Poor old redacted- In Propria Persona
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOSANGELES
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff
vs. Poor old redacted
Defendant Case No. 8CA10541
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VOID ORDER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
pursuant to Rule 21.04 dismiss for failure to file information against the Defendant that complies with Rule 23.01(b).
TO: THE CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND TO THE CLERK OF
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the defendant,Poor old redacted, hereinafter "Defendant," will submit in support of the defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
Said brief is based upon this Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the documents and records before this Court, and any other evidence and argument, written or oral, to be presented at the hearing.
Dated: _March 27,2009(updated to July 24, 2009 because of Howard Williams delay), at Los Angeles, California.
Respectfully submitted, POOR OLD REDACTED, IN PROPRIA PERSONA
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On August 29th of 2007 the defendant first met the accuser, Mathilde Notaro. It was a somewhat awkward meeting, but was regarded as unmemorable by the defendant and would not be regarded as significant by any reasonable person.
2. On April 7, 2008 , 9 months later the defendant and her sister were preparing to launch a comedy act and were interested in seeing other sibling comedy acts. Someone in passing had told them to “check out the Walsh Brothers,” as they were two brothers who conceivably were doing something similar.
3. on April 7, 2008 the defendant googled the Walsh Brothers and found out that they were performing at a club called Largo. This location was less than 5 miles away and the defendant suggested that she and her sister go. Her sister at the last moment wasn’t feeling up to par and the defendant decided to just go alone. The defendant saw that an individual who goes by the name “TIG” was the host or master of ceremonies of that evening and the defendant was aware that an awkward meeting occurred 9 months before but the defendant could in no way deduce at that time that this “Tig” was an adversary or an enemy or even someone who would remember her or their meeting. Largo is a very well known venue for the “alternative” comedy the sister’s intended to do and the defendant regarded going there in any capacity as a fruitful thing.
4. There she found no line(significant) and paid the five dollar cover and was informed by a man she later learned to be, Michael Grifffe, that their was a two drink minimum. She duly paid the cover and found a seat by the bar where the defendant ordered a beer with her credit card.
5. The show began at or about 9:30 and the defendant watched it and enjoyed it. At two points she went out for a cigarette and she saw the accuser both times. She found this mildly strange and sensed that the accuser was following her but she dismissed this thought from her head with the rationale that after 9 months the accuser probably didn’t even recognize her and the defendant had lost 20 pounds due to a recent major surgery and an assumption was made by the defendant that no real animus existed between her and the accuser anyhow. The defendant was aware that Stephanie Willen was attempting to smear her name and had sent out her private e-mails and now that the defendant was due to many factor now going to pursue comedy full force she hoped not to have any detractors or antagonists in that world, obviously. She never has had any before.
6. The show ended at approximately 11 p.m, and the defendant was about to sign her credit card receipt when she saw Notaro someone she knew to be, Leslie Spann, pointing at her and giggling. The defendant realized that indeed she was being observed but wasn’t sure what to make of it. She turned back to the credit card receipt and signed. When she was about to get up from the stool and go home, Notaro was standing right by her. The defendant assumed she was there to order a beer or something. Within such sudden and extremely close proximity, the defendant said with honesty to the accuser, “ good show.” The accuser said “thank you” and just making any attempt to avoid awkardness, the defendant said to the accuser with a smile. “ So you remember me.” In a relieved water under the bridge tone. This was said once and with the defendant simply hoping that she needn’t fear that Willen had sought to damage her out of vindicteness and that she could proceed with comedy without such obstacles. Notaro in response to this scrunched up her face in a very strange way and blurted “ You pushed me.” And then walked briskly away to a table and began talking immediately to a woman by this table. The defendant finding herself utterly baffled, got off her stool, walked about 3 feet to where Notaro was and mildly asked t Notaro, “Did you just say I pushed you?”
