arrow left
arrow right
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
  • Cheney, Robert L, Jr.  vs. Hannah, Michael(23) Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD document preview
						
                                

Preview

t Robert L. Cheney Jr. In Propria Persona, Sui Juris rs Superior uperior Court Court ofof California California F 5512 Pentz Road County of Butte Paradise, California [95969] L FEB 23 2018 L Tel. 530-327-9194 E D By SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE February Term, 2018 10 CASE NO, 17¢v01304 Robert L. Cheney Jr., 1i MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 Plaintiff, FILE ON DEMAND [28 U.S.C. § 1651 ‘All Writs Act’; 13 vs. Local Rule 7-17; Rule 35, USC] 14 MICHAEL HANNAH [Article VI, Sec. 4, Const. Calif 1849] Defendant, [CCP §§ 1008, 1094.5, 1094.6 et seq. 15 [CRC 985, 8.108 GC § 68511.3(a)(1)] 16 Date: March 16" 2018 Time: 1:30PM 17 TO THE HEARING OFFICER GARY G. GIBSON, ET AL, IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR 18 COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE AND TO ITS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, AND TO ALL RESPONDENT'S AND THEIR ATTORNEYS IN THIS: MATTER, AND TO HIS OR HER ro REPRESENTATIVES; GREETINGS: 19 FALL L PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on inder exigent circumstances at the 20 hour of 1:30PM or as soon thereafter as the matter ma ‘may be-hoard IMMEDIATELY in. the courtroom of Department of the above-entitled court, the defendant will move for a 21 formal MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION regarding this courts denial of the trustee and beneficiary rights secured by the trust instrument GREGORY PAUL EINHORN by this court of 22 record. This motion will be made on the statutory grounds that your petitioner Robert L. Cheney Jr., seeks to have RECONSIDERATION on his DISMISSAL OF VERIFIED 23 COMPLAINT in this matter, as guaranteed and secured by the Constitution of California Article |, section 8 “due process of law” as well as by the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth 24 Amendments to the United States Constitution which impinge on the presumption of innocence and redress of grievance for your petitioner and appellant to defend his substantive rights at 25 law. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 1 of 2 2 Y 3 1 The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the memorandum of points and authorities served, and supporting declarations and affidavits, and filed herewith, on the records on file in this action, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the motion. Comes now, the damaged and aggrieved party in this matter, Robert L. Cheney Jr., who comes before Almighty God and the above mentioned judicial powers tribunal, AND WHO HEREBY DIRECTS THIS SOLEMN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE ALLEGED ‘JUDGMENT’: within the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE in case number 17CV01304 Your appellant and petitioners Robert L. Cheney Jr. hereby invokes true law and thereby deposes and says and proffer’s the following 10 facts and evidence in solemn support of said motion... ll DATED: January 30, 2018 12 13 14 Robert Lirfdsay? heney Jr.—At Law 5512 Pentz Road 15 Paradise, California [95969] Tel. 530-327-9194 16 17 ALTER. To make a change in ; to modify; to vary in some degree; to change some of the elements or ingredients or details without substituting an entirely new thing or destroying the identity of the thing 18 affected. Hannibal v. Winchell. 54 Mo. 177; Haynes v. State, 15 Ohio St. 455; Davis v. Campbell, 93 fowa, 524, 61 N. W. 1053; Sessions v. State, 115 Ga. 18, 41 S. B. 259. See ALTERATION. 19 Synonyms. This term is to be distinguished from its synonyms "change" and "amend." To change may 20 import the substitution of an entirely different thing, while to alter is to operate upon a subject-matter which continues objectively the same while modified in some particular. If a check is raised, in respect 21 to its amount, it is altered; if a new check is put in its place, it is changed. To "amend" implies that the modification made in the subject improves it, which is not necessarily the case with an alteration. An 22 amendment always involves an alteration, but an alteration does not always amend.’ 23 24 1 Cited from Black's Law Dictionary, 2d ed., by West’s Publishing Co., St. Paul, 25 Minn. p. 62. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 2 of 3 1 AMEND. To improve; to make better by change or modification. See ALTER? CCP § 1008: (a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are 10 claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion 11 (c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it 12 to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order. 13 (d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as 14 allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in 15 which the action or proceeding is pending. 16 (e) This section specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all 17 applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No 18 application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section. 