UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN Vv. CITY OF LOS ANGELES VERIFIED 1983 COMPLAINT CASE NO. VOLUME FOUR EXHIBIT 83EXHIBIT 83con USAMA 8 8036 14573720 mozon FE ea oe gaps 7 Bares Fenians Serica seaman amare TUB 3 smog eraser Rae SES ae E} i. 3 yaa ie ABRAZO cgtetetttcee | OBER. Ciera | OBB acer Cg | caer F Padaging cocina CT rtecnainer a i fag 7 nein Crane a CR Cw {Special Harling and Daler Smmure Options Biorcer Heder - i “fesiner Sgroare come LA Cupp ging CoyeT of emntt aan, SE, HiLN Wu sper Ln fair tistpmorecnteagnt = Mehl N I. SREET Ru 07 oa eae 5 ousesy fw CBee Bene 1 Btls —_.—_s SSieeeeareeeeee —————_ ees enierecimereien Ese seatt: r . 7 Papen sitar so Co fee a tenets CEB Cresson Cl nierem 29 dette C1 cate 8 aa z a ge é So es 2 3 28 Bo Bg 7 23CASE #BR050771 IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT 111 North Hill Street, Room 607, LA, CA 90012 CITY OF Los. ANGELES vs, MELISSA BALIN Plaintiff & Respondent Defendant & Appellant Appeal from the Superior Court oF Califomia, County of Los Angeles ‘The Hon. Rene Korn, Judge (case number 1CA16847-02) involving | the recently come to light discovery of the Court's own suppression of ®xculpatory evidence since December 8, 2011 (see EXHIBIT A) & appealable orders by The Honorable Judges: David Herriford on 11/7/2012; Henry Barela on 12/05/2012, 1/09/2013, US1/2013 & 22572013; & Samantha Jessner on 12/20/2012, 1/24/2013 & 1306/2013. APPELLANTS? OPENING BRIEF, : APPENDIX & PROPOSED ORDER MELISSA BALIN Pro Per 10153 % Riverside Drive, Suite 465 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Tel: 323.839.0149 Melissabalinémayor@gmail.comTABLE OF CON TENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page 4 INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Page 14 STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY Page 17 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Page 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS Page 24 ARGUMENT Page 25 I. PURSUANT TO PEOPLE v, WENDE (1979) 25 Cai.3d 436 APPELLANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW DE NOVO OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL AND ITS FINDINGS FOR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Page 25 Tl. MELISSA BALIN CONTIGUOUSLY SATISFIED ALL THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED TO INDICATE COMPTENCY TO STAND TRIAL; NOR WAS SHE EVER NOT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, IN THE MORE THAN FIFTEEN MONTHS OF FALSIFIED KANGAROO MISDEMEANOR HEARINGS FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2011 UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 2012; NOR WAS THERE ANY VALID REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS NOT COMPETENT; NOR THAT SHE WAS ANYTHING BUT MORE THAN ABLE TO ASSIST MEANINGFULLY IN HEROWN DEFENSE IN SPITE OF GASLIGHTING BY COURT- APPOINTED ATTORNEY ANTHONY TAHAN. Page 25 Ill. EVEN IF THE EVENTS IN AND AFTER NOVEMBER 2012 DID NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TANDEM WITH WHAT WENT BEFORE. Page 26 IV. THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE REQUESTED FINDINGS WAS ITSELF REVERSIBLE ERROR. Page 26 V. ASSUMING THE PITCHESS MOTION ON THE CALENDAR WAS TIMELY, THE TRIAL, COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN TAKING IT OFF CALENDAR ON DECEMBER 5, 2012 AT 1:30 PM (see Proof of Appearance in Appendix) Page 26 VI. APPELLANT WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO. APPEAL JUDGE HERRIFORD’S RULING TO REMOVE COURT- APPOINTED COUNSEL JOHNNY LAI OVER AND AGAINST HER OBJECTIONS, PLACING HER AT A. MATERIAL DISADVANTAGE FOR HER DEFENSE AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL COUNSEL FOR MORE THAN FOURTEEN DAYS FROM. OCTOBER 27, 2012 UNTIL SHE WAS ASSIGNED ONE INSOUCIANTLY INCOMPETENT ANTHONY. TAHAN ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012, WHO DECLARED HER NOTCOMPETENT AFTER THEIR VERY FIRST MEETING. Page 26 VII. APPELLANT WAS AND IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING DENIED HER DUE PROCESS AS PROTECTED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS IN CONTINUING AND FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS WORTHY OF A 1983 FEDERAL CLAIM INVESTIGATION Page 27 Vill. APPELLANT DESERVES A FULL EXPUNGEMENT OF ANY OR ALL CHARGES EXISTING OR PENDING FROM 2011 UNTIL PRESENT ON THE GROUNDS OF OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Page 33 CONCLUSION Page 34TABLE OF AUTHORITIES SSL UF AUTHORITIES CASES According to Masinter 355 So.2d 1288, the power to jail for contempt is given “on the assumption that it will be judiciously and sparingly employed", SCOCAL, People v. Wende , 25 Cal.3d 436 available at: (http:/scocal stanford. edwopinion/people-v-wende-23203) (last visited Wednesday July 17, 2013). - (Opinion by Manuel, J, with Bird, C. J., Tobriner, Mosk, Richardson and Newman, JI, concurring. Separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Clark, J.) [25 Cal.3d 437] Drope v. Missouri 420 US 162 (1975) 178n13 Sell v. United States Dusky v. United States State v. Chapin (1981). 67 Ohio St. 24 437 ‘State v. Cardinal, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-229 through 233, 2004- Ohio-6605 Nutio v. County of San Bernadino (C.D. Cal. 1999) 58 F. Supp 2d 1127, 1134 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 US. 18 OS. v. Russell 411 U.S. 423, 431-432, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 36 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1973) People v. MeIntire, 23 Cal. 3d 742, 748, 153 Cal. Rptr. 237, 591 P .2d 527 (1979)People v. Thoi, 213 Cal. App. 34 689, 695-696, 261 Cal. Rptr. 789 (1989) People v. Wesley, 224 Cal. App. 34 1130, 1138, 1142-1 144, 274 Cal. Rptr. 326 (1990) People v. Ervin, 22 Cal. 4" 48, 85-86, 91 Cal. Rotr. 2d 623, 990 P .2d 547 (2000) People v. Holloway, 47 Cal. App. 4" 1757, 1767, 55 Cal, Rptr. 2d 547 (1996) Rochin v. California, 342 US. 165,72 §. Ct. 205, 96 L. Fa. 183 (1952) Boulas v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 34 422, 233 Cal. Rptr. 487 (1986) Francis v. Resweber, 329 US. 459 (1947) Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) Furman v, Georgia, 408 US. 238 (1972) Solem v. Helm, 463 US. 277 (1983) Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) Farmer v, Brennan, 511 US. 825 (1994) Williams v. United States, 341 US. 97,71 8, Ct 576, 95 L. Ed. 774 [1951] In re Gault, 387 US. 1, 87 8. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Bd. 24 527 (1967) Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 US. 51, 109 §. Ct. 333, 102 L, Ed. 2d 281 (1988) California v. Trombetta, 467 US. 419, 104 §. Ct. 2528, 81L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984)People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 34 641, 117 Cal. Rotr. 9, 527 P 24361 (1974), People v. Hardy, 2 Cal. 4 86, 165, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 825 P 2d 781 (1992) People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3rd 79, 87 People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal3rd 470, 478 Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 US. 1, 12-15 [85 L.Ed2nd 1; 10-12] People v. Martin (1985) 168 Cal.App.3rd 1111, 1124 In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal 3rd 930, 937-938, fn, 3 People v. Lopez (1963) 60 Cal.2nd 223, 248, STATUTES Penal Code Section 1368 and 1370.01 PAC. §§ 148(a), 243(b) & (c), and 245(6) & (a) P.C. § 149 and/or P.C. §147 First Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America PLC. § 166 (a)(1), which states: (a)Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (¢), and (4), every person guilty of any contempt of court, of any of the following kinds, is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1)Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior Committed during the sitting of any court of “justice, in the immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its Proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority,Miranda Warning, which states, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. ‘You have the right to an attomey. If you cannot afford an attomey, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” 298.1 DNA refusal charge for felony arrestees only P.C. § 636(a) California State Constitution of 1849 California Government Code 11120, which states, “We The People Do Not Yield Our Sovereignty To The Agencies That Serve Us.” Sixth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution for The United States of America California Rule of Court 1.1150 cited with regards to filming penal codes Local Rule 2.17 cited with regards to filming penal codes Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This Jaw, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies havePolicies or practices that foster a pattem of misconduct by employees, This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattem and practice investigation, include: * Lack of. ‘supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions; * Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force; * Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and “ Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries. Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons. Title 18, USC, Section 4 States, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does ‘ot as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”. Title 42, USC, Section 1986, states that “Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for alldamages caused by such wrongfill act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be ‘one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the Provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.” Title 42, USC, Section 1987 States, “The United States attomeys, marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate Judges appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and 55 18 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10, which States: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." 10International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CICCRR), Articles 14 & 16, which is binding in international law on the 72 states that have ratified it. Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial Tights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the right ofa convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or Sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy. Article 14(1) states that: "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the Public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, Public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the Private lives of the parties so Tequires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where Publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made Public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children." OTHER AUTHORITIES OAHER AUTHORITIES American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10Abraham Lincoln’s words as entered again on public record November 14, 2011: We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Correspondence from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health Director, Dr. Marvin Southard (App ), stating: “Competency to stand trial is a legal concept not a clinical one.” LAPD Procedure Manual Volume 4 Section 296.01, which States, “During the performance of official duties, Department members shall provide a business card to any person upon request, Providing the action does not interfere with the officer's performance of his/her duty. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles unnamed summary print-out for Case 1JB07173 dated 08/03/12 (pages numbered I through 12) All Court Reporter’s Transcripts of Proceedings and All Video for Case 13B07173 All Court Reporter’s Transcripts of Proceedings in Case 1CA16847-02 Alll Videos for Case 1CA16847-02 as Provided by LA Sherifis’ Department All Videos NOT YET PROVIDED OR ACCOUNTED FOR IN DISCOVERY by LA Sheriffs’ Department for Case 1CA16847- 02 Pitehess Motion filed by bar paneled attomey, Johnny Lai, on September 19, 2012Surveillance Video Footage of Melissa Balin’s violation of due process in public view from Clara Shortridge Foltz and Lynwood County Jail NOT YET PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY (formally requested in writing by bar panel attorney, Johnny Lai, from Honorable Cecil Mills on October 16, 2012), LACIUSC Medical Center Patient Rights (particularly rules 2, U1, 13, 14) LACSD Use of Force Investigation Report for Case 1CA16847-02 Definition of PTSD as defined by The Mayo Clinic Letter from Lael Rubin, Director of Bureau of Prosecution Support Operations on behalf of Steve Cooley of the Los Angeles County District Attomey’s Office, to Zeke Perlo, Director of Indigent Criminal Defense Appointment’s office dated June 22, 2012. The letter is regarding the identification and “disapproval” of exculpatory evidence material to defendants regularly being withheld by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs’ Department. Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint For Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed on July 9, 2012 by ACLU atomey Jeffrey Douglas against Steve Cooley and Sheriff Leroy Baca. MC-500 Form- Media Request to Record or Broadcast MC-510 Form- Media Request to Record or Broadcast Formal Complaint and request for investigation with California Commission on Judicial Performance, dated September 5, 2012 and received September 19, 2012,Faretta Waiver Dangers and Disadvantages to Self. Representation Civil Grand Jury Formal Complaint and request for investigation, received November 7, 2012, including Appendix & Exhibits “4” — «R” Ttis worth noting that in completely unrelated Proceedings on November 5, 2012, activist Gypsy Taub, strips naked under the auspices of a protest protected by Free Speech, inside of a Federal Courtroom, during the City Operations & Neighbothood Services Committee Hearing, Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, CA, and is calmly led by one arm, out of the courtroom, by ONE deputy WITHOUT ANY ARREST. MOST IMPORTANTLY: California Rules of Court 8.883 (4) regarding Noncomplying briefs which states: “If a brief does not comply with this rule: © The reviewing court clerk may decline to file it, but must mark it "received but not filed" and return it to the party; or (2) If the brief is filed, the presiding judge may with or without notice: (A)Order the brief returned for corrections and refiling within «specified time; @)Strike the brief with leave to file a new brief within a specified time; or (Disregard the noncompliance,”INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT We The People, would like to acknowledge the daunting Teputation of the Court of Appeals for kicking out non-complying briefs, and throw