Monday, December 28, 2009


Most of the more than estimated 4 million elderly, homeless people in America are overlooked by the American public. The unkind result is the elderly homeless population is often held responsible for their own homelessness, that is, blaming the victims for their own affliction.

My homelessness began at age 68 when I was locked out of my HUD/Sec8 senior community apartment on February 27, 2009 for making complaints about criminal behavior and the lack of safety in the building of 100 apartments. The owners [Amerland Group; San Diego, California], Management [Logan Property Management, Martha Enrique] and Resident Manager, Karen Brooks, along with Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck [Kimball,Tirey & StJohn] had no care or concern that they were putting an elderly disabled woman onto the streets.

HUD ignored every complaint I sent to them.

My eviction was never even given a "due dilegance" investigation by Attorney Hollenbeck.
Attorney's Duty to Investigate Case: -- Butler v State Bar (1986) 42 Cal3rd 323 (329) -- Paul Oil Company v- Fed. Mutual Insurance (1998) 154 Fed 3rd 1049

The unethical and dirty tricks this company put me through to get me out before the actually eviction were beyond belief:
elder abuse, perjured documents, false police reports, and then when I approached the Appellant Court with a Writ to stay until the Appeal was heard, they went into court on an ex parte and charged me with “Work Place Violence” – with no credible proof.

They weren’t happy with one; they took out two identical TROs. However, one judge who was well versed in the law saw through their scheme and dismissed it immediately as “void” because they “did not make their case.” I am fighting the second one in court, going beyond the new year. It was heard by a judge who did not know, or ignored the law which means he has lost his immunity and may now be sued. When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].

The Court sent a decision regarding my Writ to Ameriland, Logan Property Management, and Attorney Hollenbeck that it would be an extreme hardship [because of my medical problems and age] if I had to move out. I never received the letter as the management who is responsible for the mail drop, never gave me the letter. They posted it on my front door the day they locked me out. They knew my health problems from reading my Writ, and yet they put me into the street knowing it would cause me physical and mental suffering.

California Penal Code, Section 368 (1) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult, with knowledge that he or she is an elder or a dependent adult, to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

I was ignored, shunned, yelled at, called names by managers Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, not allowed to participate in community activities, and provably conspired against to evict me. (I have all of the documented complaints I made)

Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.53. Mental suffering: "Mental suffering" means fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of serious emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious emotional distress of the elder or dependent adult.

My life was filled with duress, anxiety, depression and I had to seek medical help.

I didn't know it is a general " be free from acts constituting duress" (Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d. 195) and the propriety of a "cause of action for wrongful acts in the nature of duress...examples of such wrongful acts include a bad faith threat to breach a contract ..." (Rich Whillock v. Ashton Development, 157 Cal. App. 3d at p.1159) I was told by a psychiatrist it is Post Traumatic Stress

February 27, 2009 was a frigid night in Southern California, and I was now sleeping in my old car, in a parking lot in the City of Montclair.

This is elder abuse.

It is a struggle to remain humane in the face of inhuman conditions, and that is a story in its self.

Two weeks later San Antonio Hospital admitted me for uncontrollable diarrhea, breathing and heart problems – I had a heart attack in 2002 and triple by-pass surgery that same year. Later I will be diagnosed with Bradycardia – an abnormally slow heart rate. I have sleep apnea and suppose to sleep with a Bi-pap machine at night to help my breathing; there is no access to an electrical outlet in a parking lot.

For elderly people actually facing the streets, shelters do not exist for them. It is strange, there are at least some shelters for battered women and children, and I keep in mind that homeless children evoke more sympathy than homeless elderly. We are a youth oriented culture and the elderly are becoming more and more expendable. We are called “useless eaters” by some.

There are shelters for vagabond teens, alcoholics and drug-users, and even sex offenders; shelters for dogs, cats, exotic birds, tortoises, snakes and ferrets, but the elderly seem invisible and forgotten. Most of the elderly on the street are over the age of sixty and if they do find a shelter to take them in they are often victims of physical violence and other abuses, as well as predatory strong armed thievery. Health care is almost nonexistent. Many die invisible, in the heat of summer, but more in the cold of winter -- that takes its biggest toll.

My thoughts became focused at what had happened, and why: It was obvious that when I began to complain, particularly about fire safety I found myself retaliated on by AMERLAND GROUP owner, Martha Enriquez, who is also the President of LOGAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, and who is required by law to protect her residents; the California rule requires a landlord to exercise due care with regard to the premises it owns, i.e., A Duty of Care to protect residents, and also, "There is a legal duty, which every person owes to others- that is, a duty to refrain from conduct that imposes an unreasonable risk of injury on third parties" (Lamden v La Jolla Shores Club Codominium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249).

