🚀 go-pugleaf

LION KUNTZ
482 Hayes Street
San Francisco, California, 94102
Phone: (415) 863-1781

Lion Kuntz, in Pro Per






MUNICIPAL  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA
CITY  AND  COUNTY  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO

-----------------------------

ALAN  KALBROFSKY,
            Plaintiff
    V
LION  KUNTZ,
            Defendant

-----------------------------

LION  KUNTZ,
            Cross-complainant
    V

ALAN  KALBROFSKY, ROBYN SMITH,
individuals, and ORRICK HERRINGTON
 & SUTCLIFFE, a corporation
            Cross-defendants.

-----------------------------

CASE No. 102905

VERIFIED ACCUSATORY PLEADING AND COMPLAINT OF FELONY CRIMINAL PERJURY USED
IN THIS CASE BY ALAN KALBROFSKY, ROBYN SMITH, AND ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THIS CRIMINAL  COMPLAINT AND INVOCATION OF
JUDICIAL MANDATORY DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
THROUGH SUPPRESSION OF PERJURY.

Location: Department 6
Date: September 12, 1994
Time: 9:00 p.m.

    My name is Lion Kuntz, residing at 482 Hayes Street, San Francisco,
California, 94102.  My phone number is (415) 863-1781.
    I am making a verified accusatory pleading and complaint of felony
criminal violations of the State of California Penal Code statutes of
perjury, sections 7(1), 7(4), 7(5), 14, 118, 118a, and 127.  The persons
and entities whom I am charging with felony violation of these laws are
Alan Kalbrofsky, a person believed to be residing at 630 Laguna Street,
apartment number 2, San Francisco, California, 94102, and Robyn Smith, a
person of unknown address believed to be employed at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe at 400 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California, 94111, and the
fictitious person of the corporation of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe at
the same address just given.
    I am making this verified accusatory pleading and complaint of felony
violations of criminal law to a magistrate of the City and County of San
Francisco, State of California, Municipal Court, Civil Division, Ronald
Quidachay, whom is personally familiar with the facts of this matter,
having been an eye-witness to the multiple acts of felony perjury herein
described.  While this court is not known to have jurisdiction of trial in
criminal prosecutions, every person defined by law as a magistrate in the
State of California is invested with the same set of powers to receive a
verified accusatory pleading or complaint of felony criminal violations of
law, to issue an order of arrest upon receipt of the accusatory pleading
or complaint, to take into custody persons accused thereby of violations
of penal code statutes and public offenses, to order the police to take
custody of the prisoners and to hold them for arraignment on the charges,
and generally to uphold and defend the laws of the State of California and
the Constitutions of the State and the United States of America.  While a
prime consideration of the duties of a magistrate are to uphold decorum in
the courts a more important duty is to uphold the laws.  There is not one
inch of the State of California where persons are immune from arrest,
including inside courts of justice, nor is there any occupational
exemptions for any person for the crimes of felony perjury and felony
suborning of perjury.  Therefore this court has sufficient jurisdiction
and a positive duty to permit the complainant to make a citizen's arrest
of the accused persons cited in this accusatory pleading for the crimes
charged in this pleading.  This court has a further duty under command of
statute to receive custody of the prisoners of a citizen's arrest.
    The charges against Alan Kalbrofsky are the false, fraudulent and
feloniously perjurous statements made in documents sworn to under oath,
under penalty of perjury, and oral testimony made while sworn on oath
under penalty of perjury.  These felonious perjuries happened during the
course of a number of hearings and filed pleadings in SF Municipal Civil
Court case number 102905.  Some instances of identical perjurous
statements made in this primary case were also made by Kalbrofsky in San
Francisco Criminal Municipal Court case number 1333147, and San Francisco
Superior Court case number 959094.  Court recorders made records of all of
the oral testimony in these cases.  The exact date, time, and place of
each instance of feloneous perjury are already a matter of record
transcribed by the court reporter or stamped filed by the court clerk.
    The false and perjurous statements are:
    1.  Lion Kuntz "locked out" a legitimate tenant from access to his own
home, by changing door entry locks and refusing to provide copies of the
keys to Alan Kalbrofsky.  This is a perjurous statement because Alan
