Section 182; and
d) committed treason, all of which rise to capital crimes that include life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or death sentences.
Presiding Judge and current candidate for re-election Gary Nadler must stand tall and fix this. The United States Attorney General, the California Attorney General, and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court apparently do not want justice provided for Defendants. To hell with them, your Honor!
AUTHORITY IX. Conspiracy against rights. United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 241, rules:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Note: DOJ dirt. The language in bold Italic in the second paragraph above is intentionally and criminally omitted from the Department of Justice website, Exhibit C, https://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.htm. By omitting said law in its presentation of this significant code, the DOJ conspires against the constitutionally protected personal rights of 9-11 Truth Campaigners, and we the congressionally betrayed, impostor- commanded, and elected-dictator-ruled people of the United States to prevent or hinder our ending 62 years of Hoover Institute-advised unconstitutional United States wars against CIA-fabricated enemies in favor of crimes against humanity for fascist gain, population management, religious genocide, and plain old organized crime.
AUTHORITY X. Conspiracy to pervert justice. California Penal Code Section 182 rules:
a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.
(2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.
(3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.
(4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises.
(5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.
(6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or
Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or
territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of
any of the executive departments of the United States.
They are punishable as follows:
When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any
official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and
are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven,
or nine years.
When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be
punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided
for the punishment of that felony.
AUTHORITY XI. Treason. California Penal Code Section 37 rules:
(a) Treason against this state consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort, and can be committed only by persons owing allegiance to the state. The punishment of treason shall be death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
POINT 6. Any person who conceals treason commits a felony.
AUTHORITY XII. Misprision of Treason. Penal Code Section 38 rules:
Misprision of treason is the knowledge and concealment of
treason, without otherwise assenting to or participating in the
crime. It is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
POINT 7. Plaintiff perverts justice and relies on inferior rule of law to compensate for having no constitutionally protected rights and no case against Defendants.
Said proposed ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS will end over 18 perversions of justice in this case that favor Plaintiff, mass murder, world terrorism, and organized crime at the expense of Defendants and we the State Legislature-betrayed and the Arnold Schwarzenegger-deceived People of the State of California, tree lovers, horse lovers, and lovers of life, liberty, and property. Said perversions of justice are listed in the accompanying DEFENDANTS' DECLARATION REGARDING TERRORISM AGAINST THEM BY PLAINTIFF, COUNTY, STATE & U.S. TO FAVOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS OF CONGRESSIONAL CHOICE ("Declaration").
POINT 8. The judicial officer is bound to protect supreme rights.
The honorable judicial officer of this court is bound by supreme law under the Constitution for the United States, superior law under the Constitution for the State of California, an Oath of Office for we, the People of the State of California, and a six year public employment contract with we, the People of the State of California, to support and defend the constitutionally protected inalienable rights of Defendants against all enemies, foreign and domestic, including Plaintiff, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. The protection of Defendants' personal rights in this groundless and harassing four year old injunction and damages case is a matter of grave countywide, statewide, and national concern.
POINT 9. Defendants petition this civil court of constitutional law for safeguards from Petitioner's wrongdoings.
The court has a secondary duty to protect Defendants from the criminal acts by agents of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's criminal conduct through its agents, in this case and outside this case, is described in the accompanying Declaration. Said crimes are a result of Plaintiff's desperation from having no personal, or "civil," right to protect its greedy agenda in court. Consequently, Plaintiff uses its power in the addiction industry to unduly influence the court, local law enforcement, and legislators.
Sonoma County Sheriff Bill Cogbill conspires with Plaintiff and organized crime. The accompanying Declaration makes Sheriff Cogbill's corruption clear.
The State of California and the United States of America appear to be owned by organized crime with which Plaintiff appears to be well connected. All levels of organized crime are protected by 'da Brown/Green Chinese Wine, War, Religion & Sex Machine run by California's phantom governor and United States shadow president Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., 'da Wizard of Deception. The highest level of organized crime is unconstitutional war of congressional choice.
AUTHORITY XIII. Victims' rights. Section 28, Article I, CC mandates:
(a) The People of the State of California find and declare that the enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system to fully protect those rights, is a matter of grave statewide concern.
The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system, encompassing not only the right to restitution from the wrongdoers for financial losses suffered as a result of criminal acts, but also the more basic expectation that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be appropriately detained in custody, tried by the courts, and sufficiently punished so that the public safety is protected and encouraged as a goal of highest
importance.
d) Right to Truth-in-Evidence. Except as provided by statute
hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each
house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in
any criminal proceeding.
POINT 10. Defendants petition this court for extraordinary relief to set aside DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT and to set aside constitutionally defective default status.
On April 16, 2008, the Honorable Gary Nadler ordered a default judgment, Exhibit A, against Defendants "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1 through 10" based on improper admission of evidence and errors as to a matter of procedure on February 20, 2008, and errors as to a matter of pleading in the caption. As the Courtroom Minutes of February 20, 2008, Exhibit D, indicate, during this 23rd hearing, evidence against Defendants was admitted under oath by the court with no benefit of cross examination by Defendants. Defendants had been silenced by Judge Nadler in a constitutionally defective default status over the strenuous objection of named codefendant John Jenkel at Judge Nadler's peril, as witnesses will attest and the minutes show. Consequently, the proceeding lacked due process of law, Defendants lacked equal protection of the laws, and 44 gorgeous, towering, historic, landmark, and defenseless trees were senselessly destroyed to anger John Jenkel.
The pleading that generated said senseless natural disaster was fraudulently captioned. The word "inclusive" was omitted from the caption as filed on May 19, 2006, Exhibit E. The adverse party is "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendants." By omitting the word "inclusive" as listed on the caption in Exhibit A, Plaintiff was able to mislead Judge Nadler to award over $320,000 in damages against "John Jenkel" as a single "Defendant" for allegedly killing eight trees on a hillside in winter with occasional well water purging from a sand filter.
No single defendant exists in this twisted case where Defendants, 60 giant and defenseless natural neighbors, and the environment are the victims.
No jury would EVER believe John Jenkel killed trees. Any jury will probably agree that these over 125 year old perfectly healthy trees that died in 6 months were poisoned, and certainly NOT by tree worshiper John Jenkel who owned preservation rights on them. Said rights secured Plaintiff's commercial easement.
Consequently, Defendants are CLEARLY entitled to extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus by the court in setting aside said improperly processed, fraudulent, unfair, constitutionally defective, destructive, evil, and voidable default judgment, Exhibit A, that sets a Sonoma County record, and perhaps a State of California record for vile miscarriage of justice.
