FIGHTING 4 FREEDOM
Administrator’s Note:
All of the information on this page is the Proprietary Work Product of Lonnie G. Schmidt.
I am including it on the SH website because it exemplifies a specific example of
Unconstitutional Authoritative Abuse within the California Legal & State Prison System.
Presented by Lonnie G. Schmidt
Advocate, Legal Researcher, Captain USAR
Do you have a loved one or someone dear to you in a California prison?
Well, that person is most probably in prison illegally, as I will demonstrate in the information below.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
The people we elected to safeguard our loved ones’ rights are violating their oath of office by failing to properly uphold both Federal and State Constitutions and underlying Statutues, Codes, and Regulations.
I am here to spread the word and, by using the established law, have identified a clear path to justice and freedom… AND I need your help!
I’m asking you to help me in one or two ways:
- By reaching out to your various elected officials, i.e., County Sheriff, County Supervisor, Assembly People, Senators and the Governor, using the information below to demand that your loved one be released.
- If you can, by giving funds to help me cover the expenses of this most worthy cause of “proclaiming liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” … free of charge!!
Please read the information below and then tell everyone you know who might be willing to help spread the word.
Let this truth go viral and get our loved ones released!!
I am sharing with you verified research regarding a basic legal discrepancy that has profound implications for California’s criminal justice system… and the release of your loved ones.
My research has discovered that critical documents initiating the felony criminal prosecution by the state and the written judgment of conviction are either fictitious writings without legal authority or are missing from the chain of record… rendering the “conviction” obtained by the County District Attorney invalid, null and void …and any subsequent imprisonment unlawful.
The California Supreme Court has held that the first accusatory pleading by the state in a felony prosecution must be either a Grand Jury Indictment or, an Information.(1) And that if neither an Indictment or Information is filed at the outset of the case, the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction.(2)
The California Attorney Generals and their subordinates ─the county District Attorneys─ have been violating both constitutional and statutory law in (most likely) all of their prosecutions of felonies. They do this by substituting a fictitious writing (felony complaint)(3) as the first pleading in a felony case in lieu of a constitutionally and legislatively mandated Grand Jury Indictment or Information. This is fraud.
Consequently, acting without jurisdiction, Superior Court judges become complicit in the fraud by failing to file a judgment of conviction (JOC) on the court’s record (in most cases). This failure now involves the Clerk in the fraud…. through the creation and filing of a fictitious “Abstract of Judgment” (AOJ).
The JOC is the official record of conviction, a document required by law to be signed by the judge and filed in the court’s record.(4) Without it, regardless of the charges or sentence imposed, there is no conviction, no basis for appeal;(5) and, being required by law for delivery of a person to state prison, there is no authority to imprison.(6)
What IS being used to commit a person to prison is a fictitious, unauthorized document called the Abstract of Judgment (AOJ), a summary of the JOC. Without the supporting JOC there CANNOT be an AOJ!
The JOC being eyes and the AOJ being glasses, it’s like a blind man putting on a pair of glasses. Without a JOC (eyes) an AOJ (glasses) is useless. However, an AOJ is filed on the court’s record: a JOC is not. The AOJ is a fraudulent document.
As a result, the fraud is now extended into the state prison system where county and state officials substitute the AOJ for the JOC, imprisoning persons without a court order.
AND? The lack of a certified copy of the JOC entitles the prisoner to discharge from prison.(7)
There simply are no recorded cases in law sanctioning restraints on the liberty of any sane, adult, citizen in the absence of a disposition of guilt entered upon criminal trial.(8)
Therefore, presuming the Superior Court had jurisdiction, without a JOC there is no legal basis for detention by the county or transfer therefrom and neither a Warden nor the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Director can legally imprison any person.
And CDCR, by its own admission, has NONE for any prisoner. See, CDCR Secretary Ralph Diaz Admits No Authority To Confine Prisoners, September 1, 2020.
These jurisdictional defects affect every person incarcerated by the system, past to present.
After exhaustive research, I discovered that the Superior Court for lack of a Grand Jury Indictment, and the CDCR Secretary for lack of a JOC, lack jurisdiction over any person. This can best be illustrated by the unique, current and high profile case of Scott Peterson.
