Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

#1971

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL JUVENILE DISTRICT, EDELMAN CHILDREN'S COURT

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. J.H., et. al., Aggrieved Defendants in Error.

NO: CK57697 NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS BASED UPON JUDGE DOWNING'S "FRAUD UPON THE COURT" AND "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" FROM APRIL 28, 2011 TO AUGUST 25, 2011 DEPT: 407

Jeffrey Henderson, In Pro Per c/o 3062 46th Street San Diego, California [92105] NON-DOMESTIC jeffrey.henderson@laverne.edu (626) 789-1331 Specially Appearing, Explicitly Without Prejudice
-1-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Notice of Void Orders and Judgments................................4 II Statement of the case.......................................................4 A Introduction...................................................................4 B Procedural history..........................................................5 C Summary of significant facts.......................................10 III Argument.......................................................................11 1 Did DOWNING accept bribes from LOS ANGELES?....11 2 Does this activity vitiate and render void any judgment?....................................................................11 3 Did DOWNING deny DEFENDANT Due Process?........12 4 Did DEFENDANT fail in his duty to disqualify DOWNING on the outset of this matter?......................15 5 Should DEFENDANT'S brief be held to less stringent standards?....................................................................17 IV Conclusion......................................................................17 V Certificate of compliance................................................18

-2-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Constitutions United States Constitution Fifth Amendment......................10 Cases US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 64 (1878)..........................11 Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499.....................................11 Crauford v. Crauford, 4 Desau. (S.C.) 176...........................12 Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 26 U. S. 340............................12 Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8................12 Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348......12 Austin v. Smith, 312 F. 337, 343 (1962).............................12 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2009) 12 Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)...................................12 Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 U. S. 385, 394.....................13 Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 US 319.............................13 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 ............................................................................................14 Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610.................................14 Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11....................................14 Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532..........................................14 United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842.................................15 Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189.......................................16 United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191..........................16 Haines v. Kerner, (1972) 404 US 519..................................17 Codes California Penal Code PC 148.(a)(1)......................................6 Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).....................................10 Judicial Ethics......................................................................10
PC 1118.1.....................................................................................................................................6

Canon 4D(1)...............................................................................................................................10 Canon 3E(2)................................................................................................................................10 Canon 3E(1)................................................................................................................................10

Rules of Court (CRC) 8.928(b)(1)........................................12


-3-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

Notice of Void Orders and Judgments On 04/28/2011, Judge Marguerite Downing (DOWNING)

ordered that Abigail Rose, William Pierce, Benjamin Frances, Joshua Fox, Wailon James, and Elijah Gunn (HENDERSON CHILDREN) be placed in the custody of the County of Los Angles Department of Children and Family Services (LOS ANGELES). Since DOWNING had interest in the matter at the time of her ruling and and every ruling since, then all her rulings including the ruling on jurisdiction of HENDERSON CHILDREN are illegal, and therefore, null and void ab initio. II A Statement of the case Introduction The facts of this case are undisputed. On AUGUST 25, 2011, DOWNING made what Jeffrey Pierce Henderson, Sui Juris, father of HENDERSON CHILDREN and Defendant, (DEFENDANT) judged to be a blatantly Unlawful ruling in a jurisdiction hearing involving HENDERSON CHILDREN, DEFENDANT, Erica Michelle Henderson, mother of HENDERSON CHILDREN (MOTHER), and LOS ANGELES. DEFENDANT contacted the Los Angeles Department of Auditor-Controller and requested an investigation as to whether DOWNING had accepted bribes from LOS ANGELES.
-4-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

LOS ANGELES Auditor-Controller Division Chief Greg Iverson (CHIEF) responded to DEFENDANT with obvious evidence demonstrating DOWNING and LOS ANGELES had indeed engaged in extrinsic "fraud upon the court" by concealing from DEFENDANT illegal LOS ANGELES payments to DOWNING from 2007 to 2011. This concealment resulted in DOWNING presiding over a case in which she received payments from the party appearing before her. B Procedural history DEFENDANT has been the victim of the governmental overbreadth in this case since 1998. Recently, the case went from small claim, to unlawful detainer, to criminal, to juvenile. On NOVEMBER 27, 1997, DEFENDANT met MOTHER and immediately discovered that she and her son, Timothy Dean Rivera (DEAN) had been abandoned by the head of their household, Matthew Albert Rivera (MAT). From MAY 1997 to MAY 1998 DEFENDANT owned and operated an Internet technology business at 18320 Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach, California.

