Gary “Cash” Joseph Bonas II
25794 Covala Court
Valencia, California 91355
January 20, 2012
Justice Conseulo Marshall A.G. Kamala D. Harris
United States District Court California Dept. of Justice
312 North Spring Street, Room G-8 P.O. Box 944255
Los Angeles, Calif. 90012 Sacramento, Calif. 94244
Re: Milberg’s People v. Bonas, Case No. SCD159416 (San Diego Sup. Ct.)
Dear Honorable Justice,
This submission is made pursuant to the court’s order, e.g., that Bonas produce a certified
copy of the “entire file” related to the referenced criminal, complex contract law and economic
speech case. Bonas appreciates the court’s invitation to show, with undisputed context, the State
and Bar’s published disinformation about a “negotiated contract conviction” here.
Specifically, this part of the certified file proves the county-state of San Diego’s public
misrepresentation (to which the Bar clings) that:
A) A contract was negotiated at arm’s length by the parties;
B) The contract was executed by the parties (agreed to and signed);
C) The contract was then accepted by the court as a referee of justice; &
D) The contract is binding, thus authorizing a court exercising power over Bonas.
The parties in the Bonas case did not negotiate and did not enter any plea contract. Thus,
the court was never authorized to “order” and/or enforcer via any order (acted on by its police
state troops: sheriff, probation Ana Guzman et al. – parole’s Greg Pico et al.) anything against
Bonas on or after 12-30-03.
I. Background - The Certified “Contract” File
The following certified file documents, attached herein, provide material background
about the subject contract San Diego Superior Court unsuccessfully attempted to enter:
Exhibit 1 - 10-06-03 Court – “Will re-consider O.R. bail with current Psych. Report”
Exhibit 2 - 11-24-03 MD JD Alan Arthur Abrams’ current Bonas Report re: O.R. Bail
Exhibit 3 - 12-30-03 Hearing Transcript re: O.R. Bail, as Bonas was misled to believe
Exhibit 4 - 12-30-03 The Contract – Not signed by Milberg’s “Party” People
A facial review of these short, certified documents confirms, contrary to the court’s and
the Bar’s continued misrepresentations to their own staff and the public generally, that no
contract conviction was negotiated, entered and/or signed by the parties: Bonas and Milberg et
al.’s DA. This attempted contract was one for many years. The statute of frauds requires all
such contracts to be signed by the parties before a court may act under or otherwise enforcing it.
Because no complaining party signed, no power to execute orders based on it exists.
It is unequivocal. No court has authority to substitute itself for the D.A. – period:
1
“[T]he court has no authority to substitute itself as the representative of the People in the
negotiation process and under the guise of ‘plea bargaining’ to ‘agree’ to a disposition
of the case over prosecutorial objection.1
That is exactly what happened. No one denies it. On record the court confessed to substituting
itself as prosecuting negotiator. It sponsored what it falsely calls a party “negotiated, contracted
for plea conviction.” That’s untrue. The complainers (Milberg’s DA People) objected:
The Court: [O]ver the strenuous objection of the [Milberg] people …, … they are not
participating [in this negotiation for contract power] ….2
II. The Court’s Contract For Power That Isn’t
The back-door talks that led to the inappropriate, illegitimate and unauthorized contract
conviction “offer” was conducted “off the record.” The Milberg People’s D.A. Carol Buck and
Defender Tamara Lave are first hand eye-witnesses to this misconduct. See Exhibit 4.
One conclusively supreme rule crossed, to which the state took and owes duty, reads:
“No State [court] shall … make any [order] law impairing the obligation of contracts….”3
The most important feature of contract’s obligations is that one party makes an offer for
an arrangement that another accepts.4 Here, no party ever made an offer to Bonas because:
“[O]nly the prosecutor is authorized to negotiate [and enter] a plea agreement ….”5
The court made a law (order) by making itself the sole signatory to the plea contract, directly
violating the obligations of contract elements:
1) A Party’s Offer;
2) A Party’s Acceptance;
3) A Party’s Legal Purpose;
4) Both Parties’ Mutual Assent; &
5) Both Parties’ Competence to Contract!
Here, not one contract obligation is satisfied. No party or legitimate proxy ever made an
offer to Bonas. As such, Bonas’ “pea” acceptance is irrelevant; any contrary position is
precluded by estoppel’s rule of evidence. Here, the court alone drove a non-negotiable plea to
achieve an unlawful purpose – a conviction by a contract to which the complaining parties
objected and refused to sign. See Exhibit 5. The accusing parties did not assent. Id. The court
simply lacks “competent” contract authority. An incompetent offer does not spark a competent
acceptance. The county-state deliberately interfered with contract’s obligations to make its own
law to regulate and punish protected speech.
