Affectation of Adjudication

Introduction

Affectation of Adjudication is a new type of crime.

It is a species of fraud whereby officers of the court work in concert of action to present an artificial judicial hearing before the court, then afterwards conceal that hearing by recording a fabrication into the official record which falsely shows the otherwise unfeasible outcome desired by those officers.

Affectation of Adjudication is unprecedented in American law, until now.

About This Website

The purpose of this website is to provide a convenient and easy-to-use platform to present the details of the allegations raised in the formal criminal complaint filed April 19, 2015, with the United States Department of Justice / Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The information provided will show the merit of the allegations by presenting a series of events, combined with supporting documentation and applicable federal and California criminal statutes, to establish that over forty separate criminal acts proscribed under federal and California state law were perpetrated by named officers operating within Fresno County and that amongst those crimes are criminal acts that will meet the definition of Affectation of Adjudication.

Affectation of Adjudication - Definitions

Affectation, noun

  1. false display
  2. artificial show [source: wiktionary.org]

Adjudication, noun

  1. the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved [source: wikipedia.org]

Affectation of Adjudication as a Concept

“Affectation of Adjudication” is a phrase that best describes a particular type of fraud on the court, wherein officers of the court work in concert of action to exhibit a simulated judicial hearing in an attempt to falsely convince a party present that a legal issue is being properly adjudicated before a lawful court, while in actuality the proceeding witnessed by the party has no effect and is not recorded into the official record. Instead, a total fabrication is entered into the record that shows the otherwise unfeasible outcome desired by the officers, which affects the rights and obligations of the party to the action.

Affectation of Adjudication as a Criminal Act

Affectation of Adjudication is not a codified criminal act. However, the individual acts necessary to perpetrate such a scheme are, and would be prosecutable under state and federal law, including 18 USC 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights and 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

Affectation of Adjudication as a Factual Event

Affectation of Adjudication, as described, is unprecedented in the history of American law. There is no case on record in which court officials have been charged with a series of crimes that would rise to meeting the definition of Affectation of Adjudication. This does not, however, mean such a case does not exist. There is one case I am aware of: It is this case. It is what happened to me.

(If you wish to immediately view evidence supporting affectation of adjudication, navigate to Proving Affectation of Adjudication)

Chronology of Cause of Action

The complete facts of this case are complex and the overall documentation is voluminous. Disseminating this amount of information or examining all of the issues involved is beyond this presentation’s aim of a simplified examination of the crimes alleged. Toward this purpose, a chronological graph and explanatory text has been prepared to exhibit the time-line of the events that facilitated those crimes.

The chronological graph below and the explanatory text show what can best be described as a “bait and switch” tactic used by the County of Fresno.

The “bait” in this instance was case #277340-6; a case that only required reimbursement of AFDC funds paid out by the County of Fresno. An agreement was reached with the District Attorney’s office on 5-01-91 to reimburse the county by voluntary payments.

The “switch” happened when the County of Fresno began diverting those payments without notice toward the wholly separate case #375290-4, which contained a default installment judgment assigned to the county, which represented a significant increase in my financial obligation to the county. I discovered case #375290-4 only after payments had been diverted into that account without notice for over two years.

Upon discovery, I filed a motion for the court to order blood tests and to set-aside the default installment judgment in case #375290-4. Hearings were held on the dates shown below:

The judgments in both cases have been satisfied, but it is the manner in which the District Attorney’s office manipulated those cases that gives rise to the cause of action in the criminal case focused on in this presentation.

Statutes of Limitation

The chronological graph above shows that the events focused on fall within the time frame of 1991 through 1994. The first question and concern is regarding applicable California and federal statutes of limitations barring the prosecution of individuals for any crimes alleged. In answer to this concern is a series of events surrounding the 5-12-94 hearing held in the Fresno County Superior Court for case #375290-4.

These events are also integral components in the total presentation of facts to support an allegation of Affectation of Adjudication.

