pleading wizard - angelfire overview/pitchers... · web viewthat defect cannot be gotten rid of...

Pleading Wizard

Richard William Pitchers

In Propria Persona Sui Juris

1520 Lacey Court, #1

Concord, California [Zip Exempt]

925-363-5470

The Superior Court, State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa

________________ TERM

Richard William Pitchers,

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

Vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT,

“JUDGE” Judith Craddick, surrogate lawyer for the People of the State of California

CASE No.

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

JUDGE JUDITH CRADDICK

DATE: ______________________

TIME: ______________________

CRTRM:______________________

Comes now the petitioner and aggrieved and greatly damaged party in the above entitled matter hereby giving notice of all parties of the law AND DEMANDS ISSUANCE OF A VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW:

1.) My status is exactly as Richard William Pitchers in my own proper person, and no other. (I only use this name, spelling and capitalization; and any person, state agent or otherwise is prohibited from using any other).

2.) I am in Propria Persona, Sui Juris, and am acting as my own counsel. NOTE: I am not PRO SE nor PRO PER and any labeling as such is a direct damage to me, as this court and all its judicial officers has knowledge of the law and come under strict construction of the law, while I as a non-American Bar Association trained lawyer am acting as my own counsel, thereby I come under the “spirit of the law” and am not held to strict construction of the law.

3.) I give up no rights, and reserve all of them. I am a free white Christian man living on the Land within Contra Costa County, in California, one of the United States of America; with express and explicit reservation of all Vested Natural, Inherent, Common Law, and Inalienable Rights, whether enumerated or not in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849; without admitting to any jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of California of 1879[2]; the Political Code, the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code of the State of California, each one though enacted in 1872 were never made a part of the Public Statutes of California, nor any amendments or additions of any type to any of the foregoing[3]; without representation of any attorney-at- law, but with assistance of "counsel" by Right within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, Article I, Section 21.

4.) My status is that of a white Christian male adult of the age of majority, who is not an incompetent, nor any fiction or corporation. I am in fact, a human being, a free man about the land, beholden to nobody; a California state Citizen, not a member of nor embarrassed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. See Plessy v. Ferguson.

5.) I claim all rights inherent to me, and give proper judicial notice and place on the record, that my child Christopher Pitchers, born January, 25, 1992 is my property of which I have sole control under law, and that any and all such contracts, special contracts, special obligations, special debt, court orders, special court orders, are hereby lawfully revoked and rescinded, and have no force of law, or any obligation upon me whatsoever.

Father has rights to the Custody of child in preference to Mother. Child need not join a Habeas Corpus brought by its parent to obtain its custody. Father cannot alienate his right to the Custody and control of his child. People ex rel Barry v. Mercien 3 Hill 399

That it is a fact that my child, is an unemancipated minor, under the age of majority, and thereby, lawfully comes under the care, custody and control of my person as a matter of the due course of law, as I am fact, pointed to in law as my child’s natural guardian and defender thereto, I as the lawful father to my son, have preeminent title to my own child, and in fact, holder in due course over all their property rights in accordance with law and reason.

6.) In the above-mentioned matter, I have personal knowledge of the events and have personally witnessed all said acts and/or omissions alleged here in this Verified Criminal Complaint.

7.) I do in fact, have clean hands in this matter, while respondent’s in this matter against me, have unclean hands by their acts of fraud and their plan to damage me for the purposes of profit and reward. As I have clean hands in this matter, my claims to my own child of which I am holder in due course, and have lawful title of, that I am the preferred party not only by my status, but as a matter of both law and equity: "By the civil law, the child of parents divorced is to be brought up by the innocent party, at the expense of the guilty party." Ridley's View, part 1, ch. 3, sect. 9, cites 8th Collation. Vide, generally, 1 Blackstone's Comm. 440.

8.) Note: all laws contained herein are only brought as they are declaratory of the common law and the public law of this California Union State in consonance with the Constitution of California (1849).

9.) Respondent’s in this matter are in fact:

a.) My ex-wife LAURI M. PITCHERS, who was present within the County of Contra Costa county for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein; and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondents in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement by enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction;

b.) The County of Contra Costa District Attorney Gary T. Yancy, et als., acting in both his personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

c.) The “COORDINATING TRIAL COURTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY” a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

d.) The County of Contra Costa “JUDGE” JUDITH CRADDICK, is a “judge” sitting as a surrogate to the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in the judicial department of government, of proper oath and/or affirmation, bonded in accordance with law, sitting in good behavior, sitting at term with a lawful court having proper seal, acting in both her personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the undefined tribunal of County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

e.) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and who had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

f.) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, is a lawful court, under lawful and proper seal; a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who was present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, and who had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

g.) JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 through 100: are fictitious entities not yet a published party to this action and a corporation, acting in both their personal and professional capacities, who were present for all acts and/or omissions committed against me within the County of Contra Costa County, and was a resident therein; clothed under public authority, and who wilfully with knowledge and premeditated intent did seek out respondent’s in this matter in which to collude and conspire to disenfranchise me using “best interests of the child” doctrine as well as other frauds, under color of law, under color of authority, and had knowledge of the law, as well as of the facts in this matter; in which to implement enslavement and disenfranchisement against my person for the unlawful purposes of profit and reward, and thereby, comes under this courts jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions in this matter;

h.) By these presents, notice to the principle is notice to the agent, notice to the agent, is notice to the principle.

