3rd Appellate Pleading Template - Angelfire



Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

Fifteenth Judicial District

6190 Skyway

Paradise, California

(530) 877-1265

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO[1]

DIVISION ____________

___________ TERM

| | |

|Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. |CASE No._____________ |

| | |

|APPELLANT / PETITIONER |(3RD APPEL. No. C 037374) (Sup.Ct. No. CM 010607) |

|Accused and Aggrieved Party |(Sup.Ct. No. CR 25413) (Muni Ct. No. P 3747) |

| |COMPLAINT OF |

|Against |FORMAL NOTICE OF LEGAL |

| |CHALLENGE TO |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, |CONSTITUTIONALITY OF: |

|By their Attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, District Attorney for the County of Butte |PUBLISHED CALIFORNIA |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) |CODE SECTION 270 AND |

| |166(a)(4); AND RELATED |

|COUNTY OF BUTTE, Butte County Consolidated Court System, “Superior Court”, Gerald |LAWS THERETO |

|Hermansen “Judge” | |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

| | |

|Ms. Susan Sloan, A.K.A. a fiction “SUSAN SLOAN” by her attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, | |

|District Attorney for the County of Butte | |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

| | |

|CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: To the honourable presiding Justice and the honourable associate Justices of the above mentioned judicial powers court of the State of California, sitting in the Judicial Branch of government for the FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL District, GREETINGS:

Comes now, the Appellant in this matter, the accused and greatly damaged party, Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. IN PROPRIA PERSONA (not Pro per, and not Pro Se), SUI JURIS—AT LAW and upon the first instance, demands law upon the issue denied by respondent’s in this matter as your Appellant comes to this court seeking lawful remedy and redress of grievances, to wit:

This court along with all its assigns as in the original venue and jurisdiction of the judicial department of government, are hereby served with lawful Notice by your Petitioner and Appellant Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., the accused and greatly damaged party in this matter Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. who hereby gives formal notice to you that CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF “CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS” AND ALL LAWS RELATED THERETO.

ALL PERSONS SERVED HERETO; ARE HEREBY UNDER LAWFUL JUDICIAL NOTICE AS THIS NOTICE IS PLACED ON THE FORMAL RECORD BY ITS SERVICE TO YOU OF LAWFUL CHALLENGE HEREBY ESTABLISHED.

As such, the Judicial Notice stands as a matter of law.

1. This notice will be followed by lawful filing and service to all respondent’s within ten (15) days as a matter of law to test the constitutionality of your acts and/or omissions in the collection of “Child Support.”

2. This constitutional challenge is being brought in the third branch of government in the above named tribunal: a constitutional “Judicial Powers Court” in accordance with the structure of the free government of the several union states, in a Judicial Powers court of the California State Republic in accordance with law as established under Article VI, et seq. of the Constitution of California (1849).

3. Said defendant’s and respondent’s in this court have committed gross abrogation of law in direct contradistinction and in DIRECT insolence contempt to the concise rule of law—and all are aiding and abetting respondent’s surrogate lower courts crimes, and by act and/or omission are operating in direct contradistinction to our form of Republican government.

4. This formal notice of challenge comes under California Rules of Court 826; The Preamble of the Constitution of California (1849); Article I, Section 1, Section 2, Section 4, Section 5, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 15, Section 16, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, and Section 21; Article III, Article VI et seq., Article XII; and Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution for California (Amend 1992); concurrent with: the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791) Article I, Section 10, Article 3 et seq.; Article IV, Section 2; Article IV, Section 4, as well as its attendant organic X (10) Amendments, et seq. thereof.

5. It is a fact, that I must be given remedy, as the 3rd District Appellate court of appeals Case Number 0373734 is reticent to provide palpable remedy to me in direct violation of law, and their oath of office.