ourselves most dramatically, at the mercy of the very Courts that are allegedly invaginated themselves with former Los Angeles Superior Court Judges that have taken a sworn oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the daily, but have interestingly been re-elected without challenge AND have filed “Zero” under the Form 700 (aknown “tell” of a “Political liar”); and beg the Courts not to overlook our errors, as the former City Attomey’s Office would regularly countenance for themselves, but instead, that the Courts give The People an Opportunity to correct any errors in the Appellant's Opening Brief, in light of the Appellants’ unusual “Court-Appointed Indigent Pro-Per status”, prior to the respondent brief. Tt would appear by the continuing mandamus, thwarting of discovery, and the recalcitrance by the Los Angeles Superior Court system and Court Reporters to provide the docket and complete ‘ranscripts with regards to Case #1CA-16847-02, that we are unlikely ‘o ever have a proper record with which to consider the merits for an appeal, or any other “Justice” with regards to the embarrassing Kangaroo Proceedings involving the #MelissaBalin #TrialByOrdeal during the #CarmenTrutanich #ReignOfErrors; as evidenced by outraged citizen journalists through Social Media outlets around the globe and at http://www. change.org/petition Yr Still, it is the tight of the Good People of California, as well as the hiscarriage-of-justice,unborn fetus of Melissa Balin; to know if the courts’ continuing recalcitrance to expose any evidence of continuing malfeasances of Justice being committed against its Sovereign citizens and indigent Population; in full public view, may indeed be in violation of the RICO Act; especially if such a Conspiracy may or may not have Contributed to the unlawful termination of pregnancy of one of its own indigenous citizens; or even worse allegations that the former Los Angeles City Attomey committed acts of domestic terror against the artists and political dissidents of Los Angeles to the extent of what would widely be considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions in any other country, worthy of trial for multiple war crimes. In light of precious limited taxpayer resources, and that Melissa Balin is NOT AN ATTORNEY, We The People, respectfully request the opportunity for her right to present an Oral Argument and for an opportunity to file an amicus brief on her behalf from the ACLU, the Center For Investigative Reporting, or similarly purposed and respected third-party non-profit organization that is a watchdog for the protection of civil liberties, We The People, ask the Courts to apply the strictest of : scrutiny to the policies that sanction the narrowly tailored use of the Los Angeles Mental Health Court as a weapon against its unpopular defendants to address a compelling state interest illustrated by a pattem of selective enforcement that should shock the conscience of most Prosecutorial Misconduct Statutes, since its inception in 1994; illustrated in a series of appealable orders levied against citizen journalist, filmmaker andactivist, Melissa Balin, from November 14, 2011; and awaiting exoneration to this very day, but specifically on: > November 7, 2012, > December 4, 2012, > December 5, 2012, > December 20, 2012, > January 9, 2013, > January 24, 2013, > January 30, 2013, and > January 31,2013; that resulted in a curtailment of liberty far greater than if the Criminal Defendant had remained in the criminal justice system; and a final judgment on February 25, 2013, designed to obstruct criminal evidence under the guise of “a dismissal in The Interest Of Justice [sic] 1385” whilst OVER AND AGAINST THE OBJECTION OF BOTH the People of California AND The City Attomey, Bradley Rothenberg, AND the Defendant herself (see attached Official Court Transcripts pages E-2 lines 12 - 28 and E-3 lines 1 — 25),STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY SEALSMENT OF APPEALABILITY This appeal is taken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1) from a final judgment on February 25, 2013 without a fair or speedy trial; dismissing falsified charges after FIFTEEN MONTHS OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS; and taken pursuant to the due Process rights guarénteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and California Government Code Section 68151, which States, “In a criminal prosecution, the order of judgment shall mean imposition of sentence, entry of an appealable order (including, but not limited to, an order granting probation, commitment of a defendant for insanity, or commitment of a defendant as a narcotics addict appealable under Section 1237 of the Penal Code), or forfeiture of bail without issuance of a bench warrant or calendaring of other proceedings; from appealable orders including but not limited ‘o removing the defendant's counsel at a material disadvantage to their defense and ability to appeal for more than FOURTEEN DAYS from November 7, 2012 until November 27, 2012 and an unsubstantiated court-ordered involuntary mental health commitment with authorization for forced medication MADE OVER AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANT’S OBJECT! IONS WITHOUT ANY REVIEW OF THE COLLATERAL RECORD, from December 5, 2012 until June 16, 2013PROCEDURAL HISTORY Balin was falsely charged with misdemeanor Contempt of Court charges for more than fifteen months by the LA Sheriffs? Department and LA City Attorney's Office, from November 16, 2011 until February 25, 2013; even though the supervising Judge Rene Korn herself NEVER FOUND, REMANDED, NOR CHARGED THE DEFENDANT TO BE IN CONTEMPT (received in discovery November 2012), which may or may not be evidence enough to provide a “Trial De Novo”. (see Appendix “EXHIBIT A” tabbed as “Exculpatory Evidence of Innocence”). On November 7, 2012, Balin’s ICDA-appointed attorney, Johnny Lai, was conflicted off the case over and against Balin’s own objection. In spite of Balin begging ICDA Executive Director Ezekiel Perlo (see attached e-mail correspondence Exhibit ) for a new attomey, she was not assigned a new attorney for well more than fourteen days, significantly inhibiting her ability to appeal the decision of Judge Herriford, resulting in the court's denial of appeal on the grounds of it, indeed, being untimely. Balin filed a Writ of Prohibition with the California Supreme Court in San Francisco on November 26, 2012. The clerks laughed at Balin that she drove all the way up to San Francisco when it would likely be kicked back down to the Court of Appeals, but Balin explained in accordance with California Rules of Court 8.486 (b) (2), that the Court of Appeals was comprised almost entirely of former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges, and therefore, would not 19be an impartial audience, and warranted the exceptional circumstances Tequired to file directly with the State Supreme Court, While Balin Was still in the Bay Area on November 27, 2012, but without giving her an opportunity to answer any questions regarding the matter; the Chief Supreme Court Justice sent the matter back down to the Court of Appeals Division for review under case number #B245301. On November 28, 2012, the Petitioner's request (#8245301) for an immediate stay of any further proceedings at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center was denied by Presiding Justice Paul Turner On December 4, 