Horseman
07-07-2008, 12:14 PM
'Da 9-11 Truth Campaign™ To End 60 Years Of Mass Murder
and Plunder For Fascist Agenda.
July 7, 2008, Abuse News #3714 by John Jenkel,
write-in candidate for President, Graton, CA , 800-500-7083,
[email protected]
Fifth Criminal Complaint By Ignored Victim
Santa Rosa Police Department
ATTENTION: Lieutenant Nick Sensley and investigating officer Brian Kohlman
SUBJECT: Responding to request for criminal charges against Lee Fredrick Jones
VICTIM: Rachel Charity Lamm, 3381 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, California, 95472, 707-360-5183
Dear Sirs:
Please review my attached VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER REPORT, Exhibit A, filed on March 28, 2008, my STATEMENT C/A FORM filed on March 31, 2008 (REPORT NO. 08-5014), Exhibit B, and my letters of April 6, 2008 and April 19, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Ed Flint, Lieutenant Nick Sensley and investigating officer Brian Kohlman, Exhibit C and D (Abuse News #3577 and #3590). These verified documents support my herein VICTIM'S COMPLAINT against your resident Lee Fredrick Jones for 58 incidents of child stealing. As a result of these incidents, I had only 4 hours of contact with our child, Violet Rose Jones, from April 15 to Sept. 28, 2007.
On March 31, 2008, I was finally allowed by your department to file a police report, Exhibit B, about these felonies, which violated California Penal Code Section 278.5, Exhibit E. Between April 13, 2007, when one of your officers called me "a liar" in your lobby, and March 31, 2008, your department refused my report. This was conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of California Penal Code Section 182 (a) (5), Exhibit F. On April 6, 2008, your staff refused to accept my amended report, Exhibit C, so my sponsor, John Jenkel, filed it with the City Council on April 8, 2008.
I reported on March 28, 2008 and March 31, 2008 that your resident Lee Fredrick Jones maliciously deprived me of four court-ordered supervised visitations at the California Parenting Institute on March 8, 11, 13, and 15, 2007 under a never examined or processed TEMPORARY ORDER of March 1, 2007, Exhibit G. There has been no response from the department despite my calls.
The defective TEMPORARY ORDER issued after the Sebastopol Police Department charged your resident Jones for battering me with injuries, Exhibit H, I, J, K, L, and M, and obtained an Emergency Protective Order, Exhibit N, against Mr. Jones for my protection and the protection of our child, which he then violated, Exhibit O. This documented domestic violence and child endangerment, Exhibit P, should have prevented Mr. Jones from having ANY custody under California Family Code Section 3044, Exhibit Q, but four California Superior Courts in Sonoma County ignored California child protective policy established by the state legislature.
It is incumbent upon the department to file charges against your resident Jones for violating CPC Section 278.5 within city limits, based on my certified report and supporting documents. However, the department turned the matter over to the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office. I filed my report with the department, not with the DA. The DA does not file charges against criminals. It prosecutes charges by law enforcement or indictments by grand juries. Consequently, the Santa Rosa Police Department is evading its duty under oaths and contracts of its public officers in violation of my constitutional and inalienable rights.
District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua pretended to prosecute Sebastopol's battery charge against Defendant Jones arising from his domestic violence during a court ordered child custody exchange at the Sebastopol Police Station on November 3, 2006. Visiting Judge Philip A. Champlin, who is a friend of Mr. Jones' mother, Katherine L. Williams in San Diego, dismissed the case, Exhibit R. Defendant Jones was defended by defense attorney Jill Ravitch, a lesbian. Conflicted Judge Champlin is gay. Your resident Jones is clearly a protected criminal.
On April 6, 2008, I amended my March 31, 2008 statement to add the facts under penalty of perjury that your resident Jones also maliciously deprived me and our child of court-ordered supervised visitation on March 18 and April 8, 10, and 12, 2007, as shown by CPI report of March 4, 2008, Exhibit S. These are four additional violations of CPC Sec. 278.5 by suspect Jones.
Beginning April 17, 2007, your resident Jones (and CPI) maliciously deprived me and my child of court-ordered supervised visitation on April 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, and 29, May 1, 3, 6, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 31, June 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 17, 2007, which are 24 additional instances of CPC 278.5 violations.
By the bench ORDER of June 18, 2007, Exhibit T, the yet to be challenged and groundless temporary ORDER of March 1, 2007 was modified to supervised visitation at CPI "twice weekly for three hours each visit." This ORDER remained in force until a court hearing that was unlawfully closed to the public mid hearing on September 19, 2007, Exhibit U. In the corruptly closed portion of this hearing, I was tricked into dropping my contempt of court complaint based on the 32 failures to obey court orders by your resident Jones.
As the Director of Supervised Visitation at CPI states in her letter of July 11, 2007, Exhibit V, CPI had not received return communication from Mr. Jones after the June 18, 2007 court order that required contact.