6. I demand it be judicially noticed and placed on the record the following fact at law:

“The maxim ‘For every wrong there is a remedy,’ bestows upon a person wronged the right to seek redress in an action and the basis for grant thereof is dominated by the cause of action.” Painter v. Berglund (1939) 31 CA2d 63, 87 P.2d 360.

7. I also demand that this court judicially note and place on the record the following fact:

“The common law maxim ‘No man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense,’ is embodied in the Federal Constitution, and those of the several states; and where a defendant has been once placed into jeopardy, the verdict of acquittal prevents a second trial for the same offense upon appeal by the prosecution, notwithstanding error committed in ordering the verdict.” People v. Terrill (1901) 132 C. 497, 64 P. 894.

8. You’re Appellant and Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., Reserves All Rights and Gives Up None and is of proper status to receive justice in this matter.

9. That your appellant Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. is a White Christian male adult of majority, being born on April 14, 1953, and is not an incompetent, having full faculties and freedoms—and who status is that of the free peoples of this state, and the State of New York as well as the State of Massachusetts, in propria persona, sui juris. And that my status mandates the above mentioned court and the full free laws of this California Republic state and its Constitution of California (1849) which this court is bound by oath and affirmation to uphold.

10. Notice has been lawfully given to all respondent’s and their assigns that they are held to strict construction of the laws, as they are bound by lawful oath and affirmation thereto, are properly bonded in accordance with law, and are adhering to same as a normal requirement of their job duties as public servants and/or “officers of the court”. Said respondent’s have palpably ignored that legal notice and thereby are bound thereby in accordance with law:

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately" U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300.

11. Please Judicially note and place on the record that your Appellant and Petitioner, the accused and greatly damaged party in this matter Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. is not an American Bar Association or California Bar Association trained lawyer, and thereby, I get liberal construction, and/or broad construction and “the spirit of the laws” in accordance with the concise rule of law:

Pro se litigant's pleadings should not be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. "Significantly, the Haines case involved a pro se complaint - as does the present case - which requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer. Puckett v. Cox 456 F.2d 233, at 236 (1972)

12. Please Judicially note and place on the record:

"A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution". Murdock v Penn 319 US 105, 113

"If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can IGNORE THE LICENSE and engage in the 'privilege' with IMPUNITY." Shuttlesworth v Birmingham 373 US 262.

“The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this Court.” US v Bishop 412 US 346 (1973) at 2017.

"Constitutional rights must be interpreted in the favor of the citizen." Byars v US 273 US 28.

"Officers of the Court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights." See also Maine v Thibotout, Supra. Owens v City of Independence (Citations Omitted).

"The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty." Boyd v US 116 US 616.

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436, 468.

Statutes providing for arrest and extradition of fugitives are in derogation of Constitutional guarantees of immunity from arrest and must be strictly construed. Matthews v. People, 1957, 314 P.2d 906, 136 Colo. 102

Governor has no power to invade liberty of state resident by arrest and surrender to other state except in so far as authorized by constitutional statute. Id. Hart v. People, 1964, 40 Cal.Rptr. 420, 229 C.A.2d 455

"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, imposes no duties, affords no protections, creates no office. It is, in legal interpretation, as inoperative as if it had NEVER been passed." Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425.

"The Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. . . .All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison 5 U.S 137, 174, 176 (1 Cranch).

“The common law maxim "no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense," is embodied in the Federal Constitution, and those of the several states; and where a defendant has been once placed into jeopardy, the verdict of acquittal prevents a second trial for the same offense upon appeal by the prosecution, notwithstanding error committed in ordering the verdict." People v. Terrill (1901) 132 C 497, 64 P. 894

"The right to take possession of personal property is a thing in action, and "personal property" McClain v. Buck (1887) 73 C 320, 14 P. 876

"The compensation shall be made before he citizen can be divested of his rights." San Francisco v. Scott, 4 Cal. 114; McCann v. Sierra County, Jan T. 1857

"As it seems to us, [the Father has] a paramount right to the custody of his infant child, WHICH NO COURT IS AT LIBERTY TO DISREGARD. State v. Richardson, 40 NH 277

13. To RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SURROGATE COURTS: Please prepare your lawful oath of office and be in accordance thereto.