AUTHORITY XIV. Rights to equal protection of the laws. Section 1 of the 14 Amendment mandates:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
AUTHORITY XV. Set aside miscarriage of justice. Section 13, Article VI, CC mandates:
No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in
any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the
improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to
any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of
procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause,
including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the
error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
POINT 11. The court has jurisdiction to "make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness" but does not have jurisdiction to question witnesses, except to set aside judgments, or to grant a new trial.
The court is delegated under Section 13, Article VI, CC, with the jurisdiction to make any comment on the evidence and the testimony and credibility of any witness when it shall be the opinion of the court that it is necessary for the proper determination of the cause. However, the court does not have jurisdiction to decide a case by directly questioning witnesses, except when requested by a judicially abused party in a dispute to set aside a huge miscarriage of justice, which Defendants desperately try to do herein.
The power to decide a court case by questioning credible witnesses is not delegated to the United States, or to courts under the United States, or to the States respectively, or to state courts, or to this court by we the people. Under constitutional law, we, the ignored People of the State of California grant the power to question witnesses only to the parties in opposition or to their representative.
The only members of we, the People in courts of constitutional law are self-represented parties like Defendants. Defendants are real people. Under constitutional law, no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and confrontation with witnesses against them. Consequently, when a self-represented party is not present in court, there is no confrontation and a judge may not sentence, punish, or fine said party.
Judicial power only rests in deciding disputes in reaction to arguments, court not action in arguments. A judge may only act as parties in dispute request. Regardless of pleadings, if a self-represented party does not appear in court, the court has no dispute before it, and the judicial officer has no proceeding to decide.
Elected district attorneys represent the people in courts under the United States. All other attorneys in courts under the United States represent clients who may or may not be members of we the people. Such clients probably have agenda that exploit we the people. Rarely do parties come to court for the common good.
Represented people waive their personal, sacred, inalienable and all powerful constitutional rights in court by allowing legal counsel to represent them.
Defendants have hired such attorneys in the past. All appeared to dance for the opposition's big dollars under secret and unlawful attorney-client privileges. Consequently, Defendants can not trust any attorney, nor should any activist. It is better to stumble along as a self-represented party that to rely on an attorney.
The ONLY exception specifically allowed by the Constitution for the State of California to the people's delegation of jurisdiction of, or power to, courts of constitutional law regarding court examining of evidence by direct questioning witnesses is after the court has been requested by a judicially abused party to consider setting aside a constitutionally defective judgment based on a miscarriage of justice, as do Defendants herewith, under Section 13, Article VI, CC.
The power of the court delegated by the Constitution as ordained by we the people is limited to deciding disputes. Deciding disputes does not include the power to question witness to settle said dispute. That power is reserved to the people who may be self-represented parties who make or break their case in court, as they choose, and is their inalienable and supreme right.
AUTHORITY XVI. Powers not delegated are reserved to the people.
The 10th Amendment reservers powers to the people:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
POINT 12. Defendants are at all times inclusive. No Defendant.
Defendants are "all times" inclusive. There is no single defendant. "Each of the defendants was the agent of each of the remaining defendants" according to the filing that initiated this case on May 19, 2006, Exhibit E, page 2, line 9. On November 4, 2009, named codefendant John Jenkel was singled out in this case as a default judgment debtor by the County of Sonoma which then wrongfully seized his real property worth over $600,000 without due process of law, equal protection of the laws, just compensation ascertained by a jury, or warrant, supported by oath or affirmation, or court order, as a direct result of said constitutionally defective default and default judgments in this case. Said bogus default was taken in this case against "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendants." There is no single defendant in this case, and, therefore, no single default judgment debtor.
AUTHORITY XVII. Just compenstion. Section 19, Article I, CC mandates:
Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.
AUTHORITY XVIII. Rights to be secure. The 4th Amendment mandates:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
POINT 13. Judge Nadler technically killed Plaintiff's bogus case
Plaintiff's case crumbled to pieces when Judge Gary Nadler directly questioned Plaintiff's witnesses and examined Plaintiff's evidence, as happened in this case according to the Courtroom Minutes of Hearing #23 on February 20, 2008, Exhibit D. The court did not have jurisdiction to question witnesses. Under Sections 10 and 13, Article VI, CC, only the parties in dispute have jurisdiction to question witnesses in courts of constitutional law. However, in this twisted case, and in other cases involving Defendants, judicial officers not only favor Plaintiff's fabricated cases by asking soft-ball questions of Plaintiff's lying counsel or fabricating witnesses with Defendants silenced in corrupt default, but have ruled based on Plaintiff's hearsay, all of which lacked benefit of ANY legitimate cross examination, and all of which are perversions of justice that rise to treason.
The opposite of legitimacy is corruption. The official court transcript for hearing #23 in this case on February 20, 2008 shows blatant corruption. Every order or ruling in this case from February 20, 2008 forward is tainted with corruption, constitutionally defective, and is VOIDABLE in any California Superior Court of constitutional law. The problem is finding one in Sonoma County.
POINT 14. Self-represented parties had the right to remain silent in court or prior to court on November 21, 2007.
On November 21, 2007, with neither party present according to Courtroom Minutes, Exhibit F, and with "there being no opposition," Judge Gary Nadler adopted his tentative ruling denying Defendant's motion to set aside default against self-represented Defendants. Plaintiff had entered Defendants in default based on fraud on July 19, 2007. Of course there was opposition to denying Defendants' critical motion to set aside default against them on November 21, 2007.
Defendants' defense was based on constitutional grounds. They could planned to defend themselves in a court of constitutional law but were cheated out of their day in court. No court of constitutional law denies a constitutionally based defense. Defendants are entitled to a rehearing of the proceedings on November 21, 2007 before an honorable judicial officer.
Defendants certainly opposed denying their motion to set aside being unreasonably held in default for exercising their constitutionally protected rights to remain silent and not answer Plaintiffs second groundless and fatally defective complaint as "ordered," then "instructed" by Judge Nadler.
POINT 15. Plaintiff committed mail fraud to maintain its otherwise groundless case.
Plaintiff had informed Defendants by U.S. mail on October 30, 2007, Exhibit G, that the hearing set for November 21, 2007 on Defendants' "Motion to Set Aside Default" was "set for 11/28/07. If denied, prove-up hearing will be scheduled."
Defendants have lost count of how many times that they showed up for court only to find scheduled hearings postponed without notice.
