1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cody A. Fitchcodyafitch@gmail.com4902 Fifth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY

UNLIMITED JURISIDCTION

CODY A FITCH,Plaintiff,

vs.PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES, INC AND DOES 1-350

Defendant

))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No.:

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE: CRIMINAL SPEECH NO ANTI SLAPP PROTECTION, CHERRY PICKING/FALLACY OF QUOTING RULING THUS IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE AND JUDCIAL ERROR TRO RULING MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED, LESS STRINGENT ON SELF REPRESENTATIVES , RELIEF TO AMEND

Date: July 25, 2014Time: 1:30pmDept: C11

Please take notice here comes the Plaintiff Cody A Fitch Responding to the Motion to Strike

/////

////

///////

- 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i. Table of Content’s Cases

Alhusainy v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.AppAth 385, 394…………………..10

Barber v. United Airlines, Inc., 17 Fed.Appx. 433, 437 (7th Cir. 2001)………….7,10,11

Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 201-02 (1986)……………………..12

Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 160 (1978)……………..13

Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792……………………18

Flatley v Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299, 320, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6060, 139 P. 3d 2 (2006)…9

Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604 (1989)…………16

Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, No. 11-1218 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2012)….……….16

Hoopes v. Hammargren, 725 P. 2d 238 (Nev. 1986)……………………………….15

Kimmel v. Goland, 51 Cal. 3d 202 (1990)……………………………………......11, 12

In re Wagner (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 138, 148; Ng v. Superior Court (1997)

52 Ca1.App.4th 1010,1024………………………………………………………10

Shafer v. Berger Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone,

107 Cal. App. 4th 54 (2003)……………………………………………………….12, 13

Summit Bank v Rogers, 206 Cal. App. 4th 669, 695-96 (2012)………………….19

Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 106 Cal.App.4th 257, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 611

(Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2003)(citing Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 177 Misc.2d

897, 900, 677 N.Y.S.2d 436, (1988) aff'd, 705 N.Y.S.2d 661, 271 A.D.2d 494 (2000))

……………………………………………………………………………15

Ruggles v. Cal. Poly. State Univ., 797 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir.1986)………………16

- 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii. Table of Content’s Codes

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights…………………………8

18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law……………8

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights…………….. 8, 17, 18

Code Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy….9, 12, 15, 16, 18

42 U.S. Code § 12203 - Prohibition against retaliation and coercion…….8, 17

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 1705………………………….5, 6, 10, 14, 18, 19

California Evidence Code 1271………………………………………….6, 10, 18, 19

California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3B…………………………….10

Civil Code Procedures section 1714(a)………………………………….14

Cal Lab Code Sect 3601(a)………………………………………………13

California Penal Code Section 484…………………………………………..5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15

Government Code Section 12940………………………………………17

- 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iii. Table of Content’s Secondary Material

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/

2011_mcjc_preamble_scope_terminology.authcheckdam.pdf...........................................11

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisvi.blogspot.com/ …………………………………5

http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=8580 …………………………………13

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=51d331d2-d9d5-43bf-9971-42a03ad48bbf

………………………………………………………………………………………16

Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpubs

……………………………………………………………………………………….7

Judicial Techniques for Cases Involving Self Represented Litigants

http://www.zorza.net/JudicalTech.JJWi03.pdf ………………………………………11

The Cherry-Picking Fallacy in Synthesizing Evidence http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-cherry-

picking-fallacy-in-synthesizing-evidence/ ………………………………………7

The Right to Evidence http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1612&context=lawfaculty

http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=8580 ……………………………..18

- 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff is a researcher of espionage and crime and has a Bachelors Degree in

Criminal justice and the world’s biggest economic warfare research cites

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisvi.blogspot.com/ . Thus, he is able to recognize crime and

report economic warfare very quickly. The Plaintiff went to a job interview got the temp agency

job. Then he went to a field job interview through that employment relationship. He was asked a

question See Defendants Motion to Strike Exhibit A page 13 “Where do you see yourself in 5

years?” , he made a statement id cited “I see myself as a team leader at the company”, and the

statement was misrepresented to a third party being the Defendant as “I was the kind of guy I did

not know where I wanted to be”. See id cited. So he recognized a crime of A per California