* * *

As recorded in the Register of Actions, a supplemental declaration (rejoinder) was timely filed prior to the 5-12-94 hearing. The rejoinder showed, by use of documentary evidence and reasoning, that the Fresno County District Attorney’s office had effectively concealed the existence of case #375290-4 until the discovery of judgement liens placed against my real property without notice in August of 1993. This was statutory grounds to set-aside the default judgment since discovery was in August of 1993 and the motion to set0aside was filed in March of 1994, the motion was permissible under Cal Fam Code 2122(a).

Upon filing, I had the Fresno County Clerk’s office file-stamp four copies of the rejoinder; one for the clerk’s office, one which was served at the district attorney’s office, and two which I held for myself.

In the course of the 5-12-94 hearing, both judge and district attorney claimed absence and ignorance of the rejoinder in their respective files. I then proffered the two file-stamped copies of the rejoinder that I held, which upon inspection were admitted before an open court.

Upon this turn of events, the district attorney capitulated to the motion to set-aside the default judgment and requested a continuance in order to notify a necessary third party to the action to set-aside the judgment. I agreed on those grounds and requested the court to return the file-stamped copies of the rejoinder I had proffered, stating to the court that they were my only copies. The court agreed and requested a moment for copies to be made for the district attorney’s and the court's files.

What transpired next is the crux of the statute of limitation issue:

I was arrested at bar for a supposed bench warrant from a disposed traffic case. The warrant was for failure to appear for a probation hearing. I was handcuffed, transported to the Fresno County Jail, booked, strip-searched, dressed in jail attire and put into general population. Within the following hour, a judge ordered my immediate release after being informed of my arrest by the attorney who had represented me in that traffic case.

I accessed the Fresno County Clerk's Office to examine the record of the supposed bench warrant issued for my arrest. What I found was the case docket, which showed on its face a poorly cut & pasted warrant, with no further record of the final disposition of the case.

[Note: In my possession is documentation showing the final disposition of this traffic case, which dates after the warrant was supposedly issued]

The authenticity of this warrant comes under immediate suspicion, since:

  • If it were genuine, I would have been held in custody until I could stand before the court to answer for the criminal charge of failure to appear.
  • If it were genuine, when I was arrested and booked for failure to appear, my immediate release from jail would not have been ordered by a judge.
  • If it were genuine, the warrant would have stalled the case from moving forward to its final disposition.

Reason dictates that the warrant is a corruption of the official record and a forgery, as the case could not have progressed to the final decision of the court with a valid warrant for arrest on the face of the docket. Logic dictates the warrant was not present when the final judgment of the court was handed down. What follows is the necessary inference that the warrant is a fabrication pasted over the record of the final judgement of the court after the fact.

This reasoning stands alone without forensically examining the poor quality of the forgery and satisfies the definition of the criminal act of Corruption of Records; Forgery as defined in California Penal Code 470(c).

Since the warrant is now shown to be a forgery, this means the arrest itself was not simply a false arrest, but rather, an arrest under pretense or color of law; a criminal act defined in California Penal Code 146(a).

Therefore, the act does not qualify as a legitimate arrest at all, but rather, a taking of my person by force. When combined with the fact that I was removed from my location and forcefully transported to another place within the county, this satisfies the statutory definition of the criminal act of kidnapping as defined in California Penal Code 207(a).

The Register of Actions in the case shows that, despite having been admitted in open court, the file-stamped copies of the rejoinder I had proffered were never entered into the official record. Subsequently, and despite my repeated requests, they were never returned to me.

The rejoinder I filed in this case was pivotal. It was in answer to the Points and Memorandum filed by the district attorney asserting I had been aware of case #375290-4 since 5-01-91, had been making payments toward it for over two years and was therefore barred by statute of limitation from requesting the court to set-aside the judgment in the case. [Cal Fam Code 2122(a)]

The rejoinder countered this argument by referencing improper substituted service and lack of notice of all subsequent process and actions before the court in this case, showing conclusively there was no mechanism available to facilitate discovery of the case without being informed of it by the District Attorney’s office.

