Notions of Motions

7/28/2019 Notions of Motions

1/244

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS & MOTION FOR ANORDER TO COMPEL

1

MELISSA BALIN10153 Riverside DriveSuite 465Toluca Lake, CA 91602

Pro Se, Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DIVISION

MELISSA BALIN Case No. LAM-13M00544Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO QUASHSUBPOENAS & MOTION FORAN ORDER TO COMPEL; &PETITION FOR WRIT OF

PROHIBITION, QUOWARRANTO, MANDATE OROTHER APPROPRIATESUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant.

Plaintiff herein opposes the motion to quash subpoenas for appearance by LAPD Chief of

Police Charlie Beck and Commander Andrew Smith, submitted by City Attorneys

Carmen A. Trutanich, Carlos De La Guerra, and Jess J. Gonzalez, as one with no merit

and utterly frivolous. The Motion is loaded with untrue and irrelevant material,

representing mostly an attack on the Plaintiff and an attempt to prejudice the court against

the Plaintiff. The Motion is vague and does not present any specific recognized

justifiable reasons to quash the subpoena, and was intentionally and unethically submitted

by attorneys inappropriately, in the one remaining venue of Small Claims Court that does

not allow for the unfair advantage of attorney privilege within the allegedly invaginated

Los Angeles Superior Court System.

For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs Opposition To Motion to Quash Subpoenas &

Motion For An Order To Compel (denoted as EXHIBIT A), the Attorneys for Real

Parties in Interests Motion should be denied as one without merit and frivolous; and


2/244


2

attorneys Carmen Trutanich, Carlos De La Guerra, and Jess J. Gonzalez should be

sanctioned for their abuse of the courts time, when ALL parties know full well that

attorneys are not allowed to present or be heard in Small Claims Court. The Plaintiff, on

behalf of The Good People of California, request that the Court enter an order compelling

the Respondents to immediately produce the subpoenaed material and that a bench

warrant be issued by the Court for the testimonies of ALL Subpoeaned Public Servants,

should they fail to appear again.

ARGUMENT

1. Attorneys for the Defendant state that: A. Neither Chief Beck norCommander Smith have any connection with plaintiffs case nor are they

percipient witnesses to any events in plaintiffs case and B. Chief Beck is a

high level official and General Manager of the Los Angeles Police

Department (LAPD) with supervisory responsibility over more than 13,000

sworn and civilian personnel.

2. Attorneys for the Defendant claim that, It is Chief Becks responsibility toprotect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Los

Angeles. They also claim, making an inferential leap that is understandable,

but incorrect, that To compel him to testify in this proceeding will distract

and remove him from these primary duties all to the detriment of the public

safety. It is indeed relevant and of material importance, if the policies and

orders of the Chief of Police are in fact, placing the public in danger of

continuing Constitutional violations; then his giving of testimony IS a primary

duty and keeping Chief Beck OR Commander Smith from testifying in ANY

court of law, would be the real detriment to public safety.

3. City attorneys Trutanich, De La Guerra and Gonzalez go on to perjurethemselves under oath, when they state to the Court, Real Parties in Interest

have no connection to the case whatsoever, they are not percipient witnesses

to any events in the case and do not possess information relevant to the

underlying case, except as to that which they may have learned from their

subordinates. This is patently untrue, as evidenced by multiple international


3/244


3

television news cameras that were at the scene of the alleged International

Tort on November 29th and 30th, 2011, placing Chief Beck, Mayor

Villaraigosa AND Commander Smith as first-hand witnesses to the

unconstitutional military operation conducted against its own peacefully

assembled citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights as protected by

the Constitution, from inside the walls of City Hall itself (denoted as

EXHIBIT B).

4. City attorneys Trutanich, De La Guerra and Gonzalez, claim that Chief Beckand Commander Smith have no relevant testimony to offer, do not personally

know the plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding her Small Claims

lawsuit. The attached photograph of Chief Beck and the plaintiff taken the

first week of November 2011 (denoted as EXHIBIT C), and multiple

telephone conversations betweem the plaintiff and Commander Smith, would

indicate that they most certainly DID personally know the plaintiff and the

circumstances surrounding her Small Claims lawsuit.

5. The City Attorneys office, in an abuse of taxpayer resources of the ink andpaper to print such lies willfully and intentionally crafted to suppress evidence

of a malfeasance of Justice; in such a manner as is unbecoming a member of

the California State Bar, under the guise of acting under Color of Law, boldly

state, The subpoenas served on Chief Beck and Commander Smith

demonstrates a blatant example of plaintiffs abuse of the courts subpoena

power and should not be countenanced.

6. It is in fact, the City Attorneys offices bald and unapologetic perjury underoath, that should not be countenanced, and should be discouraged with an

appropriate order to compel discovery and sanctions against the

aforementioned City Attorneys for their interference In Justice For All in

orchestrated prosecutorial misconduct amounting to continuing violations of

the Constitution for the United States of America and The California State

Constitution of 1849, worthy of Federal investigation, just in case anybody in

Congress or the Department of Justice or that third governing body that are

supposed to provide a checks and balance for these sorts of things, is actually


4/244


4

even reading this stuff to investigate and review any outstanding malfeasance

of justice allegations, in light of years of alleged tea party justice within the

Los Angeles Superior Court System under the recently-retired-amidst-

investigation, Supervising Clerk, John Clarke.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Response to Point I of Motion To Quash Entitled INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

Several of the assertions made by attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest are

intentionally untrue and designed to prejudice the court against the Plaintiff. The fact

that the Plaintiff has a work and home address in 2013 has no bearing on her address in

domicile at 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 (Los Angeles City

Hall) for over 30 days in November 2011 with the complicit understanding of the

landlord/City of Los Angeles; nor does it refute the Plaintiffs claims of Tenancy-At-

Will, or wanton destruction of private property, in any way.

The statement, Plaintiff appears to be a self-styled member of We the People,

a fringe group of individuals who engage in demonstrations, protests, sit-ins and general

civil disobedience. (lines 11-13), is both unverified in any way whatsoever, and seems

designed to obfuscate facts, especially when there is no reason to believe that the

Plaintiffs reference to We The People, is not with regards to We The People, Of The

United States of America, as protected by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

They also state, After a significant period of time and millions of dollars of

damage to the lawn, City officials determined that it was time to clear the City Hall lawn

of the Occupy L.A. squatters due to a number public safety concerns [sic] not the least

which was a public health concern. While these are all certainly words in the English

language, it is their combined usage and order that make them gibberish. What is the

definition of a significant period of time, when then President of LA City Council and

current Mayor-elect, Eric Garcetti, said, Stay as long as you like...

