Robert Melvin Anderson
123 Freedom Street
Scenic Mountain, California

Counterplaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) CASE NO.  BC000000
              Plaintiff,              ) 
                                      ) COUNTERCLAIM       
             v.                       ) FOR TRESPASS, AND
                                      ) TRESPASS ON THE CASE
Robert Melvin Anderson,               ) 
              Defendant,              ) VERIFIED
                                      )
--------------------------------------)
Robert Melvin Anderson,               )
              Counterplaintiff,       )
                                      )
             v.                       )
                                      )
Federalista Credit Union,             )
Land Finder North,                    )
Mountain Finder North,                )
Greater City Bank, Benedict Arnold,   )
Anna Baker, Eileen C. Bonner,         )
Complainer Doe also known as          )
 People of the State of California,   )
FCU Doe, Land Doe, Mountain Doe,      )
Greater Doe, Laura Elton,             )
Gregory Hayes, Omar Kay,              )
David Heston, Lisa Houston,           )
666 Jones, Jane Mitchell,             )
Grady Miller, Paulette Patton,        )
Rose Roker, Sam Sosa, John Torrez,    )
Tom Sorensen, John Smith and          )
Cindy Zane,                           )
              Counterdefendants.      )
--------------------------------------)-------------------------
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – TRESPASS
PARTIES
1.  Robert Melvin Anderson, (hereinafter "Robert") is one of the people of California, and in this court of record complains of each of the following: Federalista Credit Union, Land Finder North, Mountain Finder North, Greater City Bank, Benedict Arnold, Anna Baker, Eileen C. Bonner, Complainer Doe also known as People of the State of California, FCU Doe, Land Doe, Mountain Doe, Greater Doe, Laura Elton, Gregory Hayes, Omar Kay, David Heston, Lisa Houston, 666 Jones, Jane Mitchell, Grady Miller, Paulette Patton, Rose Roker, Sam Sosa, John Torrez, Tom Sorensen, John Smith, and Cindy Zane (each hereinafter “Kidnapper”, and all collectively “Kidnappers”); who are each summoned to answer the said counterplaintiff in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case, to wit: 
INTRODUCTION
2.  Each Kidnapper exceeded his jurisdiction by either directly, through an agent, or in concert with another did cause counterplaintiff Robert to be unlawfully and forcibly carried away and imprisoned against his will, without jurisdiction or good cause.  At the onset of the unlawful imprisonment counterplaintiff Robert was duly engaged in good faith in a negotiation and purchase of a chose, and exercising his substantive right to contract with another at arms length.  Said Kidnappers, without good cause, interrupted the negotiations, then imprisoned counterplaintiff Robert.  During imprisonment the Kidnappers took further casual ill-considered actions to further imprison counterplaintiff Robert for up to three years without trial or due process.

3.  From the moment he was taken away till the present, Robert, under color of law, was kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.  Although he objected to the assumed jurisdiction, those who kept him imprisoned under color of law did not respond to any of his demands and requests for proof of jurisdiction or for reinstatement of his liberty.  They continued to assume the jurisdiction without proof of jurisdiction or any attempt at proof of jurisdiction.  He was denied counsel of his choice.  He was forced to accept counsel not of his choice against his wishes.  Counterplaintiff Robert continues to be subject, under color of law, to the assumed jurisdiction, will and control of the Kidnappers.  

4.  Under color of law Robert was twice subjected to pseudo-psychological evaluation.  The first pseudo-psychological evaluation failed to satisfy his Kidnappers.  The second pseudo-psychological-evaluation resulted in a star-chamber court-ordered incarceration of up to three years...without any trial, with the concurrence of the uninvited court-imposed counsel, and without opportunity for counterplaintiff to object.
SPECIFICS
5.  Each counterdefendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that counterplaintiff Robert is deprived of his liberty.  Each counterdefendant acted to deprive counterplaintiff Robert of his liberty; or each counterdefendant failed to act to prevent the loss by counterplaintiff Robert of his liberty.  Further, each counterdefendant is a willing participant in concert with each of the remaining counterdefendants.

6.  At all times mentioned in this action each counterdefendant is the agent of the other, and in doing the acts alleged in this action, each is acting within the course and scope of said agency.  The following paragraphs describe what the Kidnappers, under color of law, either acted or failed to act as obligated.

7.  Each counterdefendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law.  Each counterdefendant acted in concert with the remaining counterdefendants to effect the unlawful loss of liberty of counterplaintiff Robert.

8.  On or about June 29, 2004, Land Doe (an agent of Land Finder North) offered to sell two automobiles to counterplaintiff Robert.  Robert agreed to buy the automobiles but informed Land Doe that he would not take actual possession of the automobiles until the paper transactions were completed.  All paperwork and funding of the transaction would be completed before he would accept the automobiles from Land Doe or Land Finder North.   The reason for not taking possession of the property is that full payment would be in the form of a private check rather than a public bank check. (A private check requires special private banking procedures.  No actual transfer of possession would or may take place until said procedures are completed.  Failure to follow said procedures voids the transaction in its entirety.)