The two file-stamped copies of the rejoinder were my personal property, they had value and were in my control and possession. In offering them to the court for examination, I was not relinquishing possession, but rather, was entrusting them to a bailee and was expecting their return. At the point when I asked the court to return the two copies to me, stating that they were my only copies, it was known to the court that the County of Fresno now had sole physical control over every admissible copy of my rejoinder. It was exactly at this point that I was forcefully and unlawfully removed from that property, which I never saw or held in my possession again. This satisfies the statutory definition of Robbery as defined in California Penal Code 211.

As to the California statutes of limitation question and concern:

The combination of the facts and allegations presented thus far rise to and satisfy the statutory definition of Kidnapping for Robbery as defined in California Penal Code 209(b)(1); a criminal act which carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole.

  • California Penal Code 799: Prosecution for an offense punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for life without the possibility of parole, or for the embezzlement of public money, may be commenced at any time.

The Fresno County sheriff who forcibly removed me from my personal property at the 5-12-94 hearing did not have access to the case file that held the forged warrant for my arrest, as it was controlled and maintained by officers within the Fresno County Clerk’s office, while the officer within the Fresno County Clerk’s office who forged the warrant did not arrest me. A concert of action was necessary between the officer within the Fresno County Clerk’s office who forged the warrant and the Fresno County sheriff who used the supposed authority of that fraudulent warrant to forcibly separate me from my personal property for theft. This concert of action satisfies the statutory definition of Criminal Conspiracy as defined in California Penal Code 182(a)(1)(2)(5)

As to the federal statutes of limitation question and concern:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to be secure in one's person, papers and effects against unreasonable seizure. The actions of the Fresno County sheriff and the Fresno County clerk as presented above constitute a conspiracy to deprive me of that Constitutional right. These facts in combination satisfy the statutory definition of Conspiracy Against Rights as defined in 18 USC 241, and as kidnapping is an included element in this violation of federal law, the statutory requirement is satisfied in elevating the violation to that of a capital offense, which under federal law has no applicable statute of limitation and an action for prosecution in such a case can be brought at any time. [Congressional Research Service Report: Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview. Oct. 1, 2012, pg.2]

As the officers implicated in this conspiracy against rights committed the violation under color of their authority as officers of the court and of the County of Fresno, the definition in 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law is met, and as kidnapping is included as an element of the crime, this violation of federal law rises to the definition contained in 18 USC 242 as a capital offense, which again, has no applicable statute of limitation under federal law.

Proving Affectation of Adjudication

The facts as presented thus far show violations of federal law that rise to the status of capital offenses and the issue of applicable federal and California statutes of limitations has been addressed and satisfied, but these violations, alone or combined, do not satisfy the definition of Affectation of Adjudication. For this, we must examine and compare the Register of Actions for case # 375290-4 against the minute orders of the hearing held on 5-12-94 and the continuance hearing of 6-09-94 to show that the official record of the case has been forged to suppress the true intent of the pleading before the court and a fabrication was entered into the record to reflect the outcome desired by the participating officers of the court, thereby affecting and perverting the judicial process itself; a fraud on the court perpetrated by officers of the court.

The Register of Actions and the minute orders should be in sync, but in this case they are not. The comparison that follows will show discrepancies beyond the scope of error or omittance.

This is the first reference in this presentation to the minute orders from the hearing held on 5-12-94 and the continuance hearing of 6-09-94. For the examination and comparison of these minute orders against the Register of Actions for case #375290-4, it is critical to understand that the copies of the two separate minute orders in my possession have been certified by the Fresno County Clerk's office as genuine and correct copies of the originals held in the official court file controlled and maintained by that office. They are self-authenticating under Rule 902(4)(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and as such are above contestation.

The first comparison is between the Minute Order and the Register of Actions for the 5-12-94 hearing. The Minute Order is an accurate representation of the 5-12-94 hearing as I witnessed it, while the Register of Actions shows one event that did not occur. For the purpose of comparison and brevity, only conflicting entries are noted.