In fact, until your resident Jones was ordered by Judge Arnold D. Rosenfield Rosenfield a third time to provide supervised visitation on June 18, 2007, Exhibit T, your resident Jones maliciously deprived me of court-ordered supervised visitation at CPI twice weekly for three hours each visit, from the June 18, 2007 order to the September 19, 2007 order, a period of over 13 weeks. These are 26 additional violations of CPC Sec. 278.5. During this time, I had no communication with my four year old child that I had nursed until she was 2 1/2 years old.
This third amended report describes 58 incidents of felony child stealing by your resident Jones. Your failure to charge your resident for these incidents of felony child stealing in response to my report No. 08-5014 and supporting documents is obstruction of justice committed by your department's officers.
To avoid obstruction of justice charges against the officers involved, please file child stealing charge against Lee Fredrick Jones based on my report No. 08-5014, and I will not file obstruction of justice complaints against the department's officers, including abruptly retired Chief Ed Flint.
The Department's obstruction of justice caused my child and me undo torment, pain, and suffering in order to help Congress hide mass murder in undeclared wars of congressional choice, never necessity.
Naturally, Rachel Lamm
I certify under the penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct. Executed in the County of Sonoma, on July __, 2008 by Rachel Lamm.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: The first written report dated March 28, 2007 of Santa Rosan Lee Fredrick Jones depriving Rachel Charity Lamm from court ordered and scheduled supervised visitations with their child.
Exhibit B: The previously blocked report of March 31, 2008 establishing Report Number 08-5014 that keeping
Exhibit C: Letter of April 6, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Flint with the details on 58 instances of child stealing by Mr. Jones. Abuse News #3577.
Exhibit D: Letter of April 16, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Flint with more details on 58 instances of child stealing by Mr. Jones and the evasion of duty by the Chief to enforce Penal Code violations in Santa Rosa. Abuse News #3590.
Exhibit E: Law against child stealing: California Penal Code Section 278.5 (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.
Exhibit F: Law against obstructing justice: California Penal Code Section 182 (a) (5)
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
182. (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.
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. If the felony is one for which
different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury
or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the
degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the
degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit
the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in
the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment
shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.
If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which
have different punishments and the commission of those felonies
constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that
prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term.
When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they
shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
Exhibit G: The never examined temporary ORDER of March 1, 2007 which deprived Rachel Charity Lamm of joint custody without due process or reasonable cause and left a natural mother only "visitation as follows: Professionally supervised up to 6 hours per week paid for by mother."
Exhibit H: Sebastopol Police Department's battery charge against Santa Rosa resident Jones for domestic violence of Rachel Charity Lamm, which is intentionally overlooked by four California Superior Courts. There was also a child endangerment charge against DV suspect Jones, Exhibit P, and an Emergency Protective Order, Exhibit Q, protecting a mother and child from Suspect Jones' domestic violence while under the influence of alcohol.
Exhibits I-M: Bruises on Victim Lamm from Suspect Jones' domestic violence.
Exhibit N: An EPO against Santa Rosa DV suspect Jones which he violated, Exhibit O.
Exhibit O: EPO violations by Santa Rosa DV suspect Jones.
Exhibit P: A child endangerment charge by Sebastopol Police against DV suspect Jones.
Exhibit Q California Family Code Section 3044 (a) Upon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child's siblings within the previous five years, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is
detrimental to the best interest of the child, pursuant to Section
3011. This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of
the evidence.
(b) In determining whether the presumption set forth in
subdivision (a) has been overcome, the court shall consider all of
the following factors:
(1) Whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated
that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the
perpetrator is in the best interest of the child. In determining
the best interest of the child, the preference for frequent and
continuing contact with both parents, as set forth in subdivision (b)
of Section 3020, or with the noncustodial parent, as set forth in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3040, may not be used to
rebut the presumption, in whole or in part.
Exhibit R: Criminal Docket for corruptly dismissed DV case, People v. Jones, SCV-502220
Exhibit S: CPI Report of March 4, 2008, showing DV suspect Jones was "out of town" during a scheduled supervised visitation on 4/12/07. This report fails to show that he also was "out of town" and in San Diego visiting his mother, co-child-stealer Katherine L. Williams, on March 8, 11, 13, and 15, 2007.
Exhibit T: Ignored bench ORDER of June 18, 2007, that modified supervised visitation at CPI to "twice weekly for three hours each visit."
Exhibit U: The bench ORDER of Sept. 19, 2007 that issued in an unlawfully closed hearing where Rachel Charity Lamm was tricked and coerced to give up "Contempt Charges" against Mr. Jones in return for "Mother's time."
Exhibit V: Letter of July 11, 2007 stating CPI had not received any return communication from Jones after the June 18, 2007 order requiring "contact."
and Plunder For Fascist Agenda.
