Superior Court for the State of California case case 209449

Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Proceedings; O.S.C. RE: Contempt, Equitable and Promissory Estopple.

NOTE: This is a somewhat incredible summary of 10 years of outrageous legal abuse that no American can legitimately tolerate and allow to happen while expecting to be called an American. This page is basic notice to the public and proves by the degree of prejudice against Christopher A. Brown, that indeed, he has had tried to show and prove something in court regarding over 1,000 missing insanity actions alleged in case 220298, from which "Arrest and Booking Records were subpoenaed" (and the county failed to appear) which should be allowed with no real difficulty, but is not; which shows another control other than rightful and lawful control. It can only be the control of the church. And, ......... further, the tolerance of the people of these things; because Christopher A. Brown has informed many people of these violations of law and rights; show they too are unconsciously controlled by the same forces.

  

1. To County of Santa Barbara, petitioner, counsel, Santa Barbara County District Attorney:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 13, 2006 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the courtroom of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 14, located at 1100 Anacapa street, Santa Barbara California, plaintiff will and hereby does move to QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS or ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE of contempt against respondent Christopher A. Brown

3. The motion is based on this notice of motion, the attached affidavit of Christopher A. Brown, the memoranda of points and authorities and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

Date;

Christopher A. Brown.

 

MOTION TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS BASED ON ESTOPPEL

MEMORANDA OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.

4. Respondent was served summons on charges of contempt of a court order to pay child support payments on October 26, 2,005.

5. Respondents ability to comply with the court order to make payments has been compromised by medical and economic reason resulting from past legal actions and the related performance of petitioner, and so proceedings to show cause for contempt should be quashed as there is no contempt. Respondents ability to comply has been too severely effected by petitioners acts and associated court decisions. The doctrine of estoppel encompasses impacts both medical (promissory) and economic and medical (equitable) with adequacy showing that respondents ability to comply has been adversely effected to a degree where compliance reasonably cannot be expected under conditions.

County of Orange v. Carl D. supra, 76 CA4th at 438, 90 CR2d at 447

There is a higher standard for estoppel against a public entity. In addition to all the elements for estoppel against a private party "in the considered view of the court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an etoppel {must be} of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel". (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 cal.3d 462 496-497 [91 Cal Rptr. 23, 476 P,2d 423].) Plainly stated, in the equitable estoppel balancing process, justice and right to the individual must outweigh the negative impact upon the public. Estoppel will not stand against a government agency," if the result will be frustration of a strong public policy."

(NOTE: Although the cited cases uses of this quote are different circumstances, the standards of estoppel are the same.)

PUBLIC INTERESTS

6. Before the court is to decide if granting the respondents motion to quash this proceeding alleging contempt of court, is a frustration of strong public statutes, policy the petitioner uses to collect child support, or, the question if granting it "justify any effect" not excluding a positive effect. Granting respondents motion has a more significant positive public interest than any negative

that can be shown and, if debt is it, then there is every chance the petitioners acts, or other legal acts not respective of respondents rights, prevented the respondents compliance, estopping the question of contempt. Herein, as justification for quashing, is shown which acts, when and why and how they impaired the ability of the respondent to comply, establishing estoppel to contempt and the other considerations of the "equitable estoppel balancing process" raised against the County consisting of the public interest issue.

 NOTE: Exhibit page numbers are of the March 30, 2004 requests for judicial notice unless notated "ATTACHED" signifying they are attached to the REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed concurrent with this document.

 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL-Medical impacts

10. Promissory estoppel arising from the existence of state laws and the fact that respondent reasonably relied on petitioner to appear on subpoena and later with the FOIA, to follow through with the development of experimental treatment that respondent is certain will also provide needed relief for himself, or at least, validating, procedural information applicable to the field of psychology valuable to relieving symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit disorder, paranoia and panic, depression and anxiety. With inclusion of the deprival of information with EXHIBIT NINETEEN, failure to appear, related medical information, petitioner with the

FOIA is twice estopped from hearing contempt as petitioner has contributed to respondents inability to comply.