7. In response to this understandable question,, Notaro, without pause, ran to the man who took the cover charge, and who was later identified as Michael Griffee, and said to him, “ Remove her. She is being aggressive with me.” Griffee looked confounded but said something to the affect of “ I do what the artist wants. If that’s what the artist wants.” I didn’t feel like arguing as I had a very strong hunch at that point that Willen had really “poisoned the well,” and I didn’t want any scene so I left without the slightest debate etc. This all happened within the span of less than a minute.
8. I went home and wrote e-mails to Willen and then Notaro in which it I expressed my distress with what was done. I imagined an apology was forthcoming as it seemed as if Notaro was confused or thought I was someone else or something and I wanted some clarity as why such a strange and false accusation of me “pushing” Notaro could be made and in turn have an employee of Largo hearing this defamation and having me removed based on this false premise that involved the accusation of violence on my part. I remembered “ Willen’s “Good” from August 29and I thought whatever it is that was transpiring had to be cleared up.. My letters were ignored. My mother and sister became angrier and angrier that such a thing was taking place after I’d just recovered from major surgery, had a few very bad afteraffects etc, and we’d just endured a two month period where my mother was told that the pancreatic mass they’d found the day after I got out of the hospital was in all probability the most deadly of cancers.
9. finally and less that a week into my recovery I drove my mother to the emergency as she was in agonizing pain. I felt fine and drove her there and once there they took all kinds of tests and after 6 hours or so we went home.
10. The next day I woke up in agonizing pain. I apparently wasn’t supposed to move much at all for 6 weeks and wasn’t told this and so it went. The pain was incredible and on three occasions I had to go to the doctor who told me I’d “messed up” and my “facias were inflamed” or something. I was given percodan each time. This may not seem significant to the court but it is relevant I assure you, as a foundation to forthcoming matters.
11. After about a month the pain subsided and on the day I felt remotely decent my mother sat me down to inform me that they found a mass in her pancreas and they believed it was cancer. I researched and researched and according to all research it looked extremely dire. This all occurred approximately in Mid February but the exact times could easily be obtained.
12. Sometime in late February or March a biopsy was scheduled that according to the four doctors now tending to my mother would be more conclusive. The prognosis by all indications was at best the most invasive surgery on my already fragile mother and a 5 year survival rate . These facts may seem, odd and incongruous in a legal document but it will set a foundation for the behaviors, characterizations of acts, and accusations that are at the base of this case and that till now have gone unchallenged.
13. I waited for the results of this biopsy for 3 hours and walked the streets of Beverly Hills I was in a state of anguish and I made a promise to god that if he gave me that 1-5% chance that my mother’s mass would be benign I would do everything to please my mother and I would stop squandering my talents and do comedy as is my mother’s dream. Eventually, I went to the room and there a Dr. Zadda said that my mother’s mass “did not present as cancer.” So, I kept my promise I went out at every opportunity, to shows, to open mics, and since I performed so much in New York and Austin and in essence moved way past doing open mics I felt out of sorts but knew I needed 10 minutes or so to make a good tape and then the plan was to send the tapes to agents etc. I’d always been wildly encouraged by many many people to do comedy and one of those people was Stephanie Willen. I did all I could to try to secure a 10 minutes spot and looking into getting a professional tape.
14. As hard as it seemed to endure some of these open mics I dutifully kept doing them . I ran into people I knew from Austin and New York and others and at times I sensed something was very wrong but I just couldn’t put my finger on it and assumed that everyone just rotted when they came to L.A. I’ve always be very gregarious and made friends easily and now it wasn’t that way and it was disturbing. Later, I’d find out that many were unfriendly or downright nasty to me because Notaro had already set in motion a campaign to essentially ruin my name.So, off I go to as many shows and open mics and I am going to do this etc. In L.A unlike the New York and Austin Comedy scene is not as fun or friendly and I assume it’s an “LA thing.”
15. It gets to feel so awkward and lonely that I convince my sister who is a comedic genius to do a sister act with me and we work on it and are excited at some point that great potential is there.
16. I tell someone about this sister thing and they say, “Check out the Walsh Brothers,” I google them and I see somewhat immediately that they are playing at Largo that evening.