Penal Code Section 484 (CPC Sect 484) “by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense,

defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures

others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character –“

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-

502.9 The Plaintiff then became emotion and created a collection of damages of

defamation/mercantile character harm to report to authorities as per “California Civil Jury

Instructions (CACI)

1705. Defamation per quod—Essential Factual Elements (Private Figure—Matter of Private

Concern)” “

Actual Damages

If [name of plaintiff] has proved all of the above, then [he/she] is entitled to recover if [he/she]

proves that [name of defendant]’s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing any of

the following actual damages:

a. Harm to [name of plaintiff]’s property, business, trade, profession, or occupation;

b. Expenses [name of plaintiff] had to pay as a result of the defamatory statements;

c. Harm to [name of plaintiff]’s reputation; or

d. Shame, mortification, or hurt feelings.” […………….]

- 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1705.html

The Plaintiff’s only way to do this, as he could not afford a psychiatrist to go and sit

down and have them professional deem him going through emotional distress, shame,

mortification and hurt feelings; was to use the California Evidence Code 1271

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1270-

1272 (CEC 1271) to collect, preserve and present evidence Please See Exhibit A Hereby

Attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities page no 5 how to calculate damages on

Defamation citations on how to collect damage. CEC 1271 is to in a timely manner write down

and send the oral meetings, information, feelings, and things that happened in the room as per

California Evidence Code 1271 “(b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act,

condition, or event” “(d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were

such as to indicate its trustworthiness.” This was done in the utmost manner of responsible

reasonable legal means. See the Attached Exhibit B Declaration of Cody A Fitch . As it

explains a reasonable person, non Cherry Picking, non Fallacy of Quote, reading of the

construction of the collection of evidence. As 21 odd mail evidence recipients concluded did

not constitute a crime, including the business it was directed to BLB as per the emails wording,

and a Police Officer that said it was not a threat. Each header had a legal statement of lawsuit

and courts, each sentence was structured for any reasonable person to presume it was a legal

collection of evidence and an out-poor of “Shame, mortification or hurt feelings” id cited cal.

jur.; id cited Exhibit B Attached Hereby To.

The Defendant’s then called the Police who is legally considered to be a reasonable

person See Exhibit A Hereby Attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities pages 12-

13. The Police Officer then told the Defendants that there was no threat, most presumable

cause the Emails where of a legal nature of collection of evidence for a lawsuit. The

Defendant’s then searched out an attorney and some-time later even though the Plaintiff never

contacted them after the emails where threw. The Defendant and the Attorney conspired to

commit fraud through cherry picking the evidence and filed a lawsuit for a TRO and taken

action against a whistle blower who reported a crime. As per California Penal Code Section

484 “by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money,

- 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her

wealth or mercantile character –“ id cited CPC Sect 484

In that lawsuit the whole evidential argument was created to be false and invalidity

accepted. The judge would not let me object in the begging to a Cherry Picking evidence of a

single word as per Defendant’s Judicial Notice Exhibit 1-5 rely on cherry picked evidence, as

illegal by evidence or provided evidence Barber v. United Airlines, Inc., 17 Fed.Appx. 433, 437

(7th Cir. 2001) (affirming exclusion of “cherry-picking” expert witness who failed to explain

why he ignored certain data while accepting others). The Defendants Declaration was a Cherry

Picking Fallacy, each word was taken way out of context. Plaintiff argued that during the trail.

Which the Plaintiff can’t afford to show you the oral arguments, but you can obviously go get

those, the case No is 30-2013-00657351 Priority v Fitch TRO. The judge then did a reading of

Plaintiff’s Memo and Points and Authorities Attached as Exhibit A Hereby To and also

Plaintiff Declaration Attached as Exhibit B Hereby To where she also cherry picked only

words that where obviously taken out of context. The Plaintiff spent 80 hours writing a

defense, never contacted them after the emails where sent; then the Judge error by accepting in

the cherry picked evidence. As 15 cases and two treaties cited in this article The Cherry-

Picking Fallacy in Synthesizing Evidence http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-cherry-picking-

fallacy-in-synthesizing-evidence/ The Plaintiff then had over 30 other lawsuits come up since

then and he will no longer let the Latin community violate him. He has had to work very hard

on filing those lawsuit, researching them, and saving them for courts.

