Anda di halaman 1dari 15

#1522

3 APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT


4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

6
“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. BR 048640
7 CALIFORNIA”,
Pasadena Trial Court
8 Fake Plaintiffs and Respondents
9 No. 0PS02158
v.
10

11
JEFFREY PIERCE HENDERSON,
<sic> <misnomer>
12
Innocent Defendant and Appellant,
13

14 Appeal from an Order after Judgment


15
Of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Hon. CANDACE BEASON, Presiding Judge
16
_________________________________________
17
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
18 _________________________________________
19

20
Jeffrey Pierce Henderson
21
Clan Advocate General
22 c/o 1012 W Beverly Blvd #135
Montebello, California [90022]
23 Telephone number: (626) 200-0480
24 jeffrey.henderson@laverne.edu
Sui Juris, Sovereign Elector,
25 Innocent Defendant and Appellant
26
In Propria Persona
27

28

- 1-
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
Case No. BR 048640 - PEOPLE v. JEFFREY HENDERSON <sic> <misnomer>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Certificate of Compliance......................................................................................................4
II. Judicial Notice......................................................................................................................4
III. Statement of the case...........................................................................................................4
A. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4
B. Statement of appealability................................................................................................5
C. Procedural history.............................................................................................................5
D. Summary of significant facts............................................................................................6
IV. Argument............................................................................................................................. 7
1. Court denied APPELLANT record on appeal...............................................................7
2. Denial of Record violated APPELLANT'S substantial Rights......................................8
3. Substantial Rights violations caused irreparable injury.................................................9
4. Substantial Rights violations strip Court of jurisdiction................................................9
5. The Law provides remedy for loss of jurisdiction.......................................................10
6. Asking Appellate Division for dismissal is correct remedy........................................11
7. APPELLANT'S brief should be held to less stringent standards.................................11
V. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutions
United States Constitution (USC) Section 7, art. 2 .....................................................................8
USC Fifth Amendment................................................................................................................8
USC Fourteenth Amendment......................................................................................................8

Cases
Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 U. S. 385, 394..............................................................................8
Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 387........................................................................8
Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 US 12, 19......................................................................................8
Eskridge v. Washington Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles (1958) 357 US 214, 216...................8
Douglas v. California (1963) 372 US 353, 358...........................................................................9
MLB v. SLJ (1966) 519 US 102..................................................................................................9
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 US 18...................................................................................9
Johnson v. Zerbst, (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 469...............................................................................9
Melo v. United States (1974) 505 F. 2d 1026............................................................................10
United States v. Restrepo (1991) 930 F.2d 705, 712.................................................................10
Boyd v. United States (1886)116 US 616, 635..........................................................................10
McClatchy v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. 413, 418 [51 P. 696, 39 L.R.A. 691]...........................10
Postal Telegraph etc. Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. [688], 689, 698 [15 S. Ct. 268, 360, 39 L.Ed.
311]........................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 US 18.................................................................................11
Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 US 137, 163...............................................................................11
Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 US 519.........................................................................................12

Rules
California Rules of Court (CRC) 8.204(c)...................................................................................4
CRC Rule 3.51............................................................................................................................6
CRC Rule 8.864..........................................................................................................................7
CRC Rule 8.865..........................................................................................................................7
CRC Rule 8.410..........................................................................................................................7

Codes
Penal Code § (PC) 1466(2)(b).....................................................................................................5
PC 148(a)(1)................................................................................................................................ 5
I. Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to rule California Rules of Court (CRC) 8.204(c), I hereby certify that this
brief contains 3200 words. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the
computer program Open Office used to prepare the brief.

Jeffrey Pierce Henderson


Clan Advocate General
Sui Juris, Sovereign Elector,
Innocent Defendant, and Appellant
UCC 1-308, Without Prejudice

II. Judicial Notice


Appellant gives Judicial Notice of his Notice of Deficiency et al. and its attached
EXHIBITS (I JN) filed in the Appellate Division.

