Friebel v. Bosenko

























Filed 4/18/13 Friebel v. Bosenko CA3













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED









California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.







IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----




>

SUSAN FRIEBEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TOM BOSENKO, Defendant and Respondent.

C071138 (Super. Ct. No. 174571)

Plaintiff
and appellant Susan Friebel, appearing pro se, appeals from the denial of her
request that the trial court enter a civil
harassment restraining order against Shasta County Sheriff Tom
Bosenko. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6,
subd. (d).) We cannot discern from
Friebel’s one-page argument on appeal why she believes the trial court erred in
denying her request and, in any event, we must affirm summarily, because
Friebel has not produced a record sufficient to enable appellate review.

Facts and Proceedings

Friebel
filed a petition for a temporary restraining
order and injunction to prevent Bosenko from harassing her. Asked in the petition to describe how Bosenko
harassed her, Friebel wrote: “Sheriff Tom Bosenko seem [sic] to behave with high confident misconduct that is the purpose
of my restraining order. He persuades
important officials my insurance settlement is his. Murder is said to be involved: please check Mormon contacts of Bosenko/Robinson.” At other times, Friebel averred, “[f]rom the
date I attended a seminar How to Collect missing money that Belongs to a
victim, a strong violent attack[,] hundreds of attacks[.] Bosenko’s kin call his ‘surge’: pressure, lying about me: I have been advise and I [illegible], on
things native American Indians do not use, and much more to attack my reputation.” The trial court denied Friebel’s request for
a temporary restraining order.

No response
from Bosenko appears in the record.

The trial
court conducted an unreported hearing on Friebel’s petition. According to the minute order of those
proceedings, Friebel appeared, testified, and requested that “the Court rescind
a levy on her personal property and funds.”
The court told Friebel its jurisdiction is limited to the requests made
in her application for a restraining order; her application does not request an
order to rescind a levy.

At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Friebel’s petition, finding Friebel
failed to meet her burden of establishing the need for a restraining order by
clear and convincing evidence.

Discussion

At the outset,
we observe that Friebel is not entitled to special treatment by this court
because of her pro se status. (>Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994)
8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) We must
hold her to the same standards as if she were a practicing attorney. (Nelson
v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.)

Friebel’s
brief on appeal consists of the following argument: “State of California’s Shasta County
respondent Tom Bosenko, Sheriffs division defrauds me of my belongings and my
money; pertaining to Grand Larson [sic]
federal codes. In review of Jim
Neilsen’s document from the State of California Department of Insurance the
document shows I received a settlement and people began to process it into the
sheriffs division. Respondent invented
and fabricated medical records, my bank account, official court documents;
heinous obstruction to gain self-financial wealth and his joy in elimination of
my culture, Native American Indian. [¶]
The natures of this understanding to return my stolen money; my duty to
break up the respondent’s alleged trustees and shall overcome unjust treatment
in judicious acts of thievery. [¶]
I express my sincere gratitude to you, for justice in a grievance to
collect my money.”

Friebel
attaches to her appellate brief a copy of a notice to vacate directed to
Friebel by the Shasta County Sheriff, signed by Deputy Sean Robinson, and a
letter to Friebel from Assemblymember Neilsen, explaining that resolving her
problem concerning an insurance settlement is “outside the limits of my office.”


Friebel’s
presentation on appeal lacks citations to pertinent authority or a coherent
legal argument. “To demonstrate error,
appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to
authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of
error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and
authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and
requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’
(Atchley v. City of Fresno
[(1984)] 151 Cal.App.3d [635,] 647; accord Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113,] 1117 [‘[F]ailure of appellant to advance any
pertinent or intelligible legal argument . . . constitute[s] an
abandonment of the [claim of error.’].)”
(In re S.C. (2006)
138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)

In
addition, the state of the record prevents us from assessing whether the trial
court erred in denying her request for a restraining order. “In assessing whether substantial evidence
supports the requisite elements of willful harassment, as defined in Code of
Civil Procedure section 527.6, we review the evidence before the trial court in
accordance with the customary rules of appellate review. We resolve all factual conflicts and
questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party and indulge in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the finding of the trial court
if it is supported by substantial evidence which is reasonable, credible and of
solid value.” (Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.)

The party challenging
the judgment or order has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate
record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; >Estate of Davis (1990)
219 Cal.App.3d 663, 670, fn. 13.)
“[T]he reviewing court presumes the judgment of the trial court is
correct and indulges all presumptions to support a judgment on matters as to
which the record is silent.” (>Baker v. Children's Hospital Medical Center
(1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060.)

Without a
record of the evidence presented at the hearing, we have no alternative but to
affirm the judgment. (>Webman v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital
(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 592, 595; Weiss
v. Brentwood Sav. & Loan Assn. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 738,
746-747.) The fact that there may not
have been a reporter at the hearing is not a valid excuse. In lieu of a reporter’s transcript, an
appellant may proceed by way of an agreed or settled statement. (Leslie
v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104, 108; see Cal. Rules of Court,
rules 8.134, 8.137.) Friebel did not
pursue either option.





Disposition

The order
denying issuance of an injunction is affirmed.
Bosenko shall recover his costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)







HULL ,
Acting P. J.







We concur:







BUTZ ,
J.







HOCH ,
J.