I had complained to owners, management and HUD about unsafe living conditions and criminal behavior on the property, and they ignored their Duty of Care to me. (1) A landlord has "a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party … where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated... The foreseeability of a criminal act determines not only the landlord's duty, but also its 'scope,' which "is determined in part by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden to be imposed." (Barber v. Chang (2007) , Cal.App.4th [No. G036448. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Jun. 13, 2007) (2) The landlord has a duty of warranty of habitability, (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704].)

It is elder abuse to ignore the above.

What I didn't know when I began to complain was that the property owners, Amerland was in a lawsuit in with one of their Los Angeles properties, The Alexandria Hotel, and had 36 criminal counts against them related to fire code violations, and 5 residents had died. (page 6, 2/9/2009© Los Angeles Downtown News;Contact: Anna Scott at No wonder they were so concerned and anxious to get rid of me when I complained about the same issues.

One attorney who participated to win the above lawsuit told me, "There are thousands – not hundreds – thousands of incidents with this company."

I was first "threatened" with eviction, but then when I exposed Stan Harris for violating the law, and calling himself "Doctor" -- I was evicted. This was a breach of my HUD/Sec8 lease, where eviction is only allowed for "good cause," such as criminal activity, but Stan Harris is a personal friend of Martha Enrique, and Karen Brooks.

I went to the Eviction Hearing on November 17, 2008. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck had paid five residents to perjure themselves --one a mentally challenged women was paid $350. but did not even know why she was going to court. The court did not hear these witnesses, nor mine, and ignored much of the law. I filed an Appeal, [Case # ACIAS 900001, San Bernardino California, Appeal Court]

On December 21, 2009 I was called into the Appeal Court to give oral testimony. All I had to testify to was that Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck had committed "fraud on the court" -- again! I might add -- and give them proof she was lying. The proof was substantial, and involved another judge who had told her the truth -- and still she lied, knowing the truth, to the Appeals Court, as she had done in the Superior Court. I am awaiting formal notice on my Appeal.

I am still sleeping in my car, almost a year later. I am still suffering ongoing medical problems and have had to be admitted into the hospital on several occasions, and not being able to sleep at night is taking its toll on me.


Sunday, October 18, 2009


Ethical dilemmas are dilemmas of a certain kind of conflict between the rightness or wrongness of actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions.

What complicates the issue, as it happens, is the difference between duties of omission and duties of commission:

Duties of Omission imply negative rights of others, e.g. abused victim ignored

Duties of Commission imply positive rights of others. e.g., duty to victim

There are some fundamental differences between the two kinds of duties. For a duty of commission to be binding, someone, an agent of the law, i.e., police, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys must be able to carry it out. However the ability verses the consequence of responding are often problematic and becomes matters of judgment which can blur the nature of such duties.

If judges, prosecutors, and defense attorney all belong to the “Lawyer’s Club,” they may all consider the “protection” of each other from the consequences of not following the law rather than do the right thing for the victim. This is the kind of dilemma that arises from human limitations, and
The Partiality of Friendship, not from the structure of value itself. Now, all in the legal field know they ought to be impartial; that is the essence of legal morality they tell themselves, but this belief is rejected as each resolves that in partiality of friendship there is a moral importance to each other that permits, and perhaps even requires partiality in some circumstances, so as to protect each other from the consequences of their own omissions of justice.

The human condition, which is ignorance and fallibility (especially for those in authority, deceived by their own, as Shakespeare says, "insolence of office"), is what makes the presumption of innocence a good principle, if it is put into practice, for is a good basis for the protection of the innocent, allowing that the lay citizen will have the protection of the law beyond their own familiarity or understanding of it.

Now the situation becomes a dilemma when we want to makes duties of commission matters of law, as in "good Samaritan" laws. The breach and a duty of omission results in a wrong of commission, because of ignoring some empirical physical evidence, i.e., abused victim and the law that protects the victim -- even though it is relatively easy to know that a crime has been committed through empirical evidence, and the law, both of which provides relevant evidence of the crime, but the agents turn a blind eye to both.

This sort of a breach of a duty of commission results in a wrong of omission, which by its very nature produces no causal effects due to the agent. This means we often will never even know that a wrong has been committed if the evidence is ignored, and the law is not followed, and nobody notices. The Minute Order will simply read “Motion Denied” and no one, apart from the agents; will ever know that a wrong was involved.

