KAMALA HARRIS TOOK A BRIBE FROM DEFENDANT RUPERT MURDOCH
pLAINTIFF WAS AN INNOCENT HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, WHOSE IDENTITY WAS STOLEN AND USED BY MURDOCH TO GENERATE ADVERTISING REVENUES AS HE DISTRIBUTED EXPLICIT PORNOGRAPHY UNDER THE PLAINTIFF'S NAME AND IDENTITY FOR OVER FOUR YEARS. THE PLAINTIFF HOLDS TWO DOCTORAL DEGREES AND HAS HAD A LONG AND REPUTABLE CAREER IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SHE HAD NO AWARENESS OF THE HARM BEING DONE TO HER UNTIL SHE INVESTIGATED THE POSSIBLE REASONS SHE SUDDENLY BEGAN TO HAVE NEGATIVE EMPLOYER TREATMENT AND LOST TWO JOBS IN JUST THREE MONTHS EACH IN SEQUENCE. SHE FOUND THE PORNOGRAPHIC CONTENT WITH HER NAME ON FIVE WEB PAGES ON RUPERT MURDOCH'S WEBSITE, MYSPACE.COM. WHEN SHE THEN DISCOVERED THE HARMFUL PAGES, SHE FILED A LAWSUIT IN RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT. THE PRESIDING JUDICIAL OFFICIAL WAS COMMISSIONER JOHN VINEYARD. VINEYARD IMMEDIATELY ORDERED THE FULL COLOR COPIES OF THE GENITALIA DISPLAYING PHOTOS SEALED AND NEVER WAS IT ALLOWED TO BE SHOWN IN COURT. hE THEN SWIFTLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MURDOCH, CLAIMING THAT MURDOCH HAD 'CIVIL IMMUNITY'. THE FEDERAL ACT THAT ALLEGEDLY GAVE HIM THAT IMMUNITY WAS SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT. THE ACT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE OWNER OF A WEBSITE HAS NO IMMUNITY FROM VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMES. UNDER BOTH THE RICO ACT AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULES, IDENTITY THEFT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY ARE BOTH FEDERAL CRIMES. BUT FOR THE ACTIONS OF RUPERT MURDOCH, THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST HEREMPLOYMENT AND WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED THE LOSS OF INCOME SINCE OCTOBER 2008 AND AUGUST 2009, THE DATES ON WHICH SHE WAS WRONGLY TERMINATED FROM HER EMPLOYMENT AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE PORNOGRAPHIC WEB CONTENT SEEN BY THE EMPLOYERS. THE EMPLOYERS THEN, DISGUSTED AT THE CONTENT, INVENTED FALSE REASONS TO TERMINATE THE PLAINTIFF.
FOLLOWING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL COMPLAINT, THE PLAINTIFF CAME TO REALIZE THAT THE WRONG WAS NOT SOLELY CIVIL, IT WAS CRIMINAL. SHE REALIZED THIS WHEN THENNEWLY PROMOTED JUDGE VINEYARD REFERRED TO IT AS PORNOGRAPHY. sO IN DESPERATE NEED OF JUSTICE AND REDRESS, THE PLAINTIFF THEN FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CRIMES, ASSERTING HER RIGHT TO FILL THE ROLE OF ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL AS KAMALA HARRIS HAD NOT DONE HER JOB OF PROSECUTING MURDOCH FOR THE CRIMES DONE TO THE PLAINTIFF. THE PLAINTIFF LISTED JUDGE VINEYARD AND KAMALA HARRIS AS CO-DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE AND SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE. THEY DEPRIVED THE CRIME VICTIM OF HER RIGHTS.
