Paul Toepel Criminal Lawyer (LIAR)
This man has no relationship with the truth
HAVE YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH SCUM? READ THIS Quotes for Those Strong and of Good Nature
Paul Toepel Criminal Lying Attorney –
Soon to be Disbarred and Sued
How to Sue and Take Care of A Malicious Lawyer – Use His Actions, Use His Words AGAINST HIM
“He put a gun to his sons head, I think!”
These are only some of the lying words out of this mans mouth that he has said about me
He comfortably defames a mans fatherhood in open court with straight up lies! Tells lies about me while also lying about the whereabouts of a wanted fugitive sex offender in my sons mothers house (against a Judges orders)! He has told the judge himself Nigel is never is with Michael and has moved out!
yet check out the photo proof Click here to see all the proof of Toepel’s Doing
Paul Toepel has no conscience! He definitely manipulates the truth!
are you all slow or just easily conned by this lying defamatory man Mr. Paul Toepel Jr.
HINT! the rabbit hole will not conceal the lies he has told, it reveals them!
USE IN A SENTENCE:
- The amount of esoteric lies in that police report of his is tremendously atrocious! You would have to be one dumb slow non due diligent idiot to believe this guy Paul Toepel over here! Can you imagine he tells the police such an easily searchable lie like the one below.
- The esoteric facts are only for the intellects to sort out and when I do sort out the facts the world will know of them and your real doings…. there are laws for setting me up! remember that Paul, you are just a butt hurt with tiny feelings and a huge vindictive payback routine you have a completely failed at business and that’s your fault, not mine!
- Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal learn here from the CAL BAR or here from the American Bar
- Rule 4.1: Truthfulness in Statements to Others learn here from the CAL BAR or here from the American Bar
- Rule 8.1: Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters learn here from the CAL BAR or here from the American Bar
- Rule 8.4: Misconduct learn here from the CAL BAR or here from the American Bar
- Rule 8.4.1 Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation learn here from the CAL BAR
he constantly calls me mentally off but smart, while edging up police with defamatory and criminal lies about me - 26 U.S. Code § 7206 – Fraud and false statements learn at Cornell Lawhere
- Perjury – California Penal Code 118 PC describes perjury as knowingly providing false testimony while under oath, which is a felony offense punishable by up to four years in jail.
Lawyers, upon being licensed and admitted to the practice of law are under oath and have a duty to be truthful with the Court in all pleadings, appearances and interactions in their role as a lawyer with the Court.
now stop listening to this delusional liar who has now a liar who is mentally ill and unstable whom you have allowed to confuse you and manipulate you. stop harassing me officers with this malicious prosecution from a lying hostile witness

if you want an entire list of his violations here they are…………….
Mr Toepel needs to withdraw per the California bar rules for the following direct violations and should be disbarred he is unethical and a lying manipulator of the court and his abuse of law:
- Rule_1.4.1-Exec_Summary-Redline I HAVE TRIED EMAILING HIM I AM PRO PER HE DOES NOT REPLY TO LEGAL EMAIL OR MAIL
- Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients I have attached his boss Navid Moshatel final letter of dropping me as a client. I also have attached his bosses letterhead with Paul Toepel as opposing council on the letterhead of my former attorney Navid Moshatel
- Rule 3.2 Delay of Litigation 12/2021 1/2022 COURT DATES HE ADDRESSED THE COURTS WISHING TO LEAVE THE CASE
- Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal* I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
(1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) Fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) Offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. - Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
Truthfulness in Statements to Others also covers the duty of candor. He actually tells statements he knows to be false which is not allowed even when protecting confidentiality - Rules 1.2.1 [Advising or Assisting the Violation of Law) HE HELPED NIGEL STAY IN HOME
- 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) AFTER KNOWLEDGE HE STILL HELPED\
- Rule 8.4 Misconduct I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
California rule 8.4 states in pertinent part that a lawyer shall not:
“(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation”Rule 8.4 Comment [3] states, “A lawyer may be disciplined for criminal acts as set forth in Business and Professions Code sections 6101 et seq., or if the criminal act constitutes “other misconduct warranting discipline” as defined by California Supreme Court case law. Comment [3] cites In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, a case where a California lawyer was disciplined for picking up a second driving under the influence charge while on probation for the first one.Rule 8.4 Comment [4] notes the possibility of discipline per Business and Professions Code section 6106 “for acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent.”
