|
|
Requests for Judicial Notice, 209931
I had determined sometime after filing the O.S.C that the judicial council in June of 1997 had legislated a new law regarding evidence. California Evidence Code 313(h). All requests for judicial notice must be in a separate document. I considered that this could possibly be the reason why no judge wpould take judicial notice of any eviednce I present. For that reason I filed this separate request. It does provide a simplified environment to treat the admissability of evidence although it doubles the writing and reading.The O.S.C. covers everything except for EXHIBIT SEVEN and EIGHT.
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
ONE Letter to A.P.A 2/15/00 & response from A.P.A., 5/22/00
TWO Pages 123, 124, 125 of "Human Behavior" 1964
THREE Declaration of Doctor Gary Novatt, 7/14/00
FOUR Pages 173-176 of EMOTIONS and MEMORY, D. Rapaport, 1961
FIVE Arlington Theater receipt of 5/23/98
SIX Opening Statement of Defendant, 220298, 9/8/98
SEVEN Note from Psychologist Daniel Alevy
EIGHT Page 163 from, HYPNOSIS: FACT AND FICTION, F.L. MARCUSE
The trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in section 452 if a party requests it and:
(a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and
(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
And pursuant to;
California Evidence Code section 454. Information that may be used in taking judicial notice.
(a) In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof:
(1) Any source of pertinent information.............
2. Respondent in this legal action, pursuant to;
California Evidence Code section 452(h), 453(a)(b) & 454 (a)(1) requests judicial notice of; EXHIBIT ONE (attached to motion, O.S.C), EXHIBIT SEVEN and EXHIBIT EIGHT (attached). EXHIBIT ONE, Letter to the American Psychological Association ( A.P.A.) Washington DC. received by the A.P.A. February 24, 2000 and letter from the Senior Director of the A.P.A., Judy Strassberger dated May 22, 2000. Copied on to EXHIBIT ONE (attached to motion, O.S.C) is a U.S. mail certified mail return documenting Cynthia Wickless receipt of respondents letter on June 2, 2000 documenting respondents follow up on the referral of letter of May 22, from the Senior director. No response from the referral has been received. EXHIBIT SEVEN (attached) Copy of; Page 1. Response letter from the California State Department of Consumer Affairs. Page 2. certified returns from the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, Executive Officers for mental health. Page 3. Note and business card from Daniel A. Levy Ph.d, Clinical Psychologist. EXHIBIT EIGHT (attached), page 163 of HYPNOSIS: FACT AND FICTION, F.L. MARCUSE, PELICAN BOOKS A446, the section titled "DERMATOLOGY"
"Hypnosis has been particularly effective in clearing up certain conditions of the skin. Warts, for which there are many popular home remedies, seem, on the basis of cases reported, to be particularly amenable to permanent elimination by hypnotic suggestion. Furthermore, from a cosmetic point of view use of hypnosis leaves no scar, as do some cauterization (removal by burning) procedures."
3. EXHIBIT ONE (motion, O.S.C) the most recent evidence establishing the fact that psychologists WILL NOT provide comment, analysis or implementation of information of psychological clinical/technical texts relating to the potential abuses of hypnosis. EXHIBIT SEVEN (attached) demonstrates a history of professionals and officials in the field and their failure to respond to the respondents inquiries. Page 1. The response letter from the California State Department of Consumer Affairs mentions the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. Respondent mailed The American Institute of Hypnosis in Irvine California and made the same inquiry of the of the Institute, A., B., C., and D. of the later letter to the A.P.A, and received no answer. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences was sent approximately the same letter as the A.P.A.. Page 2. has copies of the certified returns of letters sent to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences and Executive Officers for mental health. The letters were unanswered. Page 3. is a note and business card from Daniel A. Levy Ph.d, Clinical Psychologist who was provided page 173 through 176 of the book "EMOTIONS and MEMORY" by David Rapaport Ph.d., 1961, by respondent who then requested comment upon the text as it might apply to abuses of hypnosis. The psychologist refused to comment or to provide a statement of refusal of comment and returned the text with the note of page 1. "Best of Luck" signed D. Alevy. Respondent presents EXHIBIT ONE for judicial notice to establish the fact that psychological professionals, as a proposition "not reasonably subject to dispute" or a "fact", will not address abuses of hypnosis. Consideration of the fact defines the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for the court to evaluate the following exhibits of respondents ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as reason to modify the present parenting plan to one that is in the best medical interests of respondents son, Harry Potter Brown.
4. Chris Brown, the respondent in this legal action, pursuant to;
California Evidence Code section 452(h)453(a)(b) & 454 (a)(1); requests judicial notice of; EXHIBIT TWO (attached to motion, O.S.C); "Human Behavior" 1964, Bernard Berlson and Gary A. Stiener published by HARCOURT, BRACE & WORLD, INC., NEW YORK/BURLINGAME, Page 123, .5 "organic effects, normally outside voluntary control", last sentence of the paragraph,
"A number of other studies report the reduction of warts as the result of hypnotic suggestion (McDowell, 1949)."
5. And particularly requests judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h); requests judicial notice of EXHIBIT THREE (attached to motion, O.S.C) as "Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute". EXHIBIT THREE; A declaration establishing that the plaintiffs son has warts on his hands that are being treated by a medical doctor. The respondent states the warts are very large and a source of shame and embarrassment for the child.
6. Respondent requests judicial notice of a SPECIFIC PROPOSITION OF INFERENCE California Evidence Code section 452 (h) "Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute" Relating EXHIBIT TWO to EXHIBIT THREE, The studies reporting the reduction of warts of EXHIBIT TWO as a result of hypnotic suggestion, infer, that warts can be caused by the same hypnotic influence with a reversed intent.