10.) It is a fact under law that: "All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possession and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Article I, Section 1; Constitution of California (1849) [Adopted by the Convention, October 10, 1849; Ratified by the people, November 13, 1849; Proclaimed, December 20, 1849.] See “State cannot impair obligations of contract on marriage.” Tolen v. Tolen, 2 Blackford 407. [See also Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States, 1787-1791].

"Constitutional Guaranty "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" entitles every person to follow and adopt such lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit. The term "liberty" as used in the constitution, is not dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint, but includes the right of a man to be free in the enjoyment of his faculties, subject only to such restraints as are necessary to the common welfare. LIBERTY means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restrain, but the right to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Statute prohibiting any person who sells, exchanges, or disposes of any article of food from offering to give or giving some other article as a gift, prize, premium or reward to the purchaser infringes upon the liberty of the seller, and is unconstitutional and void. It cannot be sustained as a lawful exercise of the police power of the state. LEGISLATURE CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT IS A PROPER EXCERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE that the determination will not be subject to scrutiny and revision by the courts. While it is generally for the legislature to decide what laws and regulations are needed to protect the public health, and serve the public comfort and safety, the courts MUST be able to see, upon the perusal of an enactment, that there is some fair, just, and reasonable connection between it and the ends above mentioned. Unless such relation exists, the enactment CANNOT BE UPHELD AS AN EXCERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER People v. Gillson, 109 New York, 389

11.) It is a fact, that Article I, Section 8 of that same constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forced in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace, and in cases of petite larceny under the regulation of the legislature,) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and in any trial in any court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel, as in civil actions. No persons shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (2) nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

"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

12.) When a verified complaint is requested, it is clear that the court may not move forward in its proceedings on the notice to appear. For example, in Board of Trustees v. Municipal Court, 95 Cal.App.3d 322, the court ruled:

"Vehicle Code 40513 does not mean that any notice is in lieu of a complaint but, rather, that it is a notice to which a plea of guilty (or nolo contendre) can be entered, and until then it is simply a notice to which a fine may be paid."

Further, the court wrote:

"It is only when a complaint with supporting affidavit is filed can the municipal court be required to assume jurisdiction."

13.) In City of San Diego v. Municipal Court, 95 Cal.App.3d 775,778 and 163 Cal.Rptr. 420, the court wrote:

"The filing of a complaint is essential to invoke the jurisdiction of the court."

14.) A state Citizen may file a complaint of which this court must as a mandate of due process of law, issue said complaint and adjudicate same:

Here we interpret the California Penal and Government Codes

to authorize the district attorney to present or lay a

complaint before a magistrate as to a possible felony, but

not to exclude or prohibit the same act when performed by a

private citizen. And see Western Surgical Supply Co. v.

Affleck, 1952, 110 Cal.App.2d 388, at page 392, 242 P.2d 929,

at page 931, where it is said of a then existing Penal Code

Section:

"The section *fn4 does not restrict the making of a complaint

to any certain person or individual; it may be by anyone

having knowledge of the offense charged." Cf. People v. Currie, 1911, 16 Cal.App. 731, 117 P. 941.

Johnson v. MacCoy, 270 F.2d 37

15.) Your petitioner and complainant, has a right and perfect right to file this complaint for lawful adjudication. It is a fact, that published California Penal Code § 806 states:

A proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of *** a felony must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and filed with the magistrate. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief. When the complaint is used as a pleading to which the defendant pleads guilty under Section 859(a) of this code, the complaint shall contain the same allegations, including the charge of prior conviction or convictions and, wherever applicable, shall be construed and shall have substantially the same effected as provided in this code for indictments and informations.

Further, that same code § 849 is clear and concise as to your duties in this matter (pertinent part):

§ 849: Arrest without warrant; duty to take prisoner before magistrate and file complaint; release from custody

“(a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace officer, or a private person…and a complaint stating the charge against the arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.”

See Also:

§ 837:

Arrests by private persons. A private person may arrest another:

1.) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2.) When the person arrested has committed a felony.

3.) When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

16.) NO FICTION OF LAW WILL BE TOLERATED BY YOUR APPELLANT IN THIS MATTER:

A 'Fiction of Law' is a legal assumption that a thing is true which is either not true, or which is as probably false as true; the rule on this subject being that the court will not endure that a mere form of fiction of law, introduced for the sake of justice, should work a contrary to the real truth and substance of a thing--never working an injury." Hibberd v. Smith (1885) 67 C. 547, 561; 4 P. 473, 8 P. 46, 56 Am.Rep. 726.

17.) Any failure to act on this verified criminal complaint will be a direct violation of law. As taken from footnote 31 from BRISCOE v. LaHUE, 460 U.S. 325, 365 demonstrating that Congress, when enacting the Civil Rights legislation was hostile to the considerable CORRUPTION of the Judiciary and the Legal system:

See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 78 (Rep. Perry) ("Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand and petit juries act as if they might be accomplices"); id., at 394 (Rep. Rainey) ("[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity"); id., at App. 186 (Rep. Platt) (judges exercise their "almost despotic powers . . . against Republicans without regard to law or justice"); id., at App. 277 (Rep. Porter) ("The outrages committed upon loyal men there are under the forms of law. It can be summed up in one word: loyal men cannot obtain justice in the courts . . ."); id., at 429 (referring to "prejudiced juries and bribed judges"). See, BRISCOE v. LaHUE, 460 U.S. 325, 365-366;

18.) Please also be under judicial notice of all government persons under oath and affirmation:

CCP $ 446: “Subscriptions of pleadings; necessity of verification; affidavit of party; who may verify; verification by attorney or by officer of corporation or agency; affidavit; assertion of truth under penalty of perjury. '"Every pleading must be subscripted by the party or his or her attorney. When the state, any county thereof, city, school district, public agency, or public corporation, or any officer of the state, of any county thereof, city, school district, district, public agency, or plaintiff, the answer shall be verified unless an admission of the truth of the complaint might subject the party to a criminal prosecution, or unless a county thereof, city, school district, district, public agency, or public corporation in his or her official capacity is defendant. When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified. IN all cases of a verification of a pleading, the affidavit of the party shall state that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, and as to those matters that he or she believes to be true; and where a pleading is verified, it shall be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his or her attorney or other person verifying the same.”