2012 over and against Balin’s objections her Pitchess Motion placed on the calendar by former attomey Johnny Lai, was taken off the calendar by her “new ICDA-appointed attomey” Anthony Tahan, who may or may not have been a current dues-paying member of the California State Bar at the time. On December 5, 2012, Supervising Judge Victor Greenberg assigned Balin’s case to Judge Henry Barela after an embarrassing and publicly witnessed ex-parte consultation that involved publicly giggling like schoolchildren outside of robes. On December 5, 2012, Judge Henery Barela refused Balin’s Marsden Motion to relieve her adversarial attomey and declared a “not-so-sua-sponte” doubt as to Melissa Balin’s competency to stand trial On December 7, 2012, the petition for a Writ of Prohibition (#B245301) was denied by former LA Superior Court Judges adjudicating for the Second Appellate District, Division Five: Richard Mosk, J. Kriegler, and J. Ferns; on the grounds of “failure to provide a 20record sufficient for adequate appellate review. Citing a completely unrelated decision made by Mosk’s distinguished father in Sherwood v. Superior Court in 1979 (On December 20, 2012, in Department 95, Judge Samantha Jessner declared a “not-so-sua-sponte” doubt as to Melissa Balin’s competency to stand trial, and since none of the required short OR long form doctor evaluations had occurred, she asked Balin to come back after lunch to voluntarily commit to more Gulag NOT GOULASH... On January 8, 2013, Melissa Balin filed a Notice of Appeal for what she understood to be three appealable orders in Department 40, Department 52, and Department 95. It was Balin’s understanding that the orders only became appealable at the point of a conviction Judgment, or the unusual case of an Incompetency ruling, such as that adjudicated by Judge Jessner on December 20, 2012. Since Balin’s competency was prosecuted by the District Attorneys’ Office and NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, ‘under Case #2020322, the appeal was sent to the Second Appellate District, Division 2 and designated with Case #8246532, On January 9, 2013, Balin was served a Notice of Tumdown of Notice of Appeal by Deputy Clerk, Deanna Williams for the November 7, 2012 appealable order by Judge Herriford, citing, “The Notice of Appeal was received after the expiration of the thirty (30) day period prescribed for filing an appeal.” On January 15, 2013, Balin was served a Notice of Tumdown of Notice of Appeal by Deputy Clerk, Deanna Williams for the December 5, 2012 appealable order by Judge Barela, citing, “The 2Notice of Appeal was received after the expiration of the thirty (30) day period prescribed for filing an appeal.” On January 24, 2013 Judge Samantha Jessner reviewed Balin’s competency testimony without legal counsel present, On January 30, 2013 Judge Samantha Jessner found Melissa Balin “Competent To Stand Trial” On January 31, 2013 Judge Henry Barela accepted “Exculpatory Evidence Material to Balin’s innocence” tabbed as “EXHIBIT A” and ICDA Bar Panel Attomey Anthony Tahan body- checked his client in full public view during her testimony in Open Court (see attached Battery Complaint and Restraining Order Hearing Docket in Appendix) On February 5, 2013 a Temporary Restraining Order Hearing was held with Judge William F. Stewart, where he required that Mr. Tahan be notified of the Hearing and given the option to attend. On February 6, 2013 a Temporary Restraining Order Hearing was held with Judge William F. Stewart. Anthony Tahan was present and perjured himself under oath, stating, “T never laid a hand on her”, On February 25,2013 Judge Henry Barela dismissed all charges “In The Court’s Best Interests” On February 27, 2013 a Restraining Order Hearing with Judge Donna Fields Goldstein, Anthony Tahan was present. The Restraining Order was denied on the grounds that the case was dismissed two days prior, On March 1, 2013, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 2, Judge Roger Boren, DISMISSED Balin’s Appeal of Judge Jessner’s December 20, 2012 2competency ruling as “MOOT”, citing “The trial court found that the appellant was not competent to stand trial. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from this order on January 9, 2013. Thereafter, the trial court determined on January 31, 2013 that the appellant was competent to stand trial. Accordingly, the appeal, initiated by the notice filed on. January 9, 2013, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.” To the date of this filing, there has been no response to Melissa Balin’s “Request For Oral Argument” with the Court of Appeals, received by Joseph Lane on March 29, 2013, wherein Balin alleges that, “this appeal is not only NOT MOOT, but of material and exculpatory interest to the families of all defendants in the Los Angeles Mental Health Court since its inception in 1994, and that dismissing such an appeal would suggest that the Court of Appeals’ Private chamber armchair rulings may have removed our fine Justices too far from the Good People of. California, whom they actually serve; a8 opposed to the special interests of their buddies and campaign contributors within the Superior Court system.” Attached to this Appellant Brief is a Proposed Order for Injunetive Relief Against the City of Los Angeles for its continuing constitutional violations against its own citizens, 23STATEMENT OF FACTS SLATEMENT OF FACTS |. Melissa Balin was at the time of her unconstitutional arrest, and is still to this date, internationally regarded as a “filmmaker, activist, and a minor celebrity of sorts. ‘You may want to google her.” As Per California Private Bar Panel Attomey, Johnny Lai’s Memorandum to Court-Appointed Private Investigator Mike Wolfe. 2. The Courts inexplicably assigned Melissa Balin Indigent Status, granting her ICDA Counsel over and against her objections, and conflicting out the Public Defender’s Office and Alternate Public Defender’s Office. 3. Ex Parte “Tea Party” communications were held in the Judge's private chambers between the City Attomey’s Office and third-party Attoreys Appearing Specially on Behalf of the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, without the defendant or defense Counsel present, on a regular basis, 4. Melissa Balin’s competency was questioned COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED without ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE, REVIEW OF COLLATERAL DATA AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF ANY “Incompetency to Stand Trial” GUIDELINES AND DSM REQUIREMENTS,ARGUMENT L PURSUANT TO PEOPLE v. WENDE (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 APPELLANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW DE NOVO OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL AND ITS FINDINGS FOR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Pursuant to the opinion of the California Supreme Court in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, the Appellant requests that this court independently review the entire record on appeal in this case. Appellant has been advised by a Higher Authority of her right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the date this brief is filed. Appellant has been advised that in the supplemental brief she may bring to the court's attention any issues she believes deserve review. Appellant has been further advised that she may ask the court to relieve present