Opposition to Demurrers
Since I have amended another demurrer will be forthcoming.
(a) The decisional, constitutional, statutory law of any State of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state.
And of California Evidence Code section 452 (h),
(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute.
Plaintiff indicates with a "fact or propositions not reasonably subject to dispute" that this court action is in the land of;
PURSUANT TO; [CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ARTICLE III, § 1,]
"the State of California, an inseparable part of the United States of America and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.(1972)
In this case which has been filed in the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, taking place in the land United States with laws "made in pursuance" to the;
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI 2.
......."the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Plaintiffs 2nd Amended complaint proves a violation by defendant Schwartz of the United States Constitution with EXHIBIT THREE, the denial of subpoena duces tecum and this is a "fact not reasonably subject to dispute", an evasion of duty as sworn in the oath of office. And that fact in this case which has been filed in the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, is of a violation of "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of California are inapplicable when they diminish the United States Constitution. Particularly [U. S. C., TIT. 42, § 1981. (c)];
PURSUANT TO; [UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, § 1981.] "Equal rights under the law." (a) .Statement of equal rights.
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exaction's of every kind, and to no other.
(c) Protection against impairment of the rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by non governmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law."
The application of California law, the Tort Claims act will place California law over THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the Constitution of the United States contrary to [CAL. CONST. ART. III, § 1] and [U. S. C., TIT. 42, § 1981. (c)] therefore cannot be accepted by a judge "bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" [U. S. CONST. ART VI 2.].
RE: JURISDICTION
3. Pursuant to the California Evidence Code section 452 (a), respondent requests judicial notice of (a);
(a) The decisional, constitutional, statutory law of any State of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state.
And of California Evidence Code section 452 (h),
(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute.
Respondent pursuant to 452 (h) requests judicial notice of the proposition "not reasonably subject to dispute" that this civil action of law filed in the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, takes place in the land United States with laws "made in pursuance" to the;
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT XIV
......."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizen of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of, life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
COMPLAINT ALLEGES CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HANSON AGGREGATES
4. Plaintiff has read the demurrer of the Counsel for HANSON AGGREGATES MID-PACIFIC INCORPORATED and responds with these facts and propositions.
The defendants aggregate mix spilled onto the freeway damaging the plaintiffs car to a degree it was disabled. After bringing the damaged vehicle to HANSON for inspection, HANSONS mechanic unreasonably stated that HANSON wasn't responsible for the fact that plaintiffs car would not hold an idle and that he was an expert mechanic declaring it impossible that the tons of sand and gravel hitting and flowing under and over plaintiffs car could cause the problem, even when the plaintiff stated unequivocally that immediately following the incident his cars performance became erratic. HANSONS mechanic became silent when plaintiff pointed out the unreasonable paradox created by the plaintiff supposedly, normally, driving around in a car that wouldn't idle and start unless two people were involved in the process. One to jump the solenoid wire and the other to operate the throttle. HANSONS mechanic was challenged to start plaintiffs vehicle by himself and he could not do it. Plaintiff knowing that he could be stranded in the vehicle refused to leave in a car he cannot start. Suddenly the mechanic only knows about diesel trucks and cannot fix plaintiffs car.
5. After first asking for a rental car plaintiff showed Michael Schmidt why it was especially important that plaintiff have transportation, EXHIBIT THREE, the subpoena denials. Plaintiff informed Michael Schmidt that because of the subpoena denials, violations of his constitutional rights, kids were being caused to commit extreme violence and that the plaintiff was trying to stop a scheduled school shooting in Santa Barbara. Plaintiff reminded Michael Schmidt of the recent threatening notes found in local schools.
6. All of the plaintiffs information was ignored and common reason was ignored while throughout verbal exchanges the mechanic asserted that the plaintiff is trying to "milk" the incident for personal gain. An attempt to provoke the plaintiff by concerted abuse of logic intended to avoid reasonable, rightful, lawful performance in the incident that HANSON had legal liability for and became INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL DISTRESS indirectly disabling the plaintiff in his efforts to protect his children and children in the schools with public information or CHILD ENDANGERMENT. Defendant Michael Schmidt then called the Santa Barbara County Sheriff who threatened the plaintiff with arrest for trespass.
7. The single decent thing to come of the entire encounter with HANSON from 6/09/00 to the present is a statement on page 5, of the demurrer of HANSON in this case at the "INTRODUCTION/FACTUAL SUMMERY", lines 11-12-13 "....the gist of plaintiffs complaint appears to be the protection of children. A worthy goal which HANSON supports wholeheartedly."
8. Plaintiff reasons that if HANSON actually does "support, wholeheartedly the protection of children," they would have acted to defend their client from plaintiffs allegations by diverting the blame, for the endangerment of children from HANSON, to the deprivation of information, (EXHIBIT THREE) by defendant County. A deprivation suffered by the field of psychology as demonstrated by the incompetent response from the A.P.A. in EXHIBIT SEVEN of plaintiffs complaint, which endangers children by creating conditions where the core issue, abuses of hypnosis, are undetectable in their essence. The inability to detect caused by County employees through evasion of duty sworn under oath. Specifically, uniform operation of the laws United States Constitution (U. S. C. TITLE 42 Sec. 1981. Equal rights under the law; [CAL. CONST. ART. I, § 7(a)] of the California Constitution violating plaintiffs rights. A fact proven by EXHIBIT THREE.
9. Making it clear; that when plaintiff approached the counsel of HANSON with the proposition to withdraw their demurrer and remain in the case, for the express purpose of seeing that children are uniformly protected by laws, it is justified by the counsel to HANSON, noticing, consistent with their clients "wholehearted support", that the Constitution(s) is/are being ignored. Plaintiff asserts here that because counsel to HANSON did not withdraw their demurrer that perhaps the "wholehearted support for the protection of children" is not genuine as stated in the demurrer and only mentioned for the purpose of being "politically correct" or perhaps because the Counsel of HANSON did not inform HANSON that the Constitution is being violated, or perhaps the Counsel could not understand that the;
[U. S. CONST. ART. VI, § 2] & [U. S. CONST. AMEND. XIV] equal protection of the laws CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA, ARTICLE I, Section 7 (a) & ARTICLE IV, Section 16 (a) & ARTICLE III, Section 3.5 were unobserved by the County and not upheld by the Court. A default declaration of a statute being unenforceable, historically denying the plaintiff equal protection of the laws by refusals to enforce statutes without the determination of an appellate court. A non uniform operation of laws of a general nature, violation of [CAL. CONST. ART. IV, § 16(a)], removing plaintiffs rights while he is engaged in attempts to use information gained from public records to protect children.
10. It is understandable that the County counsel in their zealous, unethical defense of the defendants Schwartz and Sneddon's blatant evasion and violation of oaths sworn to the United States Constitution would overlook the Constitution because ignorance was needed for the defense in the self interests of the municipality.
11. However the Counsel for the defendant HANSON, who claims "wholehearted support for the protection of children", continues protecting the defendant from the perceived legal threat and forgets about protecting children.
12. Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint be denied and if the demurrer is granted a 30 day leave to amend the complaint be allowed.
Date;
Christopher A. Brown,
propria-persona