19.) Finally, I demand it be noted, that the TRUTH must be upheld in this matter, as well as my rights, and perfect rights thereto:

"The science of law, in its most comprehensive sense, is the body of rules of human conduct which are universally recognized as obligatory. In a more limited view, is the body of rules which constitute the code of a particular state. But in either sense, the basis of every system must be truth." [See The Theory of the Common Law by James M. Walker, Charleston, S.C., Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1852; p. iii]. "It is no less good morals and good law that the government should turn square corners in dealing with the people then that the people should turn square corners in dealing with their government." St. Regis Paper Col. V. United States, 368 U.S. 206, 299, 82 S.Ct. 289, 301, 7 L.Ed.2d 240 (1961) (Black J., Dissenting)

20.) Thereby, your petitioner, the accused and aggrieved party in the above entitled matter is hereby informed and directly has direct knowledge; information and/or belief of the follow unlawful acts and/or omissions brought against one “Judge” Judith Craddick, to wit:

COUNT 1

PENAL CODE §§ 841, 849, 146—A MISDEMEANOR

21.) That on or about March 15, 2002, in the above-mentioned court tribunal, without any probable cause, Defendant Ms. Judith Craddick did unlawfully set out a bench warrant for my arrest, without probable cause and/or reasonable cause and without due process of law, a violation of Penal Code § 841, § 849, § 146: a misdemeanor.

COUNT 2

PENAL CODE §§ 126, 127, 118, 118.1, 129—A FELONY: PERJURY

22.) That on or about March 15, 2002, in the above-mentioned court tribunal, in overt violation of law, and the public trust, Ms. Craddick did enjoin and aid and abet direct instance of PERJURY on the record, in a Judicial proceeding, a direct violation of law and her oath of office and the public trust of the State of California, an overt violation of Penal Code § 126, § 127, a Felony.

COUNT 3

PENAL CODE § 96, 96.5, ART. I, § 15 CAL. CONST.—A FELONY and PC § 98: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

23.) That on or about March 15, 2002 on the express authority of said “Judge’ Ms. Judith Craddick, in overt violation to her oath of office did in fact, WITH A FORMALLY FILED “NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING” filed and lawfully served upon all parties in this matter and upon said tribunal, did in fact wilfully with malice and aforethought; close and lock said court and hold a secret tribunal, denying me witnesses, and aid and fellowship of my next-best-friend who was unlawfully restrained from entering the court, an overt violation of the Constitution of California, Article I, Section 15 AND an overt violation of the concise rule of law and her oath of office, and a direct violation of my rights, and the rights of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

COUNT 4

Penal Code § 38; Title 18 U.S.C. 4- MISPRISION OF FELONY

24.) That on or about March 15, 2002, Ms. Judith Craddick, did in overt collusion with the District Attorney of the County of Contra Costa County did conspire to deny me my rights under color of law, and under color of authority using only the coercion of her position of authority, clothed under the unlawful acts and/or omissions of the District Attorney of the County of Contra Costa County to overtly overthrow the concise rule of law, and to deny me palpable redress of grievances or substantive due process of law.

25.) In fact, said Respondent’s in this matter are acting in a vindictive and/or discriminatory manner against me as I am the lawful Father to my children. Ms. Craddick in overt violation of her oath of office, and as a direct insolence to the public trust to uphold the laws of the State of California and of the United States is in fact, deny me an issue at law that was res adjudicata, the rescission of said fraudulent contracts and unconscionable contracts imposed by the District Attorney of the County of Contra Costa county placed against me as a direct instrument against me to disenfranchise me, and to commit civil death against me for no crime.

26.) Penal Code § 38 is clear and concise:

“Misprision of treason is the knowledge and concealment of treason, without otherwise assenting to or participating in the crime. It is punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

27.) Title 18 U.S.C. 4 (Misprision of Felony). 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 not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

COUNT 5

RETALIATION FOR PETITIONER EXCERCISING LAWFUL DUE PROCESS REMEDIES AT LAW- TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241, TITLE 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1510, AND 1512.

28.) On or about March 15, 2002; Ms. Judith Craddick did in fact, overtly violate the concise rule of law in order to retaliate against me for lawfully defending myself as a matter of law, and did arrest me without any reasonable cause, and/or probable cause whatsoever.

29.) On or about March 15, 2002, Ms. Judith Craddick clothed in the authority of the Judicial department of the State of California, did become the lawyer for the County of Contra Costa County District Attorney in this matter, in direct violation of the concise rule of law, and was both unfair and incompetent, and biased and severely prejudiced against me.

30.) On or about March 15, 2002, Ms. Judith Craddick did knowingly keep me ignorant of the nature and cause of the instant accusation against me, and did willfully protect the County of Contra Costa District Attorney et als to be held to strict construction of the law and refused to mandate the answer of my timely Bill of Particulars to be answered in the normal course of law and did force me into a proceeding without jurisdiction against me.