criminal defense counsel of record Anthony Tahan, and that upon her request present counsel will forward appellant's copy of the record on appeal for the purpose of preparing a supplemental opening brief, but that counsel will retain the record for the present to allow proper representation in the event this court requests further briefing, Appellant personally requests that the court address the following issues: 1) Assuming the Notices of Appeal were timely, the 25trial court abused its discretion in denying it; 2) It is not the indigent defendants’ responsibility to know which court has the appropriate jurisdiction to adjudicate a Special Writ of Prohibition, Mandate, Quo Warranto, or Other Immediate Relief, sent down from the California Supreme Court; and the Court of Appeals should have sent the November 26 Writ by Balin on to the appropriate Appellate Division ofthe Superior Court; 3) Unsubstantiated competency hearings as a Punishment for unpopular defendants should not be countenanced:; 4) the Cruel and Unusual Punishment of pregnant women currently incarcerated for non-violent misdemeanor offenses should be addressed immediately, if not sooner, I MELISSA BALIN CONTIGUOUSLY SATISFIED ALL THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED TO INDICATE COMPTENCY TO STAND TRIAL; NOR WAS SHE EVER NOT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, IN THE MORE THAN FIFTEEN MONTHS OF FALSIFIED KANGAROO MISDEMEANOR HEARINGS FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2011 UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 2012; NOR WAS THERE ANY VALID REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS NOT COMPETENT; NOR THAT SHE WAS ANYTHING BUT MORE THAN ABLE TO ASSIST MEANINGFULLY IN HER OWN DEFENSE. I 26EVEN IF THE EVENTS IN AND AFTER NOVEMBER 2012 DID NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TANDEM WITH ‘WHAT WENT BEFORE. Iv. THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE REQUESTED FINDINGS WAS ITSELF REVERSIBLE ERROR. v. ASSUMING THE PITCHESS MOTION ON THE CALENDAR WAS TIMELY, THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN TAKING IT OFF CALENDAR ON DECEMBER 5, 2012 AT 1:30 PM (see Proof of Appearance in Appendix) Vi APPELLANT WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO APPEAL JUDGE HERRIFORD’S RULING TO REMOVE COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL JOHNNY LAI OVER AND AGAINST HER OBJECTIONS, PLACING HER AT MATERIAL DISADVANTAGE FOR HER 27DEFENSE AND WITHOUT ANY LEGAL COUNSEL FOR MORE THAN FOURTEEN DAYS FROM OCTOBER 27, 2012 UNTIL SHE WAS COURT-APPOINTED ONE INSOUCIANTLY INCOMPETENT ANTHONY TAHAN ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012, WHO DECLARED HER NOT COMPETENT AFTER THEIR VERY FIRST MEETING. Vil. APPELLANT WAS AND IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING DENIED HER DUE PROCESS AS PROTECTED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS IN CONTINUING AND FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS WORTHY OF A 1983 FEDERAL CLAIM INVESTIGATION 8) A plaintiff must show that there was a failure to train amounting to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the agency comes into contact. The municipality itself must be the direct cause of the violation Furthermore, there must be a direct link between a specific deficiency in training and the ultimate injury. As the plaintiff must not only identify a deficiency but also show a causal connection to the claimed indifference by the officers, b) A pattem or persistent and widespread use of unlawful or excessive force by law enforcement officers against arrestees, suspects, inmates, detainees, and others, courts have held a de facto Policy or custom upon which municipal liability under § 1983 could 28be premised. The federal courts are in general agreement that proof of 4 single, isolated incident of misconduct by an individual lacking policymaking authority is insufficient to infer policy or custom on the Part of the local government unit. Oklahoma City y, Tuttle, 105 8. Ct. 2427 (1985). However, there need not be multiple incidents to constitute custom or Practice in egregious instances of misconduct, as they may support an inference that those instances would not occur but for municipal tolerance of the practice in question. Medina v, District of Columbia, 718 F. Supp. 24 (D. D.C. 2010). But where it can be established that the Custom at issue is well-settled, an act Performed in pursuance may fairly subject a municipality unit to liability on the theory that the relevant Practice is so widespread as to have the force of law, even absent approval by an appropriate decisionmaker. Coward v. Town and Village of Harrison, 665 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D. N.Y. 2009). ©) In Wilcher v, Curley, a Maryland district court found that arrestee’ allegations that they were subjected to excessive force at the hands of a city police officer, of which the city was aware and allowed to continue, constituted a Pattern of constitutional violations, 519 F. Supp. 1 (D.C. Md. 1980). Courts have also found the existence ofa Policy or custom where the life-threatening conduct of police officers, such as choke holds, were performed under supervisors who were not trained to deal with the conduct and had unknown competence in the arrest tactics whose use they were charged with supervising. See generally MeQurter v, Atlanta, 572 F. Supp. 1401 (N. D. Ga, 1983), 4) A municipality may be held liable for violations of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which Violations result from the 29municipality's failure to adequately train its employees, only if that failure reflects a deliberate indifference on the part of the municipality to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants and thus constitutes a municipal “policy,” that is, a conscious choice by the municipality. In this context itis sufficient to show that the municipality acted reoklessly, intentionally, or with gross negligence so that deprivations of constitutional rights were substantially certain to result. ©) Appolicy, custom or practice has been inferred where the ‘municipality so fails to train its employees as to display deliberate indifference to constitutional tights of those within its jurisdiction. Patterson v. County of Oneida, N.Y, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004). However, some courts view the failure to train, supervise, and control Police officers, without more, as insufficient to render a municipality liable. See generally Chesler v. Doe, 532 F. Supp. 1033 (N.D. Ohio 1982). Courts have also found the existence of policy or custom established by the omissions of. ‘supervisory officials as well as from their affirmative acts if the failure to promulgate policies and regulations rose to the level of deliberate indifference. ) The Eighth Amendment is violated when prison guards are deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners, as this constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, Gregg v. Georgia, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925 (1976). This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison employees’ response to the Prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or intentionally delaying access to medical care or interfering with prescribed treatment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To 30establish a constitutional