Re: to the stuffy shirt leaders of europe countries

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.



Dude!
You came and told me : WE HAVE A DEAL!
AND I SAID TRUE! AND I WAS THERE FOR THE DEAL KEEPING MY WORD!
AND YOU??????
DARE COME TO ME AFTER ALL AND FLIPP ME OFF? TALKING ABOUT WISDOM?
YOU ARE A CROOK DUDE!
IS SO DISGUSTING WHEN PEOPLE LACK INTEGRITY!
IS SIMPLY DISGUSTING!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

Look at this !
Threats and intimidation and fear !
Dear of consequences of own wrong doing !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:57:43 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 7:47:21 PM UTC-7, mhrist...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Am fed up with it !
>
>
> Are you in colorado springs?
>
> If not you should keep it to yourself.



Secrecy !!!
Only crooks have a lot to hide Michael !
I thought transparency is the word of this century !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Are you in Colorado ?
Wow!
Hidden pile of sorrow crap !
You have slot to hide indeed !
Will pull your mask off !!!!!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.


Michael , you are in charge of punishing abusers and helping victims of abuse .
This is your job .
I wonder to what degree your knowledge about abuse and behavior of the victim are you aware of ?
I was sitting with myself and wondered : what the f is wrong with me ? Why I want you to like me ? Why I talk so much about myself to you ?
Why I am exposing all I got to you ? In an attempt to proof how wonderful I am ?
Why I do all this for when I know you are the man that filed charges against me by , well known and proven false accusations against me for five years ????
And I had an aha moment ...
Basically the question that popped in my mind exactly , was this one :
Why I want the man that abuses me for five years , why I want him to like me ???
And the aha moment I had ?
Shocked me !
You know why I missed to see it so far ? I never used the word abuse related to your persona.
And you do abuse me not only the system . This is down right abuse what you do to me !
If you are a good victim advocate ? You know what happens to me !
I thought of you before , using words like criminal , tyrant , liar , murderer , crook , and so on . Was first time when I realise and used the word " abuser " related to you !
The moment I did so ?
I understood fully my behavior !
I wonder if you recognize what happens to me ?
I doubt you did !
I recalled that I read about the victim abuser relationship and that the victim, knowing she deserves love , she tried to please the abuser , hoping she can make him see she is worthy of love and he makes a mistake abusing her , hoping once she can proof her worth , the abuse will stop.
And because i read long ago about that , I googled it in order to recall fully and understand what happens to me !
The way am acting , STANDS AS BIGGEST PROOF THAT I AM SEVERELY ABUSED BY YOU FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS !
AMD THIS IS WHAT I TALK ABOUT :

MAYBE YOU DID RECOGNISED IT THAT'S WHY YOU'RE F QUIET LIKE NEVER BEFORE !
MAYBE YOU DID RECOGNIZED MY SYMPTOMS OR A PSYCHOLOGIST DID ENLIGHTENED YOU ...
AM SURE YOU SHOWED IT TO YOUR CORRUPTED PSYCHOLOGIST THE ONE THAT FOUND ME SHARP FACE TO FACE , AND INCOMPETENT WHEN FILED THE PAPERS .
YOU SHOWED IT TO HIM IN AN ATTEMPT TO SCREW ME SO YOU CAN FINISH ME AND BRING TO FRUITION YOUR MENTAL HEALTH PLAN FOR ME AND HE RIGHT AWAY UNDERSTOOD WHAT TRULY GOES IN WITH ME AMD EXPLAINED YOU THAT MY BEHAVIOR STANDS AS PROOF THAT YOU ARE MY ABUSER ...AND I AM YOUR VICTIM!

WOW !
AND THAT THIS DOESN'T GO AGAINST ME, QUITE CONTRARY ! STANDS AS UNDOUBTEDLY PROOF THAT AM ABUSED BY THE F DA !!!! SEVERELY !!!and this is what I talk about :

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:42:20 PM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22387-stockholm-syndrome
>
> And this is so fucked up !
> So fucked up !!!!
> I will heal myself ...
> Non-issue there ! .once I understood what goes on with me ?
> I am healed !
> And that just happened !
> Wow!
So am sick ...no wonder after five years of severe abuse where am your victim and you hold me captive with your false accusations ! You keep me in fear that will be arrested . I can't plan my tomorrow for five years because of you all , simply because I can't be certain of my tomorrow !!!
Criminals and abusers you all are !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:42:20 PM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:38:44 PM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22387-stockholm-syndrome
>
> And this is so fucked up !
> So fucked up !!!!
> I will heal myself ...
> Non-issue there ! .once I understood what goes on with me ?
> I am healed !
> And that just happened !
> Wow!

I was ashamed for a while of my own feelings !
I couldn't understand what's wrong with me ?
Finally I do !
I just knew is not my fault and I shouldn't feel ashamed ! I knew that !!! But I couldn't understand fully what happens to me till right now .

[Mihaela Hristodor]

If couldn't fully understand my indecisiveness.
I couldn't explain it !
I was wondering am I f. Nuts really or what happens to me ?
Omg !!!
Will sue you ! All!!
I will!
Thanks God I became aware of the reason why I feel the way I do ! As I was aware this is just so weird and so fucked up for me to feel ! Yet the feelings were there ...you got me really good !
And those awakward feelings were going away and my pain was surfacing screaming for justice !
Then they would comeback !
Dude ! Do you realize what you all did to me ?
Are you aware of the severity of your nasty abuse ?
Omg !
I may end up hating you !
And you will be the first person I ever hate!
Will monitor now myself . And I doubt that those feelings will ever COMEBACK ONCE I BECAME AWARE OF THE NASTY SOURCE OF WHY THEY ARE THERE!
THANK YOU GOD FOR ENLIGHTENING ME!
YES AM YOUR PRISONER AMD YOU HELD ME CAPTIVE FOR FIVE YEARS YOU PIG !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

I need a lawyer ! And will get myself one !
I don't know how will pay him ...
I will send you the bill !
I will! .
I need a lawyer !!!!!!!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

I will show him this forum and the 4 millions !
So he will get paid ! .I need a lawyer like air !
And will get one tonight I will write to ten of them ! One ? Will take my case and is all I need !
Will tell him he can have 200,000 pay out of my settlement !
And they'll do it !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

