Tuesday, January 5, 2010


Attorney, Linda Tracy Hollenbeck #145048

Rule 3-110 Failing to Act Competently.
Rule 5-200 Deception to Court
Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200
Prohibitive Objectives
Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200
Business and Profession Code Section 6068 -
Bus & Professional Code 6107-6109
Moral Turpitude
Battery on the defendant
Perjured documents

I am 69 years old, was on the HUD/Sec8 program at Briarwood Manor, 9656 Exeter Avenue, Montclair, California. I am disabled with heart related problems, sleep apnea for which I am suppose to sleep with a B-Pap machine at night, hypertension, and proven stress and anxiety since my retaliatory eviction on January 23, 2009, which was carried out by Attorney, Linda T. Hollenbeck.

I have been sleeping in my car since my eviction.

When I made several complaints via letter about criminal behavior and the lack of fire safety in the building of 100 apartments, and these were ignored. I then sent an email and letter on June 8, 2008 threatening a lawsuit to sue the owners. [Exhibit 1] The owners then sent Attorney, Linda Hollenbeck [Kimball,Tirey & St.John] to talk with me. Attorney Hollenbeck told me she was “not interested in the police reports regarding a resident brandishing a knife on me, who had also locked me in the building’s library, nor in the email from Stan Harris regarding this woman’s behavior. [Exhibit 2]

I was a part of HUD supported Resident Council, whose purpose is to work with management to help run the property. (HUD’s Rule 24 CFR) Briarwood is 40% HUD/Sec8, and Briarwood Manor and the owners had blatantly ignored these rules, and were now in danger of being sanctioned , or losing their HUD/Sec 8 standing.

Attorney Hollenbeck also REFUSED to talk with me regarding my complaints of a lack of fire safety measures on the property. (There had been no fire drill in 7 years and many of the elderly and handicapped residents were concerned about how to get out should there be a fire.) Stan Harris claimed to be a special friend of the owners, and a doctor.

What I didn't know when I began to complain about fire safety was that the property owners, Ameriland 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; Anna Scott. Also, three people had died on one of their properties in Vallejo, California.

On June 18, 2008 Attorney Hollenbeck sent me a NOTICE TO QUIT -- a precursor to an eviction, making me the person at fault, and warning me to not put “notes on apartment doors, i.e., my newsletter which is Constitutionally protected activity, as well as two personal notes re: Resident Council. I was stunned.

I responded with a letter to Attorney Hollenbeck on June 19, 2008. [Exhibit 3]

Next I was served with an EVICTION NOTICE, claiming I had harassed Stan Harris when I revealed he was not a doctor, and then privately asked him to leave his position on Resident Council. This was protected activity, and did not “disturb anyone’s peace” I decided to oppose the eviction on or about July 2008.

I then began to try and discuss this with the owners. They never responded. Attorney Hollembeck sent me an email “threatening me with a restraining order and arrest if I continued to try and contact the owners.” [Exhibit 4] I responded. [Exhibit 5]

I am an unsophisticated pro per, and have no legal training or background, and, Attorney Hollenbeck took advantage of my lack of knowledge, and was always rude and uncommunicative when I tried to speak with her. She even screamed at me in the hall of the court house, “You are a stupid woman and don’t know what you doing – go get a lawyer.” (If I could have afforded a lawyer I would have gotten one.)

The unethical and dirty tricks Attorney Hollenbeck 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 two TROs for “Work Place Violence” – with no credible proof. I was ignored, shunned, yelled at, called names by managers Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth, who told me “The attorney said “You are crazy and not to talk to you.’” I was not allowed to participate in community activities, and provably conspired against with Attorney Hollenbeck to evict me. (I have all of the documented complaints I made)

The two TROs were made under CCP 527.8 which has criteria that there “MUST be violence or a credible threat of violence.” None was offered in either one.