violation, a claimant must prove that, objectively assessed, he had: 1. A “sufficiently serious” medical need to require medical treatment (objective component), 2. And that a prison guard was subjectively aware of the need and of its seriousness, 3. And nevertheless acted with “deliberate indifference” (disregard) to it by declining to secure available medical attention, 4. Resulting in the instant constitutional injury, Brice Virginia Beach Correctional Center, 58 F.3d 101, 105 (citing Farmer v, Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), 8) The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “deliberate indifference” and its subjective nature, It entails “more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interest or safety,” or “more than ‘ere negligence,” but “less than acts or omissions done for the very Purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. Id. at 105. Deliberate indifference lies somewhere between negligence and purpose/knowledge. A prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. ‘The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn and he must also draw that inference. 1. Boyd v. Robeson County, 169 N.C. App. 460 (N.C. 2005) (finding that officers ignoring an inmate’s requests for medical care to address severe pain, vomiting, and nausea over 31h) two full days would violate clearly established constitutional law). 2. Creech v. Nguyen, 153 F.3d 719 (4th Cir, 1998) (addressing the objective component of Eighth Amendment claim and finding that a serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention); (addressing the subjective component and finding that requisite knowledge is demonstrated by circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may conclude that a Prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the tisk was obvious). 3. Jones v. Granger, 935 F.Supp. 670 (D. Md. 1996) (finding that the failure to examine the plaintiff in light of plaintiff's thirteen unanswered requests for medical attention were sufficient evidence of defendant’s deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment). 4. Newbrough v. Piedmont Regional Jail Authority, F. Supp. 2d (E.D. Va. 2011) (finding that but for the failure of Piedmont personnel to tender adequate medical assessment and {reatment upon recognizing Newbrough’s serious medical condition, Newbrough likely would have recovered from his illness). Municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the 32subject matter. Pembaur ». Cincinnati, 106 §.Ct. 1292 (1986). This is referred to as the general rule on Policy or custom. Moreover, a single decision if ordered by a person, whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official Policy, may support an action against a municipal entity. In this context, where an official is in a sufficiently high-position such that his conduct is that of the governmental entity, the single incident is sufficient. Malak v, Associated Physicians, Inc, (7th Cir. 1986), i) The federal courts are in general agreement that proof of a Single, isolated incident of misconduct by an individual lacking policymaking authority is insufficient to infer policy or custom on the Part of the local government unit. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 105 S. Ce 7427 (1985). However, there need not be multiple incidents to constitute custom or practice in egregious instances of misconduct, as they may support an inference that those instances would not occur but for municipal tolerance of the Practice in question. Medina y, District of Columbia, 718 F. Supp. 2d (D. D. C. 2010). But where it can be established that the custom at issue is well-settled, an act Performed in pursuance may fairly subject a municipality unit to liability on the theory that the relevant Practice is so widespread as to have the force of law, even absent approval by an appropriate decisionmaker. Coward v. Town and Village of Harrison, 665 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D. N-Y. 2009), VI. APPELLANT DESERVES A FULL EXPUNGEMENT OF ANY OR ALL CHARGES 33EXISTING OR PENDING FROM 2011 UNTIL PRESENT ON THE GROUNDS OF OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant respectfully requests that the United States Supreme Court, California State Supreme Court, Los Angeles Court of Appeals, Appellate District Court or similarly purposed higher court to Provide a new trial “de novo” with the only Judge holding the actual Jurisdiction Judge Rene Korn, according to the Masinter decision), to try Melissa Balin for Contempt of Court charges when she exercised her First Amendment Rights on November 14, 2011, stating for the tecord, “Your Honor, You’re Out of Order,”, The appellant is not Suggesting that she disagrees with Judge Barela’s claims that the charges should be dismissed “In The Interest of Justice”, but that Judge Barela simply had no jurisdiction to try the Balin’s liberty far greater than if she had remained in the criminal Justice system, when he questioned her mental competency to stand trial unsubstatiated for the clearly falsified charges from December 5, 2012 until January 31, 2012. A De Novo Trial presided over by Judge Rene Kom would hopefully address the flagrant and continuing mandamus of Melissa Balin’s discovery and media Tequests, Pitchess Motions regarding SEVENTEEN (17) LASD Sheriffs, and a Writ of Quo Warranto and Notice of Motion to Dismiss The Falsified Charges Of 166 P.C.On The Grounds Of. Outrageous Prosecutorial Misconduct. 35The Appellant also respectfully requests that the Courts SANCTION JUDGE HENRY BARELA FROM ADJUDICATING ANY FURTHER CASES INVOLVING COMPETENCY AND/OR OCCUPY AND/OR MEDICAL MARWJUANA RELATED CASES DUE TO HIS SELF-ADMITTED PRES UDICE (see Court Transcripts, “It’s prejudiced I guess” and YouTube videos on ObeyChange), UNTIL MR. BARELA ATTENDS COURT- ORDERED THERAPY AND WEEKLY COMPETENCY TRAINING FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS OR MORE; and SANCTION JUDGE SAMANTHA JESSNER FROM ADJUDICATING ANY FI 'URTHER CASES. INVOLVING COMPETENCY AND/OR OCCUPY AND/OR CASES INVOLVING FINANCIAL GAIN; UNTIL MS. JESSNER ATTENDS COURT-ORDERED THERAPY AND WEEKLY COMPETENCY TRAINING FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS OR MORE. In light of the continuing evidence of domestic infiltration within our United States prison and mental health systems by confirmed former Nazi doctors and Communist Gulag Archipelago caretakers, We The People, demand an immediate and thorough investigation of any current and previous Policies regarding the incarceration and/or involuntary mental health orders for journalists and political dissidents (such as Alisa Spitzberg, Barrett Brown, and Melissa Balin herself), that may or may not be construed as “unconstitutional” or “cruel and unusual punishment”. But that question need not be resolved in the appellate process. This case can be decided narrowly, by applying settled law to undisputed facts and 36determining that Melissa Balin and the People of California did not get what the law entitled them to. Even in Melissa Balin’s rudimentary understanding of the law, she knows that the Court of Appeal does not grant new trials, and can only review the judgments for any prejudicial errors, Melissa Balin and the Good People of California ask that the Appellate Division review this literal and figurative “doghouse” worth of paperwork that essentially amounts to little more than a