This is important point to consider in relation to the nature of law. Someone who is prosecuted for not being a "good Samaritan" is not guiltier than the unnoticed callous agents, but is simply more unlucky. Legal sanctions should not fall more heavily on the unlucky than on the guilty. That makes for a bad law.

Duties of commission, however, where it is not known, or ignored, about a prior positive obligation of the victim to do the right thing, are about matters that by their nature may produce not enough evidence, or even false evidence that a wrong has occurred, which means we can never know how many of the guilty, evenly grossly guilty like the callous agents, escape the consequences of their behavior. Furthermore, since ability and consequences cloud the nature of duties of commission, it becomes very easy for agents to distort the evidence or to unfairly second-guess a victim who did the right thing and throw that victim to the prosecutorial wolves, who, as they now operate, go for convictions rather than the truth, and would be perfectly happy to portray the victim who did the right thing as a dangerous violator of the law.

The whole project of examining moral dilemmas is a relatively modern one. We don't find it in Plato or Aristotle who propounded relativism. With them, as in life, what we just really want to know is what a person is like morally -- are they a good person or a bad person? If they are a good person, we want to believe they will try to do the right thing, and the occurrence of dilemmas will not subtract from their goodness.

Most of us do not come across dire situations that present a moral dilemma, but it is always a very interesting exercise to consider a dilemma and what our reaction to it may be.

Large scale evils require the cooperation, and conspiracy of the many against the few. A large number of people are just going to go along with the crowd and afraid of being different and/or victimized by the agents themselves. However if even one example can give heart to those, then right action can suddenly produce the best effects.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New York City Homeless

Homeless Population in Shelters Hits Record High

This year is the "worst on record"

Updated 4:15 PM EDT, Tue, Oct 13, 2009

Homeless families try to keep dry while waiting for housing placement outside of the emergency overnight shelter intake center.
Getty Images

There number of homeless people using city shelters each night has reached an all time high -- a 45 percent increase since Mayor Bloomberg took office eight years ago, according to a new report.

The statistics, released today by the advocacy group Coalition for the Homeless, find that over 39,000 homeless people -- including 10,000 homeless families -- check in to city shelters every evening.

In 2002, about 31,000 people were using city shelters -- and those numbers have steadily increased each year, the group said.

This year has turned out to be "the worst on record for New York Cityhomelessness since the Great Depression," they said.

City officials have a slightly lower tally. According to the New York Department of Homelessness, its daily census for October 8 found 37,912 total homeless individuals in New York.The 10,000 families sleeping in shelters each night includes 16,500 children. That's an increase of 12 percent from last year, the data suggests.

Either way, the numbers appear to indicate a problem for Mayor Bloomberg -- even in light of the recession. In 2004, the mayor vowed to slash homelessness in the city by two-thirds over five years and end "homeless as we know it."

Critics, like the Coalition for the Homeless, said Bloomberg has "resoundingly failed to achieve its primary goal" of slashing the number of people using city shelters.

Still, the city has gone to some creative lengths to move out the chronically homeless -- including buying one-way plane tickets for homeless families to other cities -- under the agreement that they won't return.

The city's shelter system costs $36,000 a year per family, the city said.

More than 550 families have left New York since 2007.

First Published: Oct 13, 2009 2:29 PM EDT

Monday, October 12, 2009




CASE NO: MWV903720


Date: October 13, 2009
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 20



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter "Defendant" will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant's case herein.

The Defendant asserts that this motion is necessary because an apparent conflict of interest exist that would render it unlikely that the Defendant would receive a fair trial as set forth in Penal Code section 1424, and the cases that have applied this statute.

This motion is based on this notice of motion, the evidence attached to the motion, the court herein and such matters as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. Since this motion must be supported by an affidavit the Defendant has provided one, which is to be used for the purpose of supporting this motion.

October 1, 2009 Sharon Stephens ,pro per


The Defendant is a 69 year old disabled woman with a heart condition and sleep apnea, and was illegally evicted by Briarwood Manor/Logan Management through their attorney, Linda Hollenbeck for complaining about “unsafe living conditions, criminal behavior at Briarwood Manor, and, for writing a newsletter” then revealing that one of their friends was not a doctor all of which are constitutionally protected activities. Consequently that Case # ACIAS 900001 is in the Appellant Court and due to be heard on calendar in November, 2009.

When the Appellant Court said it would be a severe hardship if the Defendant was to be evicted, before appeal,Logan Property Management and Attorney Hollenbeck went after her with a vengeance to the point of perjury, fraud and deception to the court, battery, tampering with the US Mail, and finally a provable conspiracy where they filed against her with bogus restraining orders, which allowed for false arrests even for constitutionally protected and legitimate activity. (The District Attorney has a copy of the Conspiracy Report, and an Elder Abuse Report but refuses to act on them.)