Based on their experience and Plaintiff's U.S. mailed Case Management Statement, Exhibit G, which turned out to be mail fraud, Defendants did not appear and were cheated out of their default prove up hearing on November 21, 2007 where they planned to use constitutional grounds to defend from Plaintiff's bogus claim.
Honorable (?) Gary Nadler found self-represented Defendants in default status for refusing to follow "instructions," which were originally orders that His Honor had made on July 31, 2007, Exhibit H, to answer in writing Plaintiff's second groundless and harassing complaint against Defendants which was filed in another case and was fatally defective, with neither party present. This was judicial tyranny!
Judge Nadler changed his July 31, 2007 "order" to answer, Exhibit H, Plaintiff's second complaint to an "instruction to answer" in Exhibit F, after Defendants informed the court that it could not order self-represented Defendants to defend themselves.
Consequently, on November 21, 2007, Judge Nadler sentenced non-appearing self-represented Defendants to silence for exercising their constitutionally protected personal rights under equal protection of the laws to remain silent. Defendants elected to defend themselves in a court hearing rather than file court pleadings that would be finessed, as they experienced with their answer to Plaintiff's first groundless complaint, Exhibit E. Defendants choose to defend themselves in oral argument rather than do as "the court instructed" on November 21, 2007, and as Judge Nadler had formerly "ordered."
AUTHORITY XIX. Mail fraud. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 > § 1341
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
AUTHORITY XX. Rights to remain silent. The 5th Amendment guarantees the right to remain silent and to receive just compensation:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
AUTHORITY XXI. Rights to equal protection of the laws. Section 7, Article I, CC mandates:
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;...
POINT 16. "Order" to answer on July 31, 2007 changed to "instruction" to answer on November 21, 2007
On August 28, 2007, Plaintiffs entered Defendants into default because self-represented Defendants exercised their constitutionally protected rights to remain silent and did not obey a constitutionally defective order that "Court orders the Defendant to answer within 20 days" the "First Amended Compliant filed 11/7/06." This bench order issued during hearing #16 on July 31, 2007 under Honorable Gary Nadler, Exhibit H.
Judge Gary Nadler apparently realized that he could not order self-represented Defendants to answer a complaint in writing because self-represented Defendants may exercise their personal rights under the 5th Amendment and Sections 15 and 24, Article I, CC, to remain silent until hearing. Subsequently, Judge Nadler changed his "court orders the Defendant" of July 31, 2007, Exhibit I, to "court instructed Defendant," as shown in the Courtroom Minutes of November 21, 2007, Exhibit F. This was the first time Defendants received justice from Judge Nadler.
POINT 17. Judge refuses to recognize Defendants' supreme rights to remain silent about Plaintiff's bogus case.
Judge Gary Nadler refused to find that no "First Amended Compliant" was "filed 11/7/06" in this case. Said First Amended Complaint was actually filed in mystery case No. SCV-236924, Exhibit I. The Courtroom Minutes of November 21, 2007, Exhibit F, also show "On July 26, 2007, Plaintiff requested and received an ex parte order correcting the scrivener's error" for the case number of the "First Amended Compliant filed 11/7/06," allegedly filed in this case, according to Judge Nadler in Exhibits F and H, but actually filed in case No. SCV-236924, Exhibit I.
On November 21, 2007, the court punished Defendants by depriving them of their rights to defend themselves in this twisted and corrupt case based on Plaintiff's false allegations and without Defendants being present in court to defend themselves from Plaintiff's constitutionally defective entry of default against Defendants. Judge Nadler deprived Defendants of their being able to confronted with witnesses against them in an improperly processed, fraudulent, unfair, unconstitutional, and voidable procedure that left Defendants in unverified, constitutionally defective, and unenforceable default and wide open to organized crime in court.
Consequently, Defendants were silenced in an improperly processed, fraudulent, unfair, unconstitutional, and voidable default status on February 20, 2008 and deprived of their sacred property (the preservation rights to 60 historic trees) while Plaintiff accused named codefendant John Jenkel of killing eight healthy landmark Douglas Fir trees in a 60 tree stand that had been growing for over 125 years on a 13% slope, with occasional well water over three winter months.
Judge Nadler fraudulently and improperly awarded Plaintiff $320,000 for the uncalled-for killing and removal of 44 healthy giants of natural truth in Exhibit A while Defendants were threatened to be removed from court if they objected. This was probably THE cruelest court hearing against nature and historic preservation in California history!
In 2002, Plaintiff's president Paul Hobbs promised Defendants that it would preserve 60 landmark trees on its property in return for its commercial easement over named codefendant Jenkel's horse farm to build its ugly bait and switch winery, Stalag 116. Defendants, 60 historic trees, and Judge Nadler who is up for re-election in 2010, are all victims of Plaintiff's treachery in favor of mass murder and world terrorism in unconstitutional United States wars of congressional choice advised by the Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University against CIA-fabricated enemies for fascist gain, population management, religious genocide, and plain old organized crime. The spirits of 60 defenseless giants of natural truth and beauty will haunt Paul Hobbs forever!
ution of the United States.
POINT 18. Five violations of Defendants' rights at one hearing.
The record shows that Defendants' rights cited above were violated in this case during the 21st proceeding of November 21, 2007. Honorable Gary Nadler incredibly found "there being no opposition" to his "previously published tentative ruling as follows: Motion to set aside default is denied." There was neither party present. Defendants were denied the rights to confront Petitioner's claim that Defendants were in default. Defendants were deprived of their right to defend themselves in a court trial, or in a jury trial. Defendants were denied their right to plead the 5th Amendment. This unjust and fraudulently based default led to the destruction of 44 silent giants of nature and truth and named codefendant John Jenkel being deprived of a million dollar real property on November 4, 2009 without due process of law, confrontation of witnesses against him, or just compensation ascertained by a jury.
POINT 19. Defendants seek extraordinary relief by this court from a vile miscarriage of justice in favor of Plaintiff without which Plaintiff would otherwise have no case.
The judicial officer of this court is bound by an Oath of Office and a six year employment contract to support and defend the Constitutions for the United States and for the State of California without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and to do nothing else! Therefore, the judicial officer's first and last duty in court should be to provide justice and equal protection of supreme and superior constitutional law for self-represented parties involved in a dispute. When requested by either party, the judicial officer should provide extraordinary relief without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Because Defendants have received no relief, let alone extraordinary relief, from a constitutionally defective and improper admission of evidence and an exclusion of relevant evidence, Plaintiff was able to induce the County of Sonoma to seize income producing property on November 4, 2009 that was brought about by named codefendant John Jenkel without a warrant issued by a court upon findings of facts through cross examination, or any type of court order.