19 20 (f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted statute without a retroactive application. 21 (g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not 22 separately appealable. However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable 23 as part of an appeal from that order. 24 (h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders. 25 ? Id. p. 65. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 3 of 3 I NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES JURISDICTION 1.) 1, am in fact, Robert L. Cheney Jr., a free white American male adult of the age of Majority, a California state Citizen, a PRIVATE human being not embarrassed by the Fourteenth Amendment, who is a free man, sui juris, not beholding to anyone, who was in the County of Butte within the State of California for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, and thereby come under this courts original JUDICIAL POWERS and 10 jurisdiction. il 2) That the PLAINTIFF Robert L. Cheney Jr. due to MANIFEST ERROR of the court- 12 brings this DEMAND FOR RECONSIDERATION on Plaintiffs VERIFIED 13 COMPLAINT—which was never concomitantly Verified nor ANSWERED by Defendant. 14 3.) Your Petitioner, the greatly aggrieved and damaged party in this matter Robert L. 15 Cheney Jr., incorporates the complete record, documents, pleadings and motions 16 (either accepted or denied by the clerk of the court) as though fully set forth herein, in 17 their entirety. 18 19 4.) That it is most likely that this court is MANIFESTLY CORRUPT — and is protecting 20 CRIMINALS [MICHAEL HANNAH] only due to his STATUS as a STATE ACTOR. 21 5.) That it is a FACT, that on November 19, 2013, without provocation, and while your 22 Plaintiff (having being directed to “leave the court” by the Court guards), actually left the 23 court, both HANNAH and others ambushed your Plaintiff while he was leaving the 24 court—without provocation, and BEAT, and TORTURED him in direct violation to their 25 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 4 of 4 OATH OF OFFICE and their PUBLIC BONDING in direct violation of law, and greatly and permanently injured him in direct violation of law. 6.) Your Plaintiff Robert L. Cheney Jr. has shown DUE DILIGENCE and prosecuted this matter by way of VERIFIED COMPLAINT, of which both Defendant MICHAEL HANNAH and his surrogate court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE in case number 17CV01304 PROACTIVELY protected the criminal MICHAEL HANNAH, due only to the fact, that he was a government employee of the COUNTY OF BUTTE. 10 7) During that suit, a person named GARY G. GIBSON allowed the criminal MICHAEL 11 HANNAH to escape justice and the DAMAGES and INJURIES he caused me, and 12 dismissed a VALID VERIFIED COMPLAINT without cause, thereby OBSTRUCTING 13 JUSTICE and DENYING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 14 8.) All Defendant's and their surrogate courts—did this in a R.I.C.O. Conspiracy of which is 15 prohibited by the CONSENT DECREE that is now in place against the COUNTY OF 16 BUTTE and its courts—to prevent the CLEAR CULTURE OF VIOLENCE which exists 17 there. 18 9.) No waiver of rights or Claims were given by Robert L. Cheney Jr. in this matter. 19 10.) Also: that these crimes were violently committed by Defendants’ during a solemn WRIT 20 OF HABEAS CORPUS proceeding, a further violation of PC §§ 1505 and 362, of which 21 22 ALL Defendants’ were under Citizen's Arrest for See: Johnson v. MacCoy, 238 F.3d 37. 23 11.) That your Plaintiff, was FALSELY ARRESTED and IMPRISONED and has shown DUE 24 DILIGENCE throughout the years—which have been proactively OBSTRUCTED and 25 FRUSTRATED by the court, AS AN ONGOING CRIME SYNDICALISM to prevent my MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 5 of 5 5 case from coming before this court and for Plaintiff to be paid and for justice to ISSUE in 2 this matter. 12.)As COUNTERSUIT is now necessary in this matter (which aforesaid 137 page VERIFIED COMPLAINT was served previously upon all parties to this matter), and which, when brought before TRIAL BY JURY, of Defendants’ peers, that Robert L. Cheney Jr. shall prevail on the merits on this matter. 13.) Defendant did not concomitantly VERIFY any of his documents on the VERIFIED COMPLAINT submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff bitterly opposed this fact, and spoke about 10 it often both in court—and on pleading—which was unlawfully ignored by GARY G. 11 GIBSON. 12 14.) Your Plaintiff brings this motion in good faith, with no bad faith against any party. 13 15.) Your Plaintiff also has given solemn NOTICE OF APPEAL. 14 16.) No “ORDER” has been submitted to Plaintiff on the unlawful dismissal of a valid claim 15 and VERIFIED COMPLAINT. 16 17.) As this matter is so grossly outside the normal forms of trial, | am doubtful as to the 17 VERITY and BONA FIDES of GARY G. GIBSON, whom holds himself out to be a 18 “Judge”. 