SHAUN Y. STANISTREET
BARBARA JOYCE ATKINSON
P.O. Box 468
Oxnard, CA 93032-0468
(805) 247-1878
Email: parentsmadecomplaints@yahoo.com
Defendants/Appellants
Pro Se
The Court has jurisdiction to take judicial notice of the entire files in Ventura County Superior Court Case Numbers 97C010155 and 97C010156 under California Evidence Code
sections as follows:
"Evidence Code
"450. Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless
authorized or required by law.
"451. Judicial notice shall be taken of the following:
...
"(b) Any matter made a subject of judicial notice by Section
11343.6, 11344.6, or 18576 of the Government Code or by Section 1507 of Title 44 of the United States Code.
...
"(f) Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
"452. Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451:
...
...
...
"(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States
...
...
"(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.
"453. The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and:
"(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and
"(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
"454. (a) In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof:
"(1) Any source of pertinent information, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter, may be consulted or used, whether or not furnished by a party.
"455.
...
"(b) If the trial court resorts to any source of information not received in open court, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter, such information and its source shall be made a part of the record in the action and the court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity to meet such information before judicial notice of the matter may be taken.
"459. (a) The reviewing court shall take judicial notice of (1) each matter properly noticed by the trial court and (2) each matter that the trial court was required to notice under Section 451 or 453. The reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452. The reviewing court may take judicial notice of a matter in a tenor different from that noticed by the trial court.
br>
"(b) In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof, the reviewing court has the same power as the trial court under Section 454.
"(c) When taking judicial notice under this section of a matter specified in Section 452 or in subdivision (f) of Section 451 that is of substantial consequence to the determination of the action, the reviewing court shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 455 if the matter was not theretofore judicially noticed in the action.
"(d) In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter specified in Section 452 or in subdivision (f) of Section 451 that is of substantial consequence to the determination of the action, or the tenor thereof, if the reviewing court resorts to any source of information not received in open court or not included in the record of the action, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter, the reviewing court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity to meet such information before judicial notice of the matter may be taken."
The trial court received extra-judicial information in open court not made available to the appellants by the district attorney before going on the record and unconstitutionally failed to add it to the record and concealed such information to conceal its bias against the appellants.
The Court is requested to take judicial notice as set forth above and in the accompanying declarations of Shaun Y Stanistreet and Barbara Joyce Atkinson.
DATED: September 27, 2002
_______________________
Barbara Joyce Atkinson
Defendant/Appellant
Pro Se
_______________________
Shaun Y. Stanistreet
Defendant/Appellant
Pro Se
TO: DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL D. BRADBURY, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOUGLAS H. RIDLEY, DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL D. SCHWARTZ:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to the provisions of California Evidence Code sections 450, 451(b), (f), 452 (d),(e) and (g), 453(a) and (b), 454 (a)(1), 455(a) and (b), 459(a), (b), (c) and (d), and California Rules of Court, Rules 41(a) and 41.5(a) and (b) the appellants, Shaun Y Stanistreet and Barbara Joyce Atkinson, ex parte, move the Court, for judicial notice of the entire records and courts' files of Ventura County Superior Court Case Numbers 97C010155 and 97C010156, and under the provisions of Evidence Code section 455(a), the appellants further move the Court to take judicial notice of the trial court's violation of such code, as shown in the attached declaration of appellant Barbara Joyce Atkinson.
DATED: September 28, 2002
__________________________
SHAUN Y. STANISTREET
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
IN PRO SE
__________________________
BARBARA JOYCE ATKINSON
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
IN PRO SE
I, Barbara Joyce Atkinson, declare: MAILED TO CLERK 10/01/02
1. I am an appellant in the above entitled cause. The following facts are stated of my personal knowledge and if called upon I could and would competently testify to them.
2. Shaun Y Stanistreet is the co-appellant in this cause.
3. Before going on the record, the trial court made statements it could not have known about concerning problems caused for me by my ex-husband of the Central Intelligence Agency that I experienced in approximately 1973, and I was puzzled as to why and how the trial court made such remarks. Under the provisions of Evidence Code section 455(b), I understand now how the trial court knew about my previous problems, caused by my former husband of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), from many years ago and that was because the trial court had been provided with extra-judicial information by the prosecution not received in open court.
4. The trial court failed to divulge such information and its source [the district attorney] and make part of the record in the action in knowing and wilful violation of Evidence Code section 455(b), showing the appellants' trial, before it ever began, was an unfair, sham, unconstitutional proceeding with the predetermined trial court, stacked jury, perjury by all of the district attorney's witnesses and result of the appellants' erroneous convictions by the jury stacked with the district attorney's puppets and the biased trial court, which was carefully chosen by the district attorney for such result. Research right up to the last minute yielded this explanation of
why the trial court made cutting remarks to me about problems caused for me by my former husband of the CIA approximately thirty years before.
5. I am certain the two lower courts, this Court and the counsel sought to be relieved received the same extra-judicial information from the district attorney, to prejudice appellant Stanistreet and me in our substantial constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
6. The coordinated actions by the counsel, the district attorney, Gary Gillig and friends, to cover up the sexual abuse of fifty two minority juveniles, mostly underage Latina girls and the appellants' factual innocence are done by what is truly a bunch of woosy sissies, as Dr. Gott coined the phrase, preying on the lives of the victimized children and the appellants, victimized by the predators out to protect and serve themselves and further victimize the children.
7. The district attorneys's incredibly elaborate, taxpayer funded, multi-million theater piece he began with filing the false charges against the appellants, known to be false when filed, is a trick nonetheless.
8. The coverup of the police sexual abuse of fifty two children and the false prosecution of the appellants because the appellants are community activists is the most tragic circumstance that I have experienced in my lifetime.
9. Rudy Laporata, the editor/publisher of the Filipino newspaper in Oxnard and a community liaison person with the Ventura County Star newspaper, was present when, on or about July 30, 1998, after the appellants were released from being unlawfully incarcerated, I personally asked Oxnard Council member and mayor pro tem John Zaragoza, Did you know before our trial that parents made complaints?"
10. Council member Zaragoza replied with truth, "Yes." That is because the Oxnard City Attorney, Gary Gillig, and the police had fully briefed Council about the indecent exposer.
Therefore, Council member Zaragoza, et al, are still failing to disclose what they have the duty to disclose, the appellants' factual innocence.
11. As shown in the record on appeal, Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley told Superior Court Judge Herbert Curtis in open court, "Our investigation has shown that the information my client [appellant Atkinson] gave the police was not false."
12. Deputy District Attorney Ridley filed a declaration in this matter stating another untruth: that Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley never made her statement about the truth of the appellants' information to the police about the indecent exposer, showing he is part of the problem in Ventura County of unlawfully concealing the appellants' factual innocence.
13. Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, Stephen Z. Perren showed his bias against the victimized children at argument on July 12, 2000, when, after Justice Yegan stated, "Parents made complaints," Justice Perren stated, "I confess I am biased in favor of PAL (the Oxnard Police Activities League) because they do good things for kids." But, PAL was where the indecent exposure was committed and the indecent exposer was then the director of PAL.
14. The district attorney's, the Oxnard police's, et al's xenophobic tendencies cause them to walk around with a lot of dark fears, which they don't discuss directly, but instead they disguise their fears by passing on frightening rumors to others.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on September 28, 2002 at Oxnard, California.
____________________
Barbara Joyce Atkinson
Defendant/Appellant
Pro Se
SHAUN Y. STANISTREET
BARBARA JOYCE ATKINSON
P.O. Box 468
Oxnard, CA 93032-0468
(805) 247-1878
Fax: (775) 898-6039
Email: parentsmadecomplaints@yahoo.com
Defendants-Appellants
Pro Se
Defendants-appellants' counsel, for appellant Stanistreet, Andrew M. Wolf, Esq.; for both appellants, Conflict Defense Associates, Inc., Daniel P. Tokaji, Esq., Mark Rosenbaum, Esq., the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, Alan Schlosser, Esq. and the American Civil
___________________
Chief Justice