AUTHORITY XXIV. Secure from unreasonable seizure. Section 13, Article I, CC mandates:
SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.
POINT 20. Defendants seek relief from exclusion of relevant evidence and improper admission of evidence.
Under Section 28, (d), Article I, CC, relevant evidence shall not be excluded. Under Section 13, Article VI, CC, "no judgment shall be set aside in any cause on the ground of ... the improper admission or rejection of evidence ... unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the judgments in question which resulted from excluded evidence and admission of evidence without examination on February 20, 2008, as shown in the court minutes, Exhibit D, will be set aside.
POINT 21. Defendants seek relief from error as to matter of procedure on February 20, 2008.
Under Section 13, Article VI, CC, "no judgment shall be set aside in any cause on the ground of ... the improper admission or rejection of evidence ... or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the judgments in question will be set aside in light of errors in procedure that prevented cross examination of evidence and findings of fact on February 20, 2008, as shown in the Courtroom Minutes, Exhibit D.
POINT 22. Defendants seek relief from error as to matter of pleading following February 20, 2008.
Under Section 13, Article VI, CC, "no judgment shall be set aside in any cause ... for any error as to any matter of pleading, ... unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the judgments in question will be set aside based on an error in pleading following February 20, 2008, in that said judgments were against "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants." Defendants in Plaintiff's case SCV-238697 are actually, "JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1-15, inclusive, Defendants." Omitting the word inclusive gives Plaintiff unfair advantage and is fraudulent. Awards based on unfair advantage and fraud are voidable in any court of constitutional law.
POINT 23. Defendants are entitled to a trial by jury.
Defendants have never waived their personal rights to trial by jury. Defendants John Jenkel, and Does 1 through 15, at all times inclusive, were cruelly and unreasonably robbed of over $380,000. This miscarriage of justice was based on fraud, improper admission of evidence, exclusion of relevant evidence, improper procedure, and improper filing, all without a trial by jury.
AUTHORITY XXV. Trial by jury. The 7th Amendment mandates:
Trial by Jury. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
POINT 24. Defendants have inviolate rights to trial by jury.
Defendants have never waived their personal rights to trial by jury in an open court of constitutional law. Defendants John Jenkel, and Does 1 through 15, at all times inclusive, have been assessed over $380,000 without a trial by jury in violation of their inviolate rights .
AUTHORITY XXVI. Inviolate right. Section 16, Article I, CC mandates
Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant's counsel.
In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.
In civil causes the jury shall consist of 12 persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court. In civil causes other than causes within the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeal the Legislature may provide that the jury shall consist of eight persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.
In criminal actions in which a felony is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons. In criminal actions in which a misdemeanor is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.
POINT 25. Plaintiff has no inalienable rights!
Plaintiff has no personal rights and makes up for this handicap in courts of constitutional law by: a) perverting justice in violation of California Penal Code Section 182; and b) compelling six judicial officers to miscarry justice in this case or face well financed opponents for in their next re-election, and be publicly ruined.
POINT 26. The Honorable Gary Nadler favored Plaintiff.
During a one-sided hearing on February 20, 2008, Exhibit D, judicial officer Gary Nadler committed a preconceived error as to procedure in favor of Plaintiff by improperly admitting Plaintiff's fabricated evidence about tree killing that no jury would find true fact and excluded relevant evidence that a jury would probably agree was tree poisoning. Said error and unjust admission of evidence subsequently allowed Plaintiff to destroy Defendants' sacred property, which was a stand of 60 towering historic landmark trees, and the County to seize 1/5th of named codefendant Jenkel's horse farm without a court order.
POINT 27. Defendants silenced at courts or Plaintiff's pleasure.
Defendants are only held silenced in default when it suits Plaintiff's criminal agenda or the court's corrupt agenda to help Congress hide mass murder. Since February 20, 2008, there have been seven hearings in this case where defaulted Defendants were not held in default.
POINT 28. Crime and corruption from unjust default.
As a direct result of said Defendants being held in an unjust default status for exercising their personal rights to remain silent until oral argument in court:
a) over $4 million of Defendants' sacred property, the preservation rights to 60 landmark and historic fir trees, were destroyed by Plaintiff under the color of a "court order," as claimed by Plaintiff and Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff Monique Lomas, Badge #712, on March 22, 2008 between March 22 and June 13, 2008;
b) a $10,000.00 shed was unreasonably seized and destroyed by Plaintiff on June 20, 2009, under the color of a "court order" claimed by Plaintiff and Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff Dave Tait, Badge #1007, and;
c) a million dollar real property was unreasonably seized by the County of Sonoma on November 4, 2009 in Incident #SD-093080062 which public officer Elizabeth Warren claimed was based on a court order, and was not.
POINT 29. Plaintiff has no case without unfair advantage.
The record in this case shows that on August 28, 2006, Honorable Lloyd von der Mehden found that Plaintiff "failed to prove that actual knowledge of violation exists," Exhibit J, in Plaintiff's complaint filed May 19, 2006, Exhibit E.
The record shows that on October 10, 2007, Honorable John Golden found that Plaintiff's second complaint, that was originally filed in mystery Case No. SCV-236924 on November 7, 2006, Exhibit I, had a "fatal defect," Exhibit K.
POINT 30. No Nonsense Judge finds Plaintiff's fatal defect.
On October 16, 2007, visiting Honorable John Golden found Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed in mystery case No. SCV-236924 had "a fatal defect in the Quiet Title cause of action," according to Courtroom Minutes, Exhibit K. Judge Golden told Plaintiff "If you amend your complaint, you loose your default. Maybe some other judge will let you get away with it, but I won't."
POINT 31. Plaintiff's 5th groundless cause of action.
Said First Amended Complaint, Exhibit L, had a 5th additional cause of action. The first complaint filed on May 19, 2006, Exhibit D, had four causes of action which Honorable Lloyd von der Mehden found that Plaintiff failed to prove that it had actual knowledge existing during Hearing #10, Exhibit J. That was an indirect way of saying Plaintiff fabricated its case. The 5th cause of action in Plaintiff's second complaint was the fatally defective "Quiet Title cause of action" to quiet title of property owned by named codefendant John Jenkel by virtue of his using it and paying property taxes on it to the County of Sonoma for over 30 years. Plaintiff led the court to believe it was a recent development.