FAQ: Restraining Orders are the most misused and abused court documents, often just handed out like candy canes on Christmas morning by judges who have no regard for the required statutory and case laws that regulate them, and how they can ruin a person's life. The Defendant is still fighting such void orders by her homeowners association in Riverside County, and, suing the judge for not following the law, and she is considering such legal action in this case against the judges involved.

As stated in the Defendant's, June 19, 2009, and September 24, 2009 Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, "Work Place Violence" was not met by the plaintiffs in Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face.

However, on January 14, 2009 Judge Victor told Attorney Hollenbeck he did not think [Defendant's behavior] was sufficient to not give her notice of the hearing, i.e., She had NOT committed any violence and there was no "Credible threat of violence."

First and foremost, for there to be a valid order the plaintiffs had to meet the criteria and case law of CCP 527.8 which clearly states there must have been clear and convincing evidence of a threat of great bodily harm. No such threat was ever made by the Defendant to the plaintiffs Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, and in fact a quick perusal of Case CIVRS 900198 will show that both plaintiffs provided provably perjured declarations and documents, as did their attorney Linda Hollenbeck, who deceived the court and signed declarations that she claimed were written by her clients.


The Defendant submits the following facts to support her motion.

1. The District Attorney has assigned three Deputy District Attorneys, HINSON, BURNETT and HILDALGO to this criminal case ALL of whom have ignored the law in Case #CIVRS 900198 and in this therefore void criminal case, and, ignored other reports that show the malicious and vindictive behavior of the plaintiffs and their attorney and
ignored other reports that show the malicious and vindictive behavior of the plaintiffs and their attorney, and then, even presented false law to the court. [SEE: Formal Complaint; Marbi Burnett]

2. Plaintiff's Attorney Linda Hollenbeck did commit a Battery on the defendant, in front of a witness in the hall outside the court room and a report was filed with the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office, Case # 89090068, (This is moral turpitude, malum in se State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 2205 (1990); Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109) The District Attorney has ignored the report.

3. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck and her secretary, Ms. Brenda Eiden did provably deceive, commit perjury, and commit fraud on the court in filing for the Temporary Restraining Order, and the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office: Case # 800900150 has taken the case to the District Attorney. The District Attorney has ignored the report.

4. ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES provided the District Attorney's Office with an Elder Abuse Report re: Logan Property Management. The District Attorney has ignored the report.

5. A Conspiracy Report re: Logan Property Management was provided to Deputy District Attorneys, Hildalgo and Burnett.
The District Attorney has ignored the report.

6. In accepting the police reports as valid in the case where the Defendant was falsely arrested while pursuing constitutionally protected activity, and/or legitimate business; [Schraer v. Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.]

The District Attorney has ignored the law of all restraining orders on these two points. The acts she was charged with were not crimes. EXAMPLE: The Plaintiff's had the Defendant arrested after she was locked out of her apartment, for complaining to the office that she needed to have her heart medication; legitimate business. They refused to give it to her and she went into angina. Martha Enrique of Logan Property Management had her arrested in the ambulance. AGAIN, The District Attorney has ignored the law.

Please take Judicial Notice: Motion to Dismiss June 19, 2009, and Addendum to Motion to Dismiss, September 24, 2009.

The Defendant has committed no wrong doing. Particularly she has committed no criminal acts. This case has been an exercise in injustice from the beginning.

It follows that if there is no crime, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This conclusion is compelled not only by the statutes and cases interpreting those statutes, this conclusion comports with fundamental principles of justice. The notion that a person can be punished under the criminal law for committing an act that is not a crime is entirely outside our system of jurisprudence. The District Attorney has ignored the law.

It appears to the Defendant that the San Bernardino County District Attorney, and particularly Deputy District Attorneys HINSON, M. BURNETTE, and HILDALGO has given and continues to give preferential treatment to the politically powerful Logan Property Management [ Ameriland Group], and its agents thereby resulting in a conflict of interest which makes it unlikely that the Defendant can receive a fair trial.


PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: [A] pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v.Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992) A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint must read the complaints allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S.519, 520-21, S. Ct. 594, 596, 60 L.Ed. 2d 652 (1972) Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigant's pleadings liberally Polling v. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally.Tannenbaum v.United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

Penal Code section I 424(a)(1) provides in part that the notice of motion to disqualify the district attorney shall contain a statement of the facts setting forth the grounds for the claimed disqualification, the legal authorities relied upon by the moving party, and be supported by affidavits of witnesses who are competent to testify to the facts set forth in the affidavits.