Kalbrofsky made a voluntarily audio-tape recorded statement to Lion Kuntz
of his intention to voluntarily quit and move from the premises in
dispute.  Kuntz acted upon the reliance of the statements and actions of
Kalbrofsky and changed the locks after the quitclaim date stated by
Kalbrofsky.  A transcript of this tape is attached as exhibit "A" to this
accusatory pleading and complaint.
    2.  It is further false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to claim that he
had a right of entrance to the property at any moment after the time and
date of the quitclaim and lock changings, since for the first three days
of that period Kalbrofsky was a fugitive from justice fleeing from a bench
warrant with $10,000 bond set for contempt of court failure to appear.  At
the end of the third day of flight, Kalbrofsky having submitted to the
criminal court judge he was put under court stay-away order to not return
within 100 feet of the premises in question.  During the first three days
every citizen in the state had the lawful right to refuse sanctuary for a
fugitive from justice, and Kuntz was particularly authorized by statute to
refuse the fugitive entrance since Kuntz was the accuser of the charges
against Kalbrofsky in the criminal case from which the fugitive was
fleeing.  Self-defense statutes authorize far more strenuous deterrent to
home invasions of criminals fleeing warrants for their arrest than simple
lock changes, and a lock change was a reasonable and prudent non-violent
deterrent to the criminal in flight.
    3.  It is further false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to claim that he
had any legal rights to enter the premises, since he had been served with
a "three day notice to quit" for the cause of illegal use four days before
the effective date of the quitclaim.  Statutes specify that Kuntz was
"entitled to restitution of the premises" at the end of the three day
period of that notice which would have been enforced by the criminal court
if Kalbrofsky had not fled on the final day before his effective
quitclaim.  For three equally legal, equally valid reasons, any one
sufficient in itself, Kalbrofsky never had lawful tenancy rights to enter
at will the premises he perjurously claimed were unlawfully denied to him.
    4.  It is false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to claim that he was
denied access to retrieve his property abandoned during his flight, and
negligently left voluntarily abandoned by him instead of moved out during
the period preceding his quitclaim, fugitive period, and court ordered
stay-away.  His property was available to be moved by him, free of storage
charges for six days after the effective date of his quitclaim.  The court
stay-away order provided his recovery of his property if he came in the
presence of SF police officers required by the court order for Kuntz's
protection.  He did arrive on the sixth day in the presence of police and
was allowed to remove all the property he chose to remove at that time.
 No property was denied to him at that time, and it was his own negligence
which caused him not to have a truck and helpers to move every speck of
his property at that time.  It was this deliberate negligence and unlawful
detainer confiscation of storage privileges which led to the imposition of
daily storage fees.
    5.  It is false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to have claimed that his
property was denied to him or that he had a paid right to continue to use
the premises for storage at his discretion.  Kalbrofsky told three
different courts that he had a full months rent prepaid, which was false
and perjurous.  He had no prepaid rents, and had fully consumed his damage
deposit through vandalism and damages associated with his criminal acts of
breaking and entering during the period of his fugitive status after his
effective quitclaim.  He had a right to reclaim property, as a former
tenant, not as a current tenant in good standing, and this right was
limited to knocking on the door and getting permission to enter during
reasonable business hours.
    6.  It is false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to claim that he made any
attempt to recover his property until well after a lengthy delay which
provoked Kuntz to impose daily storage charges as allowed by statute.  A
notice was created and sent to Kalbrofsky by every reasonable means
required by statute, informing him to recover his abandoned property by
paying the daily storage fee before the deadline set by statute where he
would permanently forfeit the abandoned and presumably unwanted property.
    7.  It is false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to have claimed that he
did not receive timely notice mailed to him as required by specifications