31.) Judicial retaliation for exercising due process remedies is a felony under Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.

32.) Title 18 U.S.C. ' 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

33.) ATitle 18 USC ' 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) As used in this section, the term "criminal investigator" means any individual duly authorized by a department, agency, or armed force of the United States to conduct or engage in investigations of or prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

34.) Title 18 U.S.C. ' 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to --

(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding: shall be fined ...or imprisoned ... or both. [1988 amended reading]"

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

35.) Please note as required by RESPONDENTS and as a duty owed to me my Ms. Judith Craddick:

"Under provising of this section that a Judge shall not sit as such in, or take part in decision of an action in which he is interested, such interest must be an interest in a pecuniary or property right, and one from which the judge my profit or lose." People v. McDonald, (1957) 8 Misc.2d 50, 167 N.Y.S.2d 394

"It is a maxim of every code in every country, that no man should be a judge in his own cause; it is not left to his discretion or to his sense of decency whether he shall act or not; when his own rights are in question he has no authority to determine the cause; so well is the principle understood that in every court consisting of more judges than one, the judge who is a party in a suit takes no part in the proceedings or decision of the cause." Washington Ins. Co. v. Price (1823) 1 Hopk. 1.

"The state is bound to furnish every litigant not only an impartial judge, but one who has not, by any act of his, justified a doubt of his impartiality." Moers v. Gilbert, (1941) 175 Misc. 733, 25 N.Y.S.2d 114, affirmed 261 App.Div. 957, 27 N.Y.S.2d 425, 426, Appeal den. 261 App.Div. 1074, 27 N.Y.S.2d 783.

36.) The right to public trial is clear and concisely protected by the Constitution of the State of California, Article I, Section 15 to wit: “The defendant in a criminal cause has the right to a speedy public trial, etc.” [pertinent part].

37.) This right has been clearly and concisely enunciated In re Wagner, 119 CA 3d 90, at 107, 173 CR at 773 and is the public policy of this state which cannot be controverted, of which, any act or omission in furtherance of, is in fact, an overt act of Domestic Violence against your Appellant and petitioner Richard Pitchers, a mixed war against “we the people” of the State of California.

38.) It is a fact, no bench warrant could issue against me: “A bench warrant issues on probable cause. Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1, 16; Price v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 488; Hugh v. Gault, 271 U.S. 142.

39.) Respondents embodied in Ms. Judith Craddick have no license to deprive me of any substantive right.

The legislature may not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Judicial enforcement of that standard does not permit a court, however, to substitute its own policy judgment for that of the legislature. Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 83 S. Ct. 1028.

40.) No Officer of the Contra Costa Court system has a right to deny my liberty without probable cause nor substantive due process of law: “The Court has held that the deprivation of fundamental liberty rights "for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347, (1976).

41.) [Sir William] Blackstone classifies these liberties under three articles, as follows:

1. The right of personal security; which, he says, "Consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.

2. The right of personal liberty; and this, he says, "Consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law."

3. The right of personal property; which he defines to be, "The free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the law of the land."[37]

To protect "the principal absolute rights which appertain to every Englishman," Blackstone explained that there are "auxiliary" rights to "maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."[38] Blackstone included among these rights "that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law," that made possible "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[39] Together with justice in the courts and the right of petition, "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense" were available to preserve the rights to life, liberty, and property.

CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2765 (May 23, 1866).--- Id. at 2766. The Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights Paper by Jon Roland, 2000, Sept. 24

42.) No Officer of the Court System within the County of Contra Costa County may use perjured testimony to establish a claim upon which relief may be granted:

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, and n.

8 (1976) (citing cases); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-154 (1972) (failure to disclose Government agreement with witness violates due process); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) ("suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (failure of state to correct testimony known

to be false violates due process); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 215-216 (1942) (allegations of the knowing use of perjured testimony and the suppression of evidence favorable to the accused "sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to release from his present custody"). But cf. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. (1992) (prosecutor need not present

exculpatory evidence in his possession to the grand jury).

KEVIN ALBRIGHT v. ROGER OLIVER, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed.

2d 114, 62 U.S.L.W. 4078 (1994)

43.) Ms. Craddick is prohibited from enjoining with the District Attorney or any of his assigns:

"Just as the executive may not exercise judicial power, so the judicial is prohibited from entering upon executive functions." (People v. Smith (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 655 at 660; 126 Cal.Rptr. 195.

44.) Respondent contemnor Craddick further prosecution of this matter against my person was a willful act and/or omission of my rights on her part, and therefore discriminatory and prejudiced; SEE Murgia v. Municipal Court, (1975) 15 C3d 286, 124 CR 204.

45.) Ms. Craddick owed a substantial duty to me, and failed to enforce and to protect my constitutionally secured liberties and natural rights:

"A democratic society, in which respect for the dignity of all men is central, naturally guards against the misuse of the law enforcement process. Zeal in tracking down crime is not in itself an assurance of soberness of judgment. Disinterestedness in law enforcement does not alone prevent disregard of cherished liberties. Experience has therefore counseled that safeguards must be provided against the dangers of the overzealous as well as the despotic. The awful instruments of the cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. The complicated process of criminal Justice is therefore divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the relies for its vindication." McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343 (1943).

46.) Respondent’s embodied in Ms. Judith Craddick did remain silent on the substantive due process of law, and forced continuing legal jeopardy upon me, even though my default and rescission were res adjudicata as a matter of 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.

SEE ALSO:

BONANNO v. CENT. CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTH. (06/18/01 - No. A087846; A088589) “Public agencies that create a dangerous condition under Government Code section 830 are liable for injuries caused by that condition even if third parties also negligently contribute to the injury.”

SEE ALSO:

NEAL v. SUPERIOR COURT (NEAL) (06/22/01 - No. G028185)

Breach of contract action alleging spouse did not comply with the terms of a family law judgment and alleging spouse committed fraud in family court proceedings belongs in family court that issued original judgment and not in civil court.

47.) Ms. Judith Craddick cannot edit res adjudicate proceedings to relitigate issues for the contemnor Respondent’s in this matter:

In Craig v. Harney, Sheriff, 331 US 367,374 (1947), Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court said: "There is no special prerequisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it."

SEE AND NOTE ALSO:

"The "function of the court" in construing a written instrument is ascertain, not to add and subtract or to delete and distort, and it cannot vary the terms of an instrument so as to make a contract the parties did not enter into." Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v Desalvo (1955) 136 CA2d 156, 288 P2d 317

48.) It is a fact, that I did file upon respondents in this matter, a lawful Bill of Particulars which they have in fact, defaulted upon, and refuse to answer as a matter of law; Respondent was well aware of this fact; in complete contravention to the law and our form of governance. As I have wilfully been kept ignorant of the nature and character of the “obligation” or “debt” or “special obligation” or “special debt” etc., etc., [sic]; I cannot properly defend either myself nor my property from such overt fraud, conspired against me for the purposes of profit and reward by aforementioned respondent’s and thereby; I make both specific and broad claim in which to expunge any and all such “contracts” against me in regards concerning my children, and my all my property.

49.) Any such contract formally entered into by me, forced upon me by aforementioned respondent’s in this matter; is a clear and direct violation of my rights as it is without consideration and is thereby an unconscionable contract, null and void in ab initio:

"The basic test whether in the light of the general background and commercial needs of the particular trade or case, the clauses involved are so one-sided as to be unconscionable under the circumstances existing at the time of the making of the contract… The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise…" [Rights and Remedies Under U.C.C. Article 2, by Harold Greenberg, ©1987, Wiley Law Publications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-81283-8, pp. 282-283]

50.) You are under judicial notice that a lawful Habeas Corpus is being filed in a lawful court of equity in order that I may regain my child. “Father is ordinarily entitled to the custody of his minor children, and upon habeas corpus, court have power to award it to him.” State ex. rel. Hodgdon v. Libbey, 44 New Hampshire 321. It is a lawful fact, that someone owns the children, and by law, the law has pointed to the father as the natural guardian of the child[ren]. “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

51.) Respondents knew and had willful intent to violate my substantive rights:

“Statutes and rulings that infringe upon fundamental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and a substantial burden rests on the state, not citizen, to prove its case

It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is

presumptively unconstitutional." Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980) (USSC+).

52.) It is a fact, that the law defines the father as the natural guardian of the child and no other, the facts are clear on this matter, feminist mythology notwithstanding:

“[The Father] is, in truth, the guardian by nature of his child, and, like other guardians, may, for inability or unfaithfulness, be displaced, and the trust conferred upon another. In England this power is exercised by the king as the Parens Patriae, acting through the court of chancery. De Manneville v. De Manneville, 10 Ves. 51, cases cited, and notes…

In determining this question the court will take into consideration the right of the father, his ability and inclination to perform faithfully the trust imposed upon him, the present condition of the child, and, if of years of discretion, its wishes upon the subject. Prima facie, however, the right of custody is in the father; and when the application is resisted upon the ground that he is unfit for the trust, by reason of grossly immoral conduct, harsh usage of his child, or other cause, a proper regard to the sanctity of the parental relation will require that the objection be sustained by clear and satisfactory proofs. Commonwealth v. Briggs, 16 Pick. 203…

The discretion to be exercised is not an arbitrary one, but, in the absence of any positive disqualification of the father for the proper discharge of his parental duties, he has, as it seems to us, a paramount right to the custody of his infant child, which no court is at liberty to disregard. And while we are bound also to regard the permanent interests and welfare of the child, it is to be presumed that its interests and welfare will be best promoted by continuing that guardianship which the law has provided, until it is made plainly to appear that the father is no longer worthy of the trust. People v. Mercein, 25 Wend. 72.

Herrick v. Richardson, 40 NH 272 (1860)

53.) It is a fact, that respondent’s in overt collusion with Ms. Judith Craddick did attempt to force an unconscionable and/or illegal contract or obligation against me.

“The law refuses to enforce illegal contracts, as a rule, not out of regard for the party objection, nor for any wish to protect his interest, but from reasons of public policy. Whenever, therefore, the illegality of the contract appears, whether alleged in the pleadings or made known for the first time in the evidence, it is fatal to the case. That defect cannot be gotten rid of either by failure to plead it, or by agreement to waive law will not enforce contract founded in its violation.” Levy v. Davis, 115 Va. 814, 819, 80 SE 791 [quot. Champ v. Bruce, 96 Va. 521, 524, 31 SE 901, 70 AmSR 873, 43 LRA 146]

54.) Please be under Judicial Notice and advisement that I have the inherent right to protect both myself and property as I see fit, under law: “Parent is not estopped from reclaiming custody of child, where he places it in the care and keeping of another, verbally agreeing that the latter might have its care and custody during minority.” Brooke v. Logan, 112 Indiana 183.

55.) I refuse to be disenfranchised by respondent’s in this matter held against my claim to my own property of my own aforementioned child. This goes overtly against your Maxim of law: “it is also an established maxim of jurisprudence that "'No man can take advantage of his own wrong.'" (People v. Seely (1946) 75 Cal. App. 2d 525, 526 [171 P.2d 529].) Respondent’s illegally disenfranchise me, the lawful father of my own child, then give my property to a woman with unclean hands, and then demand I pay support for my own destruction. This violates the maxim of law: “The pig does not skin himself.” This court has knowledge of the law, and fully understands the “He who accrues the benefit, must assume the burden.” Instead, they hold me in direct violation to law and reason, a slave over my own property.

56.) I factually refuse and rebuke any offer that I enslave myself over my own property, and as such, make complete lawful rescission against all claims, orders, etc., against me in regards to this matter.

57.) “It is a well established point of the law of jurisdiction that if one is doing nothing illegal, regardless of what the activity is, the government may not interfere. If a policeman should decide to *illegally* arrest a citizen, the citizen is entitled to use whatever reasonable force necessary to preserve his liberty, even if the force is lethal.Recently that point was reaffirmed at Ruby Ridge, where Mr. Weaver killed a U.S. Marshal who was trying to arrest him. The jury determined that the Marshal fired the first shot and Mr. Weaver was entitled to shoot back to protect himself as well as to protect himself from unlawful arrest. The principle is long standing. It was first established in 1709 in The Queen v Tooley case [SEE The Queen v Tooley (1709) 2 Ld Raym 1296, 92 Eng Reprint 349]. In the United States it became the established rule in Bad Elk v United States [SEE Bad Elk v United States (1900) 177 US 529, 44 L Ed 874, 20 S Ct 729.} In the Bad Elk case the Supreme Court held that, "the defendant, whose murder conviction was reversed, had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest." Or to defend my rights and property as a matter of the due course of law. This rescission is in fact, done in good faith to both this court and my family as a lawful defense as I am the lawful head of; and is instituted at law as a defense against respondent’s in this matter denying me and my child rights under law, to have a lawful and proper Father in their lives, without danger of both financial and constant threats of imprisonment for a “debt” or “special debt” etc., [sic], instituted for the purposes of profit and reward and as a domestic violence against my life, and in overt contradistinction to public policy and our form of government. Thereby, this lawful rescission in defense of my life, liberty and property is a matter of due process of law: "[t]he touchstone of due process is fundamental fairness." (Salas v. Cortez, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 27.)

58.) All such contracts are based upon an illegal consideration, as such, the divorce and/or separation itself has been concealed by aforementioned respondent’s, in overt collusion with aforementioned courts to the true cause of divorce and/or separation, which was in fact, to use said processes provided by same for the purposes of profit and reward. “An agreement having for its object the concealment of the true cause for divorce, which may be thought of disgraceful to the parties, and the procurement of the divorce on other grounds, has been held illegal.” Whittle v. Thompkins, 94 S.C. 237, 77 SE 929; Delbridge v. Beach, 66 Wash. 416, 119 P. 856.

59.) It is a fact, that the military shall be subordinate to the civil power of this state: See Article I, Section 12 “The military shall be subordinate to the civil power.” And Section 13, “No soldier shall in a time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner: nor in the time of war, except in the manner prescribed by law.” See also Article III “Section 1. “The powers of government of the state of California shall be divided into three separate departments: the legislative, the executive and juridical; an no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.” [Constitution of California 1849]. See also Amendment the Third: “Section 1. “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” [Constitution for the United States 1787-1791].

60.) Please be under Judicial Notice and lawful constructive notice that the State of California is bound and all its officers and assigns, by oath and affirmation in accordance with the concise rule of law to provide me a government that is in alignment to, and in fact Republican in Form, as bound by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution for the United States [1787-1791] “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

61.) Disenfranchising me against my own children, in direct violation of law, does in fact disenfranchise my own children; as the following Maxim’s of Law exemplify: Partus sequitur ventrem. "The offspring follow the condition of the mother, This is the case of slaves and animals.; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father."

"If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his contract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights; of course, not those of a husband and father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is a denial of theirs. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856), 19 How. 393, 599-600

Any such placement of my children with the mother, against my wishes and express written consent and authorization is null and void and is in fact, a domestic violence against both me and my children; and is null and void in ab initio.

62.) It is hereby a matter of fact and at law, a legal notice and expungement of your contract case number MSD97-02430 as it hereby lawfully rescinded in accordance with law. Any and all other such “judgment’s” “orders” or “special obligations” and their hearings are hereby rendered null and void in ab initio, as a matter of fact.

63.) NOTE: Any viva voce contract and/or “obligation” rendered by me within said Ms. Judith Craddick on or about March 15, 2002 are hereby rendered null and void, and are done without my consent nor in the normal course of law, and are void in ab initio.

CONCLUSION AT LAW

64.) "A judgment is the formal expression and evidence of a decision and should be entered in conformity with it." Grossman v. Grossman (1942) 50 Cal. App. 2d 184, 126 P2d 178

65.) This court is compelled as a matter of law to enforce and issue this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT AND THEIR SURROGATE “JUDGE” JUDITH CRADDICK.

66.) That any contract made thereto in said “Court” on March 15, 2002 are null and void, in ab initio.

67.) I do hereby demand my total freedom, and reclaim by said rescission all rights, emoluments and privileges including but not limited to, my right to privacy, my right to procreate, my rights to person, to life, liberty and property as well as the pursuit of happiness; that I re-claim my rights to have any and all licenses, bank accounts, driving privileges, hunting privileges

68.) That the immediate arrest go out for Ms. Judith Craddick.

69.) That she in fact, be booked in the County of Contra Costa Jail in accordance with the concise rule of law.

70.) That I be informed of every part of this hearing process.

71.) That all parties subject to this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BE COMPELLED TO BE HELD FOR TRIAL.

72.) That no respondent in this matter including Ms. Judith Craddick have no “immunity” claims nor any special immunity whatsoever in this matter.

73.) That a bail hearing be set and I be informed of such hearing in order to provide palpable evidence in the setting for bail for contemnor Ms. Judith Craddick.

74.) That all respondent’s who owe a substantive duty to me and that they, and Ms, Judith Craddick be held to the highest standards of the law, and held to strict construction of the law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

75.) That this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT be issued in the first instance of this matter, and binding upon all parties thereof from the date of formal filing into the above mentioned courts; and,

76.) That an arrest warrant for one Ms. Judith Craddick be issued in support of this Verified Criminal Complaint; and,

77.) That the SUMMONS for hearing date be enforced and said RESPONDENTS be compelled to attend that trial for Ms. Judith Craddick arrest, trial and imprisonment for her violations of the law contained in COUNTS ONE (1) through FIVE (5).

78.) That any and all “contracts” and/or “special contracts” and/or “obligations” and/or “special obligations” and/or debts and/or “special debts” or “claims” or “special claims” or “actions” or “special actions” etc., etc., be declared by default of RESPONDENT’s on their lawful default thereof finalized on March 15, 2002, forever be termed null and void, in ab initio with prejudice as a matter of law I have specified within said documents therein; and,

79.) Whereas, any party, private entity, person, state agent, state actor, agency, corporation, (both public and private), or administration or government therein in violation of the terms of this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMLAINT be held liable in the first instance of violation for money damages, with no claims to immunity, nor any defense at law; as a simple complaint and assumpsit for recovery will be had by me as a matter of law in the first instance to recover from such damages; and,

80.) That this court remit to me any other just or compensation or reparation this court deem just and proper in this matter.

Dated this 20th day of March, 2002

SEAL:

_____________________________________

Richard William Pitchers –AT LAW

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris



925-363-5470


In Propria Persona Sui Juris



925-363-5470


_____________ TERM

Richard William Pitchers,

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

Vs.


DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT,

“JUDGE” Judith Craddick, surrogate lawyer for the People of the State of California

CASE No.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF

VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

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

The white Christian male adult, Richard William Pitchers, who having personal knowledge of these matters, and knowing the penalties for the crime of perjury, hereby truthfully states for the record and deposes and says:

1.) My name is Richard William Pitchers.

2.) My name and spelling is only exactly as: Richard William Pitchers. 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 NOTICE OF RESCISSION.

4.) I have personal knowledge of the facts in this matter.

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 nor PRO PER. 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.) I am in fact, the lawful father, and have superior title and claim and am holder in due course of my children.

8.) That my child to whom I am father and own is Christopher Pitchers, born January 25, 1992.

9.) That the mother of my son is in fact, Laurie M. Pitchers.

10.) I have never given authority for my children to be taken from me.

11.) Any such authority is against my will and direct express written consent.

12.) That Laurie M. Pitchers did in fact, wilfully leave me and did approach the respondent’s clothed under color of law, and under the fraud of necessity in which to enjoin with their “Welfare” Title IV-D remuneration scam and/or schemes, committed under the guise of “The Best Interest” of my child, which it is not, nor ever has been. The whole scheme implemented under color of law and under color of authority is to subsidize women who have unclean hands, and allow them to steal children so that the state may extort great monies upon hardship to me, under color of law, under color of authority using “Best Interests” of the child as a fraud to implement transfer of funds as a ongoing scheme to defraud the taxpayer monies.

13.) That in fact, RESPONDENT’S ARE in overt violation of law, the state cannot disenfranchise me without a compelling showing of unfitness.

14.) I have never been unfit, in any way shape or form. Any assessment to the contrary are ONLY being brought forwards by those obtaining either direct or indirect “Welfare” Title IV-D remuneration, scams and/or schemes.

15.) That on or about March 15, 2002 I did by special appearance only, did an appearance without an appearance in the above mentioned tribunal.

16.) That the opposing Respondent Counsel at this hearing did directly perjure themselves and state that she had not received the Bill of Particulars.

17.) That in fact, my Next Best Friend and Counsel of Choice in this matter Nelson Kenyon did in fact, testify of lawful proof of service.

18.) COURT OF THE

19.) That later, this same contemnor admitted in having “only two documents” 1.) The Recission and 2.) The Bill of Particulars; which directly controverted her previous testimony and did show factual perjury in direct presence of Ms. Craddick.

20.) It is a fact, that Ms. Craddick did not do anything upon presentation of that overt perjury committed by contemnor Respondent’s lawyer in her presence.

21.) Ms. Craddick upon receiving direct proof of service by Nelson Kenyon, then shuffled the papers and became flustered then overly lied and said she didn’t “understand” the papers which were lawful proof of service documents. She in fact committed overt perjury and enjoined with Respondents in their ongoing criminal acts and/or omissions in this matter.