14. To RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SURROGATE COURTS: Please also prepare your public bond as required by law.

15. To RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SURROGATE COURTS: Please prepare your lawful court seal and authority as required by law.

16. I am lawfully demanding a white Christian male judge in the above mentioned Judicial Powers court with original jurisdiction and judicial Constitutional powers, who will rule unbiasedly in accordance with the law, and who is of the following qualifications:

a. That he is sitting only in the Judicial Department of the State of California in accordance with Article III of the Constitution of California (1849).

b. That said Judge, be of good character, sitting on the bench and is of good behavior.

c. That said Judge be duly elected in accordance with law as mandated by Article VI, Section 3, and Section 5 as well as Section 7 and 8 of the Constitution of California (1849).

d. That said Judge be lawfully bonded as required by “A statute Concerning the Official Bonding of public Officials” of the California Statutes dated February 20, 1850.

e. That he be unbiased.

f. That he have judicial powers.

g. That he be a white Christian male.

h. That he not be obligated to Respondent’s in supporting “Title IV-D” “Child Support” scams and/or schemes.

17. Any private parties or number of state citizens may enjoin in this suit in accordance by law, and statute. “Any number of parties my join in an appeal under CCP § 941 does not exclude the plural.” Sutro Estate, (1907) 152 C 249, 92 P. 486, 1027.

18. This is a 15 day notice to you of said Appellant’s constitutional challenge and requirements thereof.

FORMAL NOTICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF

PENAL CODE §§ 270 AND 166(a)(4)

19. It is a fact, that on or about February 15, 1985 that my son was unlawfully stolen and/or abducted and/or kidnapped from me in overt violation of law.

20. It is a fact, that I bitterly objected to this to all respondent’s, and demanded return of my son in all courts that I did file several lawful Verified Criminal Complaints which were ignored in overt violation of law and for the purposes of receiving Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 651 through 666 “Title IV-D” welfare remuneration scams and/or schemes.

21. It is a fact, that said respondents, did in fact, enjoin together for the purposes of profit and reward the destruction of my life as my son’s father and did force upon me “Child Support” in order to procure: Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669 “Title IV-D through E” Welfare Funding scams and or schemes in a cogent plan to disenfranchise my rights and enslave me in overt violation of the concise rule of law of this state as enumerated in the Constitution for the State of California (1849).

22. That said Respondent’s and their assigns did in fact, do this for the purposes of profit and reward.

23. That they did this willfully, in direct violation of my rights and secured liberties as protected by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution for the State of California (1849)

24. That they did attempt to force an unconscionable contract upon me which I patently refused and to which there is no remedy at law for any father to resist these illegal takings of property embodied in the ownership of my own child in direct violation of their oath of office and the concise rule of law.

25. That said respondent’s did enjoin under color of law, and under color of authority to establish a fraudulent judicial record of this matter, and did palpably deny me redress of grievances and substantive due process of law in which to accomplish their crimes and/or mixed war and/or overt treason against me.

26. That respondents capricious acts and/or omission in this matter have been a substantial and sustained damage to me going over 17 years now, with no redress or remedy at law.

27. That said respondents did overtly lie, forge documents and directly perjure themselves in overt violation of law.

28. That I did in fact, sign no contract or “special contract” with them, and have in fact, no debt, or “special debt” or obligation or “special obligation” with said respondents nor my child.

29. That said respondents are knowingly engaged in an overt program to devise and manufacture parents into “criminals” using overt fraud, direct threats, coercions, and color of law with color of authority in order to persecute Fathers for the purposes of profit and rewards.

30. That they did in fact, knowingly and in overt violation of the State of California mandate of a free government republican in form, did violate the true obligation and contract between Petitioner’s son and himself, and that they did this for the purposes of profit and reward, and either direct or indirect remunerations.