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GENERALLY

11. Also before the court is a series of legal actions that must be reviewed and balanced against the factors of "frustration of a strong public policy." or public statutes, policies. The aforementioned "public interests" aspect shows there is no harm to public interests. Respondents disability has been aggravated by petitioners conduct, and granting this motion, indeed shows potential benefits to public medical interests. Respondent will show further that in the "equitable estoppel balancing process, justice and right to the individual must outweigh the negative impact upon the public." There is no negative impact to the public. By the doctrine of equitable estoppel petitioner is estopped from applying charges of contempt to respondent and justification to quash the proceedings found.

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SPECIFIC TO MEDICAL VALIDATION OF RESPONDENTS ABILITY TO COMPLY.

12. EXHIBIT FORTY-ONE shows that respondent attempted to gain a professional understanding without the benefit of subpoenaed information from petitioner then was defrauded by his psychologist. The respondent sued the psychologist (malpractice also alleged) and alleged perjury at trial October 2, 2002, plaintiff/respondent showed that the defendant perjured himself on state court documents (EXHIBIT FORTY-ONE) with the date of REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE, (Brown .v Brooks sc 1094523), and post mark date of notice to respondent/plaintiff,

which went unrecognized, unused, as relating to the character of the defendant, who continued presenting false documents and perjury to the court, wherein the respondent/plaintiffs court action was dismissed. These allegations are not completely proven here with the written perjury but are supported by a common sense examination of the respondents limited psychological evaluation, EXHIBIT THIRTY-TWO which makes damaging statements about the respondent that are unneeded in the evaluation of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Petitioner is equitably estopped from demanding that respondent produce medical diagnosis of these depreciation's of respondents abilities as respondent will show he has been unrightfully deprived, 3 times, of opportunity to validate his condition medically, and to develop or obtain professional, effective medical services.

ABILITY TO COMPLY AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPLE

13. To determine the impacts upon the respondents ability to comply, no reversals of court decisions are called for. All that is required to assure that justice and individual rights are observed is to consider evidence of the concurrently filed requests for judicial notice that the respondents ability to comply with the courts order has been compromised severely because legal methods to obtain medical information from the petitioner, the County, it is required by law to provide under conditions which respondent was deprived; but also information that was commercially valuable was withheld, respondent also found no equal protection of law from fraud. In all cases respondents ability to comply economically was impaired by this.

Before the court is not just what the respondent tried to achieve legally in the way of compliance with laws from the petitioners as the respondent attempted to gain medical and economically valuable information; but rather that the court notice that the due legal processes were often not correct, depriving respondent of needed medical treatment, aggravating his injury/disability and compromising the environment that he might rightfully utilize to find an appropriate treatment for his condition. His reliance upon proper legal actions by courts met with prejudice or misrepresentation in addition to economic loss with impaired earnings from the perhaps considerable value of the information of the 1998 subpoena, whereupon respondent would have paid the arrears in full and no reason for any issue would exist now. Petitioner is dynamically estopped from charging contempt.

 REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL EVENTS THAT RAISE ESTOPPEL

MOTION PRE DECIDED AND INVESTIGATORS INFORMED, CITATION AND IMPOUND OF RESPONDENTS VEHICLE

14. The first event where respondent found that he was treated unfairly, and petitioner should know and is estopped in charging contempt, was in the instant case on May 16, 1997 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, for "Release of Drivers License", the court stated that it "would not listen to conspiracy talk" EXHIBIT TWENTY (page 9) and respondent had alleged such was causing frauds and effecting his ability to comply. (See requests for judicial notice). Respondents motion was denied and respondent was followed from the court house and cited (See EXHIBIT TWENTY-ONE) (page 13) indicating that the court had informed the District attorneys office of its decision before the hearing and suggested that Investigators follow the respondent. Equitable estoppel extends to medical reasons as respondents disability was aggravated, paranoia increased as the injuries referred to that triggered respondents suit, 220298, had just been suffered.