He was arrested and prosecuted pursuant to a felony complaint. Initially, a judgment WAS signed by the judge and clerk and filed in the court records (the judge followed proper procedure). However, when the Commitment Judgment of Death was overturned and Scott was resentenced, I found no Judgment of Conviction in the Superior Court records. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that no JOC will be found in his CDCR Central File.
Documents that I’ve extracted from the court files of Scott Peterson’s case evidence his illegal arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, and imprisonment; and demonstrate that —as a matter of law— he is entitled to immediate and unconditional release. This applies to most persons who have been —or are now— incarcerated in California.
I include Scott Peterson’s actual court documents and explain their deficiencies in my legal treatise entitled Governmental Authoritative Abuse Exposed. Upon review, I’m confident you will see that these deficiencies also apply to your situation.
Link to Scott Peterson Analysis & Documentation
The procedural jurisdictional defects fatal to the state’s prosecution of the Peterson case are exemplary of 98% of all “felons” who have been —and are now— imprisoned in California; and 100% of those whose cases were initiated by the state via a felony criminal complaint.
My focus is not on Scott Peterson’s —or any “felon’s”— innocence or guilt. My focus is on the proper Constitutional application of due process guarantees of lawful arrest, trial, and imprisonment.
If you or a loved one was prosecuted via a felony complaint, you were illegally prosecuted and CDCR has no court order to hold you.
End of story. Go home.
As a legal researcher with over 40 years of experience, I am not only intimately familiar with Federal and California Law; I was also personally subjected to this miscarriage of justice.
While in prison, I researched and verified the “unlawful imprisonment” of my person by the State and found the practice to be common; presenting a civil rights issue of statewide significance and Constitutional magnitude.
I was astounded to find that a simple abandonment and misrepresentation of legally required documents throws the legitimacy of the entire state prison system into legal jeopardy.
Since my discovery of these critical jurisdictional flaws in 2019, I have sent certified communications to Governor Gavin Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris, the former California Attorney General, and to CDCR, see Oath Breakers, giving notice of the flaws and demanding they follow the law. I have NEVER received a response.
The above parties, failing to respond to my demands for the production of a JOC and the release of myself and others, have tacitly admitted the state’s financial liability for the false imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of persons… because detention without authority —as a matter of law— requires the immediate release of all such prisoners, their financial compensation, and the involved public employees’ accountability.
I have followed every administrative procedural step at my disposal seeking to bring this matter to the attention of the governmental persons responsible for correction and relief, to no avail.
Sadly, without the help of caring people like you, this travesty of justice will continue. I am appealing to your moral integrity, patriotism, and desire to expose this governmental misconduct to help correct this most basic flaw (it’s an easy fix… just follow the law)… and secure the release of our loved ones who are wrongly imprisoned.
The research is complete. I have shared the law, documentation, and evidence with you.
Here is one of the actions I have taken. See July 15 2023, Letter J Macomber CDCR and CDCR Coup De Grace.
(No, I have not received a response).
God’s word is spot on!
“A servant will not be corrected by mere words;
for though he understands, he will not respond.”
Proverbs 29:19 NKJV.
The handsome duo in the picture is my son Daniel and me… 50 years ago! Dan, my best friend and partner, went Home to be with the Lord in 2018 …while I was in prison, illegally. The last week of his life, while on the phone discussing the truths I’d learned, Dan said “Dad, you’re right, but they don’t care, they just don’t care.” I reminded him that as One of the People, “they” work for us and it is our responsibility to make our employees comply with the law. If we don’t who will?
Thank you for your prayers and support.
Lonnie G. Schmidt
Advocate, Legal Researcher, Captain USAR
If the enclosed information touches your heart and instills a sense of hope and direction for you, please consider going to the GiveSendGo website (Fighting 4 Freedom) and making a contribution to defray our research, production and overhead expenses. Your active participation will be greatly appreciated.