31. That they are in fact, using the published California Penal Code Section 270 and Section 166(a)(4) for a purpose never intended at law: which is to imposed a new oppressive form of government against the people with no possibility of redress of grievances, nor with Fathers having any palpable control or say in either their lives or their children’s lives.

32. That Respondent’s are in fact, enjoined in a conspiracy to use the courts of justice within the State of California in order to place a contrary form of government and laws against THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, using color of law, with color of authority.

33. That it is a fact, that Respondents and their surrogate court systems are in fact, overthrowing the concise rule of law specifically against a gender of males, and discriminating them, and disenfranchising them, and civilly murdering them, and enslaving them against their will and over their authority and continued objections, using said published California Penal Codes §§ 270 and § 166(a)(4)

34. It is a fact, that said Respondent’s are in fact, enjoined with a domestic enemy of persons having color of law and using color of authority of the State of California to conspire and collude to overthrow the republican form of government of the free union State of California, as mandated by the Constitution for the United States upon this State of California.

35. That said respondent’s using the Published California Penal Code §§ 270 and 166(a)(4) are in fact, impressing a foreign, oppressive law and government(s) now embodied in the “California Family Code” and the “California Health and Welfare Code” which have been underwritten directly by a domestic enemy within said government(s) for the purposes of overtly implementing socialism, and/or communism, and/or feminism in direct violation of law.

36. That your petitioner factually has a palpable fear against these Respondent’s as they are grossly outside the concise rule of law, and are committing a Mixed War upon your Respondent.

37. That it is a fact, that our lord and savior Jesus the Christ stated on the record “You will know them by their acts.” It is a fact, that said respondent’s and their surrogate court have committed sustained criminal acts and/or omissions of which I have lawfully filed VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS into said courts which have unlawfully denied those filings in direct violation of law.

38. It is a fact, that Respondent’s knowingly have a scam and/or scheme as backed by said offensive laws to the free peoples of the State of California, and are now, a direct threat to the peace and safety of the State of California and “we the people” as well as your Appellant and Petitioner who is in direct jeopardy having a fraudulent “parole absconder” violation placed against him by said respondent’s in direct violation of law.

39. That Respondent’s are in fact, engaged in a needless and sustained state-wide disenfranchisement, slavery and attack against Fathers for the purposes of profit and reward and also as a scheme to fill up prisons.

40. That it is a fact, that Respondent’s are engaged in a nation-wide disenfranchisement, slavery and attack against Fathers and to manufacture crime and invent them into criminals.

41. In furtherance of their willful crimes against your Petitioner as well as the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, they have unlawfully converted the lawful appellation of Penal Code § 270 from misdemeanor into a felony in overt and direct violation of the concise rule of law.

42. Respondent’s have overtly and willfully used oppressions and/or coercions and are an overt threat to your Respondent’s and opprobrious to a free peoples as they are acting in direct contradistinction to our form of law and our form of Constitutional government.

CONCLUSIONS

43. That it is imperative that this court assume jurisdiction in the first instance of this matter in order to protect your Appellant and Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

44. That this court effect immediately its jurisdiction and assign a case number and return same to me and said respondents in this matter giving lawful notice of this Constitutional Challenge which will be brought to the highest court in the land or any other venue if need be in which to obtain justice in this matter; and,

45. That your Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. will in fact prevail at law against said respondent’s and will throw himself upon the true and just laws of the country in order to prove same; and,

46. That said respondents have effectively established anti-law enforced under color of law and under color of authority of which it is an impossibility for any father (Appellant) to assert “lawful excuse” for denial of payment of “Child Support.”

47. That it is a fact, that on May 12, 1998 in a recorded telephone conversation with Butte County DA Investigator II, Brad Rundt, he did have knowledge of the fraud of the court systems in saying: “Where can you go?” and “There is not a judge in the land that will uphold your law.”