PREJUDICE AGAINST RESPONDENT PROVEN BUT COURT CONTINUES HEARING CASE MANIFESTING LOSS OF PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENTS MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY

15. EXHIBIT TWENTY-TWO (page 14) of The March 30, 2004 REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE is respondent/petitioners attempt to disqualify the same judge of EXHIBIT TWENTY assigned to a case alleging conspiracy. EXHIBIT TWENTY-THREE, June 8, 1998, case 220298 (page 17) is the minute order respondent/plaintiff was sent by the court. It does not reflect the nature of the proceedings which were disqualification. The pro per plaintiff did not have an appeal able order and would not know what happened until 2000. At trial the petitioners, County of Santa Barbara, custodian of records of the County jail failed to appear and the court would not act on the pro per plaintiffs oral motion for contempt, nor would the court call the defendant (counsel not objecting to testimony) to testify when requested by respondent/plaintiff, instead stating that the defendant had no evidence and witness dismissing Respondent/plaintiffs complaint for "INFLICTION AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS". Leaving plaintiff/respondent with no recovery for damages and no medical information useful in treating the injuries respondent had filed suit over as well as vulnerable to the unresolved issues targeting respondent for fraud and other disturbing events that respondent alleges in this case in 1997 and case 220298 in 1998.

COURT INTENDS THAT RESPONDENT NOT HAVE APPEAL.

16. When respondent deduced what had happened with the minute order of June 8, 1998, he filed a motion to amend the order where it was granted but EXHIBIT TWENTY-FOUR (AMENDED MINUTE ORDER, page 18) shows it was granted "nunc pro tunc", depriving respondent of appeal again.

COURT CONTINUES WITHOUT NOTICE

17. EXHIBIT TWENTY-FIVE, DEMURRER face page, page 19, for hearing of December 18, 1998, case 226736 of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court. A suit for negligence in providing mental health care. Plaintiff/respondent arrived for the hearing of the Countys demurrer to find it had been canceled, no continued date was provided.

RESPONDENT TARGETED FOR COLLISION IMMEDIATELY AFTER APPEARING FOR CANCELED HEARING.

18. EXHIBIT TWENTY-SIX, page 20, documents an intentionally caused collision targeting the respondent occurring about 1 hour after leaving the court. This would seem unrelated but because of the medical aspects and the allegations of case 220298 plaintiff/respondent sought protection from, increased paranoia occurred. Since 1998 plaintiff/respondent has been targeted for 4 other intentional collisions. In one a cement truck unloaded cement at 55 mph in front of respondent, in another a 10 wheel truck hit respondent twice. Regardless of what respondent may consider as causes for these events, they contribute to the overall anxiety that respondent is subjected to and aggravation of his untreated injury of case 220298.

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE ISSUED THREE DAYS AFTER DATE OF HEARING.

19. EXHIBIT TWENTY-SEVEN, NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE, December 22, 1998, case 226736, page 21. The court continues the matter heard 3 days before the issuance of the continuance. Can any reasonable person deny that respondent has reasons to be shocked despite the seemingly trivial matter, failure to provide due process and timely notice? Would any reasonable person be justified in feeling traumatized by the events described by EXHIBITS SEVENTEEN through FORTY TWO even without the injury respondent sued for in case 220298?

RENT INCREASE, UNLAWFUL DETAINER FOR RESPONDENTS EVICTION

20. EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, case 229276, April 8 1999, page 22. Respondent had filed NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL, EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT in case 229276 filed March 8, 1999 in the Santa Barbara Superior Court in response to an unlawful detainer action started by his landlord after respondent was unable to meet a rent increase.

TIMELINESS OF RESPONDENTS FILING UNRECOGNIZED CAUSES IMMEDIATE EVICTION.