So with those guidelines, what exactly are the types of off-the-clock behavior that will land an attorney in ethical hot water? Although the California rule 8.4 Comment section does not elaborate beyond the few references above, ABA Rule 8.4 Comment [2] is more instructive. It recognizes, “Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication.”
Regarding the differences between the types of offenses referenced, ABA rule 8.4 Comment [2] recognizes the traditional distinction made for offenses involving “moral turpitude.” It defines that concept as including “offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law.”
ABA rule 8.4 Comment [2] continues, recognizing that while a lawyer is responsible for abiding by all tenants of criminal law, “a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice.” Regarding examples, the Comment notes, “Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.” - Business and Professions Code section 6106 discipline per Business and Professions Code section 6106 “for acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, whether intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent.”
[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client,Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES to the family law case 17FL000138 which the courts will be getting soon again OCT 2022
Moral Turpitude: Deceit, Dishonesty, Half-Truths Under California law, most forms of deceit and dishonesty by an attorney are considered acts of moral turpitude, according to the State Bar. Under Business & Professions Code § 6106, the commission of any act of moral turpitude constitutes cause for disbarment from the practice of law.
Ca. Bus. and Proof’s. Code § 6106 California Business and Professions Code section 6106, which permits State Bar discipline for actions involving dishonesty (among other things) whether or not a licensed lawyer is practicing law I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
Added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 “The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.” (Emphasis added.) “Moral turpitude” has been defined by the California Supreme Court as “anything done contrary to justice or honesty.” See Bryant v. State Bar of California (1942) 21 Cal.2d 285. - Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6128 I HAVE ATTACHED ALL HIS LIES
Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either: Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party. This actually imposes misdemeanor criminal liability on a lawyer who engages in or consents to any deceit or collusion “with intent to deceive the court or any party.” (BP 6128(a)) Punishment for violating this section is up to a six-month jail sentence or a fine of up to $2,500 or both (Emphasis added.).
The B&P Code governs the conduct of all lawyers, no matter what area or type of practice involved. Read together, the above-referenced sections make it clear that as officers of the court, sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as all must be in order to practice law in the State of California, lawyers are required to be truthful in all of their dealings or be guilty of a misdemeanor. This isn’t a “fine line” — it is black letter law. An attorney who is guilty of criminal conduct — whether misdemeanor or felony — can be assured that it will negatively affect their ability to practice law going forward. - Rule 3-200 Prohibited Objectives of Employment
A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is:
- To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or
- To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.
Id. at Rule 3-200; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068.Subsection (c) provides that an attorney must counsel only just actions or defenses except if the client is charged with a public offense. Subsection (d) embodies the duty of candor and provides that may only do such things that are consistent with the truth. A violation of these rules could subject the attorney to suspension or disbarment. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103. - California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200, Trial Conduct, states that in presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
- Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member, such means only as are consistent with truth; told the court Nigel has moved out even though I had emailed him surveillance and I presented to the court evidence contrary to his statements he denied my claims and mislead the court and bold face lied to them
- Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; told through suggestion to the judge by not returning my son who fears moms home that I am kidnapping my son, even though I have police incident reports I show up to each exchange and the child refuses to go even after speaking with the sheriff and he said I put a gun to my sons head
- Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute or decision; he did this by telling the court flat out lies on several instances including misleading by misquoting the tribunal decision previously the CONTENTS OF THE JUDGES ORDER TO PROTECT MY SON. Mr. Toepel also told the courts this with vexatious litigant told the court I fit the criteria which is lying and misleading the Tribunal. Mr. Toepel had the court make an erroneous decision and declare me a Vexatious litigant. I NEVER FIT ANY CRITERIA! Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b) clearly states – Vexatious litigant requires in a 7-year period maintained in propria persona at least 5 litigations other than small claims court that has been finally determined adversely to the person. I have exactly 0 cases that fall into this classification. I have testimony from Mr. Toepel via transcripts of numerous attempts to mislead the judge to declare me a vexatious litigant