The Plaintiff for 3 years has been defamed and wrongly had conduct against him by

Latina’s in the Community. The community is near an Embassy of Latin’s and no other

embassy in the County or area. The Embassy is constantly producing military activities and

espionage as Embassies do against the local populace of Americans. The Plaintiff will now

respond to an action completely based on malice, hate, and racism towards the Plaintiff. Which

the judicial impartiality of the case is so erroneously cherry picking and fallacy of quoting as

per Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpubs

- 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

it makes an old debater of 4 years and 3 hours a night, sick to think justice allowed in such

evidence to attack him. The Plaintiff just asked for an apology letter and stated ad nausea in

the evidence erroneously used to attack the Plaintiff. That it was for court and legal purpose.

Sick it makes me, as a legal person.

II. CRIMINAL SPEECH DOES NOT ALLOW ANTI SLAPP PROTECTION

The Complaint arises out of the Plaintiff complaint about a crime that a business

committed against him. According to California Penal Code Section 484 “by any false or

fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or

personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or

mercantile character –“ id cited CPC Sect 484.

The law states that if a person represents fraudulently to defraud a person of labor or

mercantile character. That it is a crime. The Defendants Motion to Strike Exhibits A-B, show

that the Plaintiff was complaining about that crime code to the proper authorities. Thus, the

activity of the emails was protected speech. Then the Defendant’s further committed a crime by

violating conspiracy to violate civil rights 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 by furthering the crime of violating “mercantile

character” to Deprive Plaintiff of 18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 by further hurting the plaintiff and trying to stop

him from being able to have his rights to sue for Defamation under the 42 U.S. Code § 1983 -

Civil action for deprivation of rights http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 and by

violating 42 U.S. Code § 12203 - Prohibition against retaliation and coercion

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12203 which the code states the Plaintiff has the

right to sue and collect evidence to sue 42 U.S.C Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of

rights http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Which the Plaintiff was stating the whole

time in his evidence collection and reporting to proper authorities the crime violation of PCP

Sect. 484. The Defendant then violated the above criminal conduct codes and filed a TRO. Thus

the filing is a criminal conduct and is not protected under the litigation protection as cited below

in the specific litigation protection is erroneous reasoning.

The Defendant’s conspired to further the crime of “mercantile character false

reporting” to deprive Plaintiff of the right to future labor’s as per TRO’s destroy records and

- 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

background checks. The TRO is part of that design and conspiracy to further commit that crime

of Penal Code Section 484 mercantile character harm. As per Flatley v Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299,

320, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6060, 139 P. 3d 2 (2006) any criminal speech or criminal activity may not

be protected by the Anti Slapp code. And they are at least themselves in violation of the Criminal

Code Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986 . The TRO furthers that conspiracy to destroy

the Plaintiff, instead of merely just apologizing. Which around 21 other email recipients did not

take action on, and the business it was directed at did not file a TRO, even though it was directed

at them and not the Defendant’s as per the emails in the Defendant’s Motion To Strike Exhibits

A-B. Showing the wording to be “Sir”, and directed at the entity BLB that did the action of the

defamation/mercantile character harm BLB and not at the female business Priority; as they are

all females. If somebody beats the Plaintiff without reason for it in defense, and hurts him, then

Plaintiff crys and speaks out to authorities and get’s mad and says I am going to sue. The

Defendant’s may not take further action against him as per above cited federal retaliation code’s

protecting the right to speech of lawsuit under 42 U.S.C . Its ill. This is ill, they beat Plaintiff

emotionally. He spoke out with proper legal formats and they further took action against HIM.

III. CHERRY PICKING/FALLACY OF QUOTING RULING THUS IMPARTIAL

EVIDENCE AND JUDCIAL ERROR TRO RULING MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED

(judges may only consider the action of conspiracy to commit fraud through a TRO filing

by cherry picking evidence to retaliate, for the Plaintiff reporting a crime, and stating his federal

rights to sue, and using his due process right to collect and preserve evidence)

The TRO ruling was based on evidence as per Defendant’s Judicial Notice Exhibits 1-5

that is based on illegal formats of evidential allowances, called Cherry Picking and Fallacy of

