|
B. THE DSO DID NOT INVESTIGATE A WIRELESS GEOPHYSICAL SATELLITE (GPS) MOUSE The DSO asks, "So the computer - analogy of your computer crashes, you're comparing with
yourself? Is that what you mean, with your body, what's going on." (Hearing Transcript p 12)
Appellant expresses, "The company that had a security program; the top company had security
programs for a computer. I purchased their program. Their program was unable to stop the
crashes and certain things that were happening to the computer." "They
recognize in the
computer world they can't stop alL the things that some of these hackers can do."
Appellant expresses, "So I've given them an analogy here, yes, that here's a possibility." "And so I've asked for their help, and instead they have done something different." (Hearing
Transcript p 13) The DSO expresses, "By referring you to DMV you mean?" (Hearing
Transcript p 13)
Tracking transmitter - it is erasing text on computer.
The wireless unit is not only crashing the computer of
appellant, it is erasing text. (Statement of Facts - describing exhibits p 1, Exhibit 23 ) Appellant called a technician and found that he had sufficient protection for computer virus. He also had protection for ADWARE (spam). The technician gave evidence that it was not the computer of the appellant that was at fault. The damage was not from a virus, but from wireless actions competing with his computer peripheral mouse. (Statement of Facts p 1, Exhibit 23) (Statement of Facts p 2) (See Declaration of Extortion.) "However incredible the testimony of a defendant may
be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true." (People v.
Sullivan, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1450, 264 Cal.Rptr. 284, 286).
C. THE DSO FAILED TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR MENTAL DISEASE TRAP (ENTRAPMENT)
Pursuant to the officer seizing private papers the DSO expresses at trial: "For this Reexamination, I will take official notice of the referring document, which I'll mark in to identification Dated August 14, 2003, regarding Mr. James Francis Burroughs." "Samples of his
complaints are attached, Citrus Heights Police Department, completed by Officer Brian
Westmoreland on 8/14/03. That's (Hearing) Exhibit 1." (Hearing
Transcripts p. 2) The DSO
expresses , "Somebody is abusing you, you feel?" , "They
just stated that you state - you know,
well, you put in your writing your children and your grandson, with the use of radio were being
abused. " (Hearing Transcript p 11)
The mental illness trap
charges by (language) police should
be afforded at least similar such defense as the speed trap section 40802(a). In a case that went to trial in the Superior Court, Ventura County, (
People v Goulet 13 Cal App.4th.Supp 1) the officer checked radar on the ticket. The defendant
pointed out that the survey had a critical speed of mph which could in no way justify the posted
limit of mph. Further, the posted mph limit made violators out of 96% of all of the drivers in the
survey. See Declaration of Mental Illness Trap.
D. THE RESPONDENT ALLOWED A BREACH OF SECURITY AT HIS OFFICES DSO expresses in hearing, "Before proceeding, I'll ask all those present to identify themselves."
As Appellant exited the hearing on December 1, 2003 he saw sitting in the waiting room of the DMV Safety Office, several male and female persons. They got up as the appellant and his witness exited the locked DMV Safety Office. In fact by their
actions appellant believed that persons had shown up as witnesses but got there too late. But when he got closer, he did not recognize them. They followed him to the elevator, but held back. It seemed odd that someone would suddenly leave, after waiting in an entry room. Certainly DMV staff would have questioned them, as to what they were doing there. Appellant now
believes his remarks at the DMV hearing of December 1, 2003 were controlled by harmonics from the persons waiting in the DMV lobby. 10_/
1987 Crime - not functioning at professional level. (See Mayo Clinic observation,
"because supposedly if he was a CPA he is certainly not functioning at that level now.") (Exhibit 8-2) 20_/ See Memorandum of Points and Authorities p 8. Malice for purposes of the statute means "' a state of mind arising from hatred or ill will, evidencing a willingness to vex, annoy or
injure another person.' " "[M]alice is not inferred from the communication." (Civ. Code, § 48.)
"Suspension of issued
motor vehicle operators' licenses involves state action that adjudicates important property interests of the licensees. See Memorandum of Points and
Authorities p 3, 5) (Mohilef v. Janovici, 51 Cal. App. 4th 267, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 721 (1996) (due
process may require agency to subpoena witnesses where, absent their testimony, agency's
ultimate decision would be based solely on written reports)). E. THE DSO ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DID NOT ALLOW DISCOVERY SUBPOENAS FOR DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
Appellant sent a Discovery Request to DMV asking them to subpoena certain DMV records of stalkers. (Exhibit 4) Appellant also sent discovery request to DMV for Joseph DOE, MD document submitted through Sacramento County, entitled Lapse of Conscious. (See Petition for Writ of Mandate p 3, Exhibit 21) DOE Company relatives (James C. DOE) stole a "hot" carburetor and a "hot" cam, from Appellant's car in
1956.
1980 Crime - Perpetrator ID. DOE Company relatives set up an underground to take valuable property. DOE2 female, admitted she was driving her brother-in-law's car and using a radio from it in 1984. The information would prove that DOE2 female was in fact Mrs. James
C. DOE and her brother-in-law Richard DOE. IV. THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. POLICE OFFICER PREJUDICE LED DSO TO BELIEVE APPELLANT HAD MENTAL DISEASE
There is evidence of wrongful action, and prejudicial. The police officer had an ulterior motive. Subsequent to the trial, the appellant heard from behind him, "I was born in Arkansas," a shout in a crowded room filled with officers. And Appellant looked and saw a police officer behind him in 2004. (Statement of Facts p 9) See Memorandum of Points and Authorities p
12. "so
that the burden is on the objecting party to show a conflict of interest or some other specific
reason for disqualification of a specific officer or for disapproval of the system. It is not, without
more, a violation of due process to combine investigating and adjudicating functions in the same
agency, Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975), although the question of combination of
functions is a substantial one in administrative law. Withrow v. Larkin,
p. 51.
First responders were responding to their own bias and greed, not to the needs of a citizen. Westmoreland's promotion came first. The officer Westmoreland did not include the other pages of serial crimes, the purpose of which was to name the probable suspects in a robbery of July 6, 2000. Because of circumstances beyond the control of Appellant, it took 3 years before the Appellant reported the robbery incident of the year 2000. (Case #03-55159CH) (Statement of Facts p 9) Because of injury by taking appellant out of custody of the jail, and injuring him it brings up a question as to where officer Westmoreland was working on December 17, 1987. An underground political unit of California immigrants from Oklahoma and Arkansas could be profiled.
B. RESPONDENT LED BY SELLER OF TRANQUILIZERS CALLING LOSS OF CONSCIOUS A MENTAL DISEASE
The DSO expresses "Exhibit 2 marked into identification, is a receipt from the County of
Sacramento, indicating lapse of consciousness August 21, 2002." (Hearing Transcript pg 3,
Hearing Exhibit 2) The DSO does not know where the document came from, "I don't know,
you submitted this with your documents. Did you submit that?" Appellant replies, "Huh? No."
(Hearing Transcript pg 3) The DSO expresses, "Did you see a Dr.
Joseph Heffernan?" "Okay.
What did you see him for then? That's his name on top of this." Appellant expresses, " Uh, just
my abdomen." The DSO expresses, "What was wrong with (y)our abdomen?" Appellant
expresses, "Well, the uh, what it has left is a incision or hernia (incision hernia) and I don't think
they really found out what all was wrong with it." (Hearing Transcripts
p. 6) HERE the
mere mention of unconscious can qualify one for an institution. The DSO expresses, "Okay and you were having problems - or let me rephrase that. Were you having problems with your bowel movements and things like that?" Appellant expresses, "There appears to be an obstruction to the bowel and uh, it was - it has been there
since 1987." The DSO expresses, "And when you had surgery, they didn't repair that?"
(Hearing Transcripts p. 7) HERE the mere mention of the
bowel, can
qualify one for a mental institution.
Appellant in July 1989, for 4 weeks suffered from vomiting and
bowel compaction. He had pain in the left quadrant of the abdomen. It was sudden, and he had no warning of the impending occurrence. He went to the doctor who diagnosed it as "flank pain." Ever since December 17, 1987 and the wireless attack aggravating, appellant has noticed a (air) pressure ballooning his abdomen (left side). Appellant can't use his abdomen muscles. In 1993 CPK tests revealed a positive pressure, competing with respiratory and spinal synchronization. But Sacramento County Health Dept. were naive to a wireless opening and closing viscus. "When a driver cone moves forward,
the air in front of it compresses and the air behind expands."
1987 Crime - simple blocking or relaxation oscillators-
Appellant could feel the bubble of air, when he bent over a fender to work on a car.
In 1993 tests revealed gastric and digestion problems (B-12,
transferrin saturation) but doctors did not discuss with appellant that he was at risk to organ failure. Sacramento County Health Department doctors ignored a clue of the hitman intentional injury of 1987, "Storage pump was removed." "Cecum is tied to your Eurethra bladder." (Exhibit 11-2, 19-1, 15-6).
Appellant felt
pain and manipulation of his internal
organs, and internal bleeding and resulting emergency surgery of 1998, he is certain was caused by a by wireless from a distance. (Statement of Facts - describing exhibits p 9, 10)
microwaves collect at air pockets. He has evidence of air found in his anatomy at emergency surgery. (see Statement of Facts p 4.) There is evidence that the third party
unseals the diverticulum. The pumping of air into the abdomen (or bowel), and compressing of air at the chest is occurring by wireless from a distance.
It is known that radar
compresses the chest. 8_/ (Exhibit
11-16) It is known by scientists that microwaves collect at air pockets. Exactly what role the missing storage pump played, would have to be answered by an investigation into human slavery by hitmen. Can Appellant be a safe driver with his higher level reflex missing? Appellant has pointed to the persons who robbed him of a storage pump. The value of the storage pump is infinite, and apparently very unique. HERE appellant has still not gotten any abuse stipulation from first responders. (Hearing Transcripts p 13) First responders have a conflict of interest. On or about June 1988 appellant found a youthful male limping
around the apartment complex with a foot brace, who seemed healthy before. When appellant asked the neighbor what was wrong, he said he had "gout."
The first
responders have not taken in to consideration that gout prevents appellant from exercise. The degree of gout is controlled by the suspects, with a wireless unit causing stress and inflammation. Appellant notices pain in the greater toes, if he should move too fast. He can visually see the redness after showering. (Exhibit 15-6) In 2005 appellant's medical tests did
reveal a high uric acid, which could be gout. But gout admittedly can be there without a test positive. Appellant had earlier suggested the possibility of gout, but it was ignored. Suspects sit in apartment unoccupied rooms, and attack citizens in apartments while remaining out of sight. 8_/ CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the
reasons stated herein, appellant
respectfully requests that this Court reverse his order of suspension. If the Court feels the third party needs more investigation, the trial could be sent back to the Agency. Dated this 9 day of November, 2005
____________________
JAMES BURROUGHS
Pro Per / Appellant
Additional Opening Brief
|