July 7, 2008, Abuse News #3714 by John Jenkel,
write-in candidate for President, Graton, CA , 800-500-7083,
[email protected]
Fifth Criminal Complaint By Ignored Victim
Santa Rosa Police Department
ATTENTION: Lieutenant Nick Sensley and investigating officer Brian Kohlman
SUBJECT: Responding to request for criminal charges against Lee Fredrick Jones
VICTIM: Rachel Charity Lamm, 3381 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, California, 95472, 707-360-5183
Dear Sirs:
Please review my attached VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER REPORT, Exhibit A, filed on March 28, 2008, my STATEMENT C/A FORM filed on March 31, 2008 (REPORT NO. 08-5014), Exhibit B, and my letters of April 6, 2008 and April 19, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Ed Flint, Lieutenant Nick Sensley and investigating officer Brian Kohlman, Exhibit C and D (Abuse News #3577 and #3590). These verified documents support my herein VICTIM'S COMPLAINT against your resident Lee Fredrick Jones for 58 incidents of child stealing. As a result of these incidents, I had only 4 hours of contact with our child, Violet Rose Jones, from April 15 to Sept. 28, 2007.
On March 31, 2008, I was finally allowed by your department to file a police report, Exhibit B, about these felonies, which violated California Penal Code Section 278.5, Exhibit E. Between April 13, 2007, when one of your officers called me "a liar" in your lobby, and March 31, 2008, your department refused my report. This was conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of California Penal Code Section 182 (a) (5), Exhibit F. On April 6, 2008, your staff refused to accept my amended report, Exhibit C, so my sponsor, John Jenkel, filed it with the City Council on April 8, 2008.
I reported on March 28, 2008 and March 31, 2008 that your resident Lee Fredrick Jones maliciously deprived me of four court-ordered supervised visitations at the California Parenting Institute on March 8, 11, 13, and 15, 2007 under a never examined or processed TEMPORARY ORDER of March 1, 2007, Exhibit G. There has been no response from the department despite my calls.
The defective TEMPORARY ORDER issued after the Sebastopol Police Department charged your resident Jones for battering me with injuries, Exhibit H, I, J, K, L, and M, and obtained an Emergency Protective Order, Exhibit N, against Mr. Jones for my protection and the protection of our child, which he then violated, Exhibit O. This documented domestic violence and child endangerment, Exhibit P, should have prevented Mr. Jones from having ANY custody under California Family Code Section 3044, Exhibit Q, but four California Superior Courts in Sonoma County ignored California child protective policy established by the state legislature.
It is incumbent upon the department to file charges against your resident Jones for violating CPC Section 278.5 within city limits, based on my certified report and supporting documents. However, the department turned the matter over to the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office. I filed my report with the department, not with the DA. The DA does not file charges against criminals. It prosecutes charges by law enforcement or indictments by grand juries. Consequently, the Santa Rosa Police Department is evading its duty under oaths and contracts of its public officers in violation of my constitutional and inalienable rights.
District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua pretended to prosecute Sebastopol's battery charge against Defendant Jones arising from his domestic violence during a court ordered child custody exchange at the Sebastopol Police Station on November 3, 2006. Visiting Judge Philip A. Champlin, who is a friend of Mr. Jones' mother, Katherine L. Williams in San Diego, dismissed the case, Exhibit R. Defendant Jones was defended by defense attorney Jill Ravitch, a lesbian. Conflicted Judge Champlin is gay. Your resident Jones is clearly a protected criminal.
On April 6, 2008, I amended my March 31, 2008 statement to add the facts under penalty of perjury that your resident Jones also maliciously deprived me and our child of court-ordered supervised visitation on March 18 and April 8, 10, and 12, 2007, as shown by CPI report of March 4, 2008, Exhibit S. These are four additional violations of CPC Sec. 278.5 by suspect Jones.
Beginning April 17, 2007, your resident Jones (and CPI) maliciously deprived me and my child of court-ordered supervised visitation on April 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, and 29, May 1, 3, 6, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, and 31, June 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 17, 2007, which are 24 additional instances of CPC 278.5 violations.
By the bench ORDER of June 18, 2007, Exhibit T, the yet to be challenged and groundless temporary ORDER of March 1, 2007 was modified to supervised visitation at CPI "twice weekly for three hours each visit." This ORDER remained in force until a court hearing that was unlawfully closed to the public mid hearing on September 19, 2007, Exhibit U. In the corruptly closed portion of this hearing, I was tricked into dropping my contempt of court complaint based on the 32 failures to obey court orders by your resident Jones.
As the Director of Supervised Visitation at CPI states in her letter of July 11, 2007, Exhibit V, CPI had not received return communication from Mr. Jones after the June 18, 2007 court order that required contact.