I was so aware this is not normal for me to feel !!!
Am shocked with my discovery !
I knew is so unnatural !!!
To feel ...omg !
Am even more disgusted now when I fully understand the source of those awakward feelings ! Wondering what is wrong with me ????
Omg !!!
You'll see what is coming to you !
All of you !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Was so natural for me to feel I can't take it anymore !!
Of COURSE ! Am kidnapped by you all and held in captivity for five f years !
Of course am angry ! And I want this over !
I am choking screaming in despair in my own mind : freeeeedom !! ! For God sakes !
Of course I feel the way I do !
Abusers you all are ! You f criminals !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

This case ? Will bring a new set of laws and will be all over media because has some really new elements in it !
Will be a case for precedent manual !
I know that !
And you'll be the first prosecutor jailed !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

I'll show you setting in fire people !!
This is your future ! Is exactly what you did ! And after you stole my money ?
You jailed me continously ! You are in deep shit !
If that guy got 13 years ? You'll get 25 ! With all.youve done to me !


https://commercialobserver.com/2022/05/mitchell-kossoff-sentenced/

[Mihaela Hristodor]

See this case ?
That's why I need a lawyer ! To show you your damn place : jail!!!!!

You do this to so many people ! Habitually ! Pig!
You will not be reelected fraudulently again !
I will send to your opponents proofs and invite them to this forum !
You got that ?


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


GUILLERMO VILLALOBOS VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) DOCKET NO. S226559
(Ct. App. No. E063481;
Sup. Ct. No. INF1302664)



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY THEIR ATTORNEY, MICHAEL HESTRIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,

Real Party in Interest.


REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW

____________

STEVEN L. HARMON
Public Defender,
County of Riverside
LAURA ARNOLD
St. Bar No. 177978
Deputy Public Defender
30755 D Auld Rd., Ste. 2233
Murrieta, CA 92563
Telephone: (951) 304-5600
Facsimile: (951) 304-5605

Attorneys for Petitioner
GUILLERMO VILLALOBOS VALENCIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VILLALOBOS VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) DOCKET NO. S226559
(Ct. App. No. E063481;
Sup. Ct. No. INF1302664)



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY THEIR ATTORNEY, MICHAEL HESTRIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,

Real Party in Interest.

TO: THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Petitioner, Guillermo Villalobos Valencia, by and through his attorney, respectfully submits the following reply to the District Attorney’s Answer to his petition for review.
In its Answer to the petition for review, the District Attorney contends that, given the procedural posture of this case, this court should not exercise its supervisor power, grant review, and remand the matter to the Court of Appeal with instructions to issue an Order to Show Cause. The District Attorney also contends that a hypothetical alternate theory of prosecution, not raised in the trial court, supports the People’s attempt to
prosecute Petitioner for felony burglaries. The People advance here, for the first time, the theory that Petitioner did not enter the Cash Mart with the intent of committing larceny or misdemeanor forgery; rather, he entered with the intent of violating Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a), a felony. Finally, based on a tortured interpretation of the words “commercial establishment” supported by a single dictionary entry, the People argue that the bindover was proper. These arguments are addressed in turn.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW EXIST
While trial and appeal from a conviction may, in some cases, provide an adequate remedy to a defendant whose Penal Code section 995 motion is denied and whose petition for writ of prohibition, per what appears to be a pervasive local custom, is summarily denied by the reviewing court, this case is quite different. Section 459.5 sets forth a brand new criminal offense, the elements of which have not yet been determined. There is no case law. There are no official California Jury Instructions. There is no judicial guidance whatsoever.
Petitioner is certainly not the only person in Riverside County, or in the State of California, for that matter, who is currently charged with a felony burglary when the law permits him to be charged only with a misdemeanor violation of Section 459.5. And because of the ambiguity addressed herein and the matter in which the case is charged, Petitioner, like countless others, is subject to enhanced bail, longer statutory timeframes in which to be brought to trial, and, if convicted, a much harsher sentence. Sure, he could proceed to trial and, if convicted, appeal, while serving an unauthorized felony sentence for a crime of which he should never have been charged much less convicted. And, years from now, assuming the trial court incorrectly instructs the jury as to the elements of Section 459.5 (which, absent any appellate guidance, is highly likely), and assuming Petitioner is convicted of a felony burglary rather than a misdemeanor violation of section 459.5, he very well might be able to secure a reversal after conviction. But the procedural safeguards in place to prevent this from occurring strongly evidence the Legislature’s recognition that the plan proposed by the People would be constitutionally inadequate. (Sections 859b, 861.5, 871.6 (right to a speedy preliminary hearing), 871 and 872 (discharging defendant or issuing a holding order), 17, subd. (a) (court’s power to reduce degree of offense to a misdemeanor at preliminary hearing), 995 (review of bindover), 996 (forfeiture of grounds to appeal upon failure to challenge defect in the holding order via section 995) and, of course, 999a (writ review of denial of section 995 motion).) Also, notably, a defendant cannot rely on any error in the holding order to reverse a subsequent conviction unless it is shown “that he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice as a result of the error at the preliminary examination. The right to relief without any showing of prejudice will be limited to pretrial challenges of irregularities.” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529; accord People v. Cabrera (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 695, 701.) Grounds for review exist. The merits of this case need to be judicially resolved. The petition for writ of prohibition filed by Petitioner in the Court of Appeal was not “discretionary”, as characterized by the District Attorney in its Answer. It was statutorily authorized and constitutionally necessary, and it should not have been summarily denied.
II.
A HOLDING ORDER FOR FELONY BURGLARY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED UNDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S NEWLY ADVANCED ALTERNATE THEORY
Petitioner was not charged with having violated nor having attempted to violate Section 530.5. (Exhibit B, pp. 11-13.) At no point in the trial court did the People advance the theory that his burglary charges rested on the fact that he entered Cash Mart with the intent of committing any felony other than larceny by deceit. (Exhibits C and D, Exhibit E, p. 45, Exhibit F, Exhibit G.) A careful review of the trial court record reveals no mention whatsoever of section 530.5. Yet, the District Attorney now contends that the theory of the prosecution is not what was charged, briefed, and argued in the trial court – entry into a commercial establishment with the intent of committing larceny by deceit or misdemeanor forgery. This case is really about entering a commercial establishment with the intent of violating section 530.5, subdivision (a). (Answer, at pp. 6-8.) This argument is legally untenable.
The Legislature enacted section 530.5 in 1997, to codify and penalize the crime of identity theft. (People v. Valenzuela (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 800, 806-07.) From 1997 to 2006, section 530.5, subdivision (a) prohibited the willful obtaining and use of another person's identifying information “in the name of the other person” – in other words, the crime of “identity theft,” as it is commonly understood. Then, in 2006, with the adoption of Assembly Bill 2886, the words “in the name of the other person” were removed from the statute. “The author of A.B. 2886 explained that under the then-current law, identity thieves usually receive just ‘a slap on the wrist for all the damage they cause in the lives of these victims,’ and that the purpose of the bill was to ‘give local law enforcement and the courts the legal authority and tools necessary to aid victims.’ (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2886 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 28, 2006.) (Valenzuela, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 807.)