17. On March 10th, 2009 Prosecutor Jenner Waxler, drafted an "AMENDED COMPLAINT" against the Defendant. It came to the attention of the defendant at a pretrial hearing on March 23rd when in the midst of a Farretta hearing, the defendant said on record, that she could not initial some of the farretta warnings due to the very recent discovery recently received that said something about 4 new charges(see exhibit 1) being added by a prosecutor by the name of Kelly Boyer. This wouldn’t and shouldn’t have allowed the defendant to assert her rights under Farretta willingly and the judge agreed. According to a “follow up” investigation,: “On January 27th, 2009, Gregozek provided the information to Deputy City attorney Boyer who filed 4 additional counts of violation of a restraining order against Poor old redacted.
18. Only then, on the statement of Poor old redacted as to not knowing what charges were brought, did a different prosecutor ,whose name is unknown to the defendant, step forward and say that two new charges were to be added. The motion to amend the complaint was then shown the defendant via her still present public defender and it appears that it was drafted on March 10 by Deputy city attorney Jennifer Waxler with the anticipation of a March 12, hearing. This never took place for reasons yet unknown.
19. In the Amended complaint, the two charges that Judge Bork in Division 55 saw fit to allow the prosecution to add, and that the public defender saw fit to not fight(to the utmost of what would seem reasonable), at a very sinister point in time and that clearly state, “ (whose true name(s)to affiant is (are) unknown.) In other words: They don’t even know who did what they say someone did.
20. On March 23, 2009 it is revealed by the prosecution that somehow deputy city attorney, Jennifer Waxler, has prepared the paperwork to amend the charges and now one is for 273(a) for nebulous reasons and one is for 636(m) which apparently is based on” probable cause” that on 1/7/09 the prosecution contend defendant has made a phone call that consisted of a “ obscene language and address to said person a threat to inflict injury to the person and property of the person addressed and to a member of his or her family. which “ to Notoro and her family took place on 1/07/09. Despite the fact this never happened it is astounding that such a request was granted in light of the admission that the identity of this supposed transgressor of some law is not even known to the prosecution.
21. The Information regarding any charge fails to state any reason for prosecutorial belief much less that the defendant acted "Knowingly and Willfully" -- which is an implied necessary element of the crime. Defendant asserts the City has the burden of knowing the identity of this supposed transgressor before they can try to prove the “willfull” aspect sworn to by Waxler.
22. The Information provided by the prosecution fails to offer any details or discovery regarding this “ Telephonic messages” and since the lawyer for Notaro, an Allison Sievers of the law firm, Lavely and Singer ,went out of her way to tell the city attorney in an e-mail that Notaro was “forced many times to change her contact information due to Poor old redacted’s harassment” it seems suspect to suggest that Poor old redacted would even know the phone number of Notaro. Evidence must be proffered that can show that Notaro changed her contact information many times or even once. Notaro is a pathological liar and though she conceivably might have gone through some motions to convince these Threat Unit specialists of her “fear” it still must be shown that she changed any contact information or in any way altered her life as is the case when one is faced with a real “stalker” or a person who was worthy of having a restraining order granted against them.
23. Martha Kelly in the unsigned statements thus far available to the defense misstates at first the nature and breadth of the conversation in the police report, but then amends it in a summary offered as discovery by the prosecution. No signed statement have yet been given to the defendant of any witness for the prosecution.
24. Notaro in her e-mail to the prosecution shows again her tendency towards fabulism and vindictiveness by stating “She targeted and harassed” Kelly. To the investigator for the defense: Notaro says, “ She ran into Kelly.” Kelly in no statement available says that she was “targeted and harassed.. Nothing Notaro says should be regarded as true . Yet, the obvious lack of reasonable inquiry done by the police and prosecution and I submit, the public defenders office, has allowed this malicious prosecution to continue unabated.
25. Notaro’s transcripts, statements to Neil Spector, actions outside the courtroom , all show a course of conduct that will exonerate the defendant -- and if there is justice-- implicate Notaro as one who has committed a felony(perjury) and one who is liable for the ever mounting grievances of the defendant in this case, not to mention the extreme waste of precious governmental resources.