Defendants could never prove this ownership to the court because Defendants were, and are, held silenced in groundless default. Consequently, to this day, Defendants are held silenced in a default status for exercising their rights to remain silent until hearing on a fatally defective complaint that was served in a mystery case, which the court refuses to admit.
POINT 32. Plaintiff removed no nonsense judges.
Because they were fair and honorable, intimidating Plaintiff perverted justice by removing Judge Lloyd von der Mehden and Judge John Golden from this case.
POINT 33. Plaintiff fabricated a case based on "the water issue."
In order to have any case against Defendants to harass them, in 2007 Plaintiff's attorney John A. Holdredge invented "the water issue." He claimed well water, occasionally purging from an improperly installed sand filter that named codefendant John Jenkel had Yaeger Pump and Well install on his water supply after Plaintiff drilled a well 250 feet away, killed trees. Plaintiff claimed tree worshiper Jenkel poisoned eight perfectly healthy Douglas Fir trees. Plaintiff led Judge Lloyd von der Mehden to believe said water was wastewater from under named codefendant Jenkel's building. After a court trial and two hearings, Judge von der Mehden ruled Plaintiff "failed to prove that actual knowledge of violation exists" in Exhibit J. This is polite way of saying Plaintiff lied.
POINT 34. Judge Beaupre supported fabricated wastewater
On July 9, 2009, Honorable "rule of law" Judge Dean A. Beaupe claimed "This case itself does not involve Mr. Jenkel's political beliefs. It involves the nightmare that his next-door neighbor [Plaintiff] went through with Mr. Jenkel. It involves the findings by Judge Nadler that Mr. Jenkel caused the destruction of a 60-plus grove of 115-year-old trees by bleeding wastewater onto them for months," Exhibit M. This fabrication has never been examined in court because any examination would prove that Plaintiff perverted justice in violation of Penal Code Section 182 (a) (4) and Judge Nadler miscarried justice by improperly admitting evidence, excluding relevant evidence, and erring as to matter of procedure, which ground the herein supported PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTIVE JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE .
Said trees stood on Plaintiff's land locked property for over 150 years on a 13% slope. No jury would believe that in a three winter month period, occasional well water on killed perfectly healthy historic trees on a hillside.
POINT 35. Plaintiff poisoned eight historic trees to make a case
The record shows that during the 23rd hearing in this case on February 20, 2008, Plaintiff's agents blamed the death of 8 defenseless giants on named codefendant John Jenkel who had granted Plaintiff a commercial easement over his property based on the promise to Defendants made by Paul Hobbs and his brother, Matthew Hobbs, to preserve Plaintiff's historic stand of 60 trees.
POINT 36. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory.
Plaintiff's case is abundant with fraud and fabrications. It is supported by perversions or obstruction of justice. All of this criminality must be punished. Constitutional law provides punishment for wrongdoers. "The provisions of this Constitution" can be use to end Plaintiff's criminal conduct, which is helping the United States hide mass murder, by destroying Defendants and dismantling 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign. The provisions are ordained but there is no judge willing to enforce them. Unless one does in this case now, there may be no saving of our increasingly threatened democracy.
AUTHORITY XXVII. Provisions mandatory. Section 26, Article I, CC mandates:
The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
POINT 37. Constitutionally defective judgments issued under fabricated rule of law
Plaintiff has no personal rights, no cause, and no case. Consequently, Plaintiff tries to make up for this handicap by perversions of justice. Plaintiff and others in the addiction industry have forced Honorable Gary Nadler to violate his Oath of Office, Exhibit N, breach his 6 year public contract which expires next year, and deny the constitutionally protected personal rights of self-represented Defendants by issuing a fraudulent and constitutionally defective judgment, Exhibit A. Said judgment deprives Defendants of over $320,000.00 without due process of law, or equal protection of the laws mandated by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, without examination of cause mandated by the 4th Amendment, or without Defendants being confronted with Plaintiff's witnesses against them mandated by the 6th Amendment.
Said judgment issued under so-called "rule of law." "Rule of law" appears to be constitutional law minus constitutionally protected personal rights. It is based on whoever carries the biggest stick ... i.e., whoever has the most money.
AUTHORITY XXVIII. The 6 Amendment mandates:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
POINT 38. Supreme laws prevail.
In this case, or any case involving 9-11 Bounty Hunter John Jenkel, or the directors of 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign, any judicial officer in California who decides a 9-11 Truth Campaigner case under "rule of law," and not supreme law as bound by Oath of Office, public contract, and Section 2 of Article VI, USC, gives aid and comfort to the enemies of John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign. As shown herein and in the accompanying Declaration, the enemies of John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign are Plaintiff, enemies of this state, and domestic enemies of the United States.
POINT 39. Local rules are INFERIOR to Defendants' rights.
The court improperly relies on local rule in order to help Plaintiff evade Defendants' stinging oral arguments. To evade oral argument, the court has repeatedly required self-represented Defendants to call in advance to defend themselves at scheduled court hearings in favor of Plaintiff. Any such rule of law is inferior to the personal rights of Defendants cited herein which are guaranteed by supreme law in two Constitutions.
Six out of nine judges in this case have deliberately given aid and comfort to Plaintiff by enforcing inferior rules of law to make a phone call that may not be applied to self-represented parties. Therefore, Defendants request that both parties appear at the above scheduled Order To Show Cause hearing and at all future hearings to argue their litigation. This is the only way that the court can protect Defendants' personal rights to orally petition the court for redress of grievances as the court is obligated under constitutional law.
POINT 40. Security deposit hinders Defendants rights
In light of this Memorandum, the court may not require a $20,000.00 security deposit from Defendants to file their petitions and supporting documents to instruct the court under constitutional law. Said deposit is an abridgment of their constitutionally protected personal rights and is prohibited by "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding," Section 2, Article VI, USC. Said security deposit requirement and the vexatious litigant statute is classic rule of law. The California State Legislature never intended that any litigant should by hindered from taking court action for the common good.
POINT 41. The court may not require Defendants to put up one dime to file any petition.
The court may not require Defendants to put up one dime to file this litigation unless the same money is required from Plaintiff under equal protection of the laws in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and Sections 7 and 24, Article I, CC.
POINT 42. Rule of law is constitutional law minus personal rights.
Rule of law allows abridgment and denial of personal rights. The judicial officer did not take an oath and sign an employment contract to support and defend rule of law. The judicial officer is bound by oath, contract, and Section 2, Article VI, USC to support and defend the Constitutions for the United States and the State of California without ANY mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
POINT 43. Oaths of Office kill rule of law.