Quote. “In litigation, each side is expected to “cherry pick” the favorable evidence, and ignore or

flyblow the contrary evidence. Judges are thus often complacent about selectivity in the

presentation of evidence by parties and their witnesses. In science, this kind of adversarial

selectivity is a sure way to inject bias and subjectivity into claims of knowledge. The

development of the systematic review, in large measure, has been supported by the widespread

recognition that studies cannot be evaluated with post hoc, subjective evaluative criteria. Cynthia

D. Mulrow, Deborah J. Cook, Frank Davidoff, “Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great

- 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chain of Evidence,” 126 Ann. Intern. Med. 389 (1997)” The Cherry-Picking Fallacy in

Synthesizing Evidence http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-cherry-picking-fallacy-in-synthesizing-

evidence/ In “McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1114 (D. Ore. 2010)(discussing

cherry picking but rejecting “document by document” review)(“Finally, defendants contend that

plaintiffs’ experts employ unreliable methodologies by ‘cherry-picking’ facts from certain

studies and asserting reliance on the ‘totality’ or ‘global gestalt of medical evidence’. Defendants

argue that in doing so, plaintiffs’ experts fail to ‘painstakingly’ link each piece of data to their

conclusions or explain how the evidence supports their opinions.”)” While the Plaintiff will rest

heavily on Barber v. United Airlines, Inc., 17 Fed.Appx. 433, 437 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming

exclusion of “cherry-picking” expert witness who failed to explain why he ignored certain data

while accepting others). Which explains that when evidence is cherry picked like one word out

of the whole sentence as explained in the Plaintiff’s Exhibit B Cody’s Declaration Hereby

Attached To, that the whole ruling was based on a complaint that used only single word’s and

not complete contextual wording or even meaning to further a criminal conspiracy to hurt the

character of the Plaintiff. Cherry picking leads to judicial impartiality and biases thus it may not

be used to rule in the courts California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3B. Grounds for

exercising removal power include "where a reasonable person might doubt whether the trial

judge was impartial or where the trial court's rulings suggest the 'whimsical disregard' of a

statutory scheme." (Alhusainy v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.AppAth 385, 394.) In addition,

where "a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be

able to be impartial" removal is appropriate. The court need not determine whether there is actual

bias. {In re Wagner (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 138, 148; Ng v. Superior Court (1997)52

Ca1.App.4th 1010,1024.) The judge did not take into account the statue of work place

harassment or harassment in the legal reason exception as per Exhibit A of Hereby Attached to

pages 9-12 “II. “Legitimate Purpose”. Which the judge did not rule that it was a legitimate

purpose to collect evidence as per the California Jury citation of Defamation requires and the

California evidence code 1271 stating how to do that as per violation of cherry picking evidence.

As stated in the emails as per Defendant’s Motion to Strike S A-B ad nausea the Plaintiff in

every sentence, paragraph and header defined it as the proper collection defamation damages as

- 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

called for per the code, and doing so even though wrongly cited but did cite as the business

timely manner collection of evidence.

Thus as per the cited cases you Judgy’s may not hear any case about how the Defendant’s

won a TRO as per Barber v. United Airlines, Inc., 17 Fed.Appx. 433, 437 (7th Cir. 2001). As it

was based on evidence that is erroneous and they are still citing impartial, cherry picked words,

as evidence in their defense. The judge must therefore, through-out the TRO as a ruling, and

accept it as an action taken to further a crime of hurting a character, or mercantile character harm

CPC Sect. 484. If this court finds the TRO is based on a cherry picking out of the evidence being

the emails. Then the court may find the case of crime conspiracy being furthered. As the last

judge violated the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct includes the duties to avoid

“impropriety and the appearance of impropriety,” to perform judicial duties without bias or

prejudice, and to “dispose of all matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.”

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/

2011_mcjc_preamble_scope_terminology.authcheckdam.pdf By allowing cherry picked

evidence to be the reasoning behind her judgment it causes the judicial reasoning to be biased

instead of impartial.

IV. LESS STRINGENT ON SELF REPRESENTATIVES

Judicial Techniques for Cases Involving Self Represented Litigants

http://www.zorza.net/JudicalTech.JJWi03.pdf 26 cases on how judges were overruled by appeals

court for not being less stringent on the self represented. Where the cases involved everything

from a judge being too strict on a cause of action that had the pleading fact in the factual

background, to the judge ruling against a party based on citations.