26. The City has the burden of proving guilty knowledge and criminal intent and the defendant contends that no jury of the defendant’s peers will be capable of convicting the defendant based on what has thus far been provided to the defendant by means of informal discovery so therefore prays that if this is not dismissed than the motion to compel discovery be granted.
27. The Information on the original charge and now the freshly wrenched ones fails to characterize the elements of the offence with sufficient particularity to give notice to the Defendant of the acts The Information fails to state the allegations with reasonable certainty and the essential facts that constitute each element of the offense so that the Defendant does not have to guess or speculate as to the meaning of the allegations:
28. The Information is not sufficiently specific so as to determine the admissibility of evidence:.The element of mens rea is essential for successful prosecution . Such a conclusion would not reasonably stem from any of the discovery made available to the defendant . On top of the impossibility of the prosecution proving mens rea,Poor old redacted or any reasonable person would fail to see the prosecution prevailing with the addition of the strange and suspicious invasions of privacy of individuals not the defendant and the charging of two new counts that seem to have been initiated with nefarious purpose and that were institued with neither a notice of a hearing or a fair hearing.
29. Under the color of law, Gregozek, Undettered and seemingly unfettered by civil rights laws, discovers himself in the defendant’s sister’s and then the defendant’s mother’s account . With what can only be assumed to be his confidence in his own impunity, Gregozek then claims to the court that he will “link” this “crime” to the defendant. The Affidavits drawn up and presented by Detective Gregozek to invade the privacy and trample upon the rights of H and L and Poor old redacted. a Patricia T. Brummer, and the defendant, do not in any way offer the defendant any understanding of what he is claiming the defendant has done. Or more curiously: Gregozek’s affidavits in support of his illegal intrusion, only repeats stale and fraudulent statements by Notaro that long ago Mr. Gregozek knew to be false. But, since Gregozek , James Hoffman, Jeff Dunn(The head of this unit) have all told the defendant on the phone at different times, , that her case was “too small to investigate,” the court should wonder how any conclusions of the sort made at this time, can be given credence. Detective Dunn said to the defendant by way of explaining why no member of his unit ever investigated – “ Don’t you want us to be out their investigating murders.”
30. The defendant submits that such tactics violate the rights of the defendant, her mother, and her sister, and will bode poorly for the police and prosecution if a trial is commenced. The Defendant submits that such maneuvers on the part of this malicious prosecution, have only energized and emboldened the defendant -- to receive a fair trial.
31. Defendant contends that this case involves selective prosecution that persists without legal basis.
32. The defendant has presented evidence to the prosecution that would sway any reasonable person to deduce that the defendant is the victim of a false victim’s reckless abuse of the legal system and the defendant. Nevertheless, this only inspired the filing of further false charges for reasons as of yet unknown.The City has an improper motive in that they are covering up the misconduct of Detective Gregozek and have filed the amended complaint at a point where any reasonable person would or should become cognizant that this is retaliation for the Internal Affairs complaint filed by the defendant so soon before this strange and suspect search and these vague and void charges were filed.
33. The defendant asserts that Det. Gregozek acceptance of Notaro’s false claims and concurrent pursuit of Poor old redacted is tied to his unholy alliance with Lavely and Singer, who represented this Threat Management Unit’s founder, Robert Martin, in a lucrative suit brought by Gavin Debecker(A preeminent beneficiary of the often vague and politically motivated restraining order and “stalking” laws.)
34. Gregozek’s desire to curry favor with this Law Firm Lavely and Singer , and by proxy the consideration for lucrative work in the future, has disposed him to act so unscrupulously and illegally. The prosecution has now followed suit for reasons that could be ascribed to the alliance natural to this association but nevertheless disturb the defendant and should disturb any person of conscience.
35. Gavin Debecker and other firms and “units” of this ilk have profited by promoting the concept of “stalking” and in a case such as the defendant’s, The LAPD’s threat management unit, have willfully twisted and tortured the defendant’s modest protest in the face of unexpected and unwarranted abuse by Notaro(kicked out of a club and humiliated for no reason, banned from important venues that any reasonable person could see would harm the defendant immeasurably. Accused of violence when no such violence ever occurred etc.) by the “victim” into something that bares no semblance to the truth of the matter. The fact that they did not investigate and now to get unwarranted information, Gregozek, affies that he is “investigating.” is remarkable.