7. The respondent presents these issues to the court because the authorities of psychology cannot consider them and S. Brown cannot consider them and that reference text indicates hypnotherapy is needed for my developing sons psychological well being as well as treatment for the warts. Since treatment of the warts has began their diameter has increased, if appropriate treatment is not applied, continued spreading is certain. S. Brown has also been influenced by abuses of hypnosis as well as the respondent. The influence caused the marriage, the conception of the child and the divorce. The respondent requests judicial notice of a proposition "not subject to dispute" and with consideration of EXHIBIT FOUR the proposition becomes a "potential" fact, that when S. Brown "indignantly" denies any hypnotic manipulation, and she actually has been manipulated, indignant denial is normal and to be expected.
8. RESPONDENT REQUESTS JUDICIAL NOTICE Pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h) and
453 Compulsory judicial notice upon request.
(b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.
And,
California Evidence Code section 454;
(1) Any source of pertinent information.............
Respondent requests judicial notice of EXHIBIT FOUR (attached to motion, O.S.C); Pages 173, 175 and 176 of a book titled "EMOTIONS and MEMORY" by David Rapaport Ph.d., published by SCIENCE EDITIONS, INC. NEW YORK, 1961. The first sentence of section 2. of the Chapter titled "THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF HYPNOSIS" states,
"The term "posthypnotic amnesia" designates the general tendency of the hypnotic subject to forget the events of the trance after having emerged from it."
And
"(1) The hypnotist can successfully suggest that no posthypnotic amnesia develop."
Judicial notice pursuant to 452(h), the proposition that (1) above implies that specific suggestion to develop amnesia will be successful. As a proposition "not reasonably subject to dispute" by inference, that the "general tendency to forget" combined with suggestion to forget will cause certain amnesia is a potential fact to be considered by the court when confronting S. Browns denial as well as her child's long term well being.
Particularly respondent requests judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h) & 453(b) &454(a)(1), of footnote 8, the first of the series at the bottom of the page, used on page 173 to refer to the "following sections".
"The results described in the following sections are dependent on the depth of hypnosis, and in general are valid only when with subjects who are able to reach the somnambulistic stage of hypnosis."
Respondent requests further judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h) & 453(b) &454(a)(1) of page 176, the last of the footnotes continued from page 175
"we find hypnotized persons indignantly denying that they have been hypnotized"
9. SPECIFIC CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCE
To provide specific instance for the court to notice, the respondent presents the fact that Sally Brown was informed that on May 23, 1998, plaintiffs son was rendered somnambulistic, placed in a trance at the "State and A" restaurant by another patron when plaintiff left his son at their table alone for less than 2 minutes. Respondent spent nearly 1 minute gently coaxing the then 9 year old child into a conscious state. petitioner S. Brown arranged and insisted, that the plaintiff take his son to lunch at the Arlington theater on that day, at that time, for the premier of "Godzilla" and that the plaintiff and his son eat before going to the movie. To assist in assuring that they were at that place at that time the defendant S. Brown offered to pay for everything.
In support of this event respondent requests judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h) and 453(a)(b) and 454(a)(1)
of EXHIBIT FIVE (attached to motion, O.S.C); Copy of the ticket to the Arlington Theater of May 23rd, 1998.
10. Respondent requests judicial notice of a SPECIFIC PROPOSITION OF INFERENCE
California Evidence Code section 452
(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute.........
Relating paragraph 7 of this declaration to paragraph 9, The studies reporting the reduction of warts of EXHIBIT TWO as a result of hypnotic suggestion, combined with EXHIBIT FOUR, page 175 Posthypnotic Amnesia infer that if Harry Potter Brown does not receive the treatment his father, the respondent, is certain will interrupt or intervene into Harry Potters vulnerability, that he will be vulnerable to being forced into a somnambulistic trance in the future and possibly ENDANGERED. The respondent seeks legal custody so that this medical treatment can be administered as soon as possible.
11. In final support of these events and the uniqueness of the "changed circumstance" respondent requests judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452
(d) Records of (1) any court of this State...........
452(h) and 453(a)(b) and 454(a)(1)
of EXHIBIT SIX (attached to motion, O.S.C); Two pages of opening Statement at trial September 8, 1998 filed by attorney to the defendant in Santa Barbara County Superior Court case 220298, filed August 12, 1997.
12. Respondent requests judicial notice of a SPECIFIC PROPOSITION OF INFERENCE demonstrated by EXHIBIT SIX with the respondents declaration of this paragraph.
California Evidence Code section 452
(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute.........
The second page of EXHIBIT SIX at lines 1-4,
"This tort action arises out of a claim by plaintiff Christopher Brown that Defendant Medicine man inflicted "harmful hypnotic telepathy" on him from 1959 to "present."
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BROWN
13. I Christopher Brown declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I did not and have never used the word telepathy prior to September 8, 1998 and that the word is introduced by the defendant as derived by inference from the plaintiffs answers to form interrogatories and requests for admissions.
Date;
Christopher A. Brown
14. Respondent requests judicial notice of a SPECIFIC PROPOSITION OF INFERENCE pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452(h). The text of the second page of EXHIBIT SIX does not contain a denial of the plaintiffs assertions or allegations in case 220298 and that it does contain a compiled description of the hypnotic activities derived from plaintiffs answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions, facts totally unnecessary to the defense although their presence in the opening statement supports the defense attorney quotation of plaintiffs assertions of lines 7-11 and it states that the descriptions;
"would not constitute a cause of action".
DECLARATION OF CHRIS BROWN
I Declare under penalty of the laws of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date;
Chris Brown
Christopher A. Brown