In fact, until your resident Jones was ordered by Judge Arnold D. Rosenfield Rosenfield a third time to provide supervised visitation on June 18, 2007, Exhibit T, your resident Jones maliciously deprived me of court-ordered supervised visitation at CPI twice weekly for three hours each visit, from the June 18, 2007 order to the September 19, 2007 order, a period of over 13 weeks. These are 26 additional violations of CPC Sec. 278.5. During this time, I had no communication with my four year old child that I had nursed until she was 2 1/2 years old.
This third amended report describes 58 incidents of felony child stealing by your resident Jones. Your failure to charge your resident for these incidents of felony child stealing in response to my report No. 08-5014 and supporting documents is obstruction of justice committed by your department's officers.
To avoid obstruction of justice charges against the officers involved, please file child stealing charge against Lee Fredrick Jones based on my report No. 08-5014, and I will not file obstruction of justice complaints against the department's officers, including abruptly retired Chief Ed Flint.
The Department's obstruction of justice caused my child and me undo torment, pain, and suffering in order to help Congress hide mass murder in undeclared wars of congressional choice, never necessity.
Naturally, Rachel Lamm
I certify under the penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct. Executed in the County of Sonoma, on July __, 2008 by Rachel Lamm.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: The first written report dated March 28, 2007 of Santa Rosan Lee Fredrick Jones depriving Rachel Charity Lamm from court ordered and scheduled supervised visitations with their child.
Exhibit B: The previously blocked report of March 31, 2008 establishing Report Number 08-5014 that keeping
Exhibit C: Letter of April 6, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Flint with the details on 58 instances of child stealing by Mr. Jones. Abuse News #3577.
Exhibit D: Letter of April 16, 2008 to Santa Rosa Police Chief Flint with more details on 58 instances of child stealing by Mr. Jones and the evasion of duty by the Chief to enforce Penal Code violations in Santa Rosa. Abuse News #3590.
Exhibit E: Law against child stealing: California Penal Code Section 278.5 (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.
Exhibit F: Law against obstructing justice: California Penal Code Section 182 (a) (5)
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE
182. (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.
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. If the felony is one for which
different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury
or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the
degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the
degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit
the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in
the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment
shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.
If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which
have different punishments and the commission of those felonies
constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that
prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term.
When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they
shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
Exhibit G: The never examined temporary ORDER of March 1, 2007 which deprived Rachel Charity Lamm of joint custody without due process or reasonable cause and left a natural mother only "visitation as follows: Professionally supervised up to 6 hours per week paid for by mother."
Exhibit H: Sebastopol Police Department's battery charge against Santa Rosa resident Jones for domestic violence of Rachel Charity Lamm, which is intentionally overlooked by four California Superior Courts. There was also a child endangerment charge against DV suspect Jones, Exhibit P, and an Emergency Protective Order, Exhibit Q, protecting a mother and child from Suspect Jones' domestic violence while under the influence of alcohol.
Exhibits I-M: Bruises on Victim Lamm from Suspect Jones' domestic violence.
Exhibit N: An EPO against Santa Rosa DV suspect Jones which he violated, Exhibit O.
Exhibit O: EPO violations by Santa Rosa DV suspect Jones.
Exhibit P: A child endangerment charge by Sebastopol Police against DV suspect Jones.
Exhibit Q California Family Code Section 3044 (a) Upon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child's siblings within the previous five years, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is
detrimental to the best interest of the child, pursuant to Section
3011. This presumption may only be rebutted by a preponderance of
the evidence.
(b) In determining whether the presumption set forth in
subdivision (a) has been overcome, the court shall consider all of
the following factors:
(1) Whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated
that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the
perpetrator is in the best interest of the child. In determining
the best interest of the child, the preference for frequent and
continuing contact with both parents, as set forth in subdivision (b)
of Section 3020, or with the noncustodial parent, as set forth in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 3040, may not be used to
rebut the presumption, in whole or in part.
Exhibit R: Criminal Docket for corruptly dismissed DV case, People v. Jones, SCV-502220
Exhibit S: CPI Report of March 4, 2008, showing DV suspect Jones was "out of town" during a scheduled supervised visitation on 4/12/07. This report fails to show that he also was "out of town" and in San Diego visiting his mother, co-child-stealer Katherine L. Williams, on March 8, 11, 13, and 15, 2007.
Exhibit T: Ignored bench ORDER of June 18, 2007, that modified supervised visitation at CPI to "twice weekly for three hours each visit."
Exhibit U: The bench ORDER of Sept. 19, 2007 that issued in an unlawfully closed hearing where Rachel Charity Lamm was tricked and coerced to give up "Contempt Charges" against Mr. Jones in return for "Mother's time."
Exhibit V: Letter of July 11, 2007 stating CPI had not received any return communication from Jones after the June 18, 2007 order requiring "contact."