of statute, plus multiple redundant methods including a copy sent to him
in care of his probation officer as an impartial witness unlikely to lie
on his behalf.  He submitted an exhibit in this case of a copy of an
envelop bearing the postmarked date exactly as I claimed I mailed it,
which he admitted contained the notice he elsewhere perjurously claimed I
never attempted to send by any means whatsoever.
    8.  It is false and perjurous for Kalbrofsky to attempt to create a
false image of his being the hapless and innocent victim of a vicious
landlord through a pattern of statements minimizing his criminal career.
 After being reprimanded by Judge Quidachay in a hearing in this case, a
supplementary declaration was created and filed with the court, again
under penalty of perjury, wherein Kalbrofsky concealed his arson of an
occupied public building visible out the windows of that same courtroom
where the hearing was held.  In reckless disregard for human life
Kalbrofsky was video-taped throwing a burning torch into a state office
building and witnessed by police who recognized and personally knew him.
 He claimed he was on probation for throwing a cigarette on the sidewalk.
    9.  In false and perjurous statements he greatly inflated the values
of his second and third hand property.  Two old used 13 inch color
televisions similar to ones seen regularly advertised in classified ads
for $35 or $40 were estimated to be worth $250 and $300.  Brand new 24
inch TVs with warranties are regularly locally advertised at prices lower
than his perjurous valuation of his old ones.  In similar fashion
everything was greatly inflated by perjurous statements in a deliberate
attempt to magnify the allegations of Kuntz's lust to steal Kalbrofsky's
property away from him.  These perjuries had a visible effect on the judge
whom is recorded by the court stenographer that the high value of the
property is the reason why Kalbrofsky is being given permission to recover
it after the statutory limit of recovery of abandoned property had long
expired.  Criminal fraud through acts of criminal felony perjury caused
the court to abrogate rights guaranteed to Lion Kuntz by statute.
 Kalbrofsky had negligently forfeit rights to reclaim the property by
willful failure to pay storage charges and retrieve by the time limit set
by statute.
    10.  In false and perjurous inventories, items were claimed by
Kalbrofsky to be still in Kuntz's possession even though Kalbrofsky had
already removed them before the quitclaim, before the perjurously alleged
lockout, or removed them on one of his several visits in company with
police officers.  Kalbrofsky perjurously claimed the property was in the
possession of Lion Kuntz in a wicked and evil intent to inflict pain to
Kuntz when it would be impossible to produce these items for recovery by
Kalbrofsky through a court order.  Items he conceded in court were not
actually present to be recovered by court order were again perjurously
added back into the list of property when the court gave Kalbrofsky a
second chance to recover his property after he negligently refused to make
the proper arrangement the first time.
    11.  In false and perjurous statements, property owned by Kuntz and
covetously desired by Kalbrofsky were inserted in his list of property he
owned.  This was an attempt to steal property through defrauding the court
through perjury.  Property conceded to never having been owned by
Kalbrofsky in his statements recorded at the same time as his quitclaim
was recorded, and property known to belong to Lion Kuntz by visitors to
the premises for years prior to Kalbrofsky ever having arrived became
property on the lustful perjurous lists.
    12.  In false and perjurous statements by Kalbrofsky, this attempt to
steal Kuntz's property was repeated after admissions in court that those
items were not properly on the list and never belonged to Kalbrofsky.
 Just as non-existent property twice appeared on his list, Kalbrofsky
twice listed property he wished to have the court transfer ownership from
Kuntz to himself by duping the court into granting him everything he
requested.  Twice he was rebuffed, but that didn't stop him from one more
felony perjury concerning this property.
    13.  Alan Kalbrofsky is willing to risk imprisonment because of his
covetous lust to steal from Kuntz, defrauding a court into sending armed
police to confiscate property owned by Kuntz for years prior to Kalbrofsky
appearing, and the perjurously fooled court will give this property to
Kalbrofsky.  At issue is a stereo, which works, belonging to Kuntz,
because the stereo owned by Kalbrofsky has been broken since before he
moved into the premises in question.  Presumably Kalbrofsky's stereo is
still broken, and he would like to steal the one loaned to him during his
tenancy with Kuntz.  Kalbrofsky, who violated his plea-bargain deal to
