The Missing California Drivers License

On October 25, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m, PST., Esther was traveling along a double rural highway in the Northern California town of Susanville in Lassen County. Her small truck had several bales of hay balanced in the back. The speed limit was approximately 50 m.p.h. She slowed to a stop to make a left turn onto a very narrow overpass that went to a driveway. A white passenger van that appeared to be tailgating at a faster speed proceeded to pass her. Avoiding a collision with Esthers’ vehicle, the white passenger van swerved into the left lane and flew off into the neighbors front yard. The California Highway Patrol cited Esther for expired vehicle registration and no insurance.

QUESTION:

Does not having valid vehicle registration and no insurance make Esther accountable for the negligence, damages, and injuries from the self-inflicted passenger van?

ANSWER:

YES.

According to California. And, the U.S. Constitution. Article I: The Legislative Branch, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ Of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

What does that have to do with apples and oranges?

In a quandary as to Esthers’ legal rights and uncertain about the practical consequences on a finding that Esther was a dangerous sex offender, that she was ever guilty of such faults, wrong, or neglect as to forfeit her rights to participate in venture enterprises, Esther has had to suffer:

Systematic physical, legal, and psychological threats to safety, liberty, dignity, & development, torture, illegal detention, sexism, arbitrary arrest, invasion of privacy, freedom of expression, harassment, discrimination & retaliation through the ongoing pattern of increasingly petty psychological abuse cloaked with sadistic illegal hazing and bantering, malicious prosecution, abuse and overreaching of the courts, legal malpractice-ineffective counsel, false reports, defamation of character, false light, & civil conspiracy. She has been robbed of dignity, family, career, social life, education, health, and housing committed by government sanction.

And, remains restrained beyond human tolerance and decency for the sake of arbitrary decision of the State to seek her commitment under one stature rather than the other. The Equal Protection Claim could then be buried along with Esther.

In other words, Esther is not entitled to equal protection and due process under the law. Access to the courts for any hearing whether it be a preliminary hearing or administrative hearing is an absolute privilege with similar procedural requirements.

Second Segment of Reoccurring Events

Moreover, it would be most cost effective for the State to grant Esther massive amounts of anxiety, apprehension, worry, anger, dizziness, slipping work performance while provoking short-temper with some persons, making her afraid equally of leaving the house and coming home, inducing fearfulness. Compelling social ostracism and having obstructed her legal remedies, she would suffer shame, humiliation, embarrassment, degradation and disgrace so that she could be emotionally deprived of becoming a member of a civilized society. A “civilized society” that would be more than happy to “go along with it…”.

By enhancing mental anguish or emotional distress consequent upon breaches of contract(s) in connection with sales of real property and in conjunction with being accorded the wrongful deprivation of her just bequest under her mothers estate trust by maliciously interfering with prospective rights of inheritance would all the more establish a more “lenient commitment standard.”

Written and oral falsehoods maliciously circulated without Esther‘s acknowledgement, which were made with the intention of producing injury, and did result in injuries because they are actionable as libels, slanders, and defamatory statements were willful and intentionally done without just cause, occasion, or excuse. The quasi courts made comments not of the enacting government body. False statements injuring to mislead other persons into actions that have been detrimental. (i.e. employment, isolation, grouping, differentiation, exiling, splitting up allocation, detachment, prolonged grief, shame humiliation, despair, bullying tactics, disappointment, ghettoization, ostracism, harassment, and intimidation.)

All that goes beyond the possible bounds of decency and is atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Freedom from mental distress directly caused by wanton or outrageous conduct is entitled to legal protection independent of any other cause of action (Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc. 132 So. 2d. 321, 272 Ala. 174; Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co. of Kansas, Inc. 529 P.2d. 104, 215; Henderson v. Ripperger 594 P. 2d. 251, 3 Kan. App. 2d. 303), and where severe mental pain or anguish is inflicted through a deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment or intimidation, a remedy is available in the form of an action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The extreme and outrageous nature of the conduct may arise not so much from what is done as from abuse by the defendant of some relation or position which gives the defendant actual or apparent power to damage the plaintiff’s interests. The result is something every much like extortion.