19 18.) That concomitant to this document, | am filing a demand for BONA FIDES under 20 UCC3501 against GARY G. GIBSON, whom holds himself out to be a judge. 21 22 19.) In accordance with law, | demand correct RECONSIDERATION of the errant and 23 unlawful dismissal of my case, and if my claim is not adjudicated correctly and brought 24 before TRIAL BY JURY, then GARY G. GIBSON agrees and stipulates to surrender his 25 bond and agrees that the surety shall also stipulate to discharge this matter in the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 6 of 6 amount of the CLAIM asked for within the VERIFIED COMPLAINT on both his oath and bond. 20.) That the DEFENDANT is eminently guilty, and has accepted that by and through his insufficient and unverified DEMURRER, which accepts both the FACTS and LAW within Plaintiffs VERIFIED COMPLAINT. 21.) Also: within your Plaintiffs VERIFIED COMPLAINT, has fully apprised the DEFENDANT(S), of both the LAW and FACTS of this matter, and they have conceded them as being TRUE. 10 22.) That your Plaintiff, the aggrieved and greatly damaged party in this matter, has given 11 unrebutted FULL DISCLOSURE of this matter in a time certain, date certain, place 12 certain and damage certain format which he has not rebutted and instead, has 13 acknowledged his guilt. 14 23.) That correct RECONSIDERATION must be made by GARY G. GIBSON in order to 15 insure correct determination on his unlawful dismissal. If he does not correctly 16 determine this matter to adjudicate for TRIAL BY JURY to hold the CRIMINAL up to 17 face justice—then, GARY G. GIBSON accepts FULL LIABILITY on his incorrect and 18 unlawful determination on this case, to force Plaintiff to lose his day in court by TRIAL 19 BY JURY. 20 24.) Defendant will not survive adjudication by way of unbiased TRIAL BY JURY, and 2i 22 everyone knows that if he is judged by a JURY OF HIS PEERS, he will suffer the 23 determination of GUILT, and damages will be awarded by the JURY in excess of the 24 amount claimed in Plaintiffs NOTICE OF CLAIM. 25 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 7 of 7 i 1 25.) That also: this case deals with a matter of GREAT PUBLIC CONCERN, and that is— that our PUBLIC SERVANTS are beating and torturing the greater public, without cause, and that there is an ONGOING ‘CULTURE OF VIOLENCE’ that is both injuring, torturing, and killing the public. GARY G. GIBSON and ALL the “judicial officer's” within the COUNTY OF BUTTE and STATE OF CALIFORNIA have agreed and AIDED in their COMPLICITY with unlawful VIOLENCE and DAMAGES of unrepentant violence in direct violation of law, and also the “SAFE HARBOR RULE” precluding such actions by SHERIFF'S or COURT GUARDS. 10 26.) Therefore: surrender of GARY G. GIBSON BOND is required to dispense justice on 11 RECONSIDERATION of this matter. This case has delineated itself to PROPER 12 RECONSIDERATION, or; in the alternative GARY G. GIBSON volunteers to 13 SURRENDURE HIS PUBLIC BOND in accordance with “An Act Conceming the Official 14 Bonds of Officers.” The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and 15 Assembly do enact as follows—& etce., Approved February 28, 1850—to cover the 16 damages accorded to me by the Defendant(s). 17 27.) 18 19 28.)That this motion is to be read in the light most favorable to your petitioner Robert L. 20 Cheney Jr., who has been denied by scam of attaining his day in court. 21 29.) It is a fact, that we are the proper party to bring forwards this MOTION FOR 22 RECONSIDERATION ON Robert L. Cheney Jr. 23 a.) That said motion is not frivolous; 24 b.) That is an in propria persona in .this matter, and is of a proper status to bring this motion into this court; 25 c.) That the alleged Defendant Robert L. Cheney Jr. is of a proper legal status to adjudicate and defend his natural born, common faw and constitutional rights in this matter. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 8 of 8 KL d.) That this motion is entered into this court in a timely manner; e.) That this writ is necessary to make more definite and certain and to protect the tights of the PLAINTIFF of which both GARY G. GIBSON and the DEFENDANT(S) refuse to do. f) That it is brought forwards under good faith with no bad faith intended to any party; g.) That this motion is brought to factually bring to this courts attention extreme errors of law and fact committed by the court and opposing parties and their attorney. h.) That the Plaintiff has been illegally arrested without warrant; and, i) That the Plaintiff has been unlawfully imprisoned; and, i) That the Plaintiff was violently denied Writ of Habeas Corpus remedy, on November 19, 2013. k) That the Plaintiff has suffered GREAT DAMAGES AND INJURIES of which Defendants are cowardly and refuse to pay or acknowledge, in direct violation to their oath of office and the concise rule of law. 10 \) That each and ALL of Defendants’ and their surrogate court believe themselves to be above the rule of law. 1 30.)Therefore, | come before this courts common law judicial powers, as conferred by 12 Article |, Section 1 and 8 et seq. under the Constitution of California 1849 and under 13 Amendment the Fifth, “DUE PROCESS OF LAW” and rights to life, liberty and property; 14 under the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791 and under the Constitution of 15 16 California Article |, Section 1 and 8 SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW solemn 17 authority.