V. RELIANCE UPON LITIGATION EXCEPTION IS ERRONEOUS

In Kimmel v. Goland, 51 Cal. 3d 202 (1990) the courts created an exception to the

litigation privilege. The lawsuit that was brought was sued for being brought as the action of the

evidence was taken by illegal circumstances, of illegally recording, during a lawsuit. Thus, in the

litigation privilege there created an exception, if the lawsuit is brung under illegal activity; it can

go against the litigation privilege. That the Defendant’s rely on as their defense to you may not

sue for bringing a TRO. Thus, if the TRO was brought illegally as it was in this manner to

- 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

further a conspiracy to hurt a “mercantile character” with fallacious evidence that around 22

other people involved in the evidence, did not find as ill, in its nature to pursue justice. Being

around 20 other recipients authorities, local, and federal, not seeing it illegal, then 1 other

business it was directed at, then a local Police officer, not finding it as a illegal communication.

Then the judge allowed it based on illegal evidence as the use of Cherry Picking evidence is

insurmountable in the judge’s ruling as erroneous. Then the Litigation exception does not stand

as per Kimmel’s illegally activity exception, if the action of bringing the lawsuit with our without

the ruling, was done in an illegal manner. The Plaintiff rest it was done to further violate Penal

Code Section 484 to harm his “mercantile character” to destroy further labors, as a TRO destroys

a background check. While in Shafer v. Berger Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon &

Gladstone, 107 Cal. App. 4th 54 (2003) the judges ruled that statements during the lawsuit The

Shafer court concluded that "the litigation privilege does not shield [the defendant attorney] from

liability for fraud because his alleged misrepresentations were made.” The Plaintiff’s lawsuit

states the misrepresentations where made about war being violent when the non cherry picked

evidential reading of the emails will show war means legal warfare as courts, peaceful

settlement, discovery, lawsuit etc. Just because you are in a lawsuit does not mean you are

immune from crime. Misrepresentation is misrepresentation, its fraud in conspiracy. That is up

to these judges to read the evidence and see if the Defendants did commit fraud by

misrepresentation. While also in Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194, 201-02 (1986) “In

California it is well established that an attorney may not, with impunity, either conspire with a

client to defraud or injure a third person or engage in intentional tortuous conduct toward a third

person” In Plaintiff’s case the attorney conspired to use cherry picking to misrepresent very

obvious and openly stated legal purpose in ad nausea, use of the evidence code to collect

damages of spiritual and emotions for court; The conspiracy to commit harm by mercantile

character violation of fraud representation. Is very obvious by the use of single words that are not

even in the same email, as some of them where cited and then put together to use cherry picking

and fallacy of quote to misrepresent the evidence and commit fraud in act. See the Defendant’s

Motion to Strike pg 2 use of cherry picking words. Plaintiff could write: his tv dinner was nuked

in the microwave, and the Defendant would try and say nuc means nuclear missile. The act of

conspiracy to violate the defendant’s right does not give the Defendant’s litigation exception.

- 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“As for jurisdictions other than California, the Shafer court observed that "cases from twenty-

eight states hold[] that ‘[a]n attorney can be liable to a nonclient, even an adversary in litigation,

for fraud or deceit.'"27 That is also the rule of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing

Lawyers: "[I]n general, a lawyer who makes a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability

to the injured person when the other elements of the tort are established...."28 This rule "applies

equally to statements made to a sophisticated person, such as to a lawyer representing another

client, as well as to an unsophisticated person."29 Moreover, according to the Restatement,

"Misrepresentation is not part of proper legal assistance; vigorous argument often is. Thus,

lawyers are civilly liable to clients and nonclients for fraudulent misrepresentation,….."

http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=8580

The Plaintiff claims that his activity is protected under the above cases and brand knew

rulings and obvious common law ethical issues of, if an attorney says citations of evidence way

out of context (cherry picking rulings) can be used to misrepresent civil justice and a human

beings life, its erroneous to think that they and their client for conspiring to do so may not be

sued. The courts disagree with the Defendant’s reason and agree that the Plaintiff may sue the

defendant for conspiring to misrepresent.

VI. RELIANCE UPON WORKERS COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVITY IS

ERRONEOUS

1st Cause

The Defendant cites way out of the wall most likely really red cases and

did not shepardize on the issue. “Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 160

(1978) (action stemming from injury from employment is barred)” and

Cal Lab Code Sect 3601(a) cited that only can get compensation for death. This is ridiculous

Plaintiff worked 3 years of employment law. The idea that you may only sue for injury in

employment is “barred” and you can only gain compensation by death is ridiculous. There is a

whole industry of employment law. Your honors, does the Plaintiff need to spend countless

hours citing on this one? He will do his best.

The Plaintiff’s pleads out of the California Jury Instructions: Civil Code

Procedures section 1714(a) provides in part: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of

- 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary

care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has,

willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” The Plaintiff

plead that the Defendants conduct with dealing with the Defamation was professionally negligent

and the cause of the harm, as furthering the crime of mercantile character harm, however not

plead in not the crime wording but in the civil wording of defamation. The Defendant’s are

responsible for not acting reasonable when one of their employees is defamed and trying to

apologize instead of let them get emotional and distressed. A reasonable person apologizes and

says it will be ok, we will send you an apology letter in your email box for you to sit and read.

The Defendant’s argue that no such relationship exist between the

Temporary staffing agency and their employee. However, the CC 1714 says “everyone” is

responsible to act reasonable. It’s reasonable to think that after calling in the Plaintiff was

defamed they would have taken key measures to make sure the Plaintiff was ok, an email, call

me in a day, or so sleep on it, etc. The defense does not argue why CCP 1714 does not stick to

them as part of “everyone”. It is reasonable to think that when a Human resources reasonable

skilled person hears their employee has been defamed, they deal with it in a better manner. Than

allowing their employee to wait till they get home many, many, hours later. Then start becoming

emotional over the defamation and sending emails and having to report it to the authority’s to get

justice. When a simple email communicating care and reasonable duty to say, it’s ok; would

have kept the Plaintiff from being damaged as per emotional distress as per his request for

somebody to just care about him and stop hurting him for 3 years constantly.

VII. EMPLOYER OWES NO DUTY TO EMPLOYEE IS ERRONEOUS REASONING

2nd Cause

The obvious counter argument is that the Defense did not argue what kind

of duty is owed. Obvious the Temporary agency owes a duty to pay if the Plaintiff work’s,

provide a reasonable skilled level of interaction as other temporary staffing agencies would.

Above cited CCP 1714 “management” “everyone” Etc. So I will just say that the Defendants did

owe a duty. However, I will argue more in depth they owed a specific duty the Plaintiff plead

that there was a relationship placing the Defendant above him in care of his employment issues

to have the scope of power of discretion of where to send him for employment, the defendant

- 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

could unilateral affect the employment of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was completely

venerable to the Defendant in their use of power and discretion of how to deal with the

defamation that the client they sent him to did. A fiduciary relationship is deemed to exist when

one party is bound to act for the benefit of the other party. Such a relationship imposes a duty of

utmost good faith. Hoopes v. Hammargren, 725 P. 2d 238 (Nev. 1986). This means the

Defendant was bound to act for the Plaintiff with regards to his emotional distress and the

evidence that they he sent to them over the BLB resources crime of hurting his “mercantile

character”. Instead of helping the Plaintiff the Defendant’s desired to further the crime of

conspiring to violate as plead above Penal Code Section 484. The Defendant’s fiduciary duty

should have lead the Defendants to act in a reasonable way like the BLB resources company did,

the 21 other email recipients did, and at least say nothing and understand it, or try and help the

Plaintiff who was an employee during the time of the emotional distress. “A helpful California

definition of fiduciary: any relation existing between parties to a transaction

wherein the vulnerability of one party to the other results in the empowerment of the stronger

party by the weaker which empowerment has been solicited or accepted by the stronger party

and prevents the weaker party from effectively protecting itself."

Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 106 Cal.App.4th 257, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 611

(Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2003)(citing Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 177 Misc.2d

897, 900, 677 N.Y.S.2d 436, (1988) aff'd, 705 N.Y.S.2d 661, 271 A.D.2d 494 (2000)). The

Plaintiff was very weak in protecting itself from the damage of the defamation. Instead of

helping the weaker positioned employee to employer relationship, they furthered the crime and

civil case of action he was complain about, and further hurt the person in the weaker position of

needing a labor, and furthered the crime of defrauding character to take away his labor. Thus,

breaching the fiduciary duty to help, protect, and at least mitigate and calm the employee who

had a crime committed against him.