Not far removed from Esther’s cases are the ones of bullying a school girl, with threats of prison and public disgrace, unless she signed a confession of immoral misconduct (Johnson v. Sampson (1926) 167 Minn. 203, 208 N.W. 814); in bringing a mob to the Plaintiff’s door at night with a threat to lynch him unless he left town (Wilson v. Wilkins 1930, 181 Ark. 137, 25 S. W. 2d . 428. Cf. Ruiz v. Bertolotti (1962) 37 Misc. 2d. 1059, 291 N.Y.S. 2d. 189 (hounding Plaintiff on the streets); and in wrapping up a very gory dead rat instead of a loaf of bread, for a sensitive soul to open. (Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Roch (1930) 60 Md. 189, 153 A. 22)

In decoying a woman suspected of insanity to a hospital by a concocted tale of an injured husband and child (Savage v. Boies (1954) 77 Ariz. 355, 272 P.2d. 349); in spreading the false rumor that the Plaintiff’s son had hanged himself; (Bielitski v. Obadiak 1921, 61 Dom. L. Rep. 494);

Esther’s cases do not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities (as the rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down) but that she has been necessarily expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.

She had suffered conduct that has been so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree for so many years, it has resulted in continuing violations manifested in a number of incidents as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.

In Samms v. Eccles (1961) 11 Utah 2d. 289, 358 P. 2d. 344; Halio v. Lurie, 1961, 15 A.D. 2d. 62, 222 N.Y.S. 2d. 759 an invitation to illicit intercourse, insufficient in itself, becomes extreme outrage when it is prolonged or repeated to the point of hounding, and accompanied by advertising in the form of indecent pictures or exposure; Where a man who had jilted a woman wrote her jeering verses and taunting letters; and Tate v. Canoica, 1960, 180 Cal. App. 2d. 898, 5 Cal. Rptr. 28; Where a man was driven to suicide by threats and accusations not set forth.

It is on these basis that these tort actions have been used against Esther in the most outrageous high-pressure methods from: THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES THEREOF, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, THE PLACER COUNTY COURT, THE LASSEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, County of Lassen, Department of Community Development, THE NAPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD (herein referred to as public and private persons):

THEREIN COMPLAINED OF IN CASES U.S.C.A. 98-16415: U.S.C.A. 98-16415: U.S.C.A. 98-16672: U.S.C.A. 98-16673: U.S.C.C. 98-090819: U.S.D.C. 98-00618: U.S.D.C. CV-F-97-5994: CV-02-01704-WBS/GGH: U.S.C.A. 04-70711: 3rd. Appell. Dist: 3 Civil C028174: 3 Civil C031259: 3 Civil C046114: U.S.D.C. C-04-0618 SBA (PR); C.A. Supreme Ct. C028174: U.S.D.C. CIV-S-04-681 MCE GGH PS; Napa Superior Ct. CR26838; U.S.C.A. 03-15084; MIS-S-02-0236 WBS GGH-PS; Lassen Superior Ct. TR060989; TR059474; CR018285; TR050932; CR019489; JC36801; TR070589; TR071517; JC389326; JC38896; Placer Superior Ct. SJV2396...ET AL.

Just recently, Jackson v. Indiana, got his day in Court. The United States Supreme Court declared that Indiana’s statutory commitment procedures for accused persons bound to be mentally ill and unable to comprehend the proceedings against him violated equal protection and due process because they established a more lenient commitment standard and a more stringent release standard than those applicable to other persons civilly committed.

Also, just recently, Humphrey v. Cady, got his day in Court. The United States Supreme Court reversed a summary denial of habeas corpus and remanded for hearing a state prisoner’s claim that extension of his term of commitment on a finding that he was a dangerous sex offender violated equal protection and due process because he was not accorded trial by jury and other procedural rights given to persons civilly committed.