36. Lavely and Singer is a beneficiary of the laws mentioned. These laws are politically motivated and the defendant asserts that the hearing she received in the matter of the granting of the permanent restraining order highlighted the very serious constitutional breaches that can occur and the denial of liberty and due process that can result when such statutes and laws are created for monetary or political purpose. The hearing that allowed such a restraining order granted in favor of Notaro was reminiscent of Communist “show trials.” The resultant order due to many factors including fraud on the court by Notaro, bias on the part of the judge, and clear and compelling denials of due process should render such an order Void and any judge or other officer of the court who prosecutes on such an order is committing treason. When laws are drafted with bad faith purpose and then exploited by a malicious character(Notaro) and mendacious others(Allison Sievers et al.) and then prosecuted by those in positions of power(police, Judge Gerald Rosenberg, and now the prosecution) miscarriages of justice such as the matter before the court will result. Marty Singer, one of the partners of this law firm is even mentioned as being a part of a movie being made called “Stalkerazzi,” The defendant submits from information and belief that the qualifications Gregozek lists to obtain this warrant are the same qualifications that should assure his conviction that Notaro is a virulent liar and that the defendant is the target of some strange and not sane campaign . Gregozek willfully pretends to not know that Notaro is lying to him , and he proceeds to offer false statements and testimony to assist the prosecution.
37. New charges have been brought against the defendant at a time when the prosecutions has failed to get the defendant to accept informal diversion and at a time when the defendant in fear for her safety and liberty is compelled to report the highly suspicious behavior of Gregozek in this matter to the Internal affairs and to the FBI. An agent of the FBI concluded after looking at some of my documents that Notaro is “obviously lying,” and that any reasonable person viewing the facts would have suspicions aroused.
38. The defendant is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt – that if not for the intervention of Allison Seivers --who is of counsel to well connected( The governor of California is his client!) Lavely and Singer that the defendant would not be forced to be under governmental control since September 25th of 2008. The domestic violence order granted by Judge Dennis Landin with the suspicious handwriting on it ,when it is stipulated that Notaro and the defendant, are barely aquainted begs judicial notice. Marbury v Madison (1803) Marbury holds that a void act is void ab initio. “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection' it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed”. Gregozek lies under penalty of perjury when he “affies” in bold print, “there is probable cause to believe that discolures of these records would impede the investigation, and place the victims(s) and witness(es) in danger. Therefore it is mentioned that the aforementioned web site not notify he subscriber(s) of the request for these records. The defendant’s sister and mother shouldn’t be notified as such notice would pose a threat to the “victim(s)? What possible rationale could be used to explain the fact of such a blatantly bogus and retaliatory invasion of privacy? Once Gregozek gets this permission, under false pretenses, he discovers that these accounts don’t even belong to the defendant . This doesn’t stop him though-- nor does it arouse judicial inquiry or notice . It is in fact approved by a judge. His “investigation” allows him to under penalty of perjury say “ I will link Poor old redacted.” Since this is completely impossible considering that the accounts are not registered to the defendant and that as Gregozek is aware the defendant shares the computer with her sister and mother.
39. Void for vagueness doctrine applies here as evidenced by the many “reasonably intelligent” individuals and attorneys consulted by the defendant who couldn’t seem to wrap their heads around how this could be considered a “violation. In regards to the restraining order granted it is a void order on appeal:The vagueness doctrine requires a statute to give fair notice of illegal conduct. State v. Dario (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 232, 236. A statute may be void for vagueness if it does not give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, or if the statute encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Id., citing Papachristou v. Jacksonville (1972),405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110, 115.In Dario, the First District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Ohio’s menacing by stalking statute. That court, citing Kolender v. Lawson,(1983), 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903, 908, held, in relevant part:A criminal statute must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Id. at 327.In the present case, the Defendant claims that R.C. 2907.03(A)(9) is not sufficiently explicit to inform an ordinary person that his conduct will render him subject to statutory penalties.