FOOTNOTES
- “Prosecution for felonies in this state, so far as the mode of prosecution is concerned, are governed by the constitution of the state, which in section 8 [14] of article I provides for prosecution either by information or indictment. The Penal Code, in conformity with the constitution, outlines the procedure of prosecution by indictment as well as by information.’ People v. Wallach, (1926) 79 Cal.App. 605, 608. ‘Accordingly, the first pleading by the prosecution, in a felony case may be either an indictment or information.’ (4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (3d Ed. 2000) Pre-trial Proceedings, § 169, p. 374; emphasis in original.)” Guillory v. Superior Court, (2003) 31 Cal.4th 168, 173-174.
- “Here, there is no argument a valid information was not filed at the outset of the case. … Failure to file an information is an irregularity of sufficient importance to the functioning of the courts that the parties cannot cure the irregularity by their consent to the proceedings. (See, In re Griffin, (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 348.) The Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to accept appellant’s guilty plea or enter judgment against him. The judgment is reversed.” People v. Smith, (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1224. Under California and federal law, no court can acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an offense unless he is charged in the particular form and mode required by law. And, a person may not be punished for a crime without a formal and sufficient accusation. Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 8 (1927); People v. Vasilyan; (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 443, 449-50.
- “The government may not even be involved in the preparation, investigation and filing of a felony complaint.” California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, in People v. Viray, (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1201.
Why? There is no constitutional or statutory authority for the State to initiate a felony prosecution by complaint, Calif. Const. Article I, § 14; Penal Code (PC) § 948, 949; there is no plea available to a defendant charged in a felony complaint, PC § 1016; and a “felony complaint… does not confer trial jurisdiction” Serna v. Superior Court, (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 257. - California Penal Code (PC) 1207: “When judgment upon a conviction is rendered, the clerk must enter the judgment in the minutes, stating briefly the offense for which the conviction was had, and the fact of a prior conviction, if any. A copy of the judgment of conviction shall be filed with the papers in the case.”
“Judgment of conviction is one signed by the judge.” Payne v. Madigan, (1960 CA 9 Cal) 274 F.2d 702, affmd (1961) 366 U.S. 761, 6 L.Ed.2d 853, 81 S.Ct. 7, re. den. (1961) 368 U.S. 871, 7 L.Ed.3d 72, 82 S.Ct. 2 et seq. “What shall be final process in criminal actions is prescribed in the four hundred and sixty-third section of the Act which regulates proceedings in criminal cases. It is a certified copy of the judgment as entered in the minutes of the Court.” Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal. 619, 622 (Cal. 1867). (Emphasis added.) - California Code of Civil Procedure 664: “In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered.”
- PC 1202a: “If the judgment is for imprisonment in the state prison the judgment shall direct that the defendant be delivered into the custody of the Director of Corrections at the state prison or institution designated by the Director of Corrections as the place for the reception of persons convicted of felonies, except where the judgment is for death in which case the defendant shall be taken to the warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin.”
“’when a judgment has been pronounced, a certified copy of the entry thereof in the minutes shall be forthwith furnished to the officer whose duty it is to execute the judgment, and no other warrant or authority is necessary to justify or require the execution thereof, except when judgment of death is rendered.’” Gibson, supra at 623. - California Supreme Court: ‘the writ does not contain a certified copy of the judgment, nor does it appear that such copy was furnished to the officer whose duty it was to execute the judgment. The prisoner is therefore entitled to his discharge, and it is so ordered.’” Id. Gibson, 623.
- It’s long been settled that there is no authority for restraint of liberty “in the absence of a judgment
entered on record.” (In re Rick (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 410, 413.) This due process/equal protection
requisite is well and long-held: Ex parte Dobson (1867) 31 Cal. 497, 490 (detainee released where
trial record contained no “judgment” document); In re Application of Bost (1931) 214 Cal. 150, 153-
154 (same); People v. Sourisseau (1944) 62 Cal.App.2d 917, 929 (same).
Administrator’s Note…
The topic of Authoritative Abuse has been —and continues to be— a key element in understanding the
Founders’ intent and creation of a citizen-owned and controlled Constitutional Republic.If you want a broader understanding of Authoritative Abuse,
and how it’s dramatically affecting our country today,
please check out the Sovereign Hope Article…
AUTHORITATIVE ABUSE.