Under Section 3, Article XX, CC, an honorable judicial officer of this court is bound by Oath of Office and is paid a public wage under a six year contract to support and defend the personal rights of self-represented Defendants against all enemies, foreign and domestic, without ANY mental reservation or purpose of evasion. No rule of law may interfere.
POINT 44: All Statutes and Codes Inferior To Supreme Law.
Under Clause 2, Article VI, USC, the Constitution for, not of, the United States "and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
POINT 45. Motive for Petitioner's abuse of Defendants.
The reason Defendants are being terrorized, persecuted, and unjustly harassed in a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by Plaintiff and certain public officers in the County, the State, and U.S.A, in and out of this case, is because Defendants publicly expose 62 years of United State mass murder and world terrorism in over 140 Hoover Institute-advised unconstitutional wars of congressional choice, not necessity, against CIA-fabricated enemies in favor of Plaintiff and others in organized crime who profit from death, destruction, and corruption.
Defendants are 9-11 Bounty Hunter John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign. They publicly hold all local and state public officers accountable for allowing the 107th through 111th Congresses to look away from 2,754 unplanned and unsolved murders during the Enron-sponsored terrorist acts on 9-11, and for allowing 361 members of the 5th Strike-first Congress to look away from the 173 treasonous members of the 111th Congress, including Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Jane Harman, and Harry Reid, who authorize the President "to use" deadly armed forces "as he" alone "determines to be necessary" anywhere, including named codefendant John Jenkel's horse farm, under strike-first Public Law 107-243, 'da United States Mass Murder, World Terrorism, and Dictatorship Act of October 16, 2002, Exhibit O.
POINT 46. This case is designed to give aid and comfort to those in organized crime who profit from United States mass murder and terrorism upon its earth neighbors.
Unconstitutional warmongers use this case to dismantle the million dollar 9-11 Truth Campaign and destroy 9-11 Bounty Hunter John Jenkel in order to continue the murder of Californians and the theft and squander of state and local resources, and to hide the record breaking public blood debt and larceny to pay for it.
POINT 47. Justice in this case will end high crime and corruption.
We the people are victimized by organized crime. We the Internet-informed are getting wise to mass murder, world terrorism, and corruption by Congress. We will vote traitors out of office from the filing of this Petition on.
Also, there is no more money left to squander on mass murder and corruption. Go, economic crisis!
POINT 48. Court must not be an accessory to criminal conduct
This court may not to be an accessory to criminal conduct by Plaintiff and certain public officers. The judicial officer must either provide justice in this case as duty calls, or the judicial officer gives aid and comfort to Plaintiff and other domestic enemies who profit from death and suffering in two unconstitutional wars of congressional choice, never necessity, against fabricated enemies for fascist gain, population management, religious genocide, and plain old organized crime.
AUTHORITY XXIX. California Penal Code Sections 30-32 rule:
Section 30. The parties to crimes are classified as:
1. Principals; and,
2. Accessories.
Section 31. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age
of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to
commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion
the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit
any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel
another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so
committed.
Section 32. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such
felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is
an accessory to such felony.
POINT 49. Judge deprived 9-11 Bounty Hunter of $ millions.
Because Judge Gary Nadler allowed Plaintiff to amend its fatally defective second complaint and forced Defendants to remain silenced in unreasonably and unconstitutionally held default status, named codefendant John Jenkel has been deprived off over $5 million of assets without due process of law or equal protection of the laws.
POINT 50. Judge must make amends, or face consequences
Presiding Judge Gary Nadler can begin to make amends by allowing the filing of this Memorandum, said Petition and Declaration which will provide Defendants a Show Of Cause Hearing on why a one-sided and constitutionally defective money judgment, against "John Jenkel, Defendant" who is a fiction in this case, should not be set aside. A constitutional court of law will find Plaintiff lost its default against Defendants when rule of law Judge Nadler amended Plaintiff's fatally defective First Amended Complaint prior to assessing damages of over $320,000 against cruelly silenced Defendants.
Point 51. The judicial officer has the duty to decide.
The duties of all public officers under the United States are to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to Defendants and their posterity, and to do nothing else, and absolutely do nothing else. In performing these duties, Code of Civil Procedure Section 170 rules "a judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she is not disqualified."
Said duty to decide in any proceeding does not include:
a) making a fraudulent decision in favor of one party with neither adverse party present, as the record shows California Superior Court Judge Gary Nadler did in this case during "hearing" #21 on November 21, 2007, Exhibit D;
b) amending a complaint and allowing it to live on as if not changed, as Judge Nadler did on February 20, 2008 under "Court and counsel discuss the Amended Complaint," Exhibit D.
A judge does not "decide" anything in a proceeding where neither party appears, as Judge Nadler decided Defendants were in default on November 21, 2007. Said alleged default decision by is actually a unilateral ruling requested from no party present and made by a judicial officer in light of certain opposition. It all smacks of tyranny.
All self-represented Defendants must be personally present before a judge can rule against them. In a proceeding with no appearances, no argument comes forth from adverse parties on which a judge may decide, find fact, or continue.
A judge must decide on arguments by self-defended parties, not on pleadings. A judge may make a tentative ruling on pleadings but may not decide a proceeding that has no party present, especially if one is self represented.
POINT 52. Heroic justice in order.
When Sonoma County Presiding Judge Gary Nadler provides justice and due process of law, as duty calls, by allowing common good Defendants to file Defendants' PETITION FOR ORDER TO CAUSE WHY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE, DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES THAT SHOW DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AGAINST THEM WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, and the accompanying DEFENDANTS' DECLARATION REGARDING TERRORISM BY PLAINTIFF, COUNTY, STATE & U.S.A. TO FAVOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS OF CONGRESSIONAL CHOICE in this twisted life and democracy saving, economy restoring, and constitution establishing case, His Honor will benefit every freedom loving free thinker on earth (and certainly will be a shoe-in for re-election).
POINT 53. No justice, no judge
However, if Presiding Judge Gary Nadler requires Defendants to put up a $20,000.00 security deposit to cover Plaintiff's expenses for covering up their organized crime in this case, His Dishonor will be supporting local terrorism, mass murder, world terrorism, the destruction of our democracy, and the intentional bankruptcy of our union of states by one-world government fascists. He will certainly be helping the County of Sonoma get away with the unreasonable seizure of persons and property, and helping strike-first Congress maintain two Hoover Institute-advised unconstitutional wars of congressional choice, never necessity, against CIA-fabricated enemies for fascist gain, population management and religious genocide, and lining the pockets of his sponsors in plain old organized crime. No resident of Sonoma County of sound mind, and certainly no property owner, will re-elect such a corrupt judicial officer in 2010.