-5-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

On FEBRUARY 17, 1998, DEFENDANT and MOTHER (PARENTS) were united in Holy Matrimony by G-d, and under His common Law. PARENTS began cohabitation.

On FEBRUARY 22, 1998, DEAN became wayward and DEFENDANT exercised his lawful Right in loco parentis to administer perfectly reasonable corporal punishment with ordinary force in the form of three lashes with a belt. Although this Lawful discipline left bruising to DEAN'S buttocks, he was not injured.

On FEBRUARY 25, 1998, DEAN was playing outside when a neighbor at 18314 Beach Boulevard, Chris W Tait, pulled DEAN'S pants down, saw the bruises, and called the Huntington Beach Police. DEFENDANT and MOTHER (PARENTS) were arrested for child abuse and told if they didn't plea guilty that they would never see DEAN again.

The conditions at the facility where DEAN was being held was known by the community to be absolutely horrifying and deadly. (See http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-31/news/mn331_1_orangewood-foundation, and http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-19/local/me47543_1_orangewood-home.)

-6-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

Although they were innocent of the allegations, PARENTS pleaded guilty in 1998 to everything in order to began the process for reunification. Although PARENTS completed all court orders, the court denied reunification and placed DEAN with MAT. In 2005, HENDERSON CHILDREN were Unlawfully taken into custody and charged with circumcising their son. In 2005, even though the charges of abuse were thrown out, the court ordered jurisdiction based solely on the 1998 case. In 2008, PARENTS were charged with medical neglect because they exercised their parental Right to have a second opinion concerning an order for a blood transfusion. Although DOWNING ordered jurisdiction over the children based on medical neglect and the incident of 1998, the Appellate Court overturned her decision concerning PARENTS Right to a second opinion, but they still retained jurisdiction based solely on the 1998 case. In 2008, DEFENDANT wins a lawsuit against his absentee landlord Ali Moghadam (ALI) for repairs to make his apartment inhabitable.
-7-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

In 2009, ALI unsuccessfully attempts to Unlawfully evict DEFENDANT. On May 25, 2010, after a false report from an agent of ALI, DEFENDANT was falsely arrested by PASADENA for invoking his Right to Privacy. Criminal case begins. On JUNE 25,2010, Demurrer is denied without hearing. On JULY 09, 2010, Pitchess/Brady Motion is denied. PASADENA Unlawfully moves case forward without giving DEFENDANT notice and bench warrant is issued. On AUGUST 04, 2010, Motion to Recall Bench Warrant was Unlawfully denied and DEFENDANT is Unlawfully arrested for failure to appear. Habeas Corpus is filed but is never put on calendar. On AUGUST 13, 2010, Motion for Transcripts and Bail Reduction are both Unlawfully denied and appealed. On AUGUST 25, 2010, Motion for Release is granted solely upon Unconstitutional conditions and is appealed. On OCTOBER 06, 2010, Subpeana Duces Tecum is denied. On NOVEMBER 01, 2010, Pitchess/Brady Motion for Discovery is denied, appealed, and never put on calendar.
-8-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

On DECEMBER 01, 2010, Demurrer is denied without a hearing and is appealed, but it never put on calendar. Interlocutory Appeal of AUGUST 25, 2010 orders are denied without a hearing by Appellate Division. Without a hearing, Writ of Mandate is denied by 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. On APRIL 25, 2011, Writ of Certiorari was denied without a hearing by Supreme Court of California. PARENTS and HENDERSON CHILDREN are immediately and Unlawfully arrested. LOS ANGELES denies PARENTS Right to place HENDERSON CHILDREN with family. On APRIL 28, 2011, Juvenile case is based solely on the criminal case against PARENTS. Jurisdiction ordered by DOWNING without notice to or appearance by PARENTS. Between APRIL 28, 2011 and JUNE 21, 2011 DOWNING has several secret exparte meetings with LOS ANGELES. On JUNE 21, 2011 all criminal charges are dismissed, and on JUNE 22, 2011 PARENTS are set free. On JUNE 23, 2011 PARENTS demand but are not able to make LOS ANGELES return their children.
-9-