Gulag Archipelago game of chess for the clerks playing cat and mouse with the unpopular defendants of Los Angeles County at the bidding of financial interests, for any and all prejudicial errors, of which there is a veritable #LessThanPerfectStorm, and we humbly Tequest that the Court not countenance any finding of intentional and/or wanton malicious errors or impropriety unbecoming of a Court of Justice; that the Court please levy appropriate sanctions against officers of the Court that have taken a ‘sworn oath to protect and serve the Constitution for the United States of ‘America, as well as the California State Constitution of 1849; even if their children may attend the same pre-school together. The Court is asked to award Statutory attorney fees and costs in amounts to be determined on remand in order for Melissa Balin to hire real oath-keeping internationally barred attorneys of record and/or to grant Balin an audience with the Court for Oral Argument. July 18, 2013 Respectfully submitted, We The People of California 37Melissa Balin Appellant Pro Per 38CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Tcettify thatthe text of this brief, as counted by Microsoft Word, consists of 4,881 words (excluding the tables of contents and authorities, this certificate, and the attached Proof of service), July 18, 2013 We The People By. Melissa Balin Appellant Pro Per 39PROOF OF SERVICE Tam over 18 years of, age and not a party to this action. Tama resident of the County where the mailing described herein took place. My business address is 10153 4% Riverside Drive, Suite 465, Toluca Lake, CA 91602, On July 18, 2013, I sent/served the following documents described as: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF & APPELLANT'S APPENDIX FOR CASE #BROS0771, REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, & PROPOSED ORDER T served the documents by enclosing copies in envelopes and depositing the sealed envelopes with the United States Postal Service, Postage fully prepaid to the interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclose in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE SERVICE LIST ATTACHED declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and comect. eas a July 18, 2017 Rochelle BalinSERVICE LIST Office of the City Attomey (via certified mail) 200 N. Main Street City Hall East, 9" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012- 4130 Office of the Clerk (in person) Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street, Room 607 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Office of the Clerk (via certified mail) Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4783 Trial Judge Rene Korn (via certified mail) Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 41Elez//s_ vg ~Loay € , (Crasrney AWewv neh Avalaicy Sway oa eay Grsrccnanies aay Sb so UNBVELAUS “ana. neve SPud2y au 1y. adwop ORES Sere Walaa mg aye OF a Spier oe 9 2Zlazlaz/y azine NOLL 39 NOD tm Daina kyalydaova — Wd ve T£OSOUS# 3S¥O NI 4gINE ONIWadO SANVTI3dd¥ Yos xtaNaday a fei yor, Tore PrHEHS SHEE S LigiHxs 4 LISTHXa, 0 wretHxa d LeTHxa © LrerHxa N werHxa W wreTHxa 7 Lexa I LetHxa H LatHxa 9 LISIHXa 4 LISIHXa 3 LISTHXa d AretHxa 9 LetHx3 9 LieIHxa v .ieIHxaEXHIBIT HCALIFORNIA Ni ANGELES Clar tice a a presen ig Storia Rules of Court, tes 8.853(c) and 8.902(0), provide a i 2 te ge 900d cause, be treated as fled immediately after the rendition ofthe judgment or the ‘making of he order appesioa DO other, ioe ApPellate Division of the Los use ss Stberior Court may grant relet gan tis action. The Appetite Divison is located in the Staniey Moar Courthouse, 11 North Hi Swear Bo 007, Los Angeles, Caliomia gots er KE, sei Datec: Jamar 9, 2015 ted: January 6. 2013 Se eu NOTICE OF TURNDOWn OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (Gat Rules of Cour, ues Sora 2 (@tlademeanor oF infraction 8.859 ana’. 902EXHIBIT 4a CNFORMED Copy = Ea ee 7 ie Ck epEXHIBIT BL “URGENT. THIS IS A RED COVER. : ] INTHE SUPREME COURT DF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN SUPREME cougT o eo 3 FILED 120 9 The Buperior Court of the State of California TEFT 100 Comty of Los Angle Nov 2 6202 Respondent Frank A. McGuire Clarke CARMEN TRUTANICH Depuiy Real Party In Interest Regarding falsified Misdemeancr Contempt of Court charges in a continuing Rendamus and malfeasance of Fustice in Case #1CA16847-02 spaming fom 11.14.2011 until present at the Clans Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center involving: 3 Judges Korn, Injejikian, Harris, Tynan, Garcia and zecently re-elected without challenge Barela, AND Herriford. Deputies Neil Murchison, Javante Brown #507067, Imaizumi #527401, Diane M. De Leon #493187, Fatima C. Miles #528112, Ernest F. Celaya #484746, Ronald Gillilan #502176, Leticia M. Martinez Vargas #46758, Craig A. Hathaway #270070, Daryll Harkless #418316, Miguel a. Vega #283308, Kelly C. Marehello #503663, M. Lopez #512448, Ryan Kearus #524071, J. Carbajal #519466, c. Kerretra #507739, and Kinura #529471 Sergeants Julie A. Lowe #447572, Dancel #402115, Brenna Aldana #471287, and Lucas #230303 Lieutenants S, Fredericks #284922, and John W. Mack #213607 Captain Samuel M. Dacus #448620 E -URGENT- THIS IS A RED COVER:Print FS ‘pulus-mg6 ail yaboo.con/neofaunch?sand~2rroicSmndbdda Subject: nunc pro tune olease From: Meliss Balin (mekssabalinyahoo.com) Te: eperlo@lacba.org: ee ‘melissabain®yahoo.com: evtshan@yahoo.co cae nemereainawoFice.com; caclecbel@eolcom: Jei4747 gmail com: mkaestner@earthink net ‘sskGlacdonestattorey.com: mbalin@earthinknes Bec: tfany-budegmacom: bandboguomen com hide 1 gmail.com; Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012 12:49 PM Helo, Mr. Perio! Attached please find my ‘Complaint regarding the past two days’ proceedings with the civil Grand Jury. [kaow that you ae a very busy man, but your inabilty to respond to my e-mail of 7:30 am yesterday (December 5, 2012) and repeated calle ana messages regarding Mr. Tahan's inappropriate and retaliatory pehavior at my frustration wih his refusal to prewioe se opposing counse's opposing motion fr our Fite ess fearing and four intentionally incorrect e-mails ro cern {0 me instead, with an apology and no remedy, unt ETE OM Scheduled hearing on 12/4, a wil folios m “iy Complaint to the State Bar Association and California Commission on Judicial Performance; resulled in an absurd ring by Judge Barela for a competency 78/13 10:24 AM.Print of ‘tp:/s-mg6.mail yahoo.com/nco/launch? rand=3rrote6mdbddé wiv @ compleie stranger who was reluctant to even show me his ber ard, and lied under oath (that the “ONLY Way for him to gst discovery was from the defendant" - which even fanc ot LALaw would know is patently Aintrue, and RARELY doos an attorney EVER get discovery from the defendant); would be given the {ursprudence to question my competency UNSUBSTANTIATED Ae THE RECORD WILL REFLECT is OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A COURT OF JUSTICE, Forcing an incompetent defendant to stand tril violates due Process, {1} and is also prohibited by Statute. {2} In Dusky v, United States, {3} the United States Supreme Court wrote that competency involves more than a finding that "the defendant [is] oriented o time and place and [has] some recollection of events..." Rather, the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult With his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he has a rational as defendant’ abilities at the time of the trial. 5} The defendane Maust be able to "assist" his counsel, {6} which means more than ability to “provide] accounts of the facts, names of witnesses, ete."{7} comprehend the nature of the proceedings ageinst him and Participate rationally in the decisions relating to his own defense bargain in a case involving numerous charges. Wr BULLY EXPRESSED AND COMMUNICATED "UNWILLINGNESS" OR RECALCITRANCE TO WORK Citi MR. TAHAN IN PARTICULAR ONLY, BUT NOT WITH ANYONE Else APPOINTED BY THE COURT OVER TWELVE MONTHS OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS THAT COULD Exeiee MAKE ANYBODY CRAZY, 7/18/13 10:24 AMPrint 5 ‘ntp:/s-mg6.mail yahoo.com/neo/launch? rand=3rrotoGmdbdd4 Ne raoUsl and wilfuly *Gastight" me towers madness, ease ie ‘shows that insanity AND rudeness are NEITHER grounds for incompetence to stand tra 3193, 4 25-34 — Finding of competency upheld to the "spirit world" and listing the Queen of Hearts on ame as instability or insanity. ‘The Supreme Court, in Sell v. United States 539 US, sez, 13 S.Ct, 2174, 156 L. Ba, 24 197 (2003), issued a major setback to prosecutors, when it placed auict guidelines on medicating defendants accused of less serious, nonviolent crimes. Most Respectfully, Melissa Balin flmmakeriactivistdefendant 323.839.0149 cell 78/13 10:24 aM5 ‘tp: /s-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neoVlaunch? rand=Srrote6mdbddd ~ On Wed, 12/5/12, Melissa Balin wrote: | From: Melissa Batin | Subject: and another bites the dust | To: "Zeke Perio” | Ce: melissabalingyanoocem, “Anthony Tahan* , "Bruce Margolin” | , “Carol Sobel" , “Johnny Lai’ | Slsie747@omeitcom>, "Matthew Kaestner" , rbalin@earthink net | Pete: Wednesday, December §, 2012. 3:34 Pay | | Hello, Mr. Perio! I hope this finds you well! [tt is with great ronstemation, that | must inform you that we have lost another | defender in the case of #1CA16847-09. Mr. Anthony Tahan. While | am sure he is a | Wonderful guy, when met under better Gireumstances, he has neither the work ethic, secs frttude to be equipped to handle this case, it isone thing, to call your client |a "clown", and to Spend more time discussing the case with the opposing counsel |than your own client, and arethen Srounds for conflict that he has gone up against | Judge Korn when she was a Prosecutor. 718/13 10:24 AMfs ‘tp/lus-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neoVlaunch? rand~3rrotc6mdbdd4 | Most Respectfully, although | AM starting to feel a litle bit contemptuous over one | year later since my fake contempt of court charges are still being batted around the | Superior court like a half-dead bird, | Melissa Balin flmmaker/activistidefendantvictim of continuing human rights violations | 323.839.0149 cell | Http:/iwww.twitter.com/Balin4Mayor 718/13 10:24 AMEXHIBIT D@ —_ =. a param acon gov 480 SOUTH VERMONT AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNA 90020 eae Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health Mental Health Court Linkege Program 1370.01 Program Placement Recommendation » Metissa Bacinf errs a Y9s9 Denny fre M Aollguned 6A, [ase Number: a Sex:Kimete /o} Clie ies Originating Cour: beet 5Q-LA es PCE RY eens a i pe . aul Bie by todd. oiad “a bet date Axpoud +h of klp 4 ‘ ° a ae fom! this wits. Tus J tly UL te mach ul Hes unctin, J } Compe A ee He oan laecan od Ny He oat Le Deford ~ No -poych. med hep. Fae eepeauc Recommendation: ‘Twin Towers/CRDF 1370.01 Program iy ‘Outpatient Clinic C7 as nh Carvant, te and! has ma hacker Uf axe F Lsdnes me LM rcttnt wo dy unctieHid . Ki.tommercl ConpeAgrey ha, u/ Heo ath. CF as pohedhd to mod wef ne g ee at Fim | 72- 30-/2- int ost 1370.01 Program “To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service”The People of the State of california Case No. 2020322 vs. CERTIFICATE OF MEDICAL EXAMINER (Penal Code Sec. 1368) Proceedings against him or her and to assist in hic or her own defense in a rational manner, I make the following report. aS = (2{20| > Case History: Balin ic 3% yur-old Gmale chee wih, one in goolaten of paisdemennor, Ged Schon 166 (e)(1) Conkuok of Gurk De case war fied on Uff. General physical and mental status: Us. Kalin, privet the evel wanted by Kw hw fim the embuchion wow tale, if FR war gig t be Widleotaped ae_sie bie_ atts nee be pete cs pn acme al Yo nt clam in Sram, MS. Balin was expritive of her canteen Frat fair. mental compolenig exam wer “ebliotry "on te prt of her torent ateeniy ond tae Dalge dy fre crimleal tmckmorn — Hep Arpt pce var cireemttondinl. She was hifhebl to steph She made clear her epinion mat the was Mipkly Mabellvent » extn more s0 tasm many of tue profesional she wes dealing wit ant deteribel herselt as OE telig seon lie Difieta,” oti ae “KbaE EE” he Sail tat her legal mation If "new beiy imartigated by tne Kereme Crock of Colthema” nnd tak she bok bier Fiiy memes complains wih the Callen’ Gomis on Qusbicial Perkemance, EA beat fie coment J am steht, icmaps, she wot ch make Sere webictod trot She veo pre te Cnet WAS. Gala wed Unpler legal oz she is presently ble to understand the nature and Burpose of the proceedings against him or her and to conduct or assist in his or her defense in a xational manner. Yes. No xX REMARKS: _Yermbaligy fe yang, frye tna. Sepechiek woy | sit wat Uncles iL She filly vnderood tre menaty of che tray an PEO gp, reherd te. Sha id C nbonved, Next page)This section is to be completed if the doctor believes the person is not competent. conatetS Medically appropriate to treat this person's Psychiatric Condition with medication Yes No, # (‘12 bebe) + 8. This medication ig likely to be effective Yes___No. b- This person has cdpacity to make decisions abeaE ‘such medication Yes No S- If untreated with medication, this person Probably will suffer serious harm to physical or mental health.» Yoo No. 2. Opinion on dangerousness, given the limited information available 2: This person is a danger to others.** ves No_X + This person is a danger to selt. Yes WO 3+ Such medication likely will make this person competent to stand trial Yes No, preted in the NIMH publication "Medications," available at Bete: //wmw. ninth nih. gov/publicat/medicate. cfm, and in the Yes "* Cdition of the Physicians Desk Reference. Yes No. b. Such Medication is unlikely to have side effects that $iterfere with this person's ability to understand the nature the sams results as medication. Yes__ No REMARKS: __luweree, charh undecptaad her chores anh ite [ Geri. Grol, She wat Poowblae abot “ta cout molest od che’ cunt perioral, The diféothy ov yo blom wit teganl + te alg rete campesone, ix_nek Whitne- she uderhands her chowges , Tact ortetier pha cam ervbimatly acne fee tousk in her define. Temberiank tak She har hed Grek chithret sHerays ook that she has fled Compton wi “he 84 panel. Th ty entin, futile tet Ms. Balin will onkme % Klee more fammplatte ark hann ditGoull, veer with ang aternty due te her ponranein ancl yrandissity (oe pestily narcisitea). Based tn this Sige etm , Z came determina if her Ssmphms are deh a Poimary (Pitot clea or pecsennkity diserca- ar ben, but T de nok below she ie promity omentall, conpehat b pausd at this ow Grr lcs. teasers, Lea Me im Nes fete ie tek oxmeth ol tsk stn bas a Mendel Aisorbar, Tam umcedans if she har an Aste Xe FE (or beta), there comnat deh ae fF MS. Balin will go restored Wh. prychetnpie mediaker. TE her dinelér tt Ant IE taly, medicchon may nat bee feos,