- he used this order to criminally cause issues for me and still completely lock me out of communication and the ability to fight for my rights to fatherhood he helps take from me by grossly misleading to the court on every occasion he attended
- Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and he tried to seek a restraining order against flyer distribution which is my 1st amendment rights to send out regarding information that is factual news about members of the community (judge denied him)
He attempts to get restraining orders one for himself and one for his client he received both under a complete lie and false pretenses. He misleads the court about the physical danger he and his client were in. Never once did I threaten their physical safety however I did exercise my 1st amendment rights, my freedom of speech allows me to complain on Google Reveiws, Yelp, and any supervisory person incharge of either their license of them if they are in commission of a violation of their sworn duties. I cannot be prevent or punished from complaining unless they are fake or false. He also told the court that he will communicate with me, as I am PRO PER, for legal matters only if the judge issues the restraining order, he issued it and I tried communicating over 50 times via email and voice message to no avail. He lied to the issuing judge and used this order to criminally cause issues for me and still completely lock me out of communication and the ability to fight for my rights to fatherhood he helps take from me by grossly misleading to the court on every occasion he attended
Rule 5-200 provides that an attorney will present in front of the court using only those means that are consistent with the truth and shall not act to mislead the judge, judicial officer or jury through a false statement of the law or fact, nor shall the attorney intentionally misquote a source or knowingly cite invalid authority.
Cal. Rule of Prof. Conduct 5-200 provides that “[i]n presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (b) shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” See also Mendez v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App.4th 827 (2009) (observing that “‘“ [c]ounsel should not forget that they are officers of the court, and while it is their duty to protect and defend the interests of their clients, the obligation is equally imperative to aid the court in avoiding error and in determining the cause in accordance with justice and the established rules of practice.”’”)
Id. at Rule 5-200. For a discussion of the duty of candor, and its application in questions about witnesses, client perjury, and citing authority, see Wendy Patrick Mazzarella, Lawyer’s Duty of Candor: Zealous representation can lead attorneys down a slippery slope right up to the ethical edge, CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL (April 2007), available at https://archive.calbar.ca.gov/archive/Archive.aspx?articleId=84844&categoryId=84645&month=4&year=2007If you are reading this in print and the link is too hard I have shortened it with a link shortening service by TINYURL in which will redirect you too the actual CALBAR link above https://tinyurl.com/truthcalbarCal. Rules Prof. Conduct, 5-200.
People v. Davis, 48 Cal.2d 241, 257 (1957); In re Branch, 70 Cal.2d 200, 210-211 (1969); Cal. Penal Code § 127. “Every person who willfully procures another person to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury. . . .” and may be punished as if he had perjured himself, which includes a prison term of two, three or four years. Cal. Penal Code §§ 126-27. 475 U.S. 157 (where defendant, in presenting claim of self-defense shortly before trial that he’d seen something metallic in the victim’s hand and told his attorney that “[i]f I don’t say I saw a gun, I’m dead”, the defendant did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when he told his client he would tell the court and withdraw as his attorney if the client so perjured himself; the client did not present the perjured testimony as was convicted).
Nix, supra 475 U.S. at 169-70.
People v. Johnson, 62 Cal.App.4th 608 (1998) (finding it error when attorney told court he had an “ethical conflict” calling him as a witness and the court prevented the defendant from testifying).
Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct 3-310(B)(4) provides that an attorney can’t accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure when has or has had legal, business, financial or professional interest in the subject matter of the representation.
ABA Model Rules 4.1(a) (2008).
ABA Model Rules 4.1 cmt. 2 (2008).
Cal. Evid. Code § 1126. 17 ABA Model Rules 3.3(a)(2) (2008).
- 26 U.S. Code § 7206 – Fraud and false statements learn at Cornell Lawhere
- perjury when Paul Toepel attorney of law perjured himself in court Perjury – California Penal Code 118 PC describes perjury as knowingly providing false testimony while under oath, which is a felony offense punishable by up to four years in jail.
- CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW
State Bar Court decision, In the Matter of Maloney and Virsik:
“[The attorneys] committed acts of moral turpitude in wilful violation of section 6106 by knowingly making repeated misrepresentations to the Superior Court. It is well established that acts of moral turpitude include an attorney’s false or misleading statements to a court or tribunal…The actual intent to deceive is not necessary…Acts of moral turpitude include concealment as well as affirmative misrepresentations…
[N]o distinction can be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact…Also, it is not necessary that [the attorneys] actually succeeded in perpetrating a fraud on the court…These [court] pleadings were permeated with half-truths, omissions, and outright misstatements of fact and law. The Supreme Court has denounced such misleading conduct and has not hesitated to impose discipline in such cases.”
Lawyers have always had a duty to be honest and truthful pursuant to general ethical principles, as well as the State Bar Act. The newest version of the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective November 1, 2018, provides more specific guidance to lawyers relative to this duty. Rules 1.2.1, 1.6, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,7.1 through 7.5, and 8.4 are all implicated in this duty, as well as Business & Professions Code (“B&P”) sections 6068(d), 6106, and 6128, among others. This discussion will focus on the B&P Code sections, violations of which constitute cause for disbarment or other State Bar sanction, including but not limited to suspension, fines, and re-taking the Professional Responsibility examination.
Lawyers are required to be truthful not only in dealing with the court and parties in litigation, but also in transactional matters and document preparation. Violations by a lawyer of these requirements can result in not only liability in tort — to one’s own client as well as opposing parties and counsel — but also in State Bar discipline.
The B&P Code is the source that allows the State Bar to prosecute lawyers for violations of ethical requirements, and section 6068 contains a long list of an attorney’s duties: “It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: …
(d) to employ, for the purpose of meeting the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judgeor any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (Emphasis added.)
Opposing lawyers, as “officers of the court”, are duty-bound to not only tell the truth, but not to omit information that would cause the court or opposing counsel to be misled. This applies not only to litigated matters, but to “all causes confided to him or her”. See Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, et al. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 54 for a lengthy discussion of attorney misrepresentations which were determined to be fraudulent, including statements made by counsel during settlement negotiations.
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE
Court said Stolen Valor Act violated First Amendment
In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ____ (2012), LIAR SHIT BAG ATTORNEY PAUL TOEPEL DID THIS TO ME when he said to the judge that I “PUT A GUN TO MY SONS HEAD”
The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (God’s) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.
US Public Law 97-280 as “the word of God and all men are admonished to learn and apply it” so I demand anyone and everyone to notice God’s Laws
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Policepower, DueProcess) Barber v. Connolly,113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.
- – Article 1 of the Bill of Rights – guarantees freedom of religion-
Constitution for the United States of America ARTICLE IV, sect. 1, Full faith and credit among states. (Self-executing constitutional provisions) Section 1. Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state.
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Policepower, DueProcess) Barber v. Connolly,113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE
Lawyers, upon being licensed and admitted to the practice of law are under oath and have a duty to be truthful with the Court in all pleadings, appearances and interactions in their role as a lawyer with the Court.
Download a good PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf
Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors
FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here
FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here
Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here
FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here
Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here
To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect – California Penal Code 11164-11166
Article 2.5. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) Click Here
Download the Mandated Reporter form below click link
Mandated Reporter FORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse
ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS
INFORMATION BULLETIN click here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)
It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child
To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links
Learn More About True Threats Here below….
We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment
CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment
We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment
We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment
We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
We also have theClear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment
We also have theGravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment
Learn More About What is Obscene….
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment
We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment
Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….
We also have theBrayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have thePublius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – 1st Amendment
We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAILDigital Evidencein California Courts – 1st Amendment
We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment
ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!
We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
We also have theFederal Perjury – Definition by Law
We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
We also have thePenal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports
We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment
We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California
We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California
Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)
Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$
42 U.S. Code § 1983– Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$
$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$
$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$
YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK
We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment thisCODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS
We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights
We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of RightsSCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS
We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relatingfor PARENTS RIGHTS Help!
Contesting / Appeal an Order / Judgment / Charge
Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider
Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case
CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss
WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence
Epic Criminal / Civil Rights SCOTUS Help – Click Here
Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Rights Help – Click Here
Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct
Review of the Law Offices of Paul D Toepel Attorney – The Dirty Truth
Evidence Locker Below – Access Denied
Click Photo if to Access only if you know you have access, all other clicks will be considered trespassing by US Government