    The 5-12-94 Minute Order accurately shows:
        (a) a continuance hearing was slated to be held in Department 19 of the Fresno County Superior Court on 6-09-94

    The 5-12-94 entry in the Register of Actions inaccurately shows:
        (a) a continuance hearing was slated to be held in Department 90 of the Fresno County Superior Court on 6-09-94

The second comparison is between the Minute Order and the Register of Actions for the 6-09-94 continuance hearing. The Minute Order is an accurate representation of the 6-09-94 hearing as I witnessed it, while the Register of Actions contains a fabrication of facts and events.

    The 6-09-94 Minute Order accurately shows:
        (a) the continuance hearing was held in Department 19 of the Fresno County Superior Court on 6-09-94
        (b) Nancy Cisneros as presiding judge
        (c) the motion before the court to set-aside the default judgment in the case

    The 6-09-94 entry in the Register of Actions inaccurately shows:
        (a) the continuance hearing was held in Department 90 of the Fresno County Superior Court on 6-09-94
        (b) Ralph Nunez as presiding judge
        (c) the motion before the court included a custody issue, which was adjudicated

In 1994, Department 19 of the Fresno County Superior Court was a limited jurisdiction court statutorily authorized to decide cases involving proof of paternity, child support and visitation, while Department 90 was designated as "family court" and was authorized to decide cases where parental rights and custody were at issue. Both courts were authorized to entertain motions to annul or set-aside judgments.

With this in mind, the Register of Actions was forged to inaccurately read:

I mistakenly petitioned Department 19 with a motion to decide a custody issue. At the 5-12-94 hearing held in Department 19, I was informed by Judge Nancy Cisneros that Department 19 was a court of limited jurisdiction and was not authorized to hear cases involving custody. A continuance hearing was slated for 6-09-94 and the case was transferred to "family court" in Department 90. At the 6-09-94 continuance hearing held in Department 90, Judge Ralph Nunez adjudicates the custody issue and denies the set-aside motion and the motion to order blood tests.

The comparison above, combined with the incontestable nature of the official minute orders in my possession, shows that the Register of Actions contains fabricated events, hearings and judicial decisions. The actual plea before the court to set-aside the default judgment in case #375290-4 on the grounds that I had been kept in ignorance of the case by the District Attorney’s office has been relegated by a fabricated and fictitious custody issue. The purpose of the 6-09-94 continuance hearing has been altered to further suppress the actual plea before the court. The recorded location of the 6-09-94 continuance hearing was forged to accommodate the new version of events.

Also, notably, the Register of Actions entry which shows the transfer to Department 90 was dated 5-12-94. Premeditation by the officers of the court is apparent, as the 5-12-94 entry into the Register of Actions reflects twenty-eight days in advance their intent to suppress the record of the 6-09-94 continuance hearing held in Department 19 by supplanting it in the official record with the fictitious Dept. 90 continuance hearing.

As mentioned, this is beyond the scope of error or omittance.

* * *

The allegations, evidence and events as presented thus far have effectively shown that a sham hearing was held on 6-09-94 in Dept. 19 of the Fresno County Superior Court in an attempt to falsely convince me that the issues and motions I presented before the court were being adjudicated within the jurisdiction of the law. The official record was subsequently forged to suppress the actual events that transpired and show a falsified set of events in their stead. A criminal conspiracy has been established between two Fresno County court officials whose overt actions indicate a preference in the outcome of the adjudication. The remaining officers of the court are joined as principals to that conspiracy by their willful and purposeful participation in the hearings held in Dept. 19. Finally, my rights and obligations were affected by the unlawful acts perpetrated by the participating officers.

The aggregate of the facts and allegations in this presentation have shown a species of fraud on the court that satisfies the definition of Affectation of Adjudication.

Summation

This presentation effectively shows that federal capital crimes and other crimes were committed by officers within the Fresno County Superior Court, State of California, and that these crimes are currently prosecutable under federal and California criminal law, while further documentary evidence in my possession support allegations of over 40 separate criminal acts perpetrated by a minimum of six principals, who are identified on the Legal Impact page of this website.

The successful prosecution of this case would send a strong warning to all officers within the courts of the United States that any officers caught participating in acts like the ones described in this presentation will face the full brunt of criminal prosecution.




Next:
Legal Impact


Navigation
Table of Contents