Point 54. Defendants need a fair Judge to end unjust default
On February 20, 2008, hearing #23, Defendants were silenced in default status while Plaintiff and Judge Gary Nadler conspired to amend Plaintiff's fatally defective First Amended Complaint. According to Judge John Golden on October 16, 2007, the amending of the Plaintiff's second complaint should have voided Defendants being held in default for not answering a 2nd complaint because it no longer existed. It became an amended First Amended Complaint, or a 3rd complaint.
With the First Amended Complaint altered, Defendants can not be held accountable for failing to answer it. Judge Nadler did not allow Defendants their rights to not answer an altered third groundless complaint. Defendants doubly unjust and constitutionally defective default status has never been lifted despite three motions to set aside or vacate default on constitutional grounds. .
Point 55. Plaintiff disqualified good Judge.
Plaintiff disqualified just Judge John Golden based on His Honor's being biased against Plaintiff, as any honest judge would be.
Point 56. Self-represented parties have inviolate rights.
The inviolate rights of self represented Defendants include :
1. The rights to confront witnesses against them. Said personal rights are ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to the self-represented Defendants in this case by Sections 15 and 24, Article I, CC. On February 20, 3008, Defendants were denied these rights.
2. The rights to have a trial by jury. Said personal rights are ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to the self-represented Defendants in this case by the 6th Amendment and by Section 16, Article I, CC. After 34 fixed hearings, a jury trial is in order. 3. The rights to not be compelled to witness against themselves and choose to remain silent. Said personal rights are ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to the self-represented Defendants in this case by the 5th Amendment and by Sections 24, Article I, CC. However, during Hearing #16 on July 31, 2007, Judge Gary Nadler ordered self-represented Defendants to answer Plaintiff's second groundless complaint that was filed under mystery Case No. SCV-236924. Because Defendants exercised their personal rights to remain silent about a second groundless complaint, Plaintiff entered Defendants in default on August 29, 2007, Exhibit P. Said First Amended Complaint had a "fatal defect" according to Honorable John Golden, Exhibit K. On October 16, 2007, Judge Golden told Plaintiff, "If you amend your complaint (to correct its defect) you loose your default." On February 20, 2008, Judge Nadler allowed Plaintiff to correct the defect which should have voided the default.
4. The rights to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws. Said personal rights are ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to self-represented Defendants in this case by the 5th Amendment and by Sections 24, Article I, CC;
5. The right to not have private property taken for a public use unless just compensation has been ascertained by a jury. Said rights are ABSOLUTELY guaranteed to the self-represented Defendants in this case by Sec. 19, Article I, CC.
POINT 57. Defendants stand on constitutional rights. Plaintiff stands on dirt!
The entire defense of Defendants is based on relief from violations of their inalienable rights. Plaintiff has no lawful defense from Defendants' constitutional defense so Plaintiff and judges, who Plaintiff and organized crime sponsor, resort to criminal conduct. Defendants exercise their personal rights in courts of constitutional law to seek relief from Plaintiff's harassing and criminal conduct. Refusing to make phone calls in order to appear in court is their rights. The court unjustly harasses self-represented Defendants and abridges their rights by requiring Defendants to reserve appearances at scheduled hearings and denying due process. The court must honor Defendants rights by requiring appearances at all hearings.
POINT 58. Defendants are victims of Plaintiff's crimes in this case.
Defendants are the victims of Plaintiff's numerous criminal conspiracies with six out of nine judges to cheat self-represented Defendants out of their constitutionally protected rights to appear four times in this 33 hearing case because Defendants refused to obey an inferior rule of court to make phone calls in order to be heard at advertised and scheduled hearings. These perversions or obstructions of justice are conspiracies against self-represented Defendants' inalienable rights.
POINT 59. Court either favors organized crime or Defendants There is no in between.
At the Show Of Cause Hearing that Defendants herein request in this case with the herein supported Petition, the court will hear why a constitutionally defective and fraudulent money judgment of $320,158.00 on April 16, 2008, Exhibit A, as "corrected" to $349,760.00 on April 22, 2009, Exhibit Q, should not be set aside. The judicial officer must either decide to deny Defendants' Petition in favor of Plaintiff, organized crime, and more mass murder in unconstitutional wars of congressional choice, or grant Defendants' Petition for Defendants and world good.
If Judge Nadler grants the herein supported Petition, there will be a world class, earth shaking, and desperately needed public hearing between evil and good. If he denies said Petition, his dishonor is ripe for life imprisonment or death sentences.
Nobody wants the latter.
There is no in between!
POINT 60. Self-represented rights prevail.
Upon understanding the 59 points and 29 authorities presented herein, Defendants pray the court will find justification for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus sought in Defendants' PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY UNCONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE.
Date: December ____ , 2009 By: _____________________________
John Jenkel, named codefendant
Date: December ____ , 2009 By: _____________________________
Mary E. Morrison, unnamed codefendant
Date: December ____ , 2009 By: _____________________________
Rachel Bell, unnamed codefendant
Verification
We, the undersigned, declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based our own personal knowledge and, if called as witnesses to testify, we will testify competently thereto.