In its current form, section 530.5, entitled “Unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another person; attempt to obtain credit, goods, services, real property or medical information; etc,” proscribes a wide variety of conduct involving the unauthorized use of the personal information of another person, including, but not limited to “identity theft.” The People contend that, based on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, Petitioner could theoretically have been held to answer for felony burglary on the grounds that, when he entered Cash Mart with the forged Vons’ checks made payable to himself, he specifically intended to commit a felony other than larceny – a violation of section 530.5, subdivision (a). This is incorrect.
Section 530.5, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Every person who willfully obtains personal identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55, of another person, and uses that information for any unlawful purpose, including to obtain, or attempt to obtain, credit, goods, services, real property, or medical information without the consent of that person, is guilty of a public offense ….

(§530.5, subd. (a).) While this might be a viable theory if Petitioner had used the personal identifying information of an “individual person”, as opposed to a corporate entity, such is not the case here.



Section 530.5, subdivision (a) specifically references subdivision (b) of section 530.55, which defines “Personal identifying information” as follows:
any name, address, telephone number, health insurance number, taxpayer identification number, school identification number, state or federal driver’s license, or identification number, social security number, place of employment, employee identification number, professional or occupational number, mother’s maiden name, demand deposit account number, savings account number, checking account number, PIN (personal identification number) or password, alien registration number, government passport number, date of birth, unique biometric data including fingerprint, facial scan identifiers, voiceprint, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation, unique electronic data including information identification number assigned to the person, address or routing code, telecommunication identifying information or access device, information contained in a birth or death certificate, or credit card number of an individual person, or an equivalent form of identification.

(§530.55, subd. (b), emphasis added.) “Personal identifying information,” as defined in this subdivision, cannot reasonably be construed as including the corporate entity, Vons, which is not “an individual person”. Accordingly, the People’s new alternate theory of guilt would not support the holding order or warrant the Court of Appeal’s summary denial of Petitioner’s petition for writ of prohibition.


III.
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING DOES NOT PROVE THAT “CASH MART” IS NOT A “COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT”
The District Attorney’s final argument is that the bindover was proper because the evidence presented by the People at the preliminary hearing established that “Cash Mart” is “not a ‘commercial establishment’ within the meaning of section 459.5.” They contend that “the plain commonsense” meaning of the broad phrase, “commercial establishment” is “limited to establishments that offer goods for sale.” (Answer, p. 10.)
If dictionary definitions are the appropriate means of defining statutory terms like “commercial establishment,” then the inquiry cannot be confined to only one dictionary definition – that advanced by the District Attorney. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “commercial” as “related to or used in the buying and selling of goods and services; concerned with earning money; relating to or based on the amount of profit that something earns.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
commercial.) Its thesaurus lists the following synonyms: “economic, financial, monetary, profit-making, profitable, wholesale, commissary, exchange, market, merchandising, retail, retailing, sales, supplying, trade, trading, across the counter, bartering, fiscal, for sale, in demand, in the market, marketable, mercantile, pecuniary, popular, saleable, and wholesaling.” (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/commercial?s=t ) “Establishment” is defined as “a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
establishment.) Even the name of the establishment in question, “Cash Mart,” is consistent with the plain commonsense meaning of a “commercial establishment”. “’Mart” is “a place where things are bought and sold.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mart.) Contrary to the People’s position, the preliminary hearing evidence did not establish that Cash Mart is not what is classically understood as a “commercial establishment.” To the contrary, it established that Cash Mart is a business which provides check cashing services in exchange for money – in other words, a commercial establishment. (Exhibit E, p. 39, p. 43.)
In adopting Proposition 47, the voters not only “intended to” create the crime of shoplifting, they did create it. And they defined it broadly (“commercial establishment” versus “retail store”), consistent with their expressed intent that the initiative be broadly construed to effectuate its purposes. (Ca Prop 47 (2014), §18, 2014 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop 47.) To the extent that there is an ambiguity in the statutory language, the instant case provides a perfect opportunity for that ambiguity to be resolved.
CONCLUSION
Because the evidence adduced at Petitioner’s preliminary hearing proved that he violated section 459.5, which precludes prosecution for certain burglaries as felony offenses, he should not have been held to answer on felony burglary charges. Forcing him to resort to postconviction remedies under these unusual circumstances would be inappropriate. Petitioner respectfully urges this court to grant his petition for review and remand this matter to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, with instructions to issue an Order to Show cause and decide the merits of the petition for writ of prohibition so that Petitioner and others in his situation do not continue to be irreparably harmed.
Dated: __________________
Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN L. HARMON
Public Defender


By: ___________________________
LAURA ARNOLD
Deputy Public Defender

Attorney for Petitioner
GUILLERMJO VILLALOBOS VALENCIA

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

According to the Word count of my computer program, this Reply contains 2,039 words
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 9, 2015, at Murrieta, California.