The standard for granting the motion is stated in Penal Code section 1424(a)( 1) as follows: "The motion may not be granted unless the evidence shows that a conflict of interest exists that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial"

A conflict under section 1424 "exists whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the DA's office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner. Thus, there is no need to determine whether a conflict is 'actual,' only that it gives an 'appearance' of conflict." People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 141, 148

Defendant has demonstrated that fair treatment by the office is unlikely. People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 86. The standard is "likelihood of unfairness."

In People v. Merrit, 19 Cal.App 4th 1573, 24 Cal Rptr 2d 177(1993), the court confirmed that the term "conflict" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1424 as "evidence of a reasonable possibility the district attorney's office may not be able to exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner." the Merritt case also states that when it appears that misconduct has been committed by the district attorney, then the burden shifts to the district attorney to show that sanctions are not warranted because the defendant has not been prejudiced by the misconduct.

Although recusal of an entire prosecutorial office is a serious case, there is a showing that such a step is necessary to assure fair treatment of the Defendant. People v. Hamilton (1989)48 Ca.3d 1142 1156 259 Cal Rptr, 701

The California Supreme Court stated in People v. Superior Court (Greer) 19 Cal. 3d 255, 269 that a trial judge may exercise its power to disqualify a district attorney from participating in the prosecution of a criminal charge when the judge determines that the attorney suffers from a conflict of interest which might prejudice him against the accused and thereby affect, or appear to affect, his ability to impartially perform discretionary functions of his office.

Defendant believes that there is ample evidence in this case for the court to recuse the entire prosecutorial staff in light of the standards set forth above, and she believes that it is unlikely that she can receive a fair trial.


Deputy District Attorney HINSON suggested at our first meeting that the Defendant has no right to be considered a victim or to be given protection in this case? Deputies HILDALGO and BURNETTE have in their behavior, in and out of court reiterated this belief. And, the entire District Attorney's has turned a blind eye to Defendant's complaints regarding their misconduct.

In effect, The District Attorney is saying it is not relevant whether the People's witnesses are lying or have a motive to lie because they are involved in an appeal that will result in a lawsuit for a great deal of money, that also involves crimes of perjury, conspiracy, elder abuse, false arrests, and more. This is a deliberate attempt to convict the Defendant without a fair trial and shows the length that the DA will go to in order to "win."

However, the Defendant and the public have a right to demand the highest ethical standards for its public servants, particularly those acting on our behalf in the legal system. Unfortunately, today's courts fall short of ensuring accountability for attorneys who commit ethics violations and ensuring public transparency of the process. Both areas are critical in maintaining integrity and public confidence in a self-regulating profession.

"Without any question, the legal system has become a tool for bullying in this country," said Philip Howard, chair of the legal reform group Common Good. "And if you're a lawyer, [Linda Hollenbeck] and you don't have to go out and spend money for another lawyer, [because the District Attorney is protecting you from prosecution] you can use it as a hammer."

Judges have the option to hold those responsible in prosecutorial misconduct in contempt of court -- and to impose upon them fines, or even temporary imprisonment.

Too harsh? If you think so, consider that these prosecutors who are willing to send the Defendant to jail, or prison for crimes she did not commit, based on evidence from police reports that is untrue and tainted, and grossly incomplete, witnesses who provably lied, and an attorney who committed fraud on the court to get a bogus restraining order - and then to not to give the Defendant due process in a fair and impartial manner, refusing to their job of due diligence to make sure the Defendant receives a fair trial -- Too harsh?

Would it really be so unfair for them to have a small taste of the confinement they have been willing to subject the Defendant to?

A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

America needs judges willing to say "NO!" to the lawyer bullies.

The system as a whole doesn't do what we count on it to do, which is to sort out the guilty people from the innocent people. It doesn't do that because the guilty people and the innocent people are ALL faced with the same pressure to plead guilty.

If the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office is allowed to remain on this case it is likely that the Defendant will not get a fair trial.

October 1, 2009
Respectfully Submitted, Sharon Stephens , pro per



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Sharon Stephens defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter Defendant will on October 13, 2009 at 8:30 am, in Department Dept. 20 of the San Bernardino County Superior Courts, Rancho Cucamonga Branch located at 8303 North Haven Ave. in Rancho Cucamonga, California move the Court to recuse the San Bernardino Deputy District Attorneys, entirely, from prosecuting the Defendant’s case herein, and present this Addendum to Motion.