Case #CIVRS90016 was dismissed within ten minutes. [Exhibit 6]

The second case was heard by Judge Rex Victor who unfortunately made it clear he did not know the law of CCP 527.8, and he ignored the criteria to issue such an order. It is a void order. It is a void order and I have been fighting it ever since. Attorney Hollenbeck allowed me to put her under oath at the hearing and testified that she was willing to break the law and have me arrested for making a complaint to the management. (Constitutionally protected activity, such as making police reports, or complaints of any type are excluded from the meaning of "course of conduct" with regards to a restraining order. (Schraer v.Berkley Property Owners Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 719.); “Protected and/or legitimate activity, is not 'harassment.'” Byers v.Cathcart, 57 Cal. App. 4th 805 (1997); "There can be no sanction or
penalty imposed upon one because of their exercise of Constitutional Rights. (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)).

I believe it was this very day that Attorney Hollenbeck was “let go” from the law firm of Kimball,Tirey & St.John. What attorney admits she is willing to break the law -- and under oath?

Based on this void restraining order I was arrested four times and taken to jail, and several false police reports were made against me that went to the District Attorney. Finally the case was investigated and “victims” Karen Brooks and Cassandra Oseth admitted that I had not done or threatened any violence. Attorney Linda Hollenbeck could have prevented all of this IF she had done her “due diligence” and if she had known the law in the first place -- Failure to Act Competently.

Attorney Linda Hollenbeck, at the time employed by Kimbell, Tirey and St John , ignored her responsibility of due diligence and then filed these frivolous lawsuits: Rules of Professional Conduct - 3-200 Prohibitive Objectives -- Rules of Professional Conduct - 5-200 -- Business and Profession Code Section 6068 - 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

During the hearings on Case #CIVRS900198, on May 13, 2009 in Dept. 8 Attorney Hollenbeck did present to the court two [2] written declarations that she claimed were from her witnesses, Karen Brooks, and Cassandra Oseth. However, both were almost identical in content, perjurious, and were provably signed by Attorney Hollenbeck, not by the witnesses. They are a part of the court record of that hearing.

Also, during this hearing Attorney Linda Hollenbeck did commit a Battery on me trying to shove papers down the front of my blouse while my arms were full -- in front of a witness, in the hall outside the court room. 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)

When the commissioner found for Logan, ignoring due process, and the law of what constitutes “good cause” and harassment, and granted their eviction I then filed for an Appeal; Case # ACIAS 900001

During the Appeal process I filed for a Writ for hardship to stay in my apartment and it was granted. But Manager Karen Brooks was responsible for mail delivery, and, I never received it. However, Attorney Hollenbeck answered and said I was running a “campaign of terror at the building” [with no proof of course] and so my Writ was then denied. I was locked out on February 23, 2009. The letter from the court granting my Writ, which was never delivered to me, was taped to the front door.

I lost the Appeal on technicalities. I’m a pro per. However, I shall still be suing Ameriland
for this void retaliatory eviction. An APPEAL will NOT prevent the court from at any time lopping off what has been termed a dead limb on the judicial tree -- a void order." (MacMillan Petroleum Corp. v. Griffin (1950) 99 Cal. App. 2d 523, 533 [222 P.2d 69]; accord: People v. West Coast Shows, Inc. (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 462, 467 [89 Cal. Rptr. 290]; Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal. App. 2d 638, 641-642 [239 P.2d 650]; and see: 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 7, pp. 4024-4025.)
On December 18,, 2009 Attorney Linda Hollenbeck and I went into the Appeal Court for  “Oral Testimony,”  Case # ACIAS 900001. The only thing I could testify to was, “Attorney  Hollenbeck had deceived the court when she implied there were not transcripts.” She  replied “There were none because there was not a court reporter.” On rebuttal I told the  court she was “deceiving the court, as Judge Plotkin had told her during a hearing, on  Case # UDRS802820,  ‘There are transcripts electronically recorded.’ ”  (It is in the transcripts) CAL STATE BAR Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct In presenting a matter  to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes  confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek  to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.  This is NOT “harmless error” on the part of Attorney Hollenbeck; rather it is unethical,  blatant, deliberate and willful misconduct .
In filing for these three [3] corrupt, vexatious and malicious void orders: the retaliatory  eviction, and two workplace restraining orders, Attorney Hollenbeck did commit barratry:   (People v. Sanford, 202 Cal. App. Supp. 1 (App. Dept. Sup. Ct 1988); 18 Pa.C.S. 5109.)

California Penal Code Section 158: "Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000)."
California Penal Code Section 159: "No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy."


December 6, 2009


Sharon Stephens