Is California Penal Code § 288 void for vagueness and overbreadth and contrary to the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; | 2 Is California Penal Code § 288 void for vagueness and overbreadth and contrary to the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Asmendments : 3] to the United States Constitution on the following basis: 4 .(1) + Section 288(a) as interpreted by the Courts of Califor; nia contains no definitive actus reus, is void for vagueness 3 and overbreadth, and violates the Sixth, and Fourteenth Amend6 ments of the United States Constitution; i | (2) The California Supreme Court's addition to Section rea 7 of "any touching" however slight of a minorlor child even if the "touching" is an "outwardly innocuous, or inoffensive show 8 ing of expression or loving association such as being routinely "cuddled, disrobed, stroked, examined, or gtoomed" necessary | 9 for a healthy upbringing, is subjectively determined by police, prosecutors, judges, or juries to violate Section 288(a) and ig 10 a violation of the First, and Fourteenth Améndments of the a u United States Constitution; ee (3) California Penal Code § 288(a) as applied and construed, 12 at Petitioner's criminal trial, created a presumption of. specific intent that "Actually...is not required", thus, eliminat13 ing the mens rea that supposedly flows from!the "any touching" act as added to the statute in 1995 by California Supreme Cour 14), activism and fiat and is a violation of the;Sixth and Four' ; 15 teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; ; ; (4) California Penal Code § 288(a) denies équal protection of 16 the laws by creating an.arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonabl . . classification of post-pubescent minors, whén the pubescent 17 minor is capable of being prosecuted for committing the same ; "any touching" acts by the State, but then denies evidence tha 18 the pubescent minor's aggression and/or consent caused the "an touching" acts to occur in violation of the Sixth and Four19 teenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 20 | 21 SECOND QUESTION | 22 Can California's Legislature after a crimindt conviction, simply change a defendant's prior crimes fot which he is ser23 ving a sentence, from non-violent Section 288(a) to violent Section 288(b), without trial or proof of violence required 24 for the purpose of imposing further, or to avoid the lessening | é6£ punishments already imposed, with the stroke of a pen by | 25}. adding non-violent Penal Code is 288(a) to the penalty enhance06 ment statutes §§ 667.61(c)(7) (1998), and 6 7.5(e)(69 & (16) . | "agi PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (4) | , | | | 1 | | 1 ’ QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (cont.) ; : 3 (2006), by bill of attainder eliminating the Sixth and Four— teenth Amendments' requirement of proof beyond a reasonable 4 doubt, by violating Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the. : United States Constitution? . i 5 | 6] 9 _ | 10 ; : | . a7 20 ‘ 24 : 26 : . 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (ii) | a . | , . | . . |