48. That this is a serious matter, and your Petitioner and Appellant comes before this court in good faith with no bad faith to this court.

49. That I have no other remedy in this matter but to approach this lawful court and that this court find in the light most favorable to your Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

50. Your Appellant and Petitioner Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. has been unjust and sustained Domestic Violence committed against him by respondent’s and will file a In Pauperis Forma Declaration with this Constitutional demand for relief.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

51. That this court in the first instance upon receipt of this document assert its lawful judicial powers in this matter and assign a case number to hear said Constitutional Challenge of Penal Code §§ 270 and § 166(a)(4) and their related “Child Support” laws.

52. That this court place an injunction against any “Parole” requirements fraudulently placed against me against my authority, and in overt violation of the concise rule of law to allow me free and unfettered access to the courts and a reasonable ability to defend myself.

53. That this court remit to me the name of the said White Christian male judge and his qualifications to me confirming same; and,

54. That this court assign a case number in accordance with law, to provide Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. will palpable redress of grievances under the law, and to remit to me that case number so I may file my Brief within 15 days of same.

55. That this court accept my In Pauperis Forma status as I have been under unjust attack of civil death inflicted by respondent’s in this matter.

56. That this court remit to me any other just or compensation or reparation or relief that this court deem just and proper in this matter.

DATED: April 1, 2002

SEAL: Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.—AT LAW

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

Fifteenth Judicial District

6190 Skyway

Paradise, California

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

Fifteenth Judicial District

6190 Skyway

Paradise, California

(530) 877-1265

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO[2]

DIVISION ____________

___________ TERM

| | |

|Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. |CASE No. |

| |(3RD APPEL. No. C 037374) |

|APPELLANT / PETITIONER |(Sup.Ct. No. CM 010607) |

|Accused and Aggrieved Party |(Sup.Ct. No. CR 25413) |

| |(Muni Ct. No. P 3747) |

|Against |FORMAL NOTICE OF LEGAL |

| |CHALLENGE TO |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, |CONSTITUTIONALITY OF: |

|By their Attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, District Attorney for the County of Butte |PUBLISHED CALIFORNIA |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) |CODE SECTION 270 AND |

| |166(a)(4); AND RELATED |

|COUNTY OF BUTTE, Butte County Consolidated Court System, “Superior Court”, Gerald |LAWS THERETO |

|Hermansen “Judge” |AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

| | |

|Ms. Susan Sloan, A.K.A. a fiction “SUSAN SLOAN” by her attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, | |

|District Attorney for the County of Butte | |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

| | |

|CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | |

|Respondent/Contemnor (Undefined) | |

COMES NOW THE AGGRIEVED AND DAMAGED PARTY IN THIS MATTER, BY THESE PRESENTS:

The white Christian male adult, Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., who having personal knowledge of these matters, and knowing the penalties for the crime of perjury, hereby truthfully states before Almighty God and thereby subscribes and verifies thereto for the record and hereby deposes and says:

1. My name is Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr..

2. My name and spelling is only exactly as: Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.. I do in fact, do not use any other, nor do allow any other form of my name nor capitalization.

3. I am the plaintiff/petitioner in the above mentioned FORMAL NOTICE TO LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF: PUBLISHED CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 270 AND 166(a)(4); AND RELATED LAWS THERETO.

4. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this matter and will present the same exponentially at this hearing.

5. I am acting as my own counsel in my own proper person: In Propria Persona Sui Juris; and,

6. That I am NOT PRO SE. Any such assertion is an overt lie, as people making such claim have knowledge of the law and are making claims for other malicious designs in which to disenfranchise and/or enslave me to them and/or their system which grants them remuneration.

7. That I am in fact, ready to affirm knowing full well the laws for perjury in the state of California, and in fact will attest to the same in any court of law regarding the matters submitted in the statement of the above mentioned FORMAL NOTICE TO LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF: PUBLISHED CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 270 AND 166(a)(4); AND RELATED LAWS THERETO when I am required to testify in any court of law thereof in relation to support the truth to these charges in these matters as I have personal knowledge of same and the laws thereto.