22.) When Nelson did state to her and give her legal notice “He refuses your officer and has complied with the terms being forced upon him without any terms of culpability or latches.” Ms. Craddick, having knowledge of the law then lied and said she didn’t understand what latches was.

23.) Mr. Kenyon then asked her once more if “Are all parties free to leave in this matter” and gave her final warning. When she did not comply, both he and I left the courtroom having no further business there.

24.) We then walked out normally and an officer came up and unlawfully arrested me and then dragged me back into her tribunal, as they locked the door behind me and let no other persons in this tribunal.

25.) A tall bailiff in the courtroom looked at contemnor Ms. Craddick and asked “Do you want me to go get him?” Ms. Craddick hesitated then said “Yes.” Then bailiff left followed by other bailiff’s.

26.) I did in fact, lawfully serve upon Ms. Craddick and the above-mentioned tribunal a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, clearly citing that this would only be a public hearing in accordance with Article I, Section 15 of the Construction of the state of California. She did willfully violate her own oath of office and the concise rule of law.

27.) It is a fact, that Nelson Kenyon did attempt to get back into the court to record what was transpiring and was forcibly restrained by a Sheriff officer under direct orders from Ms. Craddick.

28.) It is a fact, that the “lawyer” for Family Support Services said “Now that Mr. Pitchers is not here, I would like a bench warrant as of now.” That lawyer did in fact, give NO probable cause, nor did subscribe nor verify any reasons whatsoever for reasonable cause.

29.) Ms. Craddick did willfully, cogently with aforethought enjoin with respondent Family Support Services lawyer and without either reasonable nor probable cause did overtly conspire and order your Appellant’s unlawful arrest and incarceration.

30.) At no time was I given Miranda rights.

31.) At no time was I allowed to have the concise rule of law in this tribunal.

32.) At no time was I allowed substantive due process of law.

33.) Under direct threat and duress, Ms. Craddick then did illegally change my DEFAULT into a “MOTION FOR DEFAULT” in direct and overt violation of law.

34.) Under direct threat and duress, Ms. Craddick then did illegally change my NOTICE OF RESCISSION into a “MOTION FOR RESCISSION” in direct and overt violation of law.

35.) Being under direct threat and direct menace by Respondents in over collusion with Ms. Craddick, I was forced to without knowing or being able to resource the law, forced to accept whatever terms and/or conditions illegally forced upon me above my objections and being forcibly kept ignorant of the nature and cause of the instant accusation against me.

I swear the following is the truth, and I will affirm the same in open court if asked to do so.

Submitted this April ____, 2002

SEAL:

_____________________________

Richard William Pitchers – AT LAW





925-363-5470

VERIFICATION

County of Contra Costa

]

] ss.

State of California

]

I, Richard William Pitchers, 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 _____ day of April, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Two.

SEAL:

_____________________________






925-363-5470

SUBSCRIPTION

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

SEAL:

_____________________________



Reserving All Rights, Giving Up None


______________ Term


]

]Case No. C037374

Appellant/Petitioner]CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE/

vs.

]AFFIDAVIT OF

]PROOF OF SERVICE


]

Respondents/Contemnor’s]

_______________________________________________] [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.) VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (CRADDICK)

36 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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

County of Contra Costa

725 Court Street

P.O. Box 911

Martinez, CA 94553

Supervising Attorney Contra Costa County

Dept. of Child Support Services

50 Douglas Drive, STE 100

Martinez, CA 94553

Family Court Services

724 Escobar Street

Martinez, CA 94553

District Attorney, County of Contra Costa

Gary T. Yancy

725 Court Street

Martinez, CA. 94553

Jude Judith Craddick

725 Court Street

P.O. Box 911

Martinez, CA 94553

Laurie Marie Pitchers

67A Massolo Drive

Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

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: March ____, 2002______________________________________

______AM/PM

Nelson Kenyon

Bay Point, Contra Costa County

by Lawful Service

� The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa shall be concurrent with and equivalent to the County of Contra Costa court in Term as created in the Constitution for the state of California 1849 at Article Vi, section I with its full Judicial Powers, not the inferior Legislative powers courts of the United States Amendment Fourteen due process.

� Use of other person's name to identify suspect in criminal records after suspect had been placed in custody and fingerprinted, stated claim for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sergio v. Doe, 769 F.Supp. 164 (E.D. Pa. 1991)

� 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)

� All Public statutes of California must prevail over any code which it contravenes or is inconsistent with. See text of the original Political Code at Sections 4479, and 4494,

� The philosophy of all these cases is based upon the early rule of In re Campbell, 130 Cal. 380 [62 P. 613], that the right of a parent to the use of a minor child is a right of property of which a parent cannot be deprived unless the court finds that he or she is "unfit." Booth v. Booth, 69 Cal. App. 2d 496, 159 P.2d 93 (Cal.App.Dist.1 06/08/1945)

� Father cannot alienate his right to the Custody and control of his child. People ex rel Barry v. Mercien 3 Hill 399

� Officer jointly liable with mother for abducting son from father. Shields

v. Martin, 706 P.2d 21 (Idaho 1985)

� “Contracts of an immoral endency or based on immoral consideration are invalid.” Brua’s App., 55 Pa 294; “Contracts encouraging children in disobedience of parental authority have also been held to be illegal.” See Mercier v. Mercier, 50 GA. 546, 15 AmR 694; Woodhouse v. Shepley, 2 Atk. 535,



NOTICE OF RESCISSION

Page 20 of 36

pleading wizard - angelfire overview/pitchers... · web viewthat defect cannot be gotten rid of...

Documents