9.  Land Doe and Robert commenced to fill out the paperwork.  Before completing all the paperwork and the contract negotiation, the Redondo Beach Police Department officers appeared.  On information and belief, counterplaintiff Robert alleges that Land Doe, Land Finder North, or someone acting with their knowledge and approval, summoned the Redondo Beach Police Department police officers.  

10.  “666 Jones” is identified as the “ARRESTING OFFICER” in Exhibit “C”, the Redondo Beach Police Department Booking and Arrest Report.  Under color of law “666 Jones” assumed the jurisdiction and unlawfully and forcibly carried counterplaintiff Robert away, and imprisoned against his will without thorough investigation, without good cause, and for reasons that to this date are still unknown to him.  One of the officers involved in the unlawful imprisonment commented that this did not seem like a real fraud situation to him.

11.  Under color of law, “666 Jones” assumed the jurisdiction to impose various charges to subject counterplaintiff Robert to double jeopardy.

12.  Complainer Doe is the person who signed Exhibit “D” “FELONY COMPLAINT”.  Under color of law, Complainer Doe assumed jurisdiction to continue the imprisonment of counterplaintiff Robert.  Counterplaintiff Robert is informed and believes that Complainer Doe is either suing as a persona named “People of the State of California,” or is suing in the name of another whose name is “People of the State of California.”

13.  Exhibit “D” contains various accusations against counterplaintiff Robert.  Counterplaintiff Robert is informed and believes that each of the counterdefendants, (especially Land Finder North, Land Doe, Federalista Credit Union, FCU Doe, Mountain Finder North, Mountain Doe, Greater City Bank, and Greater Doe) is acting in concert with Complainer Doe.  In the alternative, each of the counterdefendants is an adverse unwilling co-counterplaintiff who should have an interest as a result of being involuntarily included in Exhibit “D”, under color of law, as a named victim.  Said adverse unwilling co-plaintiffs are Land Finder North, Land Doe, Federalista Credit Union, FCU Doe, Mountain Finder North, Mountain Doe, Greater City Bank, and Greater Doe.

14.  On Exhibit “D” Anna Baker provided the signature which authorized Complainer Doe to proceed.  Anna Baker could have stopped Complainer Doe at that point, but apparently acted in concert with Complainer Doe to continue the imprisonment of counterplaintiff Robert.

15.  On Exhibit “D” Grady Miller is named as the Redondo Beach PD “I/O”, and apparently is acting in concert with Complainer Doe to continue the imprisonment of counterplaintiff Robert who is informed and believes that Grady Miller is acting for that purpose.

16.  The California 1879 Constitution defines all California courts to be courts of record.  On or about July 1, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record and also not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Tom Sorensen acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Paulette Patton acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of John Torrez as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Sorenson, Patton, and Torrez, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment.  At no time has counterplaintiff Robert ever entered a voluntary plea.

17.  On or about July 16, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record and not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Laura Elton acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Jane Mitchell acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Eileen C. Bonner as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Elton, Mitchell, and Bonner, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment, this time for the stated purpose to declare “a doubt as to the mental competence of the defendant.”  Eileen C. Bonner did not defend counterplaintiff Robert.  Instead, the record shows that Bonner joined in with Elton and Mitchell to deprive Robert of his liberty and to continue his imprisonment.  The proceeding and subsequent imprisonment is reminiscent of the cooperation between the KGB and courts of Russia against anyone who fell into the government’s disfavor:  psychology was the tool used to confine Russian citizens for decades.

18.  On or about August 6, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record also not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Benedict Arnold acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Lisa Houston acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Eileen C. Bonner and agent Gregory Hayes as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Arnold, Houston, and agent Hayes, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment at the request of Bonner’s agent Hayes.  Bonner’s agent Hayes did not defend counterplaintiff Robert.  Instead, the record shows that Hayes joined in with Arnold and Houston to deprive Robert of his liberty and to continue his imprisonment.  Further, a habeas corpus from the court of Robert was summarily dishonored by Arnold because “it is permature” (sic).

19.  On or about August 9, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record also not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Laura Elton acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Lisa Houston acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Eileen C. Bonner as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Elton, Houston, and Bonner, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment.  Further, Eileen C. Bonner did not defend counterplaintiff Robert.  Further, a habeas corpus from the court of Robert was summarily dishonored by Elton.

20.  On or about August 24, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record also not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Laura Elton acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Lisa Houston acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Eileen C. Bonner as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Elton, Houston, and Bonner, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment.  Further, Eileen C. Bonner did not defend counterplaintiff Robert.  

21.  On or about September 8, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record also not a nisi prius court.  Exhibit “E” contains a true and correct copy of the official record of the said court.  Laura Elton acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Lisa Houston acted as a district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Eileen C. Bonner as his public defender.  Counterdefendants Elton, Houston, and Bonner, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment.  Further, the record shows that Eileen C. Bonner, acting in concert with Houston, never defended counterplaintiff Robert, but did against his wishes “stipulate and declare a doubt as to the mental competence of the defendant.”