8. I own nothing and have been under unjust civil death and constant attacks against me unlawfully and unjustly inflicted against me by said Respondent’s as a sustained Domestic Violence against me in this matter as said Respondent’s have in fact willfully driven me into homelessness and poverty, in direct violation of law and our form of governance. I cannot pay any court fees.

9. Further, Affiant saith not.

DATED: April 1, 2002

SEAL: Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.—AT LAW

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

Fifteenth Judicial District

6190 Skyway

Paradise, California

VERIFICATION

Butte County ]

] ss.

State of California ]

I, Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr., being the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

That the afore-going Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents are exacting copies of the originals in my/or my counsel’s (specifically not American Bar Association, or professional “Attorney’s”) possession. That I have read the foregoing document(s) and attachments, and know and understand their contents, and having personal knowledge, know them to be true. As to those matters submitted therein upon information and/or belief, as to those matters, I also believe them true.

Executed this 1st Day of April, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Two.

SEAL: _____________________________

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. – AT LAW

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

Fifteenth Judicial District

6190 Skyway

Paradise, California

[Zip Exempt]

SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribed this First Day of April, under exigent circumstances, before Almighty God, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Two.

SEAL: _____________________________

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. – AT LAW

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

Reserving All Rights, Giving Up None

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

______________ Term

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr. ]

] Case No.

Appellant/Petitioner ] CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE/

vs. ] AFFIDAVIT OF

] PROOF OF SERVICE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ]

Respondents/Contemnor’s ] CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

_______________________________________________] [CCP § 1013 and § 2015.5]

I, the undersigned hereby certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within entitled cause of action; and, Further, hereby deposes and says: that on the date signed below, I did serve UNDER AUTHORITY OF APPELLANT/PETITIONER the attached document named:

1.) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE 23 Pages

____________________________________________________________________________

The aforesaid documents were served in the following manner:

____By personal service. I did personally deliver the above-described documents at the address, or addresses captioned below:

____By the U.S. Postal Service having knowledge of the United States Mail Post

paid certified envelope, sealed by my hand at _______________________.

Certified Number __________________________________

____By phone communication transmission [FAX], the material aforementioned on-line was sent at a total of ______ transmitted pages to Tel.#( ) -

____By sealed envelope, hand enclosed by me and mailed to the following indicated party(s):

NOTE: Notice to the Principal is notice to the Agent, Notice to the Agent is notice to the Principal.

|Court of Appeal |Butte County DA |State of California |

|Third Appellate District |Michael L. Ramsey |State Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer |

|900 N. Street, 4th Floor |25 County Center Drive |P.O. Box 944255 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814-4869 |Oroville, California 95965 |Sacramento, CA 94233-255 |

|California Dept. of Corr. |Butte County Consolidated Courts |SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISO |

|Legal Affairs Div. |1 Court Street |400 McAllister Street |

|1515 S. Street |Oroville, CA 95965 |San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 | | |

|US Sen Wally Herger |CA Sen. Edward Vincent |CA. Assy Dick Ackerman |

|2268 Rayburn House Off. Bld. |State Capitol, Rm. 5052 |Sate Capitol, Rm. 4066 |

|Washington D.C. 20515-0502 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |

|U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer |CA.Sen. John Vasconcellos |CA. Ass. Darrell Steinberg |

|112 Hart Senate Off. Blvd. |State Capitol, Rm. 5108 |State Capitol |

|Washington D.C. 20510-0505 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |P.O. Box 942849 |

| | |Sacramento, CA 94249-001 |

|U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein |CA. Sen. Deborah Ortiz |CA Assy. Robert Pacheco |

|331 Hard Senate Off. Blvd. |State Capitol, Rm 5114 |Puente Hills B. Cntr 1 |

|Washington D.C. 20510-0504 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |17800 Castleton St. #125 |