VIII. ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

3rd Cause

The Defendant’s state that their unprofessional manner of dealing with the defamation

and the collection of evidence of the damage done by the defamation, lead to the discharge of

- 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Plaintiff pg 9-10 of the Motion to Strike. That is enough itself to proof adverse employment

action as it is a discharge, due to a complaint of a crime against the Plaintiff. “The terms of the

statute are to be liberally constructed in a manner consistent with the intent of the legislation to

eliminate all forms of invidious discrimination in the workplace” (Fisher v. San Pedro

Peninsula Hospital, 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604 (1989) That means that their discharge of the

Plaintiff for turning in to the authorities a possible Mexican espionage criminal mercantile

character harm unit, lead to an adverse employment action. Whether liberally construed or not.

The Plaintiff claims their action was why the emotional distress happened. The Plaintiff plead

that the Defendant enforced a law of discharging and filing a TRO on the Plaintiff for

“disclosing information” to the proper authorities about a crime he was complaining about.

Defense openly admits to doing it.

The facts where plead in the factual pattern of the Pleading and in the cause of action.

The Plaintiff then refutes the Defense arguments that you must be an employee as the TRO

was an adverse action taken post employment and they say you must be an employee, however,

Ruggles v. Cal. Poly. State Univ., 797 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to hire); the

adverse action that was taken was they failed to hire somebody cause of an action taken against

the employer before they where even the employer of the employee. “In Gerner v. County of

Chesterfield, No. 11-1218 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2012) a recent opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court

of Appeals held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ("Title

VII"), allows former employees to bring a claim against a former employer pursuant to this

statute based, in part, on post-employment actions by the employer. […]is consistent with other

federal court decisions, which have asserted that former employees may bring claims regarding

alleged discriminatory actions taken after their termination .”

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=51d331d2-d9d5-43bf-9971-42a03ad48bbf This

claims arises out of a employment discharge and then an adverse post employment action of a

fraud misrepresentation, by cherry picking evidence to harm the Plaintiff with a temporary

restraining order to further a crime against the character of the Plaintiff.

VIV. FITCH IS PROTECTED UNDER RETALIATION GOVERNMENT CODE, §

12940(F), 42 U.S.C. § 12203(A)(B))

- 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4th Cause

42 U.S.C Section 12203 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12203 states that the

Plaintiff has a right not to be attacked, cause he is expressing his right to sue under 42 U.S.C

Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 . The Plaintiff plead he stated he was going to

sue and Defense retaliated with cherry picking evidence to file a miss represented TRO case to

further a crime of character harm. The Plaintiff hails under the 42 U.S.C 12203 as he was using

his rights under the 42 U.S.C. Sect 1983, which governs the right to use words that you are

going to sue to get justice done.

The Plaintiff falls under the protection of Government Code Section 12940. As the

Plaintiff believes during the discovery process he can find out that the females may be part of a

racist society that attacked him cause of his race. As per the 3 years of his life that female latina’s

have done that to him during his trying to gain labor and employment. This has yet to be proven

as the discovery has yet to be done. However, it was plead that there may be racism in the issue.

It is plead before discovery as the case still has to go through discovery to prove that there is a

racist issue involved in the conspiracy. Racism however, is not a major element to the conspiracy

itself of character crime.

X. TRUTHFUL REACTION IT WAS NOT

5th Cause

The Defense concludes that misrepresentation of the term legal warfare, by cherry

picking it out of the evidence can’t be proven as per the truthfulness of the Defendants. That is

obvious that they truthfulness of the Defendants would have filed the TRO that day it

happened, if they were afraid. They waited almost three days after Plaintiff was done talking to

them before filing it. If they were really scared the same day it would have been in the courts.

Instead they waited conspired and toiled with strategies of how to hurt the Plaintiff. Anyways

miss representation of a fact is not based on their truthfulness, it’s based on the fact that other

reasonable people around 20 other recipients all reasonable people under law as employed to

be, and one other business that it was directed at BLB, and a Police officer, read the emails and

- 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

none of them reacted the way the unreasonable Defendants did. Who just wanted to further the

commission of the crime against the Plaintiff’s character for saying he was going to sue.