As stated in the Defendant's, June 19, 2009, and September 24, 2009 Motion[s] To Dismiss, presented to this court, the evidence clearly shows that the burden of the law of Civil Code of Procedure [CCP] 527.8, "Work Place Violence" was not met by the plaintiffs in Case #CIVRS 900198 and, Judge Rex A. Victor did not follow the law, and though there are several reasons the case is void, Judge Victor lost jurisdiction for not following the law and the TRO and the Restraining Order he issued are void on the face. Judge Victor ignored the law of work place violence that states there must be violent acts and/ or credible threats of physical violence there were never any such threats made by the defendant, and no evidence of such presented to the court; no affidavits filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, nor any police reports or violent behavior.

The court and the Office of the District Attorney have insisted that the restraining order was valid at the time of my arrests for allegedly violating the order, even though the Defendant showed Deputy District Attorney HINSON the law of void orders, as follows he obviously ignored the law.

Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convaescere -- That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253'

Such void on the face judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored [by defendant] as they neither bind, nor bar anyone. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. [Citations.]" 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment,§ 286, p. 828.).

The District Attorney and Model Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, 5 (1983) (amended 1998): competent handling of a particular matter involves inquiry into analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners.

No one can be punished for disobedience of a void order. Mitchell v. Superior Court (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 759, 764, citing Fortenbury v. Superior Court (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 405, 408-09; see In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 137, 147

The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Counsel justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits.(John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC; "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with Self-Represented Litigants" l_Issues.ppt.>


It is really not the Defendant's desire that anyone be incarcerated in this case; not anyone from the District Attorneys Office, nor her declared and obvious enemies in this case: Logan Property Management [Ameriland Group], Briarwood Management: Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth; nor even the worst of them all, because she knows, or should know the law, Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck. [Though it is apparent she ought to lose her California State Bar License, and, the Defendant is filing a complaint against her next week, and believes the court needs to do its duty. A judge is mandated to report attorneys for misconduct . (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). The State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. California Code of Judicial Ethics: Currently, the code directs a judicial officer to "take appropriate corrective action whenever information surfaces that a lawyer has violated ethical duties." (Cal. Canons of Jud. Ethics, Canon 3D(2).) ABA Model Rule 3.8, covers the conduct of prosecutors.

The Defendant spent a year of hellish [and recently 44 days] incarceration in solitary confinement in Riverside County Jail because of an unethical District Attorney, [She is seeking to recuse that office]; Inadequate Public Defenders [She will never rely on a public defender again!], and, Judges who ignored or did not know the law of void judgments [They lose their immunity when they don't follow the law, and, are open to a lawsuit]. She is still fighting that case. She expects to win, but all of this has taken its toll on her health, and financial standing. As a 69 year old woman in poor health she ought not to have to fight for justice because she stood up to corporate bullies who retaliated on her with an illegal eviction and sham restraining orders when she did the right thing in her community in reporting unsafe living conditions and crime. So, not even for my worst enemies do I wish to see them in jail or prison.

FAQ: The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world. "Every 1 out of 100 Americans are incarcerated. As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated." -- "New High In U.S. Prison Numbers". By, N.C. Aizenman. February 29, 2008. Washington Post. In 2005, the average cost of incarceration per prisoner in the United States was $23,876. That comes out to $65.41 per day. At least 10% of those incarcerated are believed to be innocent. Department of Justice statistics [1999].

Something in very wrong with the judicial system in America.

In this case the Defendant is looking for justice from the court, and, for the District Attorney's Office, and their agents do their job of seeking justice.

October 7, 2009 Sharon Stephens, pro per


"The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal" Valley v Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." Williamson v. Berry, 8 How 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action." Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416

"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150


I Sharon Stephens the defendant in this case declares as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, unless stated on information and belief, and if called upon to testify to those facts I could and would competently do so.

2. I am 69 years old, a heart patient having undergone open heart surgery, suffer from ongoing angina, sleep apnea for which I am suppose to sleep with a breathing machine at night, and Post Traumatic Stress and suffer from severe stress and anxiety for which I am under the care of a physician. I am sleeping in my car due to the void eviction and this void restraining order.

3. I am making this Motion to Dismiss the entire San Bernardino District Attorney Office based on prosecutorial misconduct against me as they refuse to do their job to make sure I will receive a fair trial, as stated in the motion. The judgment they seek is void for subject matter jurisdiction, fraud, lack of due process, lack of due diligence, and prosecutorial misconduct, and is based on a judgment that is void. CIVRS 900198, in which I was illegally arrested, and charged with crimes that did not exist.

4 I will not receive a fair and impartial trial with this District Attorney's Office, and, in the interest of justice they need to be recused from this case.


October, 7 2009


Sunday, May 17, 2009

Are YOU a "Useless Eater?"

"Useless Eaters" All prisoners convicted of serious crimes. All people suffering from genetic deformities. We can kill those who are grossly obese, the young, the elderly and of course the homeless.

The Holocaust and disabled people: FAQ - frequently-asked questions
by Ian Cook
17th October 2008

We answer frequently-asked questions such as why the Nazis chose to kill disabled people, and how this forgotten story of the Holocaust has been highlighted since.

How did the Nazis see disabled people?

The Nazis took Darwin's ideas of natural selection, in particular the idea of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, and applied them to the human world and society (Darwin's Origin of the Species had been published in 1859). It was argued that allowing disabled people to live and have children, led to the "unfit" reproducing more quickly than "the fit". It was said that this weakened society's ability to function efficiently, placing an unnecessary toll on non-disabled people.The Nazis claimed that the social and economic problems that Germany experienced in the 1920s and early 1930s were due in part to the weakening of the population created by an unfair burden.

Nazi propaganda in the form of posters, news-reels and cinema films portrayed disabled people as "useless eaters" and people who had "lives unworthy of living". The propaganda stressed the high cost of supporting disabled people, and suggested that there was something unhealthy or even unnatural about society paying for this. One famous Nazi propaganda film, Ich Klage An (I Accuse), told the story of a doctor who killed his disabled wife. The film put forward an argument for "mercy killings". Other propaganda, including poster campaigns, portrayed disabled people as freaks.

What was the fate of disabled people in Nazi Germany?

After the propoganda came action. On the grounds that disabled people were less worthwhile and an unfair burden on society, a widespread and compulsory sterilisation program took place. This began in 1933, as soon as the Nazis came to power. It should be noted, however, that Nazi Germany wasn't the only regime to practise the forced sterilisation of disabled people, and it wasn't even the first. As disabled writer Jenny Morris explains in her book Pride Against Prejudice, as early as 1907 American states passed compulsory sterilisation laws covering people thought to have genetic illnesses or conditions. European states that followed suit in the 1920s and 1930s included Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary and Turkey. In Nazi Germany sterilisation was followed by an active killing program, which started in 1939.

How did the Nazis kill disabled people?

Under a secret plan called the 'T4 Program' (T4 was a reference to the address of the program's Berlin HQ - Tiergartenstrasse 4), disabled people in Germany were killed by lethal injection or poison gas. The T4 Program saw a string of six death camps - called "euthanasia centres" - set up across Germany and Austria. These centres contained gassing installations designed to look like shower stalls.

Two of the most notorious centres were at Hartheim Castle in Austria and Hadamar, which is near Wiesbaden in Germany. The latter supported a staff of approximately 100 people. To conceal its real purppose, it also operated as a normal crematorium.Hitler ordered the suspension of the program in 1941 after opposition from groups within Germany, including Catholic churchmen. However, killings were restarted the following year in a more secretive way, and continued until the end of World War Two. (Hadamar only ceased operation shortly before liberation by American troops in March 1945). During this latter phase of the T4 Program, death was via an overdose of lethal medication or by starvation.In total, an estimated 275,000 disabled people are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.

Was there any opposition to this?

There was some opposition from the Catholic church in Germany, although the church's overall attitude to the Nazi regime was described by author Richard Grunberger in A Social History of the Third Reich as "a policy of resistance that alternated with remarkable acquiescence". One prominent churchman, Cardinal Clemens Von Galen, publicly denounced the T4 killing program in a sermon he delivered in Munster in 1941. Von Galen is quoted in Grunberger's book as saying: "Woe unto the German people when not only can innocents be killed but their slayers remain unpublished". It is said that Von Galen's sermon led Hitler to halt the program temporarily, although the killings restarted in 1942.Other opposition to the Nazis was inevitably of a more secretive nature. One person who resisted the Nazi persecution both of disabled people and Jews was Otto Weidt, who employed and protected blind and deaf people in his workshop in Berlin's Rosenthaler Strasse. The workers were safe because the brushes and brooms manufactured in the workshop were declared "vital for military purposes". An exhibition telling the story of Otto Weidt was held at the
Jewish Museum in Berlin in 2004.

Interestingly, one of the most famous oppositions to Hitler's general aims came from a disabled person - an assassination attempt on Hitler in July 1944 by Claus Von Stauffenberg. He had lost his right hand, three fingers of his left hand and his right eye in combat.Von Stauffenberg had access to Hitler on a daily basis at the War Office in Berlin but, as a disabled war hero, he was above suspicion. He left a bomb under a table in the map room that Hitler was due to visit - but at the last minute an officer moved the briefcase in which the device was hidden. Although the bomb exploded, Hitler survived. His only injuries were cuts to his hands and damaged eardrums. Von Staffenberg was court-martialed and shot, along with other conspirators.