escape prosecution for crimes against Kuntz in exchange for accepting the
criminal court stay-away eviction, has likewise violated the arranged
settlement of this court to dismiss the case WITH PREJUDICE.  In multiple
felony perjurous statements Kalbrofsky is now claiming that he did not get
every item on his list, even though the police who were present agreed and
he also agreed then that every item on the list was present and removed.
 There is no end to the perjury, harassment and contempt of court orders
and arbitrated settlements with Kalbrofsky.
    14.  Attorney Robyn Smith claimed to be new to the service of Alan
Kalbrofsky on the date of her first appearance in the prior false and
malicious prosecution by Kalbrofsky in Superior Court case number 959094,
which preceded the first filings in this case.  At that time my statements
under penalty of perjury informed that court and Smith of certain facts.
 These facts given under penalty of perjury created constructive notice to
attorney Smith of the true facts of this case.  As time has gone by and
more and more actual details have been admitted or conceded, or proven by
irrefutable clear and convincing evidence it is now known to Smith that
her client was committing abundant felony perjury.  The exact moment of
actual notice of the use of perjury of her client is not known, but the
law imputes it to her that she knew it before this case was ever filed.
    15.  It was within the ability of Robyn Smith to visit the SF Hall of
Justice and ascertain from official records whether or not a criminal
court had terminated the residency of Kalbrofsky by stay-away order.  She
could at the same time have ascertained the bench warrant status of
Kalbrofsky at the time he has admitted smashing the door of the Kuntz
residence.  She had opportunity and invitation to listen to the audio
taped quitclaim and have heard Kalbrofsky make his declaration of moving
by date certain prior to the perjurously claimed lockout date.  Although
she cannot have known all of the individual acts of felony perjury
indulged in by Kalbrofsky she was a knowledgeable and willing accomplice
in at least part of it.
    16.  Smith admitted to concealing facts "which she did not feel were
material" from the court.  Facts which she chose to conceal concerned the
fugitive period of her client and the criminal court stay-away order.  In
these acts of felony perjury she was a complicitious accomplice suborning
Kalbrofsky's acts of perjury, and intimately involved in crafting the
language of the pleading and the execution of the writing of the words on
paper filed with the court.  Robyn Smith committed the prohibited act of
felony perjury by arguing to the court that her client was an innocent
victim of a vicious landlord when she knew for absolute certainty that the
facts she was concealing would destroy her arguments.  She deliberately
used perjury to accomplish her objectives of defrauding the court into
delivering a victory for her record at the law firm where she was
employed.
    17.  Since a corporation has no other existence other than the people
employed by it or owning it, they are the corporation.  Robyn Smith was
Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe, and thereby Orrick, et al, were
committing the acts of felony perjury and felony suborning of perjury.
 Robyn Smith was managed by George Yuhas who oversaw this case in its
entirety, and whose name has appeared on the top of every filing, and at
the signature position on those filing signed by the attorneys of record.
 Yuhas is also Orrick, et al, and contributed to the atmosphere of felony
suborning of perjury.  The actual extent of his contribution to the
perjurous statements he signed is unknowable but some culpable
contribution to the overall plan of it as well as the implimentation of it
are evident in the facts of his position in the firm, his position in
relationship to managing Robyn Smith, and his name signed to it.  The
corporation shares the guilt of its parts and as a corporation is a
fictitous person it is treated as a person by the laws and is prosecuted
for the effects of its actions.  Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe committed
the criminal acts of multiple felony perjuries which it signed its name
to.
    DATED: September 8th, 1994
    SIGNED UNDER OATH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY


    ___________________________________________________
    Lion Kuntz, pro per, 482 Hayes Street, San Francisco, CA, 94102
    Phone 415-863-1781.



    Witnessed by person authorized to administer oaths:
    DATE: __________________________
    NAME: _____________________________________________
    ADDRESS: __________________________________________
    SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.