40. Gregozek says on lines 4 -6 of his affidavit, “ my current responsibilities involve investigating cases wherein an individual demonstrates an abnormal fixation on another person(s) and generates a long term pattern of harassment which can include …..” The defendant asserts that Gregozek in no way believes that the defendant is fixated with Notaro .The defendant has never written a fan letter to a celebrity, has never “fixated” on any individual in any way shape or form, and this is all a cruel and defaming lie. The defendant will admit that she is “fixated” only on getting justice in this matter and clearing her name. Notaro is fixated on hurting the defendant for reasons that defy common sense. Gregozek is now fixated on getting the defendant prosecuted as to thwart any internal affairs investigation that would reveal his misconduct and to please those he deems to be his benefactors. And, now the city attorney seems fixated on ignoring the truth in order to protect the detectives or the City attorney’s office against liability.
41. The evidence is overwhelming that Notaro has committed perjury and has lied about all the relevant matters related to this malicious prosecution.
42. These above stated deficiencies prejudice the substantial rights of the Defendant.
CONCLUSION
A dismissal in this case is long overdue. The defendant doesn’t want to lay blame on the overburdened public defenders assigned her but it is now obvious that without the protections afforded by the required advocacy the defendant has become even more vulnerable to misconduct on the part of the police and prosecution . Their ill considered adversarial stance towards the defendant in the face of overwhelming evidence-- long available-- to disabuse them of such sentiments should be of concern to the court. The defendant has been damaged greatly by the machinations of Notaro and then those who willfully advocate for her despite their knowledge that she was lying all along.
A pre-trial playing of this tape of such an alleged phone call that purportedly threatened Notaro and her family etc. should be played as the defendant under penalty of perjury submits that no such thing ever occurred. It must be produced at once to establish a certain sense that what is transpiring here is nothing less than a malicious prosecution. No jury when seeing such an illogical, invasive, and illegal—search filed and acted upon with the prodding of Allison Sievers, connected to this Threat Management Unit, in an unholy alliance, will return a verdict favorable to the prosecution and allowing this malicious prosecution is only causing liabilities to accrue.. In regard to the first charge: Void for vagueness will be motioned for and should be granted. The jury will not want to convict anyone for such a vague concept especially when the original order is missing from the file and the supposed “victim” is a proven and pathological liar. Evidence and witnesses will support my version of all events.
WHEREFORE, on the basis that the Information is defective in that it fails to state a any charge with sufficient particularity, and to fully inform the Defendant of the offense of which she stands charged, this court lacks jurisdiction to prosecute the Defendant. The Defendant is being denied due process of law and therefore the Defendant prays for the Court to dismiss, sanctions brought against the offending attorneys and restitution be sought from Notaro, her attorneys, and those who have lied to police and in court relating to this matter.
Dated: July 24, 2009
By:
Poor old redacted
PROOF OF SERVICE
I. BY PERSONAL SERVICE:
I, the undersigned, declare:
I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND A RESIDENT OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I AM OVER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS AND NOT A PARTY TO THE WITHIN-ENTITLED ACTION. THAT ON JULY NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY TO PROSECUTION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRAVERSE --FILING DATE UNKNOWN—AND NOT PRESENT IN COURT MINUTES. NOTICE OF LATE FILING ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COURT ORDERS REGARDING IT’S ORDERS ON JULY 29th 2009 THAT SET FORTH CONDITIONS ON CONTACTING THE PROSECUTION FOR MEET AND CONFER AND ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT TO BE ATTACHED TO DEFENDANT;S OPPOSITION TO WITHDRAW
to be served (personally – in court) on the following:
Clerk of the Superior Court
County of Los Angeles
City Attorney, City of Los Angeles(via e-mail or regular mail or personal delivery )
I declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct.
Executed August 3, 2009, 2009 at Los Angeles, California.
___________________
No comments:
Post a Comment