| | |Sacramento, CA 91748 |

|U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton |CA Sen Jim Battin |CA Assy Patricia Bates |

|476 Russel Sen Off. Blvd. |State Capitol, Rm 3074 |State Capitol Rm 3141 |

|Washington D.C. 20510-3204 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |

|U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer |CA Sen Kay Haynes |CA. Assy Ellen Corbett |

|313 Hart Sentate Off.Blvd. |State Capitol, Rm 2187 |State Capitol |

|Washington, D.C. 20510-3203 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 94249-001 |

|CA. Sen John Burton (Spkr) |CA Sen. Wesley Chesbro |CA. Assy John Dutra |

|President Pro Tem |State Capitol, Rm 4081 |P.O. Box 942849 |

|State Capitol, Room 205 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 | | |

|CA. Sen. Liz Figueroa |CA. Sen. Thomas Oller |CA. Assy. Thomas Harman |

|State Capitol, Rm 4048 |State Capitol, Rm 2048 |State Capitol, Room 5158 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |

|CA. Sen. Bill Morrow |CA. Sen. Martha Escutias |CA. Assy. Hannah Jackson |

|State Capitol, Rm 4048 |State Capitol, Rm. 5080 |State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 |

|Ca. Sen. Gloria Romero |CA. Assy. Robert Hertzberg |CA. Assy John Longville |

|State Capitol, Rm. 4062 |(Assembly Speaker) |State Capitol, |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 |State Capitol, Rm. 219 |P.O. Box 942849 |

| |Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 |

|CA Assy. Kevin Shelly |CA. Assy. Howard Wayne |U.S. Dept. of Justice |

|State Capitol, Rm. 3160 |State Capitol, P.O. Box 94849 |950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 |Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 |Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 |

|U.S. Marshall |U.S. Marshall |U.S. Marshall |

|Russell Qualliotine |James J. Molinari |Patrick J. Wilkerson |

|500 Pearl Street |450 Golden Gate Ave. |200 N.W. 4th Street |

|Suite 400 |Room 20-6888 |Room 2418 |

|New York, NY 10007 |San Francisco, CA 94102 |Oklahoma City, OK 73102 |

|Judge Robert G. Gilbert |Judge Richard C. Cumming |Judge Lamb |

|1 Court Street |1 Court Street |1 Court Street |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |Oroville, CA 95965 |Oroville, CA 95965 |

|Judge William Raymond Patrick |DDA Dan T. Nelson |DDA Jack Schafer |

|1 Court Street |25 County Center Drive |25 County Center Drive |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |Oroville, CA 95965 |Oroville, CA 95965 |

|DA Inv. II Brad Rundt |Sharol Strickland |Cheryl HemStalk Butte Co. |

|25 County Center Drive |Clerk of the Superior Court |Family Support Division |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |1 Court Street |P.O. Box 1108 |

| |Oroville, CA 95965 |Oroville, CA 95965 |

|Warden Dennis Hasty |Warden John Scudero-MDC |Sheriff Scott MacKenzie |

|Metropolitan Correction Ctr |Manhattan Detention Center |35 County Center Drive |

|MCC New York |125 White Street |Oroville, CA 95965 |

|150 Park Row |New York, NY 10013 | |

|New York, New York 10007 | | |

|Sheriff Dan Young |Bonnie Baker Butte Co. |Wade Horn, Ass.Dir. DHHS |

|35 County Center Drive |Family Support Division |200 Independence Ave., SW |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |P.O. Box 1108 |Washington, D.C. 20201 |

| |Oroville, CA 95965 | |

|DA Inv. Ross Pack |Judge Herbert Alderberg |Judge Ellen M. Coin |

|25 County Center Drive |Supreme Court of the State of New York, Part 50 |100 Centre Street |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |60 Centre Street |New York, NY 10013 |