III. Statement of the case

A. Introduction

Jeffrey Pierce Henderson, Sui Juris, Sovereign Elector, Innocent Defendant, and
Appellant (APPELLANT) appeals from the Court's order after judgment on August 25, 2010;
see page 17 of Clerk's Transcript prepared for the Appellate Division (I CT 017), and the
Court's orders on November 02, 2010 (I CT 151) and November 03, 2010 (I CT 152). It is
APPELLANT'S contention that these orders, along with the deficient Clerk's Transcript, deny
him significant Rights to the adversarial process and meaningful access to the Courts.
The record prepared by the Court is grossly deficient and significantly hamstrings
APPELLANT from being able to argue most of the potential legal errors. The result of a Court
denying substantial Rights is loss of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the case can go no
further. All charges must be dismissed.
B. Statement of appealability

Authorized by the Penal Code § (PC) 1466(2)(b), APPELLANT interlocutory appeals


from orders after judgments made by the Honorable CANDACE BEASON allegedly violating
APPELLANT'S substantial Rights.

C. Procedural history

On May 25, 2010 APPELLANT was cited for resisting a “POLICE OFFICER” (I CT
003). Seventeen days later, on June 11, 2010, J. CHRISTIAN BLANKENHORN filed a
misdemeanor complaint (I CT 001), based upon information and belief, acting in the official
capacity of THE CITY OF PASADENA, alleging under penalty of perjury, APPELLANT had
willfully resisted, delayed, or obstructed a “peace officer” in the discharge or attempt to
discharge a duty of his or her office or employment in violation of PC 148(a)(1).
APPELLANT alleges Court has refused to reveal the true nature and cause of the action against
APPELLANT, but he has reason to believe this case might be an action that constitutes a
condition of contract under the criminal aspects of a colorable Admiralty jurisdiction. These
are the motions filed in limine in this case:

• Pitchess/Brady Discovery was denied July 09, 2010.

• Motion to Recall Bench Warrant was denied August 04, 2010.

• Motion for Transcripts was denied August 13, 2010.

• Motion for Bail Reduction was denied August 13, 2010.

• Motion for Release on OR was granted August 25, 2010 with conditions APPELLANT
alleges are in violation of his substantial Rights.

• Subpeana Duces Tecum was denied October 06, 2010.

• Pitchess/Brady Discovery was denied November 01, 2010.

• Demurrer was denied December 01, 2010 and appealed December 14, 2010.
D. Summary of significant facts

APPELLANT sued and won in Small Claims Court against his absentee landlord Ali
Moghadam (ALI) for repairs to make his apartment inhabitable (I JN P04 L07) (First Judicial
Notice Page 4 Line 7). ALI attempted to unlawfully evict and APPELLANT won the right to
stay (Ib.). After this, it is APPELLANT'S contention, agents of ALI made an anonymous 911
call alleging he had slapped his daughter. THE PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT
(PASADENA) admitted that they “could see the children”, and “it did not appear that there
was any physical violence being directed towards them” (I CT 57). APPELLANT was arrested
and later charged with “resisting police officer” (I CT 3) because APPELLANT refused to
allow PASADENA to enter his home without a warrant.
APPELLANT contended that the Court attempted to rush him to judgment by moving
this case forward without giving him time to prepare his defense and appeal including
investigate allegations, question witnesses, and without hearing his pretrial motions including
Demurrer, Pitchess/Brady, and Motion to Suppress. APPELLANT intended to argue in this
appeal that the Court, in typical malicious prosecutorial fashion, moved his Demurrer hearing
forward, illegally failed to give Notice, illegally arrested him without warrant, denied his Right
to interlocutory appeal, denied his Right to transcripts, held him without reasonable bail for
weeks, without cause and without meaningful access to the courts, re-filed and added charges
without disclosing the true nature and cause, and denied him the adversarial process and due
process during his motion for release on his own recognizance. Because of Court's unlawful
suppression of the record of oral proceedings, APPELLANT is hamstrung from arguing most
of these issues. However, the fatal error of Court denying APPELLANT access to record of
oral proceedings, like the APPELLANT, still stands.
On September 22, 2010, APPELLANT filed for a fee waiver per CRC Rule 3.51, and it
was granted (see appendix A). On November 02, 2010, Court held a nunc pro tunc hearing (I
CT 151) without notice to APPELLANT, which unlawfully nullified his Right to a fee waiver,
denied him the Right to a record of oral proceedings, and denied him the Right to meaningful
access to the courts. A day later, on November 03, 2010, Court denied APPELLANT the
Right to a statement on appeal and denied him his right to interlocutory appeal (see page 152).
It is APPELLANT'S contention that these significant Rights violations rendered the Court's
claim to jurisdiction null and void and commands Appellate Division to dismiss all charges
with prejudice.