® 18 31.)The SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF 19 BUTTE and all its officers thereto; is the above stated tribunal under the venue and 20 jurisdiction upon the Landmass of the State of California incorporated thereof by the 21 22 3 See also: California Civil Code § 22.2, to wit: 23 California Civil Code Section 22.2: "Common law of England; rule of 24 decision. The common law of Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State." 25 4 Which is in fact, a judicial powers court gaining its lawful authority under Article III to the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 9 of 9 S ~ a Constitution of California 1849 and boundaries declared, and thereby, all of its “Officers’ of the Court” were present for all acts and/or omissions in this matter and come under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 32.) The SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE under its presiding justice GARY G. GIBSON et al, were acting in both their personal and individual as well as professional capacities in this mater and comes under the territory incorporated administrative jurisdiction, and thereby, was present within the County of Butte for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and 10 thereby comes under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 11 33.) The COUNTY OF BUTTE, is the incorporated government entity in this matter, a 12 incorporated subdivision of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, was acting within its personal 13 and professional capacities in this matter, and was present within the County of Butte 14 for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and thereby comes 15 under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 16 34.)The COUNTY OF BUTTE, District Attorney MICHAEL L. RAMSEY, was acting in both 17 his personal and professional capacities in this matter, and was present within the 18 County of Butte for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and 19 thereby comes under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 20 35.) The CRIMINAL and contemnor MICHAEL HANNAH was acting in both its personal 21 and professional capacities in this matter, and was present within the County of Butte 22 23 for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and thereby comes 24 under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 25 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 10 of 10 a 36.) That the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA was acting in both its personal and professional capacities in this matter, and was present within the County of Butte for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts lawful jurisdiction. 37.) That the alleged contemnor BRUCE SHELDON ALPERT attorney to the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA was acting in both his personal and professional capacities in this matter, and was present within the County of Butte for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, was a resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts 10 lawful jurisdiction. 11 38.)All parties to this matter have had formally filed upon them by lawful third party service 12 to them, a lawful Proof of Service of this document. 13 39.)Your petitioner, the accused and greatly aggrieved party in this matter, submits this 14 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION in good faith, with no bad faith against any party 15 and not to frustrate or delay the ends of justice in this matter. 16 17 STATEMENT OF FACTS 18 40.) Your petitioner hereby incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, the 19 complete record of this matter already filed in the instant case SCR96290 and 20 4170V01304:5 21 41.) That neither your Petitioner/Defendant Robert L. Cheney Jr. has had his day in court 22 and demands LAWFUL RECONSIDERATION of the ‘decision’ by GARY G. GIBSON to 23 unlawfully dismiss a valid case. 24 25 5 "In a legal effect, a complaint if “filed” when it is presented to the clerk for filing, in the form required by state law. Carison vy. State of California Department of Fish and Game (1998) 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 68 Cal.App. 4th 1268 (App.2 Dist.) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 11 of 11 NS oO5 1 42.) Your petitioners want it judicially noted and placed on the record, that they have a STANDING OBJECTION to the proceedings which led to the court order and/or false warrant & efc. supposedly issued by GARY G. GIBSON. 43.) That it is a fact, that neither MICHAEL HANNAH nor this court, has acted in consonance with this matter has OBEYED the SETTLEMENT repeatedly submitted in this matter, by Robert L. Cheney Jr. within his duly presented NOTICE OF CLAIM. 44.) It is a fact, that the above mentioned judicial powers court has a substantive duty owed to Robert L. Cheney Jr. in the normal operations of law and proceedings to remit to HIM 10 (not Defendants’) substantive justice and substantive due process of law in this matter 11 to uphold substantial justice in this matter. Whereas, by these presents, timely NOTICE 12 OF INTENT TO APPEAL is herein given: 13 California courts have held that the right of appeal is guaranteed by the California Constitution, is as sacred as the right to trial by jury, and is one of the means 14 provided by law to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Smith v. McCallum (1918) 36 CA 143, 147, 172 P. 408, 409. California affords defendants 15 in criminal matters the full scope of this right of appeal. See, e.g., People v. Medina (1972) 6 C3d 484, 99 CR 630. The purpose of appeal is to ensure 16 that justice will be done in each case, thereby protecting every individual's onstitutional right to ordered liberty. See /n re Sterling, (1965) 63 C.2d 486, 17 47 CR 205. 18 § 1.20 Purposes of Appeal. 19 Review on appeal serves a number of purposes. Most important to the appellant, it ensures that justice is.done by correcting possible trial court 20 mistakes. Second, the prospect of review discourages error and unfairness. See People v. Bolton (1979) 23 C.3d 208, 215 n5, 152 CR 141, 147 nd. 21 Appellate review can also correct material errors in the case due to haste, unfairness, mistake of law or fact, prejudice, or lack of adjudicative ability on the 22 part of the lower court. This corrective aspect also has a preventive purpose.® 23 24 25 ° California Criminal Law Practice Series, 1982, Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases, Authors, Dennis A. Fischer, Russell !. Lynn, Supervising Editor, Anne Harris, CEB Attorney, Editor, John Bishop. California Continuing Education of the Bar, Berkeley, California, Lib. Congress Cat. Card No. 82-71773, p. 33 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 12 of 12 Ne a 45.) Further—as TRUSTEES Robert L. Cheney Jr. are in fact, in Propria persona,’ they are to receive liberal construction of law in these submitted pleadings and effects in this matter, by operation of law: Pro Se/In Propria Persona (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594; Picking v. Penna. Rwy. Co., 151 F.2d 240; Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 US 411, 421 (1969). il THIS COURT IS DUTY BOUND TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH COME BEFORE IT. 46.) That it is a fact, that California Penal Code directs both this court and the lower 10 superior court to answer ALL legal questions which are properly placed before it. 11 PC § 1124: Law Questions for court: “COURT TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF 12 LAW ARISING DURING TRIAL. The court must decide all questions of law which arise in the course of a trial.” 13 14 47.) That by and through due diligence, your petitioners, have found a new controlling issue 15 of law that was not presented during these proceedings, as these facts were unknown 16 to your appellants at that time. They have now become known and in good faith, with 17 no bad faith against any party: your petitioners propound the following items in order to 18 do substantive justice in this matter. 19 48.) That it is a fact, that both overt FRAUD and SELF-DEALINGS were implemented by 20 the alleged PLAINTIFFS’ “PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’ et als in 21 underlying case numbers CM037146 and SCR96290. 22 23 24 7 That it is a fact, that petitioners’ original attorney XXXX, did not enact the terms and conditions of THOMAS SMITH COURT ORDER as was required by law. By 25 necessity, petitioners’ have assumed in propria persona status to protect both their property and their substantive due process rights, and to aid this court in its equitable jurisdiction. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 13 of 13 . Iv MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 49.) Robert L. Cheney Jr. is of a legal status and a proper party to bring this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 50.) Please judicially note and place on the record: The general standard of review for a motion for reconsideration provides that a motion for reconsideration should not be made merely because a party is dissatisfied with the court's decision. D’‘Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. [392,] 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). Rather a party is entitled to reconsideration where the court's decision has a "palpably incorrect or irrational" basis or “it is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." Ibid. "[A] litigant must initially demonstrate that the Court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable 10 manner, before the Court should engage in the actual reconsideration process." Smith v. Smith, Docket No. A-4223-11T1, (2013, NJ Superior Court, App. Div.) 11 51.) That it is a fact, that the former Motion filed on November 18, 2013, was never 1 considered, and as Defendant has a reasonable expectation, that all questions of law 13 14 must be answered by the court, and has this court has forced upon me the court 15 appointed attorney BRUCE SHELDON ALPERT and Defendant MICHAEL HANNAH, 16 then it properly devolves upon this attorney to submit the tendered motion before this 17 court for proper disposition. 18 52.) Both criminal and civil in propria persona litigants have traditionally been granted broad 19 tights of reconsideration, and as the former acts and/or omissions of this court were 20 “palpably incorrect and irrational” under PC § 1124 that the court answer “all questions 21 of law,” that RECONSIDERATION is fair, reasonable and just. 22 Reconsideration is proper if a party can point to controlling law or facts that the 23 Court overlooked, which might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusions it reached. Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). 24 [The court fully knows that your Plaintiff Robert L. Cheney Jr. WAS GUILTY OF NO 25 ‘CRIME’ OR ACT AND/OR OMISSION in this matter, and that DEFENDANT MICHAEL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 14 of 14 we a HANNAH ef a/ were acting in excess of, and in violation of their “OFFICE” as Sheriff Deputies and in excess of and in violation of their lawful jurisdiction, and/or COURT GUARDS when beating and torturing Plaintiff in open court for prosecuting a lawful WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Each Defendant did so, fully knowing and had being told earlier—that the several courts within BUTTE COUNTY would protect them from any and all crimes they commit within the COURT. GARY G. GIBSON DID EXACTLY that by unlawfully dismissing PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT by unverified DEMURRER in direct violation of law, and Plaintiff's Rights.] 8 53.) COMES NOW Robert L. Cheney Jr. PLAINTIFF to the above-entitled cause of action, (your petitioner in the above entitled case), a state Citizen of California, to petition this 10 honorable Court for review and reconsideration of the ACT and/or OMISSION regarding 11 this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION within the November 19, 2013 ‘superior court’ 12 hearing, and which the Plaintiff's TRIAL BY JURY was respectively and duly presented 13 to the person of that superior court GARY G. GIBSON, and to provide formal Notice to 14 all interested Party(s) of same. See REMEDY REQUESTED by Prayer for Relief infra 15 16 within his VERIFIED COMPLAINT. 17 54.) Robert L. Cheney Jr. demands by way of RECONSIDERATION that this court correct 18 the decision of the superior court and to enforce the law as it is written under the 19 Constitution of California 1849, Article |, Section 5: 20 We have used our reconsideration authority under S.Ct.Prac.R. XI to “ ‘correct decisions which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error.’ ” 21 Buckeye Community Hope Found. v. Cuyahoga Falls (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 539, 541, 697 N.E.2d 181, quoting State ex_rel_ Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village 22 Council (1995), 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339. 23 55.) The issues framed for this reconsideration is well framed, and undisputable: your 24 petitioner and Plaintiff has an unalienable right to file his pleading by right on its merits 25 and to have them actually heard and adjudicated, and there is no delegation of authority MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 15 of 15 d s or discretion attained by any officer of the above-entitled court which may refuse, or disallow my substantive and perfect right® to file my MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION or TRIAL BY JURY into the above-entitled lower court superior court; which was then supported by AFFIDAVIT of Robert L. Cheney Jr. entered into the California superior court case numbers CM037146, SCR96290, and 17CV01304, and which were lawfully served before this court of which | now make formal application once again by way of RECONSIDERATION on the merits. Rules of Practice. “A motion for reconsideration shall be confined strictly to the grounds urged for reconsideration [and] shall not constitute a re-argument of the case ***.” S.Ct.Prac.R. XI (2)(A). 10 11 56.) It must also be mentioned that, alternatively, certification for appellate review is 12 appropriate in this matter, as to avoid a substantive waste of judicial resources to deny 13 my rights to a full, impartial and fair consideration of my pleadings which | must, as a 14 matter of law, be able to file into the above mentioned court unfettered from restrictions. 15 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for interlocutory 16 review if it finds that the order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is 17 substantial difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may 18 materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. S 1292(b). Your 19 petitioner submits that both statutory elements clearly are present here. 20 57.) | have a substantive right to file motions and pleadings on my behalf into the above 21 mentioned courts in support of my VERIFIED COMPLAINT. as it was a offense 22 available to protect my natural born, common law, and constitutional right to the 23 24 25 ® My right to file within the courts "is mandatory, and not discretionary." (See: City of Merced v. County of Merced (1966) 240 Cal. App.2d 763, 766.) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 16 of 16 a unlawful acts and/or omissions being committed by Respondent MICHAEL HANNAH and BRUCE SHELDON ALPERT et al: The United States Constitution and Georgia law guarantees an absolute right to present a defense. U.S. Const., Amends. VI and XIV. Crane v. Kentucky, 476 US 683, 690 (1986)(criminal defendants guaranteed meaningful opportunity to present complete defense"); Smith v. State, 263 Ga. 782 (1994). This guarantee includes the right to confront all witnesses. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 US 284, 294 (1973)(confrontation and cross-examine is essential to due process). Cross-examination "is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation, and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process." /d. at 295; see, Feretta v. California, 422 US 806 (1975); Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606 (1987). In Georgia, the right to a "thorough and sifting cross-examination" is also expressly guaranteed by statute. OCGA § 24-9-64. 10 In Davis v. Alaska, 415 US 308 (1974), the Supreme Court held that for cross- examination to be constitutionally effective, a defendant must be permitted to ll expose facts from which the trier of fact, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of witnesses. Denial of that opportunity is a 12 “constitutional error of the first magnitude [that] no amount of showing of want of prejudice [could] cure" and requires reversal. /d, 415 US at 318, citing Smith v. 13 Illinois, 390 US 129 (1968). 14 58.) That my right to be heard is my access to the court,? and my access to this court must 15 have fair and just determinations WHICH THIS COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER 16 WHICH GIVES RISE TO THIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (REMAND) 17 AUTHORITY SO THAT I MAY PROSECUTE MY VERIFIED COMPLAINT: 18 Due process of law depends upon assurances that a level playing field exists between rival adversaries pitted against each other.429 FN 429 C.f.: Hayes v. 19 Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 70 (1887) (recognizing that impartiality in criminal cases requires that "[b]etween [the accused] and the state the scales are to be evenly 20 held"); Unites States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297, 1314 (10th Cir. 1999) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (speaking of "the policy of ensuring a level playing field between the 21 government and defendant in a criminal case"). 22 See also: 23 “[To] perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." (In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L.Ed. 942, 946, 75 24 S.Ct. 623]; see also Dennis v. United States (1950) 339 U.S. 162, 182 [94 L.Ed. 25 ° "There is a constitutional and customary presumption of openness in all judicial proceedings." A.B.C. v. XYZ Corp., 282 N.J.Super. 494, 499 (App.Div. 1995). MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 17 of 17 7 » 734, 747, 70 S.Ct. 519] (dis. opn. of Frankfurter, J.).) People v. Williams, 29 Cal. 3d 392, 628 P.2d 869, 174 Cal. Rptr. 317 (Cal. 06/01/1981) 59.) That the court in constantly interrupting me, talking over me, and steam-rolling over my tights, is not a fair hearing. FAIR HEARING: “One in which authority is fairly exercised; that is, consistently with the fundamental principals of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law. Contemplated in a fair hearing is the RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, to cross examine, AND TO HAVE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. See e.g. APA, 5 U.S. C.A. § 556 [BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition, pg. 597) 60.) WHEREAS, for good and substantive cause shown, that your Petitioner and the alleged Plaintiff, Robert L. Cheney Jr. demands that my substantive RIGHT to TRIAL BY JURY 10 go forward and be heard: 11 a.) Immediately calendaring as soon as practicable (approximately two weeks) a 12 formal hearing to hear this MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION on CASE 13 14 DISMISSAL OF VERIFIED COMPLAINT. 15 b.) That full PROSECUTION of the criminal Defendant MICHAEL HANNAH go 16 forwards by complete TRIAL BY JURY, 17 c.) That my VERIFIED COMPLAINT has and does inform each and ALL 18 Defendants of all acts and/or omissions committed by ALL OF THEM, & etc. 19 d.) That this court recognize that this matter is of GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST 20 AND THAT THERE IS A CABAL OF CORRUPTION AND INEQUITY THAT 21 DOES NOT WANT THIS MATTER TO GO TO TRIAL FOR CORRUPT AND 22 UNLAWFUL REASONS. 23 61.) That continued unlawful restraint of Robert L. Cheney Jr. liberty, shall be an 24 irreparable harm and damage to the success of he properly and law