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

On JULY 13, 2011, the hearing is Unlawfully postponed. PARENTS meet with LOS ANGELES and confirms there is no contract between PARENTS and LOS ANGELES. Because Department 407 is dark for weeks, Attorneys for PARENTS are unable to file their Affidavits of Truth. On AUGUST 24, 2011 DOWNING denies LOS ANGELES request for postponement and orders hearing to begin. On AUGUST 25, 2011, DOWNING orders children to remain in foster care without cause despite no evidence of a contract and denies DEFENDANT Right to be heard. C Summary of significant facts DEFENDANT sued and won in Small Claims Court against his landlord ALI for repairs. ALI retaliated by attempting to unlawfully evict, but DEFENDANT prevailed. An anonymous 911 call was made on MAY 25, 2010 by ALI falsely alleging DEFENDANT had slapped his daughter. PASADENA made unlawful entry and arrested DEFENDANT. After PASADENA discovered the allegations were unfounded, DEFENDANT and MOTHER were falsely charged with resisting a police officer. PASADENA claimed DEFENDANT refusing to allow PASADENA to enter his home
- 10 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

without a warrant constituted California Penal Code PC 148. (a)(1). Numerous unscrupulous attempts were made by PASADENA to force PARENTS into an Unlawful plea agreement including denial of bail to PARENTS and multiple batteries committed by officers against PARENTS while they were incarcerated. PARENTS were freed after a Motion to Dismiss all charges under PC 1118.1 was sustained by the Honorable Judge MICHAEL VILLALOBOS in Alhambra, California. Even though the parents were vindicated, LOS ANGELES still continues to unlawfully detain HENDERSON CHILDREN. They were taken without permission or consent of PARENTS, without probable cause, and without exigent circumstances. LOS ANGELES denied PARENTS right to have HENDERSON CHILDREN placed with family. Under color of Law, LOS ANGELES continues to deny substantial Rights of PARENTS. III 1 Argument Did DOWNING accept bribes from LOS ANGELES? Yes. According to the Auditor-Controller CHIEF, DOWNING has been accepting "extra" payments commonly known as "local judicial benefits" from LOS ANGELES since 2007. DOWNING received approximately $23,764.95 from
- 11 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

LOS ANGELES over the months of APRIL, MAY, JUNE, JULY, and AUGUST of 2011, the same months that DOWNING made rulings in this case. This is clear evidence of LOS ANGELES and DOWNING engaged in legalized bribery, legalized kidnapping, and false imprisonment. 2 Does this activity vitiate and render void any judgment? Yes. The United States Supreme Court has held such fraudulent activity vitiates any judgment: "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." (See US v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, 64 (1878)). "Fraud vitiates everything, and a judgment equally with a contract..." Id. at 66, citing Wells, Res Adjudicata, Section 499 who cites Crauford v. Crauford, 4 Desau. (S.C.) 176. Courts are constituted by authority, and they cannot [act] beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 26 U. S. 340; Old Wayne Life Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 Sup. Ct. 236; (See Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353-354 (1920)).
- 12 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

If the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based upon it is also void. (See Austin v. Smith, 312 F. 337, 343 (1962)). 3 Did DOWNING deny DEFENDANT Due Process? Yes. The concealment of the fraud perpetrated by the concealment of payment by DOWNING and LOS ANGLES also denied Due Process to DEFENDANT. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2009) Slip Opinion page 7, citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927): Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law. The Supreme Court held in Caperton, at Slip Opinion page 16 in relevant part: "Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when without the consent of the other partiesa man chooses the judge in his own cause..." By making illegal payments to DOWNING and concealing such, LOS ANGELES chose the judge in their own case and denied DEFENDANT due process in his case. DOWNING and LOS ANGELES, acting in cahoots, concealed the illegal LOS ANGELES
- 13 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

payments by proceeding without disclosure on AUGUST 25, 2011. Prior thereto, DOWNING had made several orders concerning the HENDERSON FAMILY without summons or notice to PARENTS and many times made serious decisions concerning Parental Rights without even Lawful Counsel present. She was on the take then, too. During the hearing of AUGUST 25, 2011, DOWNING, without Cause, denied DEFENDANT access to be heard. "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." See Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 U. S. 385, 394. The Supreme Court has held in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 US 319 that due process requires notice of hearing. PARENTS were never served any summons or notice of hearings in this case, and were not present during many of these hearings. DOWNINGS actions were clearly unconstitutional, as they Unlawfully deprived PARENTS of HENDERSON CHILDREN without Due Process of Law. United States Constitution Fifth Amendment provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