21. EXHIBIT TWENTY-NINE, ORDER SHORTENING TIME (annotated), May 11, 1999 (page 23). Time constraints of the plaintiffs pending eviction made it necessary to apply for an ORDER SHORTENING TIME. The order stipulated that the MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, declarations and exhibits be served no later than 12:00 PM on April 8, 1999. The ORDER SHORTENING TIME (EXHIBIT TWENTY-NINE) bears the judges handwritten statement, "Denied, not presented until after noon on 4/8/99 Joseph Lodge." The second page, the NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL (EXHIBIT THIRTY-ONE) with the clerks receipt #B0191111 over the left side of the face caption that shows the case number with the date 4/8/99 and the time as 10:34. Plaintiff was deprived of due process by the courts not recognizing the timeliness of the plaintiffs legal action causing the plaintiffs eviction. With due process and equal protection of law respondents would not have become homeless and suffered a loss of property, his ability to comply would have been preserved. Respondents mental disability was again aggravated, decision making, planning, efficiency and organization suffered, while impairing economic ability. Two issues of equitable estoppel are present.

RESPONDENT ASSAULTED TWICE AT NEW RESIDENCE

22. Respondent has not had the economic means to rent decent housing and so has been subjected to damage from individuals perhaps acting within the unresolved issues of respondents failed legal actions, failures due to deprivation of rights, EXHIBIT SEVENTEEN documents an assault that increased respondents paranoia and EXHIBIT EIGHTEEN, a citizens arrest report documenting 242PC Battery, give an example of the conditions respondent has been forced to live in with their associated psychological conditions impairing respondent. Petitioner is estopped from bringing charges of contempt as respondent shows events any reasonable person would likely react to with increased anxiety and a need for medical treatment.

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS CHARGES OF FRAUD NEVER HEARD

23. EXHIBIT THIRTY-SIX - Tentative decisions of DEPT. 14, Brown v. Buster, Santa Barbara County Superior court case number 01129618, filed July 18 2,003 (1 page) page 30. Respondent petitioned the court with charges of fraud throughout the above named case, from trial court, through appeal to the California Supreme court. And only lost the case because allegations of fraud were never heard in trial court. The tentative decisions of department 14 (#3) December 23. 2003, (EXHIBIT THIRTY-SIX) establishes plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to present witness or evidence to slander on one occasion. In this case the plaintiff was defrauded out of $30,000 labor over 3 years work within an agreement gained by fraud. Plaintiff had performed partial performance justifying court action to complete the agreement even though the agreement made was invalid under California law, which laws do not allow fraud, but were the only pleadings the court heard. As California allows recovery for agreements made by fraud having statute of limitations from discovery, respondent had a case but was effectively never allowed to bring it. The amount of the suit was $120,000. The slander of 2,003 produces occasional problems for plaintiff in the community that have worsened.

24. The petitioner is equitably estopped materially from finding respondent in contempt for economic reasons because judgment respective of respondents right to petition the court for fraud would have made possible a debtors judgment against the defendant, a city employee and the child support would have been paid in full by 2003. Petitioner is equitably estopped from questioning the medical implication of the extent of respondents ability to comply resulting from the emotional disturbance from this legal event.

RESPONDENT LEFT VULNERABLE BY UNRESOLVED ISSUES IS DEFRAUDED

25. EXHIBIT THIRTY-THREE, Brown v. Approved 1st, plaintiffs claim, SC 1111470 JAN. 30, 2003, page 27. Respondent was defrauded once for $2500 by Approved 1st a financing company because respondents child support debt prohibited financing of equipment, then again for $2040, below, trying to retain the equipment after fraud by Joseph Brouwer.

EVIDENCE FROM RESPONDENT AGAINST DEFENDANT IN SMALL CLAIMS CASE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY COURT

26. EXHIBIT THIRTY-FOUR Brown v. Brouwer, plaintiffs claim SC 1130424, OCT. 10, 200328. In an attempt to retain the equipment an agreement was made with Joseph Brouwer to trade financing forwork. Respondent discovered that Brouwer expected to be charged as if he owned the equipment while respondent was paying for it. When respondent sought fair pay, Brouwer used fraud with a check for $2040 to gain return of the equipment. Then Brouwer placed a stop payment on the check. The court refused to examine the check with "STOP PAYMENT" written on it or the defenses to the defendants counter claim and decided for the defendant with a judgment of $4500 against the respondent. The small claims judge, also a family law judge, saw that a debtors examination was called and the respondent was summoned. Petitioner is equitably estopped materially by this event, medically, respondents mental impairment was significantly increased and need for appropriate medical treatment proportionately as well.

COURT ADMITS RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE OF SMALL CLAIMS COURT NOT RECEIVED BY COURT.

EXHIBIT THIRTY-FIVE Check of J.N. Brouwer, STOP PAYMENT, DATED 4-20-03, page 29)

27. At the DEBTORS EXAMINATION heard March 30, 2004, the court was presented the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant for fraud from the small claims hearing through a request for judicial notice of EXHIBIT THIRTY-FIVE and the court admitted that it had not seen the evidence against the small claims defendant of the case heard October 10 2003, Brown v. Brouwer. Respondent had arranged to have witnesses in the courtroom that day.

COURT TRANSCRIPTS DO NOT SHOW ADMISSION OF COURT REGARDING EVIDENCE NOT RECEIVED.

28. EXHIBIT THIRTY-EIGHT Transcripts of hearing, THIS CASE, March 30, 2004, (5 pages). The only exchange between the court and the respondent concerning respondents requests for judicial notice relates to respondents Limited Psychological Evaluation for ADHD.

WITNESS AT HEARING STATES ADMISSION NOT IN TRANSCRIPTS OCCURRED.

29. EXHIBIT THIRTY-NINE, Statement of Lynn Hendrid, WITNESS IN COURT March 30, 2004, page 29) Letter dated 2-11-06. The statement of Lynn Hendred, seven lines down in the left column, "Yes I do-I remember your asking the judge if she had ever seen before a check which you presented to her, and she responded "No" she "had not seen it before.", shows respondent not receiving the benefit of an unprejudiced.

COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SEEKS STATE MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMISSION TO ADMINISTER TREATMENT PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT.

30. The public interest aspect of the "equitable estoppel balancing process" does not exclude considering a positive impact. EXHIBIT FORTY shows that an experimental treatment proposed by respondent was approved by default by the senior director of the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Department and the Chief Medical Doctor and that they would take respondents request to administer the treatment to the California State Mental Health Department to seek permission to administer the treatment and provide respondent with the States answer in writing.

NON RESPONSE TO FOIA BY COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA SUPERVISORS.

31. EXHIBIT FORTY-TWO, FOIA Request, April 18, 2000 (1 pg.). The letter from the County Mental Health Department, senior director Merna McMillan, signed by the Chief Medical Doctor, Dr. Nichols, states that the answer of the State Mental Health Department will be provided in writing. Respondent called by phone for months and found not even a verbal response. Finally respondent made a Freedom of information Request to the board of supervisors wherein there was no response.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

32. Respondent satisfies the requirements of "QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES" 28 CFR t 35, App A§35.104;pt36,A pp B §36104, being diagnosed with ADHD, justifying REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS 28 CFR §35.130 by a PUBLIC ENTITY, 42 USC §12131, courts are considered public entities. Respondent requests REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS and observance and balancing deprived rights of respondent, shown, against minor deficiencies, errors and omissions of this pleading and other pleadings in this action.

SUMMATION OF ESTOPPEL AND CONCLUSION OF MEDICAL INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER.

34. Respondent suffers from dissociation primarily due to repeated trauma experienced when petitioner fails to follow laws and courts do not recognize them, follow them and uphold them. The respondents need is so severe from lack of treatment, that he dissociates or forgets his obligations in his pursuit of medical treatment for his psychological disorder. In simple terms, typically for example, while preparing a meal he may realize that he must make a child support payment, then he remembers how seriously he needs proper treatment for trauma, emotional and mental distress, then forgets everything for awhile due to the economic dissonance of paying child support and developing the experimental, needed treatment himself. Later respondent only remembers the treatment he needs. Years have passed in this way.

35. The petitioner is estopped from charging contempt 3 times because petitioner or the legal system, failed to perform with respect to law or respondents civil rights and respondent, the public relies on this performance of the petitioner and the courts.

PRAYER

36. Respondent prays for fair use of the information of this pleading and the granting of his motion to quash the proceedings or OSC of contempt.

 

Date;

pro per respondent, Christopher A. Brown,

  Back to Case 209449 Index

Return to Federal Action CV06-2085