1
People v. Segura, 44 CAL. 4th 921 (2008), citing People v. Orin (1975), 13 Cal.3d at p. 943, fn. omitted; see People
v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 417-418; People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131, 148-150; 4 Witkin &
Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, §§ 305-306, pp. 525-527.)
2
03-22-04 Hearing Transcript, at page 8.
3
Article 1, Section 10.
4
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §24 (1981).
5
People v. Segura, 44 CAL. 4th 921 (2008), citing People v. Orin (1975), 13 Cal.3d at p. 943, fn. omitted; see People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th
406, 417-418; People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131, 148-150; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, §§ 305-306, pp. 525-527.)
2
III. Court’s Null “Contract Power” Act (1 of many)
Bonas repeatedly raised this “non-existent” and/or facially void contract conviction issue
before sentence was entered by Robert Trentacosta on 12-20-05:
Exhibit 5 - 02-03-05, Bonas’ U.P.S. to court, tracking No. 56937735
(02-02-05 & 02-03-03-05 memos/motions)
Like others, these documents were kept from the certified file. The court materially breached its
duty to rule on crystal clear law directing that:
A defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty [contract] plea may do so before judgment
has been entered upon a showing of good cause.6
“Good cause” includes a court’s contract “fraud.”7
IV. Conclusion
Straight by the book, Bonas timely presented this “no contract, no power” issue with the
court, its P.O. troops and Milberg’s DA People. In concert, all refuse to acknowledge. Perhaps
they dislike being faced with exposure to “lack of jurisdiction” and “duty to correct” rules:
● “A void [contract conviction] judgment is not entitled to … respect …. It has no
legal or binding force … for any purpose or at any place. It is not entitled to
enforcement ... All proceedings founded on the void judgment are … invalid.”8
● An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be
attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity … comes into issue.9
● Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any
provision …, the Judge shall take or initiate corrective action, which may
include reporting the violation …. Cal. Code of Judicial Ethics D(1).
To block Bonas’ contract challenge, the Robert Trentacosta court certified that it is “not
reasonable to challenge its contract conviction power”. The State Bar (Jon Streeter – Joanne
Remke) has openly joined this bizarre position, advancing that a judge advocate’s signature
legitimately renders the Milberg People’s assent to the power triggering contract un-necessary:
Ex 6 – 02-22-06 The Court, “No Reasonable Court Contract Challenge Exists”!
Bonas thanks the court for its consideration of this submission about this state taking of
his time and right to work - for others and our United Republic - to earn a decent living.
Respectfully,
https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=c82bea96c59fd739&resid=C82BEA96C59FD739!9705&parid=C82BEA96C59FD739!9464
Gary “Cash” Joseph Bonas II
6
In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1142 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 265]; People v. Castaneda (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1612,
1616-1617 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666].
7
People v. Weaver, 118 Cal.App.4th 131 (2004).
8
30A Am Jur Judgments '' 44, 45.
9
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90 (1917).
3
Table of Proof
(Declaration)
I, Gary “Cash” Joseph Bonas II, declare that the following are true and correct copies of
key excerpts from the certified file in Milberg’s People v. Bonas, Case No. SCD159416 (San
Diego Superior Court) and/or copies of files that have been removed from the certified files in
the related, back to back Wall Street Firms’ criminal-criminal Fed-State actions against Bonas:
Exhibit 1 - 10-06-03 Court – “Will re-consider O.R. bail with current Psych. Report”
Exhibit 2 - 11-24-03 MD JD Alan Abrams Bonas Report for O.R. Bail (Excerpt)
Exhibit 3 - 12-30-03 Hearing Transcript re: O.R. Bail/Trial Readiness – Not an O.R. Hearing
Exhibit 4 - 12-30-03 The Contract, Not Negotiated and Not Signed By Both Parties
Exhibit 5 - 02-03-05 Bonas’s U.P.S. to court, one of many (tracking No. 56937735).
Exhibit 6 - 02-22-06 State’s Certificate of Probably Cause
I swear under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Date: January 20, 2012 By: ____________________________
Gary “Cash” Joseph Bonas II
Partial Service List
Central Intelligence Agency Annette Peterson
Office of Public Affairs 23747 W. Valencia Blvd. Rm 1
Washington, D.C. 20505 Santa Clarita, Calif. 91355
Professor Lynne L. Dallas Douglas Aaron Axel
University of San Diego Law Sidley Austin LLP
5998 Alcalá Park 555 W 5th St
San Diego, Cal. 92110-2492 Los Angeles, Cal. 90013
Richard Joel Neely Robert Scott Dreher
5032 Hastings Rd 835 5th Ave Ste 202
San Diego, Calif. 92116 San Diego, Cal. 92101
Bonnie Dumanis et al., Esqs. John Gordon
Carol A. Buck Quinn Emanuel
Ofc District Attorney 865 S. Figueroa St.
330 W Broadway #750 10th Floor
San Diego, Calif. 92101 Los Angeles, Calif. 90017
…
Others
4