IV. Argument

1. Court denied APPELLANT record on appeal.

On September 22, 2010, Court, on the record, denied APPELLANT his right under (PC)
1466(2)(b) to appeal the August 25, 2010 order (I CT 27) after judgment that allegedly violated
his substantial Rights. Also, on September 22, 2010, Court Ordered Fee Waiver for
APPELLANT (EXHIBIT A). On November 02, 2010, Court convened without notice to
APPELLANT, nunc pro tunc denied APPELLANT'S Fee Waiver ordered on September 22,
2010 (EXHIBIT B), and denied him a record of oral proceedings for appeal.

APPELLANT followed CRC Rule 8.864 in order to gain access to the oral record for his
appeal. Deputy Court Clerk, MONICA LOPEZ (LOPEZ) failed to follow CRC Rule 8.865
when she failed to record the filing date on the Notice of Appeal (I CT 26), failed to record
Notice Regarding Record of Oral Proceedings (EXHIBIT C), failed to include several motions
in limine (I JN X A-M)(First Judicial Notice Exhibits A-M) including the very motion on
appeal, APPELLANT'S Motion for Release on OR (I JN X G) heard on August 25, 2010. It
was granted with conditions alleged to be violations of his significant Rights. APPELLANT
attempted to make a CRC Rule 8.410 correction by serving and filing a Notice of Deficiency.
This Notice and Command has been neither answered, nor executed.

2. Denial of Record violated APPELLANT'S substantial Rights.

The Court denied APPELLANT the right to be heard on the Motion for Transcripts by
not giving notice of the hearing held on September 22, 2010 thus depriving him of due process.
"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v.
Ordean (1914) 234 U. S. 385, 394. The Court's orders are clearly unconstitutional, as they
deprive APPELLANT of his liberty without due process of law. United States Constitution
(USC) Section 7, art. 2 provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law." In Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 387, the Supreme
Court held, "It is an unjustifiable denial of a hearing, and therefore a denial of due process, to
close the courts to an indigent on the ground of nonpayment of a fee." Without the record of
oral proceedings, APPELLANT was denied meaningful access to the Courts.

The Supreme Court has held destitute defendants must be afforded as adequate appellate
review as defendants who had money to buy the transcripts. It was held that the USC Fifth
Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses of the USC Fourteenth
Amendment were violated by denial of appellate review solely on account of a defendant's
inability to pay for a transcript. In Griffin v. Illinois (1956) 351 US 12, 19, the Supreme Court
stated, “There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount
of money he has. Destitute defendants must be afforded as adequate appellate review as
defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts.”

In Eskridge v. Washington Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles (1958) 357 US 214, 216,
the Supreme Court held "a State denies a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment if it allows all convicted defendants to have appellate review except those who
cannot afford to pay for the records of their trials." The Supreme Court has admonished the
California Second Appellate District before about “cases where the rich man can require the
court to listen to argument of counsel before deciding on the merits, but a poor man cannot”
Douglas v. California (1963) 372 US 353, 358. The Supreme Court has even upheld up the
substantial Right to a transcript under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment for indigent respondents in civil cases on appeal, see MLB v. SLJ
(1966) 519 US 102.

3. Substantial Rights violations caused irreparable injury.

Yes. Supreme Court ruled in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 US 18, APPELLANT
is "entitled to a trial free from the pressure of unconstitutional inferences." APPELLANT
attempted to argue jurisdiction before the all-powerful Pasadena potentate, but found her
steadfast in her representation of the interests of THE CITY OF PASADENA. APPELLANT
cannot review oral record of his colloquy with Court because the evidence has been suppressed
by same. APPELLANT can never go back in time to argue his motions in limine and appeal
with transcripts that were unlawfully denied to him. APPELLANT can never have the three
weeks he unjustly suffered in jail returned to him. APPELLANT can never appeal the
conditions of his release. APPELLANT can never have the months back that he spent Court
ordered away from his loving wife and babies.