Can This Be Where Some Of These Obscure
Government Oversights Occur?

Day after day, the Administration of Justice has granted equal protection claims to others. Yet, Esther has still not received judicial review to the malicious, obscure government oversights originally intended in her case that has now spun out of control and is in an extremely persuasive category regarding international human right violations, violations of women’s rights, and amounting to a Bill of Attainder. Instead, her claims have become defined as “Cases of Rebellion and/or Invasion that public safety may require it…”

Finally, as a result of not having her day in California State and Federal Courts, erroneously and improperly prosecuting, and refusing to bind witnesses over in the cases Esther complains of, Esther accuses the above of maintaining a link between organized crime and high political, social, and entertainment circles alleging defamatory statements concerning gross criminality sufficient enough to persuasively amount to international human right violations, violations of women’s rights and a Bill of Attainder.

Can it be that Esther has been secretly indicted?

The U.S. Constitution. Article I: The Legislative Branch, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ Of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

REASONING:

Historically, the grand jury had been looked upon as a suitable device for protecting the weakness & unpopular from judicial harassment or politically motivated prosecutions. The purpose of the preliminary hearing was to weed out groundless or unsupported charges of grave offenses and to relieve the accused of the degradation and the expense of a criminal trial. Many an unjustifiable prosecution is stopped at that point, where the lack of probable cause is clearly disclosed.

The grand jury is supposed to function as a body of neighbors who aid the state in bringing criminals to justice while protecting the innocent from unjust accusation. However, both the grand jury and the criminal information have ceased to fulfill these original role-obligations and have been increasingly subject to incapacitating manipulation and abuse.

Indictment by grand jury affords none of the fundamental rights provided in a preliminary examination. Unless he is called as a witness, the defendant has neither the right to appear and present evidence to the grand jury nor to confront witnesses against him.

Furthermore, as indicated by the opening statement of Penal Code Section 939.7, the grand jury is “not required to hear evidence for the defendant,” and thus may reject such evidence at the very outset. Without hearing the evidence in the first place, the opportunity to determine whether evidence exists to “explain away the charge” is in effect foreclosed, virtually assuring the finding of an indictment under Penal Code Section 939.8 on the basis of “unexplained or uncontradicted” evidence.

CA law requires that there be an independent evidentiary determination of probable cause in an adversary proceeding before trial but no equivalent right is granted to an accused who is prosecuted by grand jury indictment.

Where an accused who is prosecuted by grand jury indictment is issued by the grand jury, the accused is not afforded the safeguard of an independent judicial evaluation of the evidence.

When the function of indictment is mated with the responsibility of determining the character of the evidence that supports it, and with the right to exclude all evidence which could explain or contradict, the result is not proper. In short, it is both derogatory of the jury’s basic purpose and devoid of fairness.

Thus a defendant who is subject to indictment by grand jury is denied the right to present evidence to explain or contradict the charge, has no right to appear or to have the assistance of counsel, and may not confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.

The Tangled Web We Weave

Could this be where, the driver of the white passenger van, insured by Farmers’ Insurance Group, Michael Bertotti, related to Joseph J. Bertotti, Assistant Director to the County of Lassen, Department of Community Development possibly be related to Sharon Bertotti, a member of the Lassen County grand jury who on October 25, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m, PST., was traveling along a double rural highway in the Northern California town of Susanville in Lassen County proceeding at a speed limit exceeding 65 m.p.h. who had encountered a small truck that had several bales of hay balanced in the back, slowing to a stop to make a left turn onto a very narrow overpass that went to a driveway. And, then avoiding a collision by swerving into the left lane and colliding into the front yard of the Lassen County Sheriff‘s secretary? After all, in “Cases of Rebellion and/or Invasion that public safety may require it…” Esther would not be entitled to any kind of hearing to find out why her driver‘s license was suspended!

What does that have to do with apples and oranges?

Maybe California can answer that by trying to understand their reasoning as to why drivers who owe child support have their driver’s license suspended.