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.
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 Amerilandfor 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  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."I DO DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE FOREGOING IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.December 6, 2009________________________________________Sharon Stephens