4. Substantial Rights violations strip Court of jurisdiction.

In the case of Johnson v. Zerbst, (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 469, it was found that if the Court
did indeed proceed against the defendant in violation of his Right to Counsel, another
substantial Right, then the Court lost claim of jurisdiction and the defendant is entitled to
release through his Petition for Habeas Corpus. The Supreme Court ruled, “In this state of the
record we deem it necessary to remand the cause. If — on remand — the District Court finds
from all of the evidence that petitioner has sustained the burden of proof resting upon him and
that he did not competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel, it will follow that the
trial court did not have jurisdiction to proceed to judgment and conviction of petitioner, and he
will therefore be entitled to have his petition granted.” (Ibid.) In the case at bar, we need not
remand the case and get the transcripts to see if and how APPELLANT'S significant Right to a
transcript and significant Right to appeal was violated. The evidence is here (I CT 15), (I CT
152) and (I CT 151).

5. The Law provides remedy for loss of jurisdiction.

The remedy is dismissal. Melo v. United States (1974) 505 F. 2d 1026 states, “When it
clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits.
In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” When Court went
out of their way to hide the oral record on appeal, she lost all preconceived ideas of subject
matter jurisdiction. APPELLANT contends that the case must be dismissed because the
Court's conduct was “so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of
justice,” United States v. Restrepo (1991) 930 F.2d 705, 712. In Boyd v. United States
(1886)116 US 616, 635, the Supreme Court “It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the
constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” As was
said in McClatchy v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. 413, 418 [51 P. 696, 39 L.R.A. 691], "Any
departure from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close the
apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect to deprive one
of a constitutional right, is as much an excess of jurisdiction as where there exists an inceptive
lack of power. 'The substance and not the shadow determines the validity of the exercise of the
power.' (Postal Telegraph etc. Co. v. Adams, 155 U.S. [688], 689, 698 [15 S. Ct. 268, 360, 39
L.Ed. 311].)" Absent jurisdiction, Court can only dismiss. The Appellate Division should
sweep the charges against APPELLANT to the dismissal bin with a mighty hand of justice. So
mote it be.

6. Asking Appellate Division for dismissal is correct remedy.

Where does the buck stop? The right to appeal Court decisions is protected by the Fifth
Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because
APPELLANT'S fee waiver was denied nunc pro tunc, he is financially denied access to take
books out of the Los Angeles County Law Library in order to defend himself. Through what
few cases that are available through Internet searches, APPELLANT found the Supreme Court
ruled that dismissal of the indictment was proper when documents were not disclosed to the
defense in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 US 18. APPELLANT was denied substantial
Rights when the Court attempted to stop him from exercising his G-d given freedoms, and he is
entitled to remedy. The Court has consistently ruled against clearly established laws that
guarantee equal access to the record for indigents. The Court has demonstrated that she
believes she is above the Law. How many more chances will she be given to trample
APPELLANT'S G-d blessed rights? In Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 US 137, 163, the
Supreme Court ruled that “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of
every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the
first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued
in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his
court.”

7. APPELLANT'S brief should be held to less stringent standards.

Since the court can reasonably read APPELLANT'S brief and see a valid argument on
which he could prevail, then the Appellate Division should grant dismissal of this case despite
any failure to cite proper legal authority, any confusion of various legal theories, any poor
syntax and sentence construction, or any unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. It has been
held by the Supreme Court time and again that a pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. (see
Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 US 519.) As our late beloved brother John Marshall, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court once said, “The law does not expect a man to be prepared to
defend every act of his life which may be suddenly and without notice alleged against him.”

V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the complaint against APPELLANT should be dismissed with
prejudice.
DATED: December 8, 2021

Jeffrey Pierce Henderson


Clan Advocate General
Sui Juris, Sovereign Elector,
Innocent Defendant, and Appellant
UCC 1-308, Without Prejudice
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I reside in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 years and am not a party to the within action. My home address is 818 North Avenue 51,
Los Angeles, CA 90042.

On December 27, 2010 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., I served the
foregoing documents described as:

APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:

PASADENA TRIAL COURT CLERK


RE: Superior Court Case No. 0PS02158
Appellate Court Case No. BR 048640
300 E Walnut St Room 106
Pasadena, CA 91101

BY PERSONAL SERVICE

I hand delivered such envelope to the offices of the addressee listed above.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed December 27, 2010 at Los Angeles, California.

___________________________
Vadim Bystritski UCC 1-308

Anda mungkin juga menyukai