_____________________________
LAURA ARNOLD
Deputy Public Defender
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE
STATE CASES
People v. Cabrera
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 695 4
People v. Pompa-Ortiz
(1980) 27 Cal.3d 519 4
People v. Valenzuela
(2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 800 5

PENAL CODE
Penal Code section 459.5 2, 3, 8, 10
Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) 2, 5, 6
Penal Code section 995 2, 3
Section 17, subdivision (a) 3
Section 530.5 4, 5
Section 530.55, subdivision (b) 6, 7
Section 859b 3
Section 861.5 3
Section 871 3
Section 872 3
Section 996 3
Section 999a 3

SECONDARY AUTHORITY
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commercial 8
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establishment 9
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mart 9

LEGISLATION & INITIATIVES
Assembly Bill 2886 (2006 Reg. Sess.) 5
Proposition 47 9



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2
I. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW EXIST 2
II. A HOLDING ORDER FOR FELONY BURGLARY WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN AUTHORIZED BASED ON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S NEWLY ADVANCED ALTERNATE THEORY 4

III. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING
DOES NOT PROVE THAT “CASH MART” IS NOT A “COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT” 8

CONCLUSION 10
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Rule 1.21(c)

CASE NAME: GUILLERMO VILLALOBOS VALENCIA V. SUPERIOR COURT
DOCKET NO. S226559
Ct. Appeal 4th DCA, Div. 2 No.: E063481
Trial Court No.: INF1302664
I, Debra Lewis, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 30755-D Auld Rd., Ste. 2233, Murrieta, CA, 92563, in said County and State.
On June 10, 2015, I served the foregoing document REPLY TO PETITION FOR REVIEW on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
 BY MAIL: Pursuant to Rule 1.21(b), on the above-mentioned date I personally deposited in the United States Mail true and correct copies thereof, each in a separate envelope, postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following [See Service List]. .
• BY PERSONAL SERVICE: On the date of execution of this document, I personally served true and correct copies of the above-mentioned document(s) on each of the following Riverside County District Attorney, Attn: Writs & Appeals, 3960 Orange Street, Riverside, CA 92501
• BY FAX: From fax number (619) 338-4847, I caused each such document to be transmitted by fax machine, to the parties and numbers indicated above, under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306. The fax machine that I used complied with Rule 2.301 and no error was reported by the machine.
• BY E-MAIL: On the above-mentioned date, I caused a true copy of said document to be emailed to said parties’ e mail addresses as indicated on the attached Service List. (Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(c)(1))
 STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ______________________

____________________________
Debra Lewis
Declarant

SERVICE LIST

Clerk of the Superior Court
c/o JUDICIAL SERVICES
4100 Main Street
Riverside, Ca. 92501
Phone: (951).777-3147
Court of Appeals – 4th DCA. Div. 2
Attn: Clerk of the Court
3389 12th St.
Riverside, CA 92501

Kamala D. Harris
California Attorney General
Attn: Appellate Division
110 West 'A' Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 645-2001
Riverside CountyDistrict Attorney
Attn: APPELLATE DIVISION
3960 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501

Mr. Guillermo Villalobos Valencia
(through counsel)

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:42:05 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

You'll see flapping gums and all other insults and lies ! You'll be jailed and.of course fired !
How you even dare hope reelection?
You are a CRIMINAL! And criminals as law says today : should be jailed ! So they can't continue to hurt honest people !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

You should make a.list with all.your charges !
And calculate your own jail time !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

You try to kill people using biological weapons lying they have Corona and jail them so often knowing the protocol about TB SHOTS (!!!) when they are healthy , you say they are incompetent AFTER YOU SEE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE , SURVIVING TWO DEADLY VIRUSES YOU INTENTIONALLY EXPOSED ME TO ( I BET AM NOT THE ONLY ONE !) , BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND CANT LET CASE GO TO PRETRIAL AT LEAST !

DUDE !
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE GRAVITY OF YOUR CRIMINAL ACTS ?
ALL BECAUSE YOU ARE IN GREAT REALTIONSHIP I WITH WF WHO PAID YOU TO COMMIT PERFECT MURDER!!!! AND YOU FAILED TO KILL ME USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS! YOU HAVE A DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST IN MY CASE AS YOU STOLE MY ASSETS!
WHICH ARE MORE THAN 4 MILLIONS !
YOU ARE SUCH A CRIMINAL THAT IS DISGUSTING TO NO END !
THEY ADVERTISE YOU AS DA ? SAYING YOU'RE BEST SHOT BETWEEN THE THREE ?
WILL CONTACT THE NEWS !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
>
> You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
>
> Make the list.
>
> You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.

Here another case way worse then the one you all made up for me and was dismissed !
They are similar from the point of view that I was never arrested n the cop was there second day after the fabrication of the ' incident ' , and 9 month later , you decide with jaquelina to file charges and issue warrants ! When you never let me know that charges were filed against me ! And you knew where I am ! You very well knew ! You wrote only to your " victim" saying will plead guilty promising him money !
After nine month , cops break into my house through garage door at 3-4 am (!!!!!!) And arrest me based on the illegal warrants you and jaquelina made against me !
Then the defender bitch I had at arraingment , which I fired right there on the video hearing at my arraingment ? Defender that never spoke with me ??? Filed a waiver of my speedy trial rights ! How clever isn't it ?
You are all in deep shit !!! All of you !
Will lose your licenses and will remain investigation on all cases you all worked on !
Tell the dishonorable ''JUDGES"" that they are in deep shit with defenders and prosecutors togheter !

Here is the case I talk about !
Dismissed for solely reason that speedy trial was denied !
In my case ? This is smallest issue ! You people committed LITERALLY SEVERE CRIMES AGAINST ME TRYING TO COMMIT PERFECT MURDER USING VIRUSES !!!!
TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I JUST WAS SO UNFORTUNATE ! NIT A BIG LOSS RIGHT ? SHE IS A CRIMINAL ! KARMA ! SHE DIED OUT OF VIRUSES ...RIGHT ? WHEN THE ONLY CRIMINALS ARE YOU !! ALL OF YOU !!!