| |New York, NY 10007-1474 | |

|Judge Steven Howell |Judge James Sullivan |Steven R. McNelis |

|1 Court Street |Superior Court of New York, Criminal Division |1 Court Street |

|Oroville, CA 95965 |60 Centre Street |Oroville, CA 95965 |

| |New York, NY 10007-1474 | |

|Judge Ronald M. George |Judge Loyd Mulkey Jr. |New York Legal Aid Society |

|Presiding Justice, Supreme Court of California |1 Court Street |Joseph Zablocki |

|350 McAllister Street |Oroville, CA 95965 |Manhattan Criminal Defense Office |

|San Francisco, CA 94102-4783 | |49 Thomas Street |

| | |New York, NY 10013 |

|U.S. Marshall Meade |Parole Supervisor Katherine Haskins |Parole Agent Tim Torres |

|MCC Federal Prison |1370 Ridgewood Drive |1370 Ridgewood Drive |

|150 Park Row |Chico, CA 95926 |Chico, CA 95926 |

|New York, N.Y. 10007 | | |

|N.Y. District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau |NY. DDA Susan C. Roque |N.Y. Gov. George Pataki |

|One Morgan Place |One Morgan Place |STATE CAPITOL |

|New York, NY 10013 |New York, NY 10013 |Albany, NY 12224 |

|California Gov. Grey Davis |Judge Barbara Roberts |Bill Jones, California Secretary of State |

|Governor Gray Davis |1 Court Street |1500 11th Street |

|State Capitol Building |Oroville, CA 95965 |Sacramento, CA 95814 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 | | |

|Kirke Bartley |Judge Michael B. Mukasey |US Dept. of H&HS |

|100 Centre Street |U.S. Courthouse |Tommy G. Thompson |

|New York, NY 10013 |500 Pearl Street, Room2240 |200 Independence Ave., SW |

| |New York, NY 10007-1312 |Washington, D.C. 20201 |

| |(212) 805-0234 | |

|California Sec. Of H&HS |CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GREY DAVIS |Calif. Dept. of H&HS |

|GRANTLAND JOHNSON |STATE CAPITOL BUILDING |Curtis L. Child |

|1600 9TH street, Room 460 |SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 |P.O. Box 419064 |

|Sacramento, CA 95814 | |Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-9064 |

Further, I declare under penalty of perjury knowing the laws thereof within the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that these documents were served by me personally as stated above and/or mailed and sealed as stated above within the California Republic.

DATED: April ____2002 ______________________________________

______AM/PM

|Dixie Ann Hawks |Nelson Kenyon |

|975 East Ave., STE 112 |3359 Steele Drive |

|Chico, CA 95926 |Bay Point, California County of Contra Costa-by |

|By lawful service |lawful Service |

|530-877-4636 |925-458-5002 |

-----------------------

[1] The “SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” shall be Concurrent with and Equivalent to with “coextensive jurisdiction with the district courts of the union state of California” as created in Article VI, Section 1, Constitution for California of 1849, see: Stats. 1861-72, ch. CXIV, p. 116 and Digest of Laws of California – XXII. COURTS OF JUSTICE, III.-THE DISTRICT COURTS, Article 632, Section 12, No. 15. [Am. April 25, 1857; R.S.St. 1855, 117; St. 1854, 74; St. 1853, 289; St. 1851, 11; St. 1850, 93; C.L. 740.]

[2] The “SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO” shall be Concurrent with and Equivalent to with “coextensive jurisdiction with the district courts of the union state of California” as created in Article VI, Section 1, Constitution for California of 1849, see: Stats. 1861-72, ch. CXIV, p. 116 and Digest of Laws of California – XXII. COURTS OF JUSTICE, III.-THE DISTRICT COURTS, Article 632, Section 12, No. 15. [Am. April 25, 1857; R.S.St. 1855, 117; St. 1854, 74; St. 1853, 289; St. 1851, 11; St. 1850, 93; C.L. 740.]

-----------------------

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download