In the County of Sonoma, California
Dated: December ___ , 2009 Rachel Bell ________________________
Dated: December ___ , 2009 Beth Canelis _______________________
Dated: November ___ , 2009 Colleen Fernald _______________________
Dated: November ___ , 2009 John Jenkel _______________________
Dated: November ___ , 2009 Rachel Charity Lamm _______________________
Dated: November ___ , 2009 Mary Elizabeth Morrison _____________________
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Voidable Default Judgment of April 16, 2008 by Judge Gary Nadler against Defendants who he cruelly, fraudulently, and treasonously silenced during hearing 23 on February 20, 2008 in favor of Plaintiff and organized crime
Exhibit B: ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
JOHN JENKEL, Named Codefendant
Post Office Box 1822, Sebastopol, California 95473
Phone: 707-823-7083 #4341 (P#4325, D#4331, A#4330)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SONOMA
PAUL HOBBS WINERY, L.P., Case No. SCV-238697
a California Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff, ORDER SETTING ASIDE
vs. DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AND
DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN JENKEL, and DOES 1
through 15, inclusive,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
Named codefendant John Jenkel was seized by the County of Sonoma in favor of Plaintiff on September 5, 2006 and on September 8, 2009 while exercising his inalienable rights to protect his property, privacy, and posterity. He was deprived of his property by the county's unreasonable seizures on November 26, 2007, March 22 through June 13, 2008, June 20, 2009, and November 4, 2009. All of these seizures were without due process of law, warrants, court orders, or trials by jury, and were based on improper admission of evidence, improper procedures, or improper pleadings which are detailed in Defendants' Declaration and Points and Authorities in support of their PETITION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE JUDGMENTS SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE. In light of the above, the court finds good cause to set aside the DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT of April 16, 2008, the CORRECTED DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT of April 22, 2008, and to set aside Defendants' default status in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: By ____________________________
Judge of Superior Court
Exhibit C: Department of Justice conspires to protect conspiracies against rights. This is a printout of the DOJ website presentation of Conspiracy Against Rights. Compare it with Authority IX and see DOJ dirt for yourself. There is no 2nd paragraph stating: If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
Exhibit D: Courtroom Minutes of February 20, 2008 with Defendants silenced.
Exhibit E: This twisted case as filed May 19, 2006.
Exhibit F: Courtroom Minutes of November 21, 2007 with no parties present.
Exhibit G: Plaintiff's notice to Defendants that is a perversion of justice and mail fraud. This five page U.S. mailed service caused Defendants to miss the critical November 21, 2007 hearing where "Motion to Set Aside Default" was heard by Judge Gary Nadler with no appearance by either side. This notice fraudulently informed Defendants that "Motion to Set Aside Default set for 11/28/07. If denied, prove-up hearing will be scheduled."
Exhibit H: Courtroom Minutes of July 31, 2007 where Judge Gary Nadler ordered self-represented Defendants to not remain silent about a fatally defective complaint.
Exhibit I: Mystery Case No. SCV-236924 that Judge Gary Nadler will not find.
Exhibit J: Judge Lloyd von der Mehden found Plaintiff "failed to prove that actual knowledge of violation exists," or in other words, Plaintiff fabricated said violation.
Exhibit K: Judge John Golden found Plaintiff's second groundless complaint had a "fatal defect," but Judge Gary Nadler finessed it on February 20, 2008 so Plaintiff could continue to harass Defendants John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign..
Exhibit L: Plaintiff's fatally defective First Amended Complaint that was first filed in Mystery Case No. SCV-236924 on November 7, 2006, Exhibit I, which Judge Gary Nadler improperly allowed Plaintiff to amend in court on February 20, 2008, Exhibit D, and became Plaintiff's Amended First Amended Complaint, erasing the fatally defective First Amended Complaint that to this day His Honor (?) holds Defendants in default status for refusing to follow his "instructions," not orders, to answer.
Exhibit M: Judge Dean A. Beaupre claim in court on July 9, 2009 that "This case itself does not involve Mr. Jenkel's political beliefs. It involves the nightmare that his next-door neighbor [Plaintiff] went through with Mr. Jenkel. It involves the findings by Judge Nadler that Mr. Jenkel caused the destruction of a 60-plus grove of 115-year-old trees by bleeding wastewater onto them for months."
a) Mr. Jenkel has no political beliefs. Even if he did, it would be irrelevant.
b) The nightmare that Mr. Jenkel's neighbor, Plaintiff, is still going through is because Plaintiff foolishly and maliciously sued 'da 9-11 Bounty Hunter and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign.
c) Judge Gary Nadler did not find that "Mr. Jenkel caused the destruction of a 60-plus grove of 115-year-old trees by bleeding wastewater onto them for months."
Judge Nadler heard this fabrication on February 20, 2008 but did not find this because he silenced Defendants in default status so there was no cross examination of Plaintiff's fabrications and no finding of fact by the court.
d) Judge Beaupre is a lying traitor appointed by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George.
Exhibit N: Judge Gary Nadler's oath that he needs to read.
Exhibit O: Fascist strike-first Public Law 107-243, 'da United States Mass Murder, World Terrorism, and Dictatorship Act of October 16, 2002, that has caused the murder of over 540 Californians, the maiming of over 5,000 Californians, the murder of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children on Iraq streets between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. for Big Oil and bottom feeders, the murder of an unknown thousands of Afghanis for Communist China and the same gang of bottom feeders, bankrupted the City of Vallejo, and is bankrupting the City of Santa Rosa, but not the City of Sebastopol which is the only government in the world that held the United States accountable for fascist strike-first Public Law/betrayal 107-243, thanks to 9-11 Bounty Hunter John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign.
Exhibit P: Plaintiff entered Defendants in bogus default on August 29, 2007. This perversion of justice may put Paul Hobbs Winery partners behind bars.
Exhibit Q: Voidable CORRECTED DEFAULT JUDGMENT for $349,760.00 against cruelly silenced and defenseless self-represented Defendants, John Jenkel and 'da 9-11 Truth Campaign, inclusive, that is causing Plaintiff, Judges Dean A. Beaupre and Gary Nadler, Deputy Public Defenders Jeff Mitchell and James H. Loughborough, Sheriff Bill Cogbill and his agent Elizabeth Warren, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, strike-first Senate Leader Harry Reid, China's doll Dianne Feinstien, constitutionalist-turned-dictator Barack Obama, and Wizard of Deception Willie Brown nightmares, thanks to horse lover John Jenkel.
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES THAT SHOW DEFAULT
JUDGMENTS AGAINST THEM WERE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE, Page 40 of 82
D
-
Bulletin Board
Quick Nav
Click Banner For More Info
See All Sponsors
Advertise Here
Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: Seeking observers for justice
-
Peace Voyager
-
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
-
Join Date: Mar 14, 2005
-
Location: Sebastopol
- Expressed Gratitude: 809
- Received Gratitude 455 times for 252 posts
- View Profile
-
Ignore
- Visit Homepage
-
View Posts: (671)
Seeking observers for justice
-
-
SonomadreamerGuest
Similar Threads
-
Social Justice Quiz
By Cascade in forum WaccoReaderReplies: 0Last Post: 09-13-2008, 12:57 PM -
Justice for Alberto Gonzales
By Dixon in forum WaccoTalkReplies: 1Last Post: 05-11-2007, 07:55 AM -
Ole! to peace and justice
By JollyJane in forum Poetry and ProseReplies: 0Last Post: 11-14-2006, 10:01 PM
Bookmarks
-
Facebook
-
Twitter
-
StumbleUpon