22.  On or about September 23, 2004, counterplaintiff Robert was involuntarily brought before a court not of record also not a nisi prius court for what appeared to be a mock “mental competence hearing” (i.e. a kangaroo court).  Exhibit “F” contains a true and correct copy of the minute order of the said court.  John Smith acted as a tribunal and magistrate.  Cindy Zane through agent Rose Roker acted as district attorney.  Counterplaintiff Robert objected to the jurisdiction of the court and the appointment of Omar Kay and David Heston as his public defenders.  Counterdefendants Smith, Zane, Roker, Kay, and Heston, without proof of jurisdiction, each ignored Robert’s objections, and proceeded under color of law to continue his imprisonment.  Sam Sosa, acting in concert with the Kidnappers, provided documentation form with which to misrepresent the substance before the court not of record.  Counterplaintiff could plainly see the kangaroo court in action, and, as a lamb in the court of the wolves, saw no point in seriously matching wits with his imprisoners.  The Minute Order (Exhibit “F”), though not part of the record, confirms the lack of defense effort on the part of Kay and Heston.  Counterplaintiff Robert is now ordered, by the court not of record, to serve up to 3 year’s imprisonment (through September 8, 2007).  The Russian psychological model for bypassing due process was successfully executed by the Kidnappers.

23.  Because of the actions committed with actual and implied force or the lack of action of the counterdefendants, counterplaintiff was immediately and directly injured and suffered loss of liberty, and imprisoned under color of law.  

24.  Counterdefendants have a duty to not cause counterplaintiff Robert to be imprisoned under color of law, to not cause loss of liberty.  Further, counterdefendants have a duty to prove jurisdiction when objection to jurisdiction is asserted.  

25.  Counterdefendants have breached that duty.

26.  The damages for the injury caused by counterdefendants’ actions are $50,000 for each day of unlawful imprisonment.

27.  The damages for the injury caused by counterdefendants’ absence of required action is $5,000 for each failure to act.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – TRESPASS ON THE CASE

28.  Paragraphs 1 through 27 of FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION are included by reference as though fully stated herein. 

29.  By right, counterplaintiff reasonably expects to proceed without injury, secure in his capacities.  By right, counterplaintiff reasonably expects to exercise his right to negotiate and to enter a contract.

30.  Counterdefendants have a legal duty to use due care and not cause an injury to Counterplaintiff or interfere with said rights in any way.

31.  Counterdefendants breached that duty by proximately or legally, directly and indirectly, causing the injuries to Counterplaintiff. 

32.  The damages claimed are all a result of the injuries. 
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – TRESPASS ON THE CASE
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
33.  Paragraphs 1 through 27 of FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION are included by reference as though fully stated herein. 

34.  Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself. 

35.  The purpose of imposing vicarious liability is to insure the costs of injuries resulting from defective actions are placed on the source of the actions and others who make the actions possible rather than on injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. For a counterdefendant to be vicariously liable it must play an integral and vital part in the overall production and promotion activity so that the actor is in a position to affect others or, at the very least, it must provide a link in the chain of exposing the ultimate victim to the actor. The vicariously liable counterdefendant must be in the business of controlling, leasing, bailing, or licensing the actors.

36.  Each counterdefendant is an agent of the other, and each has his place in the chain of exposing counterplaintiff Robert to the actors.  Each counterdefendant is vicariously liable for each instance of injury to counterplaintiff.
LAW OF THE CASE
37.  Exhibit “G” is incorporated by reference as though fully stated herein.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
38.  For that cause of action therefore Counterplaintiff brings his suit. 

39.  WHEREFORE, Counterplaintiff requests relief and judgment against Counterdefendants as follows: 

40.  WHEREFORE, Counterplaintiff prays judgment against Counterdefendants, and each of them, as follows: 

On all causes of action: 

41.  For general damages in the sum of $50,000 multiplied by the number of days in constructive and actual imprisonment;

42.  For loss of earnings according to proof; 

43.  That the court enter a declaratory judgment that counterdefendants have acted arbitrarily and capriciously, have abused their discretion and have acted not in accordance with law, but under color of law;

44.  That the court enter a declaratory judgment that counterdefendants have acted contrary to constitutional right, power or privilege.

45.  That the court enter a declaratory judgment that counterdefendants' actions were in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right.

46.  That the court permanently enjoin counterdefendants from interfering in any way with counterplaintiff’s lawful right to negotiate and enter into contracts;

47.  That the court enter a declaratory judgment that the records of the court not of record are impeached for want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officers, for collusion between the parties, and/or for fraud in the parties offering the record, in respect to the proceedings;

48.  That the court grant counterplaintiff his attorneys fees;

49.  That the court grant counterplaintiff such other and further relief as the court deems proper;

50.  For interest as allowed by law; and

51.  For costs of suit incurred.

52.  I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 

October 29, 2005, County of Los Angeles, California 

_____________________________
Robert Melvin Anderson

								[put seal here]