IN RESPONSE TO THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, RUPERT MURDOCH GAVE HARRIS A BRIBE DISGUISED AS A "CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION" FOR AN ELECTION THAT WAS THREE YEARS AHEAD. THEN HARRIS JOINED WITH THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT MURDOCH TO STAGE A HEARING AND DECLARE ME A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. FIRST THE SINGLE COMPLAINT WAS ARBITRARILY SENT FROM RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT TO SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR WHERE THE SINGLE COMPLAINT WAS DIVIDED INTO FOUR NEWCOMPLAINTS, CREATED BY THE JUDGES AND VINEYARD. THEY WERE INSTANTLY CREATED AND GIVEN NEW CASE NUMBERS. THE PLAINTIFF NEVER FIELD ANY COMPLAINTS IN HER COMPLAINTS AGAINST MURDOCH.. THEY WERE CREATED AND FILED BY THE CORRUPT JUDGES AND KAMALA HARRIS. THE NIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING THAT WAS TO BRAND THE CRIME VICTIM PLAINTIFF THE PLAINTIFF WAS TERRIFIED. SHE HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT CLAIM WAS .. SHE WAS AN IN PRO PER PLAINTIFF WHOHAD NOT DONE ANY LITIGATION PRIOR TO 2010 AND THIS WRONG DONE TO HER. SHE WAS SO AFRAID OF WHAT THEY MIGHT INTEND TO DO TO HER THAT SHE CALLED THE POLICE TO INFORM THEM OF HER FEARS. THE FOLLOWING MORNING SHE APPEARED IN A CLOSED HEARING, WITH NO UNINVOLVED PERSONS PRESENT TO SEE WHAT WAS BEING DONE. THERE WERE THREE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING MURDOCH, HARRIS AND THE JUDGES NAMED. SHE STOOD ALONE AS THEY CONTRIVED TO USE THEIR OWN WRONGFUL RULINGS AGAINST HER TO THEN BRAND HER AS "VEXATIOUS" AND TO TAKE AWAY HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT AND HER RIGHTS AS A CRIME VICTIM. THERE WERE AN ALLEGED FIVE ADVERSE RULINGS WHICH WERE USED TO JUSTIFY HER BEING LABELED,WHEN IN FACT NOT A SINGLE MERITLESS COMPLAINT HAD BEEN FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF. IN PARTICULAR, THE PLAINTIFF HAD ALSO STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT, DUE TO MURDOCH'S MAKING OF PROFITS WITH ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE WEB PAGES BEARING HER NAME WITHOUT HER AWARENESS OR PERMISSION. THEY IMPOSED SECURITY BOND OF $30,000 AGAINST HER WHICH IF SHE DID NOT PAY WOULD RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF HER COMPLAINT. THIS SECURITY BOND WAS THE PRICE THEY WERE CHARGING THE CRIME VICTIM IF SHE WANTED TO PURSUE HER QUEST FOR JUSTICE AGAINST CRIMES DONE TO HER BY MULTI-BILLIONAIRE RUPERT MURDOCH. THEY HAD DESIGNED AN APPARENTLY AIRTIGHT WALL BLOCKING THE INNOCENT VICTIM FROM EVER GETTING JUSTICE FROM THE DEVASTATING RUIN OF HER PROFESSION, HER ABILITY TO EARN A LIVELIHOOD AND THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF HER INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION. IT IS NOTABLE IN COURT SUMMARY RECORD OF THE DISMISSED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION GIVEN AS TO THE EVIDENCE OR TO THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADINGS. HARRIS AND MURDOCH ARE FEELING VERY SMUG AND SAFE IN THEIR THINKING THAT THEIR CRIMES WILL NEVER EXPOSED. THE PLAINTIFF,HOWEVER, BELIEVES THAT THE CRIMES OF BRIBERY, SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE, OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE AND DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WILL BE REVEALED IT SHE PERSISTS IN ASSERTING HER COMPLAINTS REGARDLESS OF THE ABUSES THEY MAKE HER SUFFER. TRUTH ALWAYS WINS..
this case was a fraud from the outset, as the courts and law enforcement officials, including the judicial persons involved, denied justice by suppressing the clear and certain truth of identity theft and pornography distribution done against Plaintiff Martha Jo Peters for a period of time exceeding four years. The crimes, falling within the RICO ACT and the Federal Trade Commission crimes of unfair practices in commerce and identity theft, as well as identity theft, were thus never redressed and the Plaintiff was left with no recovery for the egregious damages caused which include loss of eight years of income generating employment, loss of her home due to the loss of income with which to pay the mortgage, emotional and psychological and physical health repercussions as the result of her consequential homelessness and her reputation in her chosen profession.