XI. NOT PROPER IN REGULAR CONDUCT

6th Cause

“To establish a cause of action for abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead two essential

elements: that the defendant (1) entertained an ulterior motive in using the process and (2)

committed a wilful act in a wrongful manner.” (Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41

Cal.3d 782, 792 [226 Cal.Rptr. 90, 718 P.2d 77], internal citations omitted.)” The Plaintiff

plead that the defendant ulterior motive was to further a harm towards the Plaintiff of character

harm. Then committed an obvious miss-representation, by cherry picking, single words, out

evidential context, to violate evidence law, to gain a TRO on false premise of invalidated

evidence. Again 21 odd other participants in the communication and only one acted the way of

a TRO. This is a case of obvious female hate for somebody saying they were going to sue. The

male business involved that the emails where directed too did nothing.

XII. PRIVATE ACTION IS DUE PROCESS FEDERAL RIGHT

7th Cause

Procedures due Process behind Defamation is to collect damages to the fact of the

character crime id cited Cal. Jury Inst. The timely business writings as per California Evidence

Code 1271 where done as per the code in a timely manner, to presume the truthfulness of the

matter. This solidified the statements as a fact and an evidentiary issue of the meetings events

and actions they caused. Due Process is a constitutional right to the 42 USC Sect 1983 right to

sue. Violation of the constitution is a private right. The Right to Evidence

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1612&context=lawfaculty goes over

the right to collect, preserve, and present evidence as a private cause of action. Without the

preservation of the evidence of damages, the evidence would be in spoliation and the Plaintiff

would have no evidence of the state of his mind. As he would have forgot except for the

knowledge that he was defamed and the constant remembrance of 3 years of the same treatment

by the community.

- 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

XIII. THE TRO WAS FALSE AND FRAUDULENT MISS-REPRESENTED

Summit Bank v Rogers, 206 Cal. App. 4th 669, 695-96 (2012) Defamation requires

provable falsehood. The whole complaint is based on a TRO that violated the cherry picking

evidence laws, and a case of impartial judicial ruling. By picking one word and another word

way out of context to create something in the mind that around 22 other reasonable people

involved did not come up with at all. Even-when, as per the wording of the emails, which

where directed at another business, and the females that attacked wrongly with cherry picking

evidence where not even directed at. The TRO is malicious, misrepresentation, a conspiracy to

further a character crime. The TRO can be proven to be wrong in another court. If the court

deems the evidence is based on cherry picking. As per the litigation privilege exception of,

illegal activity, and also of misrepresentation of fraud against an adversary cases cited above in

the reasoning, a TRO as a legal pursuit can be sued for if the Plaintiff believes it was done

illegally, and that the case is a conspiracy. As the judge may have been part of the conspiracy,

and as per how bad the evidence and arguments of the defense are by horribly obvious cherry

picking it would seem that the Plaintiff has no other choice but to sue and test the validity of

that TRO in this case.

XIV. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff was constantly, for 3 years, being harmed by false statements by latina’s

in the employment field. He decided to sue one of them over it. He followed the Defamation

Cal. Jur. Inst. Damages, and the way to collect those damages, CEC 1271 timely collection to

prove truthfulness. The Defense attacked him with cherry picked evidence TRO attack, that the

other 22 who were involved with the evidence, did not sign on to, or also did not file the same

action. The Plaintiff’s Exhibits show a great defense to the TRO. The Defendant’s Exhibits

show horrible obvious Cherry Picking evidence violation of laws, and conspiracy to defraud

the Plaintiff of character of mercantile using the courts.

The Plaintiff reported the crime to the authorities and collected evidence. The

Defendant then retaliated for the Plaintiff saying he was going to sue and reporting it to the

authorities. The judge honored an obvious cherry picking impartial ruling and further harmed

the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff may sue for having taken misrepresentation litigation and an

- 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

erroneous ruling, to see if the another judge, hopefully outside of the possible conspiracy,

views the TRO ruling the same way as the Plaintiff does, fraud, conspiracy, crime, obvious

cherry picking, impartial ruling. The Plaintiff prays to allow the case to proceed and keep the

ball rolling for a judge trial, or a Motion for Summary Judgment for the Defendants not

defending the fact that it was a cherry picked out of context fraud case. They had their defense

and the case plead it was out of context and they did not defend context as a fact of argument

at all.

Electronically Signed Cody A Fitch

- 20