Lonnie Loren Kocontes v. California

C^-GQ___ 2.. 1-i st Cf Par Ties _ ______ (.nQ_____ 3, Decision Be|oYv/Appendices on p<vCVDJ) C>nu1______ H. Jurisdiction " 5. ConsriVutional Provisions And Statutes Tnvolved Gmi-ixJ)______ 6 Provisions Of International Treaties AtT ssuC (jx-x) 7 Statement Of Case 1-10 8 Reasons To Grant The Petition II T Conclusion 3"7 Q 1: The State Of California UacKed Territorial ll~2\ (Subject Matter') Jurisdiction Over An Alleqec ____________ Hovnocide On A Foreiqn-Flagged Ship On The High_________________ Seas. Both As A Matter Of Statutory Construction______________ And Due Process. Q 2.: Article I8. Cis. 1 0 Of The U. S, Constitution_______ 2-I-2.H /> , Grants Congress The Exclusive Authority To Define_____________ And Punish Piracies And Felonies On The Hvqh ______________ Preempting Cal ifornia. Tur is d iction Here. _____ Q3.'The United States Entry Inta Two Separate ^-H-28 ■" '' 1 -............. ■ --- -------- i 1 Internationa 1 Treaties Granting The Flag - Ship Country_____________ Exclusive Jurisdiction Over On-Board Crime while On The High Seas Alternatively Preempts CaliFornias_________ Jurisdiction Because Art VT. Cis. 2. O-fThe U.S, Const_______________ Hakes SuchTreaties The. Supreme. Laiu Of The. La. vid Pgs. Q 4 I Law ^.^povcenaenT /io|aTes The 5r^ 6r,^ And /H^ ft^ntWvvts When If Soli efts Privileged T n "Formation From /\ Defense Tnvestiqator And Calls Him fis ATm 3H-T7 0~f Prejudice WarranTs Dismissal Because Tine Exten~t To Whi’cVi TV>e TnPormg~Vion Was Used To f\ Dependant's Petrivnent May K)e/et B<e Ik/Yotunj And A Lesser Pevnedy A. Denied OrcAet Frow C, Summcucy ^V-F<owx QV\ aS.P.CCcutfd CaliL ot 11/^0/2012 P. Declaration o~F Mq.yK WeYKSimui dq_Fed z/^/zoiH,--.zz /X o <'t' c 5 Co-jes; fi^lmenda \3 Huffman (5D Ohio 20^0) 2 OOP 05 Pi st- LEXIS 2.^8?) BocooK BoulciS Sxmsj Goodwill fac.CYH83) 638 Fad 486 Bruce v Gregory ^Cgl 146*7) 6>5 Co.I 2.A (pCoCa Cook V Gonial ez Dept O-f Cortecs /\v\d Rehab C 2QI|) HSCcd AppHth 84 HecKa t ~T V h-| SelY Storaq (Ca| 2018) H Cal 5th ~7H3 Hous< f V U.S. (8thCirl37H) 508 Fad 50^ ZSZlft &£ Mberto (aOQ2) 102 Cal h^pMtln H2I In Re Ko con-res faoi 6) 24H Cal Aj>|? 4i~li 12251 K&eWv Superior Court fad 1470) 2 Cal 3d 613 Ktobal V Royal Dutch Rftro Co (2013) 564 0.^ IQ8 Larsen (H53) 3H5 U.S. 57| I 3 bower I S HoXtisp n_ tA or'CoW 33 25 View Ho.yen Hnclu5 ion Cases 2O I 5 I 2- 20 b\cDov\a.|d (H38) 2LH Cal App 2.4 702.