It would appear their insouciant misusage of the word squatter, defined by

Merriam Webster as: (a) : one that settles on property without right or title or payment


5/244


5

of rent or (b) : one that settles on public land under government regulation with the

purpose of acquiring title NEITHER of which are accurate to the factors at hand,

considering the attached copy of Resolution 33, (denoted as EXHIBIT D); will show

that the group known as Occupy LA and the Sovereign Nation of Freedom & Peace DID

INDEED HAVE EXPLICIT AND COMPLICIT PERMISSION TO BE ON THE CITY

HALL LAWN EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PEACEABLY

ASSEMBLE.

Irresponsible use of a word such as squatter, with the malicious intent to incite

prejudice against the Plaintiff within the Courts, is not just slanderous libel, but a thinly

veiled attempt to ask the Court to overlook that there is an absence of evidence in support

of their claims in defense against Tenancy-At-Will; and therefore NO TRIABLE ISSUE

OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR VIOLATING

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER CALIFORNIA TENANCY-AT-WILL CASE

LAWS FROM HOMESTEADING TO MODERN DAY.

Lines 14 24 of the attorneys motion, essentially amount to a fairy tale of what

the LAPD desperately needs the Los Angeles Superior Courts AND the Court of Public

Opinion to believe in order to justify its unlawful acts of domestic terrorism against its

own citizens and their property. It is unclear to us why this conflagration of unmitigated

subjugation is being complacently dismissed as an issue of "illegal camping", when this

is clearly a globally relevant issue of an International Violation of Human Rights.

It is worth noting, that they fail to mention anywhere that the plaintiff was

hospitalized at the Good Samaratin Hospital, PRIOR to her formal arrest OR processing,

while being detained with the use of excessive force by LAPD Officer Winter, who

refused to divulge his badge number; and that Balin was later released into custody hours

after her photo was the top-of-fold cover of the LA Times (EXHIBIT E), with the

diagnosis of a threatened Miscarriage, citing instead only, The reasons are unclear why

she was not formally charged and prosecuted.

The City Attorneys erroneously state that, Though some complied with the

LAPDs orders, plaintiff was one of the recalcitrant occupiers who refused to disperse.

Plaintiff failed to disperse after a lawful order was made by the LAPD. When she did not


6/244


6

obey the lawful order to disperse, she was taken into custody, processed and released

with a date to appear in court. This is a fictional narrative woven by City Attorneys in

an attempt to prejudice the Courts, as evidenced by the Plaintiffs repeated video

interactions with the LAPD throughout the evening, as a member of the media and

former producer of Police Officer of The Year for COURT TV, and the time of her

alleged arrest of 3:15 AM AT THE LOCATION OF FIRST & BROADWAY;

NOWHERE NEAR CITY HALL AND SEVERAL HOURS AFTER THE DISPERSAL

ORDER THEY ALLEGE THE JOURNALIST FAILED TO OBSERVE; on any other

planet, would appear to be prosecutorial misconduct and suppression of evidence worthy

of a phone call from the U.S. Justice Department; and granting of their incompetently

researched and filed Notions of Motions would send the wrong message of First

Amendment Freedom of Press case law, from here to both Oceans.

Not only did the plaintiff, Melissa Balin, comply with LAPDs unlawful orders,

Balin also identified herself as an International member of the media, and asked for

supervising officers to address the excessive force being used against her while she was

attempting to legitimately record the names and badge numbers of the arresting officers

of the OLA 292, in the event (as did indeed happen), that LAPD refused to provide

information or intentionally obstructed information regarding the arresting officers.

Balin also identified that she was pregnant and repeatedly begged for medical attention

after Officer Winter impaled the pregnant member of the media against the thorns of the

shrubbery (see EXHIBIT F). It was not until the Plaintiff Mic-Checked for medical

attention that an ambulance was finally summoned to the scene.

Mic-Checking during mass unlawful arrests, can be used as a process of a

crowd repeating the immediate and/or life-threatening needs of an arrestee; so that the

needs of one become recognized through the voices of many. During the MicChecking

that bounced from the arrestees to the legal observers across the street on the other side of

the police barricade, the plaintiff shouted, I am pregnant and begging for medical

attention and I am getting no response. Officer Winter was overheard saying How

does that make you feel. The plaintiff, then mic checked, I am pregnant and begging

for medical attention and getting no response and Officer Winter here just asked how

does that make me feel? That doesnt make me feel good and I think I am having a


7/244


7

miscarriage. Can someone please get me some medical attention? This process went on

for several minutes before Balin received paramedic assistance and was finally taken to

the hospital. Willfully and intentionally withholding medical attention from a fetus for

several minutes can make the difference between life and brain death.

It is also worth noting, that the City Attorneys fail to mention that Balin begged to

be accompanied to the hospital and be guarded by a female officer instead of the sadistic

Officer Winter, and that instead, she was forced to urinate blood into a hospital bedpan

while shackled in front of the sadistic officer, while he told his supervising officers,

Wow, I didnt know she was really pregnant.

While the City Attorneys say only, The reasons are unclear why she was not

formally charged and prosecuted. She then filed the instant Small Claims matter against

the City of Los Angeles on January 16, 2013 for damage to an itemized list of her

personal property. They are wildly representing BOTH their involvement in

prosecutorial misconduct that amounted to stalking and the intentional and malicious

curtailment of the plaintiffs and 291 other peoples liberty that night in a manner far

greater than if they had remained in the criminal justice system; AND that they were in

the midst of their own unconstitutional Trial By Ordeal of the Plaintiff, as deemed

Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the 1600s, involving falsified criminal charges,

continuing mandamus, and suppression of evidence FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN

MONTHS UNTIL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF WERE

FINALLY DISMISSED, WITHOUT A SPEEDY OR FAIR TRIAL, ON FEBRUARY

25, 2013.

It is worth noting that much of the itemized list involves art by Internationally

Recognized Artists and Activists, such as Shepard Fairey, Mama Sunshine, SABER,

Richard Eastman, Dennis Peron, Will Palomares and Mark Celentano; being curated by

the Plaintiff, Melissa Balin, for the Sovereign Nation Of Freedom & Peace Museum &

Memorial To The Tongva People. Sublimating such priceless cultural items as an

itemized list of her personal property is BOTH PEJORATIVE AND RUDE as well as

yet another example of the City of Los Angeles flagrant violations of the Third and

Fourth Geneva Conventions, which specifically prohibit against wanton destruction of

civilian property with military use of force.