ATTEMPT OF MURDER!!! YOU HEAR ME ?????
IF ANY JUDGE DARE SAT YOU ARE IMMUNE TO THAT ?
THEN WILL DO YOU ALL A FAVOR AND PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE!
Peoplev.Collins
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWOMar 28, 2017Full title
E064946 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2017)Copy Citation
E064946
03-28-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAMONT COLLINS, Defendant and Respondent.
Michael A. Hestrin , District Attorney, Alan D. Tate, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Steven L. Harmon, Public Defender, William A. Meronek, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.

RAMIREZ P. J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1200204) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jerome E. Brock, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Clara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed with directions. Michael A. Hestrin , District Attorney, Alan D. Tate, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Steven L. Harmon, Public Defender, William A. Meronek, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Respondent.
The trial court granted defendant and respondent Lamont Collins's motion to dismiss a criminal complaint filed against him, for denying his right to a speedy trial under the California Constitution. The People appeal from the court's orders granting defendant's motion and dismissing the case. For the reasons set forth post, we reverse the trial court's orders with directions to reinstate the charges against defendant.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because this case was dismissed prior to a preliminary hearing or trial, the facts are taken from defendant's motion to dismiss and the People's response to the motion.
On December 24, 2011, at approximately 1:07 a.m., Hemet Police Officer Hiatt responded to an apartment complex regarding a domestic violence call the victim made from the home of a friend. Upon arrival, Officer Hiatt made contact with the victim, who was standing in front of the location. The victim had a swollen right cheek with a laceration, and a small laceration to her lip. She alleged that defendant, her live-in boyfriend, had been drinking. He accused the victim of infidelity and then punched her during an argument. When the officer went to the couple's apartment to interview defendant, he noted defendant smelled strongly of alcohol. Defendant was unable to give a statement—he had trouble keeping his balance as he sat on the couch, was going in and out of consciousness, and had a large bump on his forehead. The officer contacted the victim again and asked her what had happened to defendant's forehead. As described in the People's response to the motion to dismiss, "The victim said that she did not know and that it was not like that when she left. She then speculated that their roommate Dre could have punched him after the defendant hit the victim or that it could have been from the intoxication." Dre was not present when the police arrived and the victim provided no further contact or identifying information on Dre. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the police followed up their investigation by interviewing Dre. Defendant was assessed by paramedics and transported to a local hospital for treatment. Defendant was not arrested that night because the officer was unsure of the extent of defendant's injury.
About six weeks later, on February 6, 2012, the People filed a felony complaint alleging defendant committed corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and alleging he had a prison term prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On February 7, 2012, the court issued an arrest warrant for defendant. The People did not provide defendant with notice of the felony complaint or the arrest warrant. Shortly after the incident, defendant moved to Palmdale. Defendant then lived in Lake Los Angeles from mid-2012 until July 2015, at which point he moved back to the same address in Palmdale.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
Defendant was not aware of this case until September 2015, when he was arrested on the outstanding warrant. On October 6, 2015, defendant was arraigned and pled not guilty. On October 29, 2015, the court heard defendant's motion to dismiss for denial of his right to a speedy trial. The court granted the motion on the ground that "due to the nature of this case, the facts of the case, and the amount of time, the Court is going to grant the motion."
This appeal by the People followed.
DISCUSSION
A. State Right to a Speedy Trial—Three-Step Analysis
The threshold question of whether a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial under the California Constitution has been violated is whether the defendant was prejudiced by the unreasonable delay between the filing of the complaint and the subsequent arrest. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15; Shleffar v. Superior Court (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 937, 945.) Unlike the federal right contained in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which attaches when the defendant is arrested or the information is filed, the California speedy trial right is triggered when the complaint is filed, and thus covers prearrest delay. (People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 899, 910.)
Under the California Constitution, "a three-step analysis is employed to determine whether the defendant's rights have been violated." (People v. Dunn-Gonzales, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 911.) First, the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. (Ibid.) Next, if the defendant adequately demonstrates prejudice, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify the delay. (Ibid.) Finally, if justification is offered, the court weighs the justification against the prejudice. (Ibid.)
California's speedy trial provision never presumes prejudice prior to the arraignment and requires that prejudice be affirmatively demonstrated, no matter how unreasonable the delay. (Ibarra v. Municipal Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 853, 857.) Thus, in the case before us, defendant carries the initial burden to demonstrate actual prejudice, and the court will not inquire into the justification for the delay before this demonstration occurs. (Id. at p. 858.)
B. Insufficient Evidence of Prejudice to Defendant.
The People argue that defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. We agree.
When a party challenges a dismissal based upon a violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial, the court reviews the record under an abuse of discretion standard. (Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 250-251.) Whether prejudice has been shown is a factual question to be determined by the trial court and its decision will not be overturned by an appellate court if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Hill (1984) 37 Cal.3d 491, 499.) The role of the appellate court is not to reweigh the evidence but to ascertain whether the conclusions of the trial court are supported by particular facts. (Ibid.) All reasonable inferences by the trier of fact must be indulged in favor of the ruling and "those affidavits favoring the contention of the prevailing party establish the facts stated therein and all facts which reasonably may be inferred therefrom; . . ." (People v. Canada (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 637, 642.)
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, defense counsel indicated that their inability to locate Dre as a witness "actually does provide actual prejudice." Defense counsel explained that the incident involved the victim and defendant. The victim gave her version of the events to the police. Defendant, however, had and continued to have no memory of what transpired on the night of the alleged incident. The evidence from the incident showed that both defendant and the victim suffered injuries. The evidence also shows a third person may or may not have been present at the time the incident occurred. Defense counsel argued: "There appears to have been, by that alleged victim's own statements, a third party witness that evening. I think having a third party witness, who could have been an objective observer, is absolutely relevant to the case. And the inability to now locate a former roommate, who they don't have the full legal name of, is without question prejudice to my client to be able to present a defense on an event that he did not remember that evening due to injury and now still cannot remember the details of. [¶] So, I believe prejudice has been demonstrated." In his declaration, defendant stated, "I am no longer in contact with 'Dre' and have no means of locating him."
The People claim that defendant's "attempted showing of prejudice was improperly conclusory and speculative [citation], and it completely lacked any description of the nature of Dre's testimony, its materiality, or any efforts to actually locate Dre [citation.] There was no competent evidence of prejudice." In support of its argument, the People cite to People v. Sahagun (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 1, which we believe is dispositive under the facts of this case. A defendant seeking dismissal because the delayed prosecution resulted in difficulty locating a witness is required to articulate specific facts to show actual, if minimal prejudice, including: (1) the identity of the unavailable witness; (2) the nature of the testimony the witness would have offered; and (3) what efforts the defense made to locate the witness. (Id. at p. 24.) We emphasize that the second and third steps of the speedy trial analysis discussed above—the People's justification for the delay and the weighing of the delay against the prejudice to the defendant—do not come into play until and unless the defendant makes this initial showing of actual prejudice.
We now review the defense motion to dismiss, and the defendant's accompanying declaration, with these three criteria from Sahagun firmly in mind.
First, the defense identifies the unavailable possible witness only as "Dre." This person was reportedly defendant's and the victim's roommate. However, defendant does not provide any further identification, or even indicate whether "Dre" is a nickname, a first name, or a last name. Defendant does not aver that he in fact has no other identifying information about Dre or bother to explain to the court how he knows so little about this former roommate. Defendant simply does not provide the required specific information regarding the identity of the unavailable witness, or offer an excuse for not providing this information.
Second, the defense supplies no information whatsoever, much less specific information, regarding the nature of the testimony this Dre would have offered. The motion merely states "evidence from a third party observer would have been particularly helpful." The defendant fails to state what the nature of Dre's testimony would have been, that is, he does not allege whether Dre would confirm the victim's statements or contradict them. He does not allege with any certainty whether Dre was present at all. We do not take as gospel defense counsel's mischaracterization at the hearing that, "[t]here appears to have been, by that alleged victim's own statements, a third party witness that evening." To the contrary, we see from the defendant's own motion to dismiss that it is actually unknown whether Dre was present during the altercation and could provide relevant testimony, whether favorable or detrimental to defendant. The victim did not say Dre was present, but rather "suggested [defendant's injuries] may have been caused by" Dre. Similarly, the People's response to the motion describes the victim's statement as making it equally plausible that defendant injured himself while intoxicated. When asked the sourced of defendant's injury, the only thing the victim was clear about was that defendant had not been injured at the time she left the residence. The victim "speculated that their roommate Dre could have punched him after the defendant hit the victim or that it could have been from the intoxication." Dre was not present at the couple's residence when law enforcement responded to the victim's 911 call, and there is no evidence in the record that Dre was present at any time during the altercation. Defendant completely failed to describe the nature of Dre's testimony or establish that Dre had any testimony to give. This does not fulfill defendant's burden to articulate specific facts regarding the nature of the testimony the absent witness would have offered.
Third, defendant neglects to describe specifically what efforts he made to locate Dre. Defendant's entire attempt to satisfy this prong of the requirement is the statement in his declaration that, "I am no longer in contact with 'Dre' and have no means of locating him." Period. Nothing else. The defendant could not be bothered to inquire of the former landlord or any mutual acquaintances, past or present, where Dre could be found or even what his full name might be, so as to facilitate a simple internet and social media search. Defendant's complete disavowal of any knowledge or means of locating Dre does not satisfy the reasonable effort required by Sahagun. The defendant's declaration instead offers a meager excuse for not making any effort at all. This is especially troubling because the prospect of having his criminal case dismissed because defendant can't find Dre removes the incentive for defendant to look very hard.
In sum, the defendant fulfills not one of the specific requirements set forth Sahagun. Rather, defendant provides a vague, conclusory description of speculative prejudice. This is not the showing of actual prejudice, nor even the showing of minimal prejudice, required by our courts.
We believe the trial court gave insignificant attention to the showing a defendant must make to get beyond the first step of the speedy trial analysis—actual prejudice. Possibly this is because the trial court focused too early in the three-step analysis on the lack of justification for and length of the delay that are important components of steps 2 and 3. This is an incorrect application of the law, and, thus, an abuse of discretion because, "the initial burden in establishing a violation of article I, section 15 [of the California Constitution], is on the defendant seeking dismissal who must demonstrate prejudice attributable to the delay in arrest. [Citation.] Only after he has done so must the court determine if the delay was justified and engage in the balancing process." (Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 249.) Keeping in mind the mandatory sequence of the three-step analysis, we conclude that the trial court's finding that defendant established actual prejudice is both an abuse of discretion and not supported by substantial evidence in this record.
DISPOSITION
The court's orders granting defendant's motion and dismissing the case are reversed, with directions to reinstate the charges against defendant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. I concur: CODRINGTON
J.
MILLER, J.
I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority opinion reversing the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss a criminal complaint against him and reinstating the charges against defendant.
I agree with the majority that the threshold question, of whether a criminal defendant's right of speedy trial under the California Constitution has been violated, is whether the defendant was prejudiced by the unreasonable delay between the filing of the complaint and the subsequent arrest. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15; Shleffar v. Superior Court (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 937, 945.) Unlike the federal right contained in the Sixth Amendment, which attaches upon the filing of information or arrest, the California speedy trial right is triggered upon filing of the complaint, and thus covers prearrest delay. (People v. Dunn-Gonzalez (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 899, 910.) A defendant must make only a prima facie showing of prejudice in order to shift the burden to the People to justify the delay, while the degree necessary to require dismissal varies from case to case and must be determined after a "delicate task of balancing competing interests." (Ibarra v. Municipal Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 853, 858 (Ibarra).) "Even a minimal showing of prejudice may require dismissal if the proffered justification for delay be unsubstantial." (Ibid.)
In this case, there was a 44-month delay from the filing of the complaint, and an almost four-year delay since the alleged conduct, to the arraignment. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, defense counsel indicated that their inability to locate Dre as a witness "actually does provide actual prejudice." Defense counsel explained that the incident involved the victim and defendant. The victim gave her version of the events to the police. Defendant, however, had and continued to have no memory of what transpired on the night of the alleged incident. The evidence from the incident showed that both defendant and the victim suffered injuries. According to the victim, however, there was a third person present at the time the incident occurred. Defense counsel explained: "There appears to have been, by that alleged victim's own statements, a third party witness that evening. I think having a third party witness, who could have been an objective observer, is absolutely relevant to the case. And the inability to now locate a former roommate, who they don't have the full legal name of, is without question prejudice to my client to be able to present a defense on an event that he did not remember that evening due to injury and now still cannot remember he details of. [¶] So, I believe prejudice has been demonstrated." Moreover, even though the victim informed the officer on the night of the incident about Dre, who was a roommate of both defendant and the victim at the time, the police never followed up by interviewing Dre. In his declaration, defendant stated, "I am no longer in contact with 'Dre' and have no means of locating him." Because of the facts of this case and because defendant did not have and still does not have any recollection of the events that transpired on the night of the alleged incident, I concur with the trial court's finding that there existed at least some prejudice to defendant by the prosecution's delay.
Prejudice must be demonstrated by detriment to the defense such as the loss of material witnesses, missing evidence, or faded memories caused by lapse of time. (People v. Archerd (1970) 3 Cal.3d 615, 640.) Determining whether prejudice exists necessitates a careful assessment of the particular facts of each case. (People v. Hayton (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 413, 419.) Minimal prejudice may be found if it can be shown that due to the length of the delay the defendant can no longer obtain or locate evidence. (See Garcia v. Superior Court (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 148, 151.) Defendant's declaration must be supported by particular facts and not bare conclusory statements or mere declarations that the defendant was prejudiced. (Ibarra, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 858; Crockett v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 433, 442.)
The majority states that defendant has failed to make a showing of actual prejudice. The victim, however, told the officer who responded to her call that their mutual roommate could have been the person who hit defendant. Prejudice is a factual question to be decided by the trial court and the "conflict [is] to be won or lost" there. (People v. Hill (1984) Cal.3d 491, 499.) Because it is not the role of the appellate court to reweigh the evidence, and because we may reasonably infer that the trial court had adequate legal basis for its decision, I cannot opine that the trial court may have given its decision for the wrong reason. (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 582.) Because only a minimal showing of prejudice was all that was required to shift the burden to the state to justify their delay, I believe there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision. (See Ibarra, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 858; see People v. Garcia, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at pp. 151-152.)
Moreover, "[t]he quality of any claimed prejudice cannot be properly evaluated in a vacuum; it only makes sense when compared with any justification for the delay." (Ibarra, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 858.) Thus, the more reasonable the delay, the more prejudice the defense will have to show to require dismissal. (Ibid.) Where there is an unsubstantial showing of justification, only a minimal showing of prejudice is required. (Ibid.)
In this case, the People failed to claim any adequate justification for their delay. In their response to the motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial, the People argued that because defendant moved to Los Angeles, "law enforcement can only do so much in tracking down Defendants who are out to warrant, especially Defendants who leave the jurisdiction. Here, law enforcement was not required to maintain constant surveillance of postal registers or civil lawsuit filings in all 50 states, as perhaps the Defendant expected as evidenced by his declaration. Instead, law enforcement arrested the Defendant almost four years after he left Riverside County with domestic violence investigation pending against him." The fact that defendant had moved out of Riverside County does not automatically make it justifiable for the prosecution's delay in prosecuting this case. The People did not provide any evidence showing any effort locating and serving defendant once the complaint was filed. On appeal, the People primarily argue that the burden never shifted to them since defendant failed to show prejudice. Consequently, when there lacks justification for the delay, there is no requirement to move to the third prong of the speedy trial test, the balancing of interests.
Based on the above, I would affirm the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss and in dismissing the complaint filed against defendant

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:58:04 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:27:53 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:
> > > You have a chance to go to the table to negotiate a deal with mr putin; suggest you take advantage of that fact.
> > >
> > > You must have a list of things you want from russia in return to make a deal.
> > >
> > > Make the list.
> > >
> > > You want to solve this at a table, this is your chance; don't flap your gums to try and sound tough to your people, be wise, or you will get your people set on fire.
> > You try to kill people using biological weapons lying they have Corona and jail them so often knowing the protocol about TB SHOTS (!!!) when they are healthy , you say they are incompetent AFTER YOU SEE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE , SURVIVING TWO DEADLY VIRUSES YOU INTENTIONALLY EXPOSED ME TO ( I BET AM NOT THE ONLY ONE !) , BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND CANT LET CASE GO TO PRETRIAL AT LEAST !
> >
> > DUDE !
> > ARE YOU AWARE OF THE GRAVITY OF YOUR CRIMINAL ACTS ?

> > ALL BECAUSE YOU ARE IN GREAT RELATIONSHIP I WITH WF WHO PAID YOU TO COMMIT PERFECT MURDER!!!! AND YOU FAILED TO KILL ME USING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS! YOU HAVE A DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST IN MY CASE AS YOU STOLE MY ASSETS!

> > WHICH ARE MORE THAN 4 MILLIONS !
> > YOU ARE SUCH A CRIMINAL THAT IS DISGUSTING TO NO END !
> > THEY ADVERTISE YOU AS DA ? SAYING YOU'RE BEST SHOT BETWEEN THE THREE ?
> > WILL CONTACT THE NEWS !

I believe that's a post I wrote yesterday that I couldn't send ..so will end it now .

[Mihaela Hristodor]

I always knew I am rich! I always knew am poor rich girl !
I always knew out there somewhere I have lots of money to recover .
For years now I look for unclaimed money . You the thief's hide them from me for many years and now in this last year you put my money in your packets !
I searched everywhere possible for my unclaimed money and I found only $3000 from DOJ class action with regard to WF giving discriminatory rates to black people and to me ...an "alien" !
I did all sorts of paid searches as well. And in one of them ? I found unclaimed assets in states I never lived in . When to claim them ? Something would happen and would reach to a dead end.
When I found out that the money that are unclaimed shoes to Riverside court and to you after so and so time ?
I knew this is not coincidence again !
People !!! Am here sent by God !
And will rahter die then miss to do my " my job!"
Get ready , as now , will f you up ! Big time !
I am out of warnings and out of time !
And one of the duties , btw is to not allow you to continue hurt anyone ! And this is possible only one way obviously : take your power away ! Or you will always abuse it !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 8:58:04 AM UTC-7, Mihaela Hristodor wrote:

You won't be the only one that will lose the power they abuse so severely !
Will be all of you : the judge that I had my arraignment with who lied and told me he issued an CRIMINAL RO ( which doesn't it in the form for 243e1, only for 273.5!) Yet never bother to give me a copy , he did so without " victim 'asking for one , and he did so while working in my house to get it ready for sale , and I was arrested I don't know 4 or five times for that one( will figure it out ) without cops ever showing me a copy of it either ! Then the judge that refused to lower my bail : $100,000 for misdemeanor (!) , Then jaquelina ( she's no. 1!) Then mental court criminal one who's married to da and who retaliated for complaining to Congress and to attorney general with : jail! No bail again ! F bitch ! Tell her to read as she's fucked! I'll teach her the lesson of her damn life ! She may lose her f minds when will deliver her the powerfull lesson from God ! Shell f see ! I hope Paton will provide her with all the care she delivered to others and they are sooooooo many ! Shell be in great hands too! For free!!! Isn't the state so wonderful ? You f pigs !!!!!
Shell never judge anyone else again ! She will lose her f fucked up brains ! As if they were any good ?
She wouldn't do what she obviously did ! To many ! Not me only !
And the list continues ...with defenders and traitors lawyers !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

And yes , cops and their supervisors !
I noticed now , last time jailed that I was taken in consideration by the jail commander when I made a request to be let free because if my motorhome . He made sure I aknowledge and made me sign is not his fault saying that he forwarded my request to the right department who will decide in my case . The right department ? Never let me out !
And I made the request because I saw they let many others out because was too crowded .
All this ? Because ''my lawyer'' told me no bail !
I believed her even tough was making no sense to me ! At all!
Yet how many times you all broke the laws ? So I knew doesn't have to make sense to me ! Am at the mercy of your nasty never ending abuse !!!
My intuition ? After one month there , screamed to me : call bail guys ! I did ! Through my surprise ?" My layer" lied!
My bail this time ? Was lowest one : $2500 only !
You people all of you know how to screw us really good !
No bail company wanted to bail me out ! Saying they don't work for free ! On this amount? They would make zero! Not even gas money !
I told them great ! Am so sorry am not a great damn criminal to be worth your attention and be set free !
Only the very dangerous ones should be set free ! Nice !
Sorry am such a little "criminal" ! Am not criminal at all ! Am here falsely accused and for this reason ? I should stay here where I am : in jail!!!
You f people !
I called bail guys so many times all of them I found !
Many ! So many to where i forgot I called them already as they were recognizing me saying : oh God are you still there ?
One bail guy said : "will go ahead send my guy in the morning there to bail you out ! "
I was so happy ! Finally a good hearted man ! Bail man !
What you nasty people did ? Transported me next morning from BANNING BACK TO RIVERSIDE ! AND I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL THE BAIL GUY AT LEAST TO TELL HIM NOT TO SEND HIS GUY FROM RIVERSIDE TI BANNING FIR FREE ! FOR ME ! AS AM TRANSFERED BACK TO RIVERSIDE !
YOU NASTY PEOPLE!
YOU LISTENED TO EACH AND EVERY OF MY CONVERSATIONS AND FUCKED ME UP CONSTANTLY !
DONT YOU EVEN DARE GO THERE SAYING WAS A COINCIDENCE ! WILL S.L.A.P.P. YOU ! OVER YOUR LYING FACE !

My Congress letter ?
Was very incomplete !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

This time ?
Will care zero will need 200 pages to explain all of it I passed through !
I want them to have it AS I DO !
SO THEY CAN SEE YOU AS YOU ARE AND AS I SEE YOU
AND PUNISH YOU ACCORDINGLY!

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Luckily ?
Alladin was the only bail company that had a money interest to take me out ( v. small one ) ...i owed them a small amount from past bail !
I will tell Congress so they can do something about that !
Change the laws ! Improve them !and I want to make them aware how nasty you all can be ! You all knew you can screw someone in three ways when it comes to bail :

1. no bail ( like now ? There is no bail posted next to those warrants ! None ! And that bitch judge better justify ! I'll show her me being a fugitive if she counts on that one? she's more mentally ill then I saw already she is ! )
a v. High bail they cant afford ?

2. Very high bail ( unaffordable )

and surprisingly ?

3. Very low bail !!!

You all know it and you screw us all the time !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

Keeping us jailed innocent on ""peoples's"" money so then a murderer like you can come squeezing our balls asking for money for our stay in your f nasty jails where you force us to break the law by urinating and DEFECATING in public while you video can us for your huge collection of movies sold illegally on dark web ! Isn't it ? Perverted nasty criminals !

[Mihaela Hristodor]

When you have all those "little and insignificant " details ?
All of them togheter on one huge piece of paper ?
From VERRY BEGGINING to/till today ?
YOU'LL KNOW AND SEE NOTHING IS COINCIDENCE !
AND WHEN I SAY BEGGINING?
I MEAN 2008!!!
IT ALL CONNECTS !

IF I DONT START FROM THERE ?
NOBODY WILL SEE WHY I WAS SHOCKED TO FINALLY FIND THE LINK BETWEEN YOU AND WF !
WAS RIGHT THERE IN YOUR PROFILE WHERE YOU ADVERTISED YOURSELF AS AS GREAT CRIMINAL KNOWING THAT IF YOU SAY PROUDLY : HIGHPOINTE VENTURES MAY 2008 .....ETC ?

YOU ARE MAKING A STATEMENT TELLING OTHER CRIMINALS :

" HEY OUT THERE BOYS AND GIRLS! AM A CORRUPTED BOY TALKING CODE FOR ALL CRIMINALS LIKE ME WHO KNOW TO "READ"!
I WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW AM READY FOR "HIRE"! I CAN COMPLETE ANY DIRTY JOB REQUIRED ! ALL BECAUSE :

https://youtu.be/_BRv9wGf5pk


THE MOMENT I SAW IT ? AND TOLD YOU I DID ?
LIKE A GUILTY CRIMINAL YOU ARE ? TOOK THAT NASTY ADVERTISMENT OF YOUR CORRUPTED SERVICES, OFF YOUR PROFILE !

PIG ! I got the screenshot !