Were there any exceptions to the Nazi policies towards disabled people?

There is some evidence that the Nazis, showing a strange irrationality towards disability, killed thousands while at the same time venerating a small group of disabled war heroes to whom they offered sheltered employment. According to Richard Grunberger's, A Social History of the Third Reich, the idea of helping disabled war heroes appealed to a popular Nazi idea: "the triumph of will over adversity". Clearly, to the Nazis not all disabled people were the same.

Did the extermination of disabled people pave the way for the larger extermination programs?

Almost certainly. Extermination centres and poison gas installations built to look like shower stalls were an eerie precursor to concentration camps, as several authors have noted. As well as transferring the basic killing procedures and technology, there is also evidence that personnel from the T4 killing program moved to other killing duties after the 1942 Wansee Conference, where 'The Final Solution' is reputed to have been planned.

What have disabled people done to highlight this forgotten story of the Holocaust?

A virtual holocaust memorial called
The Chair has been launched by disabled activist Paul Darke. At the present time, the memorial - a stylised wheelchair - has no place or location and is dependent on funding from the public and other interested parties. Nevertheless, it is hoped that a series of these will commemorate disabled people and acknowledge the atrocities committed in the Holocaust.There have also been plans for a theatrical project entitled The First To Go, about the plight of disabled people in Nazi Germany, written by writer and actor Nabil Shaban. It was all set to go ahead until Nabil - perhaps best known as a star of Doctor Who - handed back funds of nearly £25,000 given to his company Sirius Pictures by the Department of Work and Pensions. Nabil chose to return the money last year as a protest against the Iraq war. This effectively terminated the project. In a press release he said that he felt the government money given to him was "blood money", and that it would be hypocritical to accept it. Since this move, no interest has been expressed in reviving the project. Nabil has also written a movie script, The Inheritance, based on the play. Again, it has proven impossible to get funding.

Saturday, May 16, 2009


Posted: April 01, 20051:00 am Eastern
By Tom Ambrose© 2009

Editor's note: In the spirit of Jonathan Swift's classic essay, the author offers the following modest proposal.

Upon further reflection, I've changed my mind: Killing Terri Schiavo and those like her is a fabulous way make our nation run much more efficiently. But we shouldn't stop there: Let's kill the elderly and homeless, too!

Think about it. Most of the elderly sit around growing old, collecting Medicare and Social Security benefits, while contributing little to our nation. And the homeless soak taxpayers daily as they collect welfare checks and lounge around in city shelters.

Of course, this is only the beginning. We should also exterminate all prisoners convicted of serious crimes. Then, let's get rid of all people suffering from genetic deformities. After that, we can kill those who are grossly obese. The possibilities are endless! Of course, it will be up to the courts to determine what words like "serious crimes," "deformed," and "grossly obese" mean.

Like Terri, most of these sorts of people have a low quality of life. Most have little or nothing to contribute to society and are a major drain on America's resources. While compassionately, mercifully killing them, we could also cut the tax bills of every productive citizen in half in less than a year if we aggressively pursue this option. All we need are the Bush brothers, a few brave judges and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union to start the heads rolling.

For those who are worried about going too far with such a plan, we can build in an exception process so that those odd individuals who are still contributing citizens can have their lives spared upon review by a panel of judges.

Another possibility is that with all of the bodies we'll be accumulating, perhaps some bright scientist can find a way to burn them as fuel to help offset America's rising energy costs. This would also eliminate burial expenses and inefficient uses of land resources.

This sort of activity does have precedent, by the way. Most people have forgotten, but before Adolf Hitler started killing Jews, over 200,000 physically and mentally disabled people were the first people killed in the Holocaust. And like today, the media were instrumental in promoting Hitler's plan. Such people were called "useless eaters." Ian Cook with the BBC explains further:

The Nazis took Darwin's ideas of natural selection, in particular the idea of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, and applied them to the human world and society (Darwin's "Origin of the Species" had been published in 1859). It was argued that allowing disabled people to live and have children led to the "unfit" reproducing more quickly than "the fit." It was said that this weakened society's ability to function efficiently, placing an unnecessary toll on non-disabled people.

The Nazis claimed that the social and economic problems that Germany experienced in the 1920s and early 1930s were due in part to the weakening of the population created by an unfair burden.

The nations of the world still look to the United States for leadership. Let's show them what Americans are really capable of!