8/244


8

It is worth noting that Melissa Balin was never actually formally arrested, and

instead was hidden from the other 291 Occupy LA raid-night arrestees; being held at the

Metro Detention Center instead of Van Nuys, and forced to stay in a top bunk (as deemed

unconstitutional treatment of pregnant women), when she should have been immediately

released on her own recognizance for a misdemeanor or infraction, and given the

opportunity to reclaim her personal and curated property.

NONE of the property was saved or properly preserved as evidence by LAPD and

was instead disposed of by Hazmat and City Sanitation Trucks (EXHIBIT G), and taken

to the LA City Dump; including but not limited to Melissa Balins personal and curated

property, which was protected by several signs statingTHIS IS A PRIVATE

RESIDENCE AS PROTECTED BY THE 4TH

AMENDMENT (see EXHIBIT H) and

in spite of phone and e-mail communications with LAPD PIO Commander Andrew

Smith (see EXHIBIT I), that they should get the City of Los Angeles to stop putting

trash on top of the personal belongings and cultural art of Los Angeles citizens,

including a hard drive with video and digital evidence and testimony stored on Civil

Rights Attorney Bruce Margolins firms laptop.

Response to Point II of Motion To Quash, Entitled A MOTION TO QUASH IS

THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO TEST PROPRIETY OF A

SUBPOENA:

The attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest reference People v. Clinesmith

(1975) 175 Cal. App. 2d 911, 912-13 (emphasis added), that one who [contests] the right

to [it], its demands or their scope, [has] two options. He/she might refuse to comply;

or he/she might move to quash the subpoena. Upon the hearing of the matter, the court

may modify or quash the subpoena. It is worth noting that the Real Parties In Interest

REFUSED TO COMPLY IN FAILING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON

APRIL 30, 2013 AND KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY IMPROPERLY

FILING A MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS, as submitted by attorneys on

April 12, 2013 and scheduled to be heard on September 26, 2013 in a ruling by Los

Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenji Machida, that overlooked perjury on the part of the


9/244


9

representatives for the City of Los Angeles, and might indicate a continued inability to be

impartial with regards to this case.

In a letter dated April 11, 2013 (EXHIBIT J), with a postmark date of April 12,

2013, signed by Chief Charlie Beck on behalf of Martin Bland, yet suspiciously similar to

the signature of Greyr Berberyan, a private attorney who represents the Los Angeles

County Sheriffs Department, it is erroneously inferred that the court-ordered fee waiver

is not applicable as it only relates to costs incurred within the Los Angeles Superiro

Court and not those incurred as a result of request associated with LAPD records or

personnel. This is not only untrue, but would be in direct violation of making public

records available and transparent for the People of California. LAPD officers are Public

Servants and giving truthful testimony in court is as much a part of their duty to protect

and serve the Constitution for the United States of America as well as the California State

Constitution of 1849, as jury duty and Jury Nullification, is the right and duty of all

citizens.

Regardless of whether or not the issue of the witness fees had been resolved, none

of the subpoenad officers made contact with the court or the plaintiff, with regards to

being put on call, NOR their failure to appear; and it would appear that certain members

of the LAPD and the LA County Sheriffs Department may think that they are So

Sovereign as to be Above the Laws of following a subpoena or a court order.

Response to Point III of Motion To Quash, Entitled, THE SUBPOENAS SHOULD

BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE REAL PARTIES HAVE NO RELEVANT

TESTIMONY TO OFFER:

The attorneys for the Real Parties In Interest admit, She was not prosecuted for

reasons unknown to this writer. It would appear this is not the only thing unknown to

the writers. It would also appear that the writer does not know that Chief Beck and

Commander Smith (1) DO INDEED HAVE RELEVANT TESTIMONY TO OFFER, (2)

DO PERSONALLY KNOW THE PLAINTIFF, AND (3) DO INDEED PERSONALLY

KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HER SMALL CLAIMS

LAWSUIT. The Office of the City Attorneys misrepresentation of the true facts to the

Court and the Good People of California, while under a sworn oath to protect and serve


10/244


10

the California State Constitution of 1849 and the Constitution for the United States of

America, demonstrates a blatant example of how their office regularly abuses its powers

against its own citizens under Color of Law, and should not be countenanced.

Response to Point IV of Motion To Quash, Entitled, REAL PARTIES SHOULD

NOT BE COMPELLED TO RENDER ANY TESTIMONY UNDER ANY

CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PROCEEDING:

Given that Chief Beck is proclaimed to be a high level official and General

Manager of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) with supervisory

responsibility over more than 13,000 sworn and civilian personnel.; it is important to

send a clear message that NO officer of the law is themselves Above the Law in any way;

and failing to appear or showing Contempt of Court should not be tolerated by either the

highest OR lowest ranking official representing the great City of Los Angeles, and should

be discouraged with an appropriate order to compel requested documents and testimony,

immediately if not sooner.

CONCLUSION:

The Plaintiff, Melissa Balin, respectfully requests that the Motion to Quash Subpoenas be

denied pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1985 and 1987.1, and in the alternative, that a

Motion to Compel Discovery be ordered immediately to produce the requested

documents and digital files, as well as that the Court issue a bench warrant for the

appearance of both Chief Beck and Commander Smith should they fail to appear in front

of the Court again; and a Writ of Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Mandate, or Other

Appropriate Summary Judgement.

DATED: May 29, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

Melissa Balin


11/244


11

By___________________________________________

MELISSA BALIN, Plaintiff


12/244


12

POINTS & AUTHORITIES

CASES

Nuo v. County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp .2d

1127, 1134

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

U.S. v. Russell 411 U.S. 423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d

366 (1973)

People v. McIntire, 23 Cal. 3d 742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d

527 (1979)

People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 695-696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789

(1989)

People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1138, 1142-1144, 274 Cal.

Rptr. 326 (1990)

People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4th

48, 85-86, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d

547 (2000)

People v. Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4th

1757, 1767, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547

(1996)

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183

(1952)

Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 422, 233 Cal. Rptr. 487

(1986)

Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947)

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)


13/244


13

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774

[1951]

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967)

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d

281 (1988)

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d

413 (1984)

People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 3d 641, 117 Cal. Rptr. 9, 527 P .2d 361

(1974).

People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4th

86, 165, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 825 P .2d 781

(1992)

People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 79, 87

People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3rd 470, 478

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 12-15 [85 L.Ed.2nd 1, 10-12]

People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App.3rd 1111, 1124

In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 930, 937-938, fn. 3

People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2nd 223, 248.

STATUTES

California State Cosntitution of 1849

California Government Code 11120, which states, We The People

Do Not Yield Our Sovereignty To The Agencies That Serve Us.

First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America


14/244


14

Miranda Warning, which states, You have the right to remain

silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will

be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?

With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Sixth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Article 10, which states:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and

obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

Articles 14 & 16, which is binding in international law on the 72 states that

have ratified it. Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article

14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a

list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5)

establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the

conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy. Article

14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.

In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and

obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public

hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by

law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for


15/244


15

reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,

or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the

extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances

where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement

rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except

where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings

concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."

American Convention on Human Rights,Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10

California Rule of Court 1.1150 cited with regards to filming penal

codes

Local Rule 2.17 cited with regards to filming penal codes

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local

law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice

of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or

U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute,

gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases

where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a

pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an

agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may

initiate a pattern and practice investigation, include:

* Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;

* Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents

involving the use of force;

* Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and

* Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as

adversaries.


16/244


16

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has

the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation

facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when

there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of

institutionalized persons.

OTHER AUTHORITIES

LAPD Procedure Manual Volume 4 Section 296.01, which states,

During the performance of official duties, Department members shall

provide a business card to any person upon request, providing the action

does not interfere with the officers performance of his/her duty.

Abraham Lincolns words as entered again on public record

November 14, 2011: We the people are the rightful masters of both

Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow

the men who pervert the Constitution.

All Court Reporters Transcripts of Proceedings in Case

1CA16847-02 (NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY)

All Videos forCase 1CA16847-02 as Provided by LA Sheriffs

Department

All Videos NOT YET PROVIDED OR ACCOUNTED FOR IN

DISCOVERY by LA Sheriffs Department forCase 1CA16847-02

Pitchess Motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, in

September 2012

Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balins violation of due

process in public view from Clara Shortridge Foltz and Lynwood County

Jail NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY (formally requested in writing


17/244


17

by bar panel attorney, Johnny Lai, from Honorable Cecil Mills on October

16, 2012).

Title 18, USC, Section 4 states, Whoever, having knowledge of the

actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,

conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some

judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or

both.

Title 42, USC, Section 1986, states that Every person who, having

knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in

section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to

prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses

so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party

injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such

wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have

prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and

any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be

joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by

any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased

shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000

damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be

one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the

deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be

sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action

has accrued.

Title 42, USC, Section 1987 states, The United States attorneys,

marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate judges


18/244


18

appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest,

imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially

empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of

the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any

of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and

5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be

arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United

States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense.

LAC/USC Medical Center Patient Rights (particularly rules 2, 11,

13, 14)

LACSD Use of Force Investigation Report for Case 1CA16847-02

Definition of PTSD as defined by The Mayo Clinic

Letter from Lael Rubin, Director of Bureau of Prosecution Support

Operations on behalf of Steve Cooley of the Los Angeles County District

Attorneys Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense

Appointments office dated June 22, 2012. The letter is regarding the

identification and disapproval of exculpatory evidence material to

defendants regularly being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

Department.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Injunctive

and Declaratory Relief filed on July 9, 2012 by ACLU attorney Jeffrey

Douglas against Steve Cooley and Sheriff Leroy Baca.

MC-500 Form- Media Request to Record or Broadcast


Formal Complaint and request for investigation with California

Commission on Judicial Performance, dated September 5, 2012 and received

September 19, 2012.


19/244


19

Faretta Waiver Dangers and Disadvantages to Self-Representation

Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation,

received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits A R

8.204 section e 2C regarding Noncomplying briefs, which states, it is

not a fatal mistake to request an incorrect writ in the initial petition, so long

as the petition alleges facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is prima

facie entitled to one of the writs. The reviewing court can save a formally

defective petition by construing it to cure the defects.


20/244


20

VERIFICATION

I, Melissa Balin, being first duly sworn, depose and say:

I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the

foregoing verified Opposition to The Notion of Motion To Quash

Subpoenas, and Motion To Compel, and Points & Authorities in Support of

a Petition for writ of prohibition, quo warranto, mandate, or other

appropriate immediate relief, and the facts alleged therein are within my

knowledge and I know them to be true, except as to matters therein stated on

information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Dated May 29, 2013 Melissa Balin

(under sworn oath)


21/244

Opposition To Motion To QuashList of Exhibits

EXHIBIT A City Attorneys Motion to Quash Subpoenas & Motion to Compel

EXHIBIT B Photos of Chief Beck and Commander Smith on the scene as firsthand

witnesses the evening of November 29 and morning of November 30,2011

EXHIBIT C photo of Chief Beck, Richard Eastman & Melissa Balin taken November

2011EXHIBIT D LA City Council Resolution 33

EXHIBIT E Cover of LA Times on November 30, 2011

EXHIBIT F Location of excessive force exerted on a handcuffed pregnant member ofthe media

EXHIBIT G photo of Hazmat wanton destruction of civilian property under Color of

LawEXHIBIT H 4

thAmendment Protection photos

EXHIBIT I e-mail correspondence with LAPD Commander Andrew Smith 12/08/11EXHIBIT J LAPD witness fees bill


22/244

EXHIBIT A


23/244


24/244


25/244


26/244


27/244


28/244


29/244


30/244


31/244


32/244


33/244


34/244


35/244


36/244


37/244


38/244


39/244


40/244


41/244

EXHIBIT B


42/244


43/244


44/244


45/244

EXHIBIT C


46/244


47/244

EXHIBIT D


48/244


49/244


50/244


51/244

EXHIBIT E


52/244


53/244

EXHIBIT F


54/244


55/244


56/244

EXHIBIT G


57/244


58/244


59/244

EXHIBIT H


60/244


61/244

EXHIBIT I


62/244


63/244


64/244

EXHIBIT J


65/244


66/244


67/244

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT &PETITITON FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO WARRANTO, MANDATE, OROTHER APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

1

MELISSA BALIN10153 Riverside DriveSuite 465Toluca Lake, CA 91602

Pro Se, Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DIVISION

MELISSA BALIN Case No. LAM-13M00544Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION FOR SUMMARYADJUDICATION/JUDGEMENT &PETITION FOR WRIT OFPROHIBITION, QUO

WARRANTO, MANDATE OROTHER APPROPRIATEIMMEDIATE RELIEF.

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendant.

TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND ALL PARTIES HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM, or as soon

thereafter as the Court deems the matter may be heard, in Department 90 of the above-

entitled Court, located at 11 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Plaintiff,

MELISSA BALIN (hereinafter Balin), will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant

to Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter CCP 437c), for summary

adjudication/judgement in favor of the MOVING PARTY and against the Defendant, The

City of Los Angeles (hereinafter City of Los Angeles), and for costs of suit incurred

herein and such other relief as may be just.

The motion is made on the grounds that a Summary Judgement based on theundisputed and uncontested cause(s) of action by the City of Los Angeles against Balin,

will further the interests of judicial economy, by reducing the time to be consumed in

trial, or significantly increase the ability of the parties to resolve the case by settlement.

CCP 437c(s)(2).


68/244


2

ARGUMENT:

Please see the attached notarized Statement of Uncontroverted Facts which

shall also serve as a Declaration, (Points 1-39 and Exhibits A-W) in Support of the

Memorandum of Points and Authorities) that would clearly indicate TO ALL

PARTIES that this is a civil case governed by existing California Tenancy-At-Will

case law pertaining the following FIVE (5) ISSUES:

1) INDIGENOUS CITIZENS OF LOS ANGELES, INCLUDING BUTNOT LIMITED TO MELISSA BALIN, PUBLICLY IDENTIFYING

THEMSELVES AS MEMBERS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF

FREEDOM & PEACE, DID NOT PAY RENT FOR THEIR

TENANCY OF THE CITY HALL LAWN.



FREEDOM & PEACE, LIVED IN DOMICILE FOR MORE THAN

THIRTY DAYS IN TENANCY ON THE CITY HALL LAWN.



FREEDOM & PEACE, HAD THE IMPLIED (SINCE OCTOBER 1,

2011), ACTUAL (SINCE OCTOBER 12, 2011) AND

CONSTRUCTIVE (TO THE DATE OF THIS WRITING AS

PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT) CONSENT OF THE

LANDLORD OF CITY HALL AND THE SURROUNDING LAWN,

THE PUBLIC ENTITY CURRENTLY KNOWN AS THE CITY OF

LOS ANGELES, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS LANDLORDS

AND STEWARDS OF THE LAND, THE TONGVA PEOPLE.

4) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR"EXTENSIVE DESTRUCTION AND APPROPRIATION OF


69/244


3

PROPERTY NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY AND

CARRIED OUT UNLAWFULLY AND WANTONLY"; IE:

THROWING THE PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS DIRECTLY

INTO THE CITY DUMP WITHOUT A WARRANT OR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS EVIDENCE IN

A CRIME SCENE. (see EXHIBIT X) THIS IS CONSIDERED A

"GRAVE BREACH" OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENEVA

CONVENTIONS, PROVIDING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A

"WAR CRIME".

5) THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS RESPONSIBLE FORKNOWINGLY VIOLATING THE 1ST, 4TH, 5TH, 8TH, 9TH AND

10TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS.

There is no triable issue of material fact and Balin is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. (Aguilar 11. Atlantic Rlchfield Co. (2001) 25 Gal/ith 826, 850).

To show that The City of Los Angeles does not have any evidence in support of

its affirmative defenses, Balin will need to demonstrate that she asked for this evidence

and got nothing of substance in response, as evidenced by the Declarations of LAPD

Custodian of Records, Michael Novak, (see EXHIBIT Y) on April 24, 2013. (Scheldlng

1/.Dt'muiddie (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81 (we can infer nothing at all with respect to

questions which were neither asked nor answered); Weber -0. john Crane, Inc. (2006)

143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-1442.

Factually devoid discovery responses like these can, by themselves, be enough

to shift the initial burden in a Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Andrews 1). Foster

I/Wteeler LLC. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 101.) A discovery response that indicates the

answering party has no evidence demonstrates that there is an absence of evidence in

support of that partys claims. (Andrews at p. 106.) Since the defendant must disclose

the evidence supporting these defenses in response to discovery requests, if it fails to do

so, the logical inference is that it does not possess any evidence.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.030(a)(2) and


70/244


4

2030.070(a), the Defendant should please identify any additional later-acquired or

supplemental information necessary to make a response to judicial Council Form

Interrogatory 15.1 correct and complete as of this date.

The opposition must produce admissible evidence that a triable issue of material

fact exists for each as to each of the affirmative defenses in a motion for summary

adjudication. (437c, subd. (b)(3) and 43'7c, subd. (f)(l).) This can include evidence not

disclosed in discovery, unless the failure to disclose was willful. (Biles u ExxonMobil

Corporation (2004) 124 Cal.App/ith 1315, 1329).

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should GRANT the motion for summary

judgement. In the alternative, the Court should GRANT the motion for summary

adjudication on the FIVE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT THAT DETERMINE THE

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF TENANCY-AT-WILL, WHICH REMAIN

UNCONTESTED BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.

DATED: May 29, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

Melissa Balin

By___________________________________________

MELISSA BALIN, Plaintiff


71/244


5

POINTS & AUTHORITIES

CASES

Aguilar 11, Atlantic Rlchfield Co. (2001) 25 Gal/ith 826, 850

Scheldlng 1/.Dt'muiddie (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81

Weber -0. john Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1441-1442

Andrews 1). Foster I/Wteeler LLC. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 101

Biles v. ExxonMobil Corporation (2004) 124 Cal.App/ith 1315, 1329

Nuo v. County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp .2d

1127, 1134

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

U.S. v. Russell 411 U.S. 423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d

366 (1973)

People v. McIntire, 23 Cal. 3d 742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d

527 (1979)

People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 695-696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789

(1989)

People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1138, 1142-1144, 274 Cal.

Rptr. 326 (1990)

People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4th

48, 85-86, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d

547 (2000)

People v. Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4th

1757, 1767, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547

(1996)

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183

(1952)


72/244


6

Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 422, 233 Cal. Rptr. 487

(1986)

Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947)

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774

[1951]

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967)

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d

281 (1988)

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d

413 (1984)

People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 3d 641, 117 Cal. Rptr. 9, 527 P .2d 361

(1974).

People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4th

86, 165, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 825 P .2d 781

(1992)

People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 79, 87

People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3rd 470, 478

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 12-15 [85 L.Ed.2nd 1, 10-12]

People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App.3rd 1111, 1124

In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 930, 937-938, fn. 3

People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2nd 223, 248.


73/244


7

STATUTES

California State Cosntitution of 1849

California Government Code 11120, which states, We The People

Do Not Yield Our Sovereignty To The Agencies That Serve Us.

First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Miranda Warning, which states, You have the right to remain

silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will

be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?

With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Sixth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of

America

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Article 10, which states:

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and

obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

Articles 14 & 16, which is binding in international law on the 72 states that

have ratified it. Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article

14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a

list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5)


74/244


8

establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the

conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy. Article

14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals.

In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and

obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public

hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by

law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for

reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,

or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the

extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances

where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement

rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except

where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings

concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children."

American Convention on Human Rights,Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10

California Rule of Court 1.1150 cited with regards to filming penal

codes

Local Rule 2.17 cited with regards to filming penal codes

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local

law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice

of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or

U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute,

gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases

where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a

pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an


75/244


9

agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may

initiate a pattern and practice investigation, include:

* Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;

* Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents

involving the use of force;

* Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and

* Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as

adversaries.

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has

the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation

facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when

there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of

institutionalized persons.

OTHER AUTHORITIES

LAPD Procedure Manual Volume 4 Section 296.01, which states,

During the performance of official duties, Department members shall

provide a business card to any person upon request, providing the action

does not interfere with the officers performance of his/her duty.

Abraham Lincolns words as entered again on public record

November 14, 2011: We the people are the rightful masters of both

Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow

the men who pervert the Constitution.

All Court Reporters Transcripts of Proceedings in Case

1CA16847-02 (NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY)


76/244


10

All Videos forCase 1CA16847-02 as Provided by LA Sheriffs

Department

All Videos NOT YET PROVIDED OR ACCOUNTED FOR IN

DISCOVERY by LA Sheriffs Department forCase 1CA16847-02

Pitchess Motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, in

September 2012

Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balins violation of due

process in public view from Clara Shortridge Foltz and Lynwood County

Jail NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY (formally requested in writing

by bar panel attorney, Johnny Lai, from Honorable Cecil Mills on October

16, 2012).

Title 18, USC, Section 4 states, Whoever, having knowledge of the

actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States,

conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some

judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or

both.

Title 42, USC, Section 1986, states that Every person who, having

knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in

section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to

prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses

so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party

injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such

wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have

prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and

any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be


77/244


11

joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by

any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased

shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000

damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be

one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the

deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be

sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action

has accrued.

Title 42, USC, Section 1987 states, The United States attorneys,

marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate judges

appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest,

imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially

empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of

the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any

of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and

5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be

arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United

States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense.

LAC/USC Medical Center Patient Rights (particularly rules 2, 11,

13, 14)

LACSD Use of Force Investigation Report for Case 1CA16847-02

Definition of PTSD as defined by The Mayo Clinic

Letter from Lael Rubin, Director of Bureau of Prosecution Support

Operations on behalf of Steve Cooley of the Los Angeles County District

Attorneys Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense

Appointments office dated June 22, 2012. The letter is regarding the


78/244


12

identification and disapproval of exculpatory evidence material to

defendants regularly being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

Department.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Injunctive

and Declaratory Relief filed on July 9, 2012 by ACLU attorney Jeffrey

Douglas against Steve Cooley and Sheriff Leroy Baca.



Formal Complaint and request for investigation with California

Commission on Judicial Performance, dated September 5, 2012 and received

September 19, 2012.

Faretta Waiver Dangers and Disadvantages to Self-Representation

Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation,

received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits A R

8.204 section e 2C regarding Noncomplying briefs, which states, it is

not a fatal mistake to request an incorrect writ in the initial petition, so long

as the petition alleges facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is prima

facie entitled to one of the writs. The reviewing court can save a formally

defective petition by construing it to cure the defects.


79/244


13

VERIFICATION

I, Melissa Balin, being first duly sworn, depose and say:

I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action. I have read the

foregoing verified Notice of Motion For Summary Adjudication/Judgement

and Points & Authorities in Support of a Petition for writ of prohibition, quo

warranto, mandate, or other appropriate immediate relief, and the facts

alleged therein are within my knowledge and I know them to be true, except

as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those

matters, I believe them to be true.

Dated May 29, 2013 Melissa Balin

(under sworn oath)


80/244


81/244


82/244


83/244


84/244


85/244


86/244


87/244


88/244


89/244


90/244


91/244


92/244


93/244


94/244


95/244

EXHIBIT B


96/244


97/244


98/244


99/244

EXHIBIT C


100/244


101/244

EXHIBIT D


102/244


103/244


104/244


105/244


106/244


107/244


108/244


109/244


110/244


111/244


112/244


113/244

EXHIBIT E


114/244


115/244

EXHIBIT F


116/244


117/244


118/244


119/244


120/244

EXHIBIT G


121/244


122/244

EXHIBIT H


123/244


124/244

EXHIBIT I


125/244


126/244

EXHIBIT J


127/244


128/244


129/244

EXHIBIT K


130/244


131/244


132/244

EXHIBIT L


133/244


134/244


135/244


136/244

EXHIBIT M


137/244

EXHIBIT N


138/244


139/244


140/244

EXHIBIT O


141/244


142/244


143/244

EXHIBIT P


144/244


145/244

1

Petition for a WRIT OF PROHIBITION, QUO

WARRANTO, MANDATE, OR OTHER

APPROPRIATE IMMEDIATE RELIEF

The People petition the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition,

Quo Warranto, Mandate, or Other Appropriate Immediate Relief,

against all lower courts in the Case of #1CA16847-02 for the

following grounds:

1. The falsified contempt of court arrest of the identifiedmember of the media, Melissa Balin, in full public view at

the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center at

approximately 12:15pm on November 14, 2011, was

unlawful and therefore there is no crime and no charges to

prosecute.

2. The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department knowinglywithheld medical attention, legal counsel, and a call to her

mommy, from a pregnant woman, for more than 53 hours,

purposefully misspelling Balins name in the files, in order

to thwart the efforts of bail bondsmen and attorneys

searching for the unlawfully incarcerated journalist, thereby

shackling and detaining her unconstitutionally, in violation

of the pregnant womans Sixth, Eighth and FourteenthAmednment rights; protected against cruel and unusual

punishment, excessive bail, and in flagrant and continuing

violation of her due process of law, and that of her

miscarried unborn fetus, for which there is no remedy.


146/244

2

3. Melissa Balin had repeated correspondence with InternalAffairs beginning in December 2011, acknowledging that

they had yet to assign any of her multiple arrests for her

known association with the Occupy movement, for

investigation, and assuring she would be assigned an

investigator soon. To this date of petition, over ONE

YEAR LATER, there has yet to be an investigator assigned

or an investigation launched into the evidentiary allegations

of excessive force, falsified arrest reports, and politically

motivated selective prosecution by Los Angeles City

Attorney, Carmen Trutanich (who has been lying to the

good people of Los Angeles with impunity since April 2011

as confirmed by http://thetrufacts.com/) to make a lesson

out of Melissa Balin and any potential Occupy Sympathizers

with jail time; for ANY of the Melissa Balins three arrests

over the thirty day period by Los Angeles County Sheriffs,

LAPD, AND Long Beach PD, resulting in the unlawful

termination of her first pregnancy; or her continuing

unconstitutional harassment and deprivation of her right to

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; by law enforcement

officers in Los Angeles County, including, but not limited

to, FIVE detentions WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE in a

24 HOUR period as recent as the One Year Anniversary of

Occupy LA the weekend of October 1, 2012 by NHPD,

LAPD AND General Public Safety, and an ONGOING

criminal investigation being conducted by Public

Information Officer Andy Smith and the LAPD for Balins


147/244

3

First Amendment protected chalking on public sidewalks, as

evidenced in the Los Angeles Times.

4. [W]here police take matters in their own hands, seizevictims, beat and pound them until they confess, there

cannot be the slightest doubt that the police have deprived

the victim of a right under the Constitution. It is the right of

the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by

a kangaroo court" (Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97,

71 S. Ct. 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951]

5. Melissa Balins right to due process as protected by theSixth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution for The

United States of America, has been continuously and

willfully violated in full public view FOR OVER ONE

YEAR, through being withheld exculpatory evidence

material to her defense, continuing mandamus, and being

most recently neglected ANY legal counsel appointed by the

courts from October 19, 2012 until November 26, 2012.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, while not particularly religious,

Prays for the California State Supreme Court to issue a Writ of

Prohibition, or other appropriate injunctive and declaratory

IMMEDIATE RELIEF against the lower Superior courts of Los

Angeles County from any and all charges in Case 1CA16847-02 and

any and all other potential charges looming from Filmmaker Melissa

Balins exercising of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and

Freedom of Press, in 2011 and 2012 as is protected under the First

Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America.


148/244

4

In light of the irreparable damage being caused by continuing

kangaroo court proceedings at the very location of Balins

unconstitutional arrests, and exacerbated Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder, as diagnosed by Balins primary physician Dr. Keith

Kauhanen of the Motion Picture Health Center; from the documented

threatening statements and continuing lies under oath made by

members of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, from

December 3, 2011; including, in front of bar panel attorney Johnny

Lai on multiple occasions as documented in his Pitchess motion, until

as recently as November 7th

, 2012 in front of bar panel attorney Mark

Lowerre; Balin faces long-term debilitating mental health concerns

and is currently in fear for her life and the immediate safety of her

family.

In light of continued threatening confrontations by the very

Sheriffs deputies involved in Balins initial assault and kidnapping

coordinated by the Bad Lieutenant Watch Commander Mack, who

continues to carry a badge and gun and work on active duty without

any further investigation, other than the LACSD Use of Force Report

that HE SIGNED OFF AND APPROVED HIMSELF, at the Clara

Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, in spite of perjuring himself

under oath as witnessed and testified to by officers of the courts, in the

Pitchess motion filed by bar paneled attorney, Johnny Lai, and

witnessed in full public view by the good People of California, the

Petitioner Prays for a Stay from any further proceedings to take place

at the scene of the crime itself, the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal

Justice Center, and requests that any and all future proceedings be

held by the Supreme Court itself, or an otherwise LEGALLY


149/244

5

CONSTITUTED COURT, essentially issuing a WRIT OF QUO

WARRANTO against any and all proceedings being held at the

currently corrupt kangaroo court named after the woman who

introduced the very concept of the Public Defender.

WHEREFORE, Melissa Balin suffers irreparable professional,

physical, emotional, and financial, material damage from her

unconstitutionally impeded access to observe as a member of the

media, as flagrantly demonstrated under the strictest of scrutinies;

during her own one year-long unconstitutional trial by ordeal (a

process internationally deemed a cruel and unusual punishment in the

1600s), the Petitioner Prays for injunctive and declaratory relief from

any future unconstitutional detentions, unlawful searches or seizures

without cause, arrests, impeded access to observe, and/or prosecutions

under Color of Law; and Prays for a Writ of Mandate against any and

all future threats to Melissa Balins life and/or safety, and the life

and/or safety of Melissa Balins immediate family members, made by

law enforcement officers or officers of the court; and that any and all

complaints by Melissa Balin be assigned to an FBI Special Agent In

Charge in order to be handled immediately and with grave seriousness

for investigation with regards to any and all allegations of police,

sheriff, and/or prosecutorial misconduct as well as any and all

suspicions of malfeasance of justice.

WHEREFORE, The Faretta Waiver outlines the Dangers and

Disadvantages to Self-Representation, including but not limited to,

that if I am permitted to represent myself it will be necessary for me,

WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER OR THE COURT,

to follow all the technical rules of substantive law, criminal procedure,


150/244

6

and evidence., and WHEREFORE, the Petitioner has not met all of

the qualifications to take the State Bar, but has taken a sworn oath as

one of only fourteen declared political candidates running for Mayor

of Los Angeles, and WHEREFORE, the Petitioner appears more

respectful of the Court and familiar with the California State Bar

Rules of Professional Conduct than many of the prosecutors of Los

Angeles County, and is California State Identified Highly Gifted with

an IQ of over 160 (California qualifying Stanford Binet exam taken

by Melissa Balin in 1980 and internationally recognized by MENSA

in 2005), and WHEREFORE, the Petioner has clearly not been

afforded adequate, competent, OR effective counsel for the duration

of the continuing violation of her due process, with no other recourse

or remedy than to read for the law under the fleeting elevator

mentorship of barred attorneys that Melissa Balin as a defendant

could not afford to hire for proper representation, for MORE THAN

ONE YEAR; the Petitioner Prays that the courts will bestow the

defendant, Melissa Balin, with the privileges and authority of a bar

panel attorney as is within the Courts authorities, if only for the

ability to represent herself in this case only, WITH THE

ASSISTANCE OF LAWYERS AND THE COURT, for the

purposes of her own representation, even if limiting the full privileges

of a barred attorney with regards to any other cases or the ability to

give legal advice to anyone else, now or in the future.

In light of the irreparable damage of the miscarriage of Melissa

Balins first pregnancy, for which there is NO remedy, the Petitioner

also Prays for an immediate investigation into the continuing cruel

and unusual punishment of pregnant women currently incarcerated in


151/244

7

Los Angeles County in the hopes of saving the unborn children of

Lynwood who currently have no ability to petition the courts on their

own behalf.


152/244

8

ARGUMENTS

Under California law, an officer is not lawfully performing

her duties when she detains an individual without reasonable

suspicion or arrests an individual without probable cause. (Nuo v.

County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp .2d 1127,

1134.) The arrest of identified member of the press, Melissa Balin,

was unlawful. Judge Korn told the officers to remove the woman

from the courtroom, NOT to remand the woman into custody, as is

evidenced in court transcripts, revised and conflated Sheriff reports,

and video evidence. Another audience member WAS remanded into

custody by Judge Korn at the same time that Melissa Balin was asking

if she was being arrested (approximately 7:51 minutes into video

discovery), making it further clear that the Court NEVER found

Melissa Balins behavior to be contemptuous, and that Sheriff

Deputies acted outside of their scope of jurisdiction in a malicious and

willful manner so as to falsely detain, kidnap and imprison a pregnant

member of the media; rather than allow Balin to file a formal

complaint against them with their supervisor, Sheriff Leroy Baca.

The Misdemeanor Complaint warrant, which was not submitted

until November 16, 2011, cites a violation of P.C. 166 (a)(1), which

states: (a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), every

person guilty of any contempt of court, of any of the following kinds,

is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1)Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior

committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in the


153/244

9

immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending

to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its

authority.

According to Masinter 355 So.2d 1288, the power to jail for

contempt is given "on the assumption that it will be judiciously and

sparingly employed".

Due process requires dismissal when the governments conduct

is so grossly shocking that it violated that fundamental fairness,

shocking to the universal standard of justice mandated by the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S.

423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1973)).

The federal courts have long recognized outrageous

government conduct as a viable defense, based on a violation of the

due process clause (Greene v. U.S., 454 F .2d 783 (9th

Cir. 1971))

Examples of such outrageous conduct have occurred when law

enforcement agents used a friend to induce a defendant to commit a

crime [citations], physical abuse (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165,

72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952)); and interference with attorney-

client relationship (Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 3d 422,

233 Cal. Rptr. 487 (1986)).

In U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-436, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L.

Ed. 2d 366, 93 (1973), the Supreme Court recognized that situations

may arise where the conduct of law enforcement agents is so

outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the

government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction.

Although no California court has directly found on this ground, the

courts have recognized there can be situations in which the


154/244

10

governments conduct in investigating, arresting or prosecuting a

defendant is so outrageous a conviction would deny the defendant due

process of law. (People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1138,

1142-1144, 274 Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990); People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4th

48,

85-86, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d 506 (2000); People v.

Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4th

1757, 1767, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 547 (1996))

California cases have treated this defense as viable. (People v. Thoi,

213 Cal. App. 3d 689, 696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789 (1989)) As the

California Supreme Court observed in People v. McIntire, 23 Cal. 3d

742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d 527 (1979), sufficiently gross

police conduct could conceivably lead to a finding that conviction of

the accused would violate his constitutional right to due process of the

law.

The courts have identified four factors that should be

considered in determining whether due process principles had been

violated by outrageous police conduct: (1) whether the police

manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have

occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal

activity [citations]; (2) whether the police themselves engaged in

criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice

[citations]; (3) whether the defendants reluctance to commit the

crime is overcome by appeals to humanitarianism instincts such as

sympathy or past friendship, by temptation of exorbitant gain, or by

persistent solicitation in the face of unwillingness [citation]; and (4)

whether that record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction with

no reading that the police motive is to prevent further crime or protect


155/244

11

the populace. (People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 3d 1130, 1142, 274

Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990))

It is important to note that police are only required to Mirandize

a suspect if they intend to interrogate that person under custody.

Arrests can occur without the Miranda Warning being given. If the

police later decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be

given at that time. Their vigilance to this rule means less chance of a

case being overturned in court due to poor procedure on their part.

If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or

during questioning, that he or she wishes to remain silent, the

interrogation must cease. If the individual states that he or she wants

an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with

the attorney and to have him or her present during any subsequent

questioning. Melissa Balin begged continually for OVER TWO

HOURS for BOTH medical attention AND legal counsel, while

Sergeant Dancel #402115 continuef to interrogate her WITHOUT

MIRANDA WARNING. It is worth noting that this exculpatory

video evidence that was INDEED most material to the defense, was

DENIED REPEATEDLY BY SERGEANT LUCAS #230303 AND

OTHER DEPUTIES UNDER OATH AS EVEN EXISTING, until it

was finally handed over in discovery in JULY OF 2012 WITHOUT

ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE DENIAL OF ITS EXISTENCE

NOR THE DELAY IN DELIVERY TO THE DEFENSE.

In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947),

the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process


156/244

12

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v. California, 370

U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through

the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan

wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine

whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by

its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.

* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly

arbitrary fashion."

* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected

throughout society."

* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass

a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court

decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a

"cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a

punishment would be cruel and unusual, [if] it was too severe for the

crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if

it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."

In the case of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), the

Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could

constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were "disproportionate"

in duration to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were

to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the

gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the


157/244

13

sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and

(iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other

jurisdictions."

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), established the principal

that the deliberate failure of prison authorities to address the medical

needs of an inmate constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".[1] It

held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners

constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'...proscribed

by the Eighth Amendment."

In the case of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), Justice

Blackmuns opinion states, Where a legislature refuses to fund a

prison adequately, the resulting barbaric conditions should not be

immune from constitutional scrutiny simply because no prison official

acted culpably. [...] The responsibility for subminimal conditions in

any prison inevitably is diffuse, and often borne at least in part, by the

legislature. Yet, regardless of what state actor or institution caused

the harm and with what intent, the

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stayoccupied
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Notions of Motions

Documents