- 14 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

The fact that DOWNING was paid by LOS ANGELES denied DEFENDANT Due Process because the payment does not give the appearance of justice. Receiving a payment from an interested party over which she is presiding gives the appearance of partiality! Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. (see Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance)). The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." Should a judge not disqualify herself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free
- 15 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). 4 Did DEFENDANT fail in his duty to disqualify DOWNING on the outset of this matter? No. DEFENDANT assumed that DOWNING would have disclosed any payments. Why? It is the Law. If she is receiving payments from an interested party, she must disclose it, and if parties don't stipulate to proceed with the facts known, then she must recuse herself. DOWNING knew that she should have disqualified herself, and if she didn't know, it can NOT be used as a defense. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one). The truth is that DOWNING and LOS ANGELES were concealing the illegal payments to DOWNING, and DOWNING was under a duty to disqualify herself under California Code of Civil Procedure 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii). At the outset of the case concerning the HENDERSON FAMILY, DOWNING violated the Code of Judicial Ethics: Canon 4D(1) by taking the payments from LOS ANGELES, who was a party appearing before her, Canon 3E(2) by not disclosing the payments, and Canon 3E(1) by not disqualifying herself for having taken the payments. "Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse herself in any proceeding in
- 16 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989) DOWNING had a legal duty to disqualify herself even if there is no motion asking for her disqualification. In United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 the court stated that Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, not whether or not the judge is actually biased." "Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process." Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. They are bound to the Law. Should a judge not disqualify herself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of her "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should a second judge not accept DOWNING'S disqualification, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified are
- 17 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

valid by Law. The orders are void as a matter of Law, and they are of no legal force or effect. 5 Should DEFENDANT'S brief be held to less stringent

standards? Yes. Since the court can reasonably read DEFENDANT'S brief and see a valid argument on which he could prevail, then all orders by DOWNING in this case are hereby vitiated despite any failure to cite proper legal authority, any confusion of various legal theories, any poor syntax and sentence construction, or any unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. It has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court time and again that pleadings from a litigant In Pro Per are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. (see Haines v. Kerner, (1972) 404 US 519). The law is not a trap for the unwary. As our late beloved brother John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said, The law does not expect a man to be prepared to defend every act of his life which may be suddenly and without notice alleged against him. IV Conclusion Based upon DOWNING'S fraud upon the Court and her obstruction of justice in the Minute Orders held in hearings
- 18 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

from APRIL 25, 2011 TO AUGUST 25, 2011, the case involving HENDERSON CHILDREN and PARENTS is vitiated and all orders and judgments made by DOWNING are void under the U.S. Supreme Court precedents of Throckmorton, supra, and Valley, supra. So mote it be. Respectfully Submitted, DATED: September 27, 2011 BY: JEFFREY HENDERSON, In Pro Per V Certificate of compliance Pursuant to California Rules of Court (CRC) 8.928(b)

(1), I hereby certify that this brief contains 3456 words. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the computer program Open Office used to prepare the brief. DATED: September 27, 2011 BY: JEFFREY HENDERSON, In Pro Per

- 19 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) )

I, Joseph Boyle, declare as follows: I am over the age of 18, not a party to this cause, not a protected person listed in any of the orders, and employed at 270 E. Douglas Ave, Suite 110, in El Cajon, California where the mailing took place. On September 27, 2011, I enclosed duplicate originals of the attached NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS in an envelope and deposited the sealed envelopes with the U.S. Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows: Los Angeles County California Superior Court Clerk 201 Centre Plaza Dr, Dept. 407, Monterey Park, CA 91754 Gerald Costello, Attorney for LOS ANGELES 201 Centre Plaza Dr, Suite 1, Monterey Park, CA 91754 David Cheung, Attorney allegedly for HENDERSON CHILDREN 201 Centre Plaza Dr, Suite 7, Monterey Park, CA 91754 Jasminder Deol, Attorney for MOTHER 1000 Corporate Center Dr, Suite 400 Monterey Park, CA 91754 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 27, 2011 at San Diego, California.
- 20 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

#1971

By: __________________________

- 21 -

NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES v. JEFFREY HENDERSON, NO: CK57697

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen