1.3/22/2019: dept 133 assigned a new atty
2.3/22/2019: OIG(nilon Seals,police special investigator) promised he would contact Sgt Wards at LAPD internal affair re: why my complaint filed sept 2014/2015/more do NOT get any outcome of investigation. Sgt Wards always put my calls on hold hours and hours
3.called EMSA.CA.Gov re: investigative result
4.Olympia Hospital: my med record on jan 26,2014(per police report, MD cleared me to be arrested)( Officer Coco blocked MD to check my chest pain with underlying heart failure):5900 w.olympic blvd,310-657-5900
5. 3/22/2019: Jackie Lacey's special assistant(sherry) was contacted, requested my atty to call her re: DA's misconduct
6. 3/23/2019: I filed a damage claim to city of los angeles( against LAFD professional standard and city atty) for Fraud/Deceit/denying civil right/defamation/emotional distress(claim #:c19-05363)
7. 3/25/2019: called Sheriff Complaint Office(800-698-talk,deputy alexander ) to check my complaint's progress re: Sexual Molestation by black male deputy at solo cell in LAC Jail(Twin Tower)'s solo cell(6th floor). I filed complaint during 2014,2015 2016. I was housed at solo cell because many inmates harassed me, stole my mattress/foods/assaults because I was only one thin older logical defenseless ASIAN inmate..some inmates seem to never have had a gracious father figure or brother figure,they just want to toy me around as fun... also checked Office of Inspector General(OIG.LAcounty.gov)
8.3/24/2019: contacted Dean at UC Berkeley School of Law( Erwin Chemerinsky) as well as Mr.Beck,Mr.Casselman,ShouseLaw,Mark Gregos etc
9.3/20/19: contacted Korean Community Center( Jeff Lee) & Korean Church Preacher(LaOpendoor.org) to speak up for me
10.3/25/19: contacted Korean Newspaper to place a Whole Page AD, to expose my wrongful jail/my life story($1000 per ad) as well as Editor at La Opinion(Jorge Macias) & koreaTimes and KoreaDaily.com ,Los Angeles Blade,Wehoville,KTLA,Foxnews etc
11.3/25/2019: Opened a new blog website (www.AffordableAssistant.net, AffordableLawyer.net) for 900# consultation line
*I was a citizen of Honor featured on Vallejo Herald tribune(2001) but that news article also contained I alone cured what Vallejo's Police Dept had failed upon, in a scale of 90% under big budget.. of course, Vallejo police put me in jail under " profit under false pretense, felony".. Upon a hearing, Judge threw away my case within 5 min..Judge couldn't hide his LAUGH !
**I was a homeless of Honor featured on Seattle times(2009) (www.HomelessID.com)
***LA Superior Court Judge declared I was incompetent to stand a trial and sent me to Metropolitan Mental Hospital for 4 months (that required a waiting time of 6 months to get into mental hospital)
**** Federal Deportation Judge(kevin riley) declared I was incompetent to represent myself, forced an obnoxious atty who won't do any job for me but I convinced a new judge that my DEPORTATION MUST BE STOPPED FOR NOW, BECAUSE SHE(JUDGE RUAN) found that I WAS A VICTIM OF LAPD /LAFD CORRUPTION OVER THE LONG TIME !!(www.FuckLAPD.com)
*****I was able to Dismiss LAC superior court Judge(debra crhistian, dept 94) under Stupidity and I earned her full respect!
******I was honored by Cal Governor(Jerry Brown) for inventing NEW STYLE OF EMAIL SERVICE 4 ALL CALIFORNIAN CITIZENS(www.permaID.com)
******* I was a #1 student/graduate at Korea's Harvard Univ(Seoul National Univ) and I got full scholarship and stipend at north carolina med school
******* I used to have a perfect PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY, now at age of 62y, after traumatic LAC jail experience downgraded my talents .
-------DICK JUSTICE & DICK CHANEY, MR TRUMP, USA! USA! USA !! SHAMELESS, CLUELESS,MERCEYLESS -----
3/27/2019: 1AM I called 911 supervisor (Binn,#G977), to file a complaint against Sgt Fox(#36630) re: He always threatened me to shut down my website(FuckLAPD.com), and He always told me he can fabricate a crime story, like Sgt Clark,to put me back to Jail Again, He is only one who assaulted me, won't let me go poop when I was in UCLA harbor med hospital,5150 room etc, I told 911 supervisor Binn that I have filed more than 300 complaints into LAPD internal affair since of 2006 and I am familiar with somehow...NOW I HEARD THAT SGT FOX WORKS FOR LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIR.
Binn won't understand when I said I was asked to contact "Classification" in LAPD internal affair... SHE WAS DUMB !
I call Sgt Fox as Sgt Fuck ! and when I visited Olympic Station during Christmas, I brought over a teddy bear gift ,Sgt Fox took it ...although I was not happy with any LAPD service from Olympic div, I thought that I should show gratitude , because the dispatched Sgt were instructed from upper level , to go against me. (specifically, officer Morse(from SF) utterly said that,citing "Dr.Noh!, I have to commit a crime because I was told not to take care of your crime issue from upper level)
3/27/2019: 1:30AM Lieutenant De Armon(#35359) called me because I was not happy with supervisor Binn. Lieutenant knows 911 watch commander (ms Miller). IT IS MY BEST COMPLIMENT THAT LIEUTENANT DE ARMON WAS ONE OF BEST LAPD I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ! I will call LAPD internal affair, to file a compliment...again, I don't give a compliment to LAPD that often , because it was not warranted! BEST COP found !
4/1/2019: I received a Letter from LAPD internal affair(dated 3/6/2019) re:CF#:18-000676(contact Classification Unit, Sgt Joe Ward,213-473-6739--->"Demonstrably False"(investigation result)
** called 213-473-6739--> "no longer in service",--> called Main line(213-486-0150)-->Left Message with CF#
4/6/2019: I received a Letter from City Atty(mike feuer), rejecting my Damage Claim( cited " 6months statutory limit")
4/5/2019 : I opened Homeless Websites( GreenHomeless.org, HomelessID.com): "Revolutionalize Homeless Cares to Success"
4/8/2019: I called Inspector General, spoke with secretary(Angelin) to have OIG call me back re: outstanding complaints filed with LAPD internal affair. I gave my phone# to call.(mandated !)
4/8/2019 : I called LAPD internal affair( ), Detective gelesky(? female) answered, asked "Who is calling?". I said "Dr.Noh", she put me on HOLD over 1 hr. So I called my district Council member's office(Cedillo), OIG(Bushman blatantly refused to call LAPD inernal affair and he has been like this all along,last time he even threatened me for possible putting his name on my website ---> then I called Police Commissioner office(Detective Chavez#35757) was very nice and took my message(Mrs debra Green was not in)-->I called FBI, let them hear through what LAPD internal affair's ON-Hold Music
FBI-LA has been taking my complaints over last several years. They know me by my name and phone # !
4/10/2019: Peace Parade's president(John Kim) asked me to call him !!
4/18/2019:
5/11/2019: dumping my properties from other rented room is Civil Matter!( Rampart Corruption 2019)(911 watch commander also dancing around)(nguyen#34595,#33290,#33684,#39555,#32256), called LAPD internal affair for Sgt Ward to call me back.
1.3/22/2019: dept 133 assigned a new atty
2.3/22/2019: OIG(nilon Seals,police special investigator) promised he would contact Sgt Wards at LAPD internal affair re: why my complaint filed sept 2014/2015/more do NOT get any outcome of investigation. Sgt Wards always put my calls on hold hours and hours
3.called EMSA.CA.Gov re: investigative result
4.Olympia Hospital: my med record on jan 26,2014(per police report, MD cleared me to be arrested)( Officer Coco blocked MD to check my chest pain with underlying heart failure):5900 w.olympic blvd,310-657-5900
5. 3/22/2019: Jackie Lacey's special assistant(sherry) was contacted, requested my atty to call her re: DA's misconduct
6. 3/23/2019: I filed a damage claim to city of los angeles( against LAFD professional standard and city atty) for Fraud/Deceit/denying civil right/defamation/emotional distress(claim #:c19-05363)
7. 3/25/2019: called Sheriff Complaint Office(800-698-talk,deputy alexander ) to check my complaint's progress re: Sexual Molestation by black male deputy at solo cell in LAC Jail(Twin Tower)'s solo cell(6th floor). I filed complaint during 2014,2015 2016. I was housed at solo cell because many inmates harassed me, stole my mattress/foods/assaults because I was only one thin older logical defenseless ASIAN inmate..some inmates seem to never have had a gracious father figure or brother figure,they just want to toy me around as fun... also checked Office of Inspector General(OIG.LAcounty.gov)
8.3/24/2019: contacted Dean at UC Berkeley School of Law( Erwin Chemerinsky) as well as Mr.Beck,Mr.Casselman,ShouseLaw,Mark Gregos etc
9.3/20/19: contacted Korean Community Center( Jeff Lee) & Korean Church Preacher(LaOpendoor.org) to speak up for me
10.3/25/19: contacted Korean Newspaper to place a Whole Page AD, to expose my wrongful jail/my life story($1000 per ad) as well as Editor at La Opinion(Jorge Macias) & koreaTimes and KoreaDaily.com ,Los Angeles Blade,Wehoville,KTLA,Foxnews etc
11.3/25/2019: Opened a new blog website (www.AffordableAssistant.net, AffordableLawyer.net) for 900# consultation line
*I was a citizen of Honor featured on Vallejo Herald tribune(2001) but that news article also contained I alone cured what Vallejo's Police Dept had failed upon, in a scale of 90% under big budget.. of course, Vallejo police put me in jail under " profit under false pretense, felony".. Upon a hearing, Judge threw away my case within 5 min..Judge couldn't hide his LAUGH !
**I was a homeless of Honor featured on Seattle times(2009) (www.HomelessID.com)
***LA Superior Court Judge declared I was incompetent to stand a trial and sent me to Metropolitan Mental Hospital for 4 months (that required a waiting time of 6 months to get into mental hospital)
**** Federal Deportation Judge(kevin riley) declared I was incompetent to represent myself, forced an obnoxious atty who won't do any job for me but I convinced a new judge that my DEPORTATION MUST BE STOPPED FOR NOW, BECAUSE SHE(JUDGE RUAN) found that I WAS A VICTIM OF LAPD /LAFD CORRUPTION OVER THE LONG TIME !!(www.FuckLAPD.com)
*****I was able to Dismiss LAC superior court Judge(debra crhistian, dept 94) under Stupidity and I earned her full respect!
******I was honored by Cal Governor(Jerry Brown) for inventing NEW STYLE OF EMAIL SERVICE 4 ALL CALIFORNIAN CITIZENS(www.permaID.com)
******* I was a #1 student/graduate at Korea's Harvard Univ(Seoul National Univ) and I got full scholarship and stipend at north carolina med school
******* I used to have a perfect PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY, now at age of 62y, after traumatic LAC jail experience downgraded my talents .
-------DICK JUSTICE & DICK CHANEY, MR TRUMP, USA! USA! USA !! SHAMELESS, CLUELESS,MERCEYLESS -----
3/27/2019: 1AM I called 911 supervisor (Binn,#G977), to file a complaint against Sgt Fox(#36630) re: He always threatened me to shut down my website(FuckLAPD.com), and He always told me he can fabricate a crime story, like Sgt Clark,to put me back to Jail Again, He is only one who assaulted me, won't let me go poop when I was in UCLA harbor med hospital,5150 room etc, I told 911 supervisor Binn that I have filed more than 300 complaints into LAPD internal affair since of 2006 and I am familiar with somehow...NOW I HEARD THAT SGT FOX WORKS FOR LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIR.
Binn won't understand when I said I was asked to contact "Classification" in LAPD internal affair... SHE WAS DUMB !
I call Sgt Fox as Sgt Fuck ! and when I visited Olympic Station during Christmas, I brought over a teddy bear gift ,Sgt Fox took it ...although I was not happy with any LAPD service from Olympic div, I thought that I should show gratitude , because the dispatched Sgt were instructed from upper level , to go against me. (specifically, officer Morse(from SF) utterly said that,citing "Dr.Noh!, I have to commit a crime because I was told not to take care of your crime issue from upper level)
3/27/2019: 1:30AM Lieutenant De Armon(#35359) called me because I was not happy with supervisor Binn. Lieutenant knows 911 watch commander (ms Miller). IT IS MY BEST COMPLIMENT THAT LIEUTENANT DE ARMON WAS ONE OF BEST LAPD I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ! I will call LAPD internal affair, to file a compliment...again, I don't give a compliment to LAPD that often , because it was not warranted! BEST COP found !
4/1/2019: I received a Letter from LAPD internal affair(dated 3/6/2019) re:CF#:18-000676(contact Classification Unit, Sgt Joe Ward,213-473-6739--->"Demonstrably False"(investigation result)
** called 213-473-6739--> "no longer in service",--> called Main line(213-486-0150)-->Left Message with CF#
4/6/2019: I received a Letter from City Atty(mike feuer), rejecting my Damage Claim( cited " 6months statutory limit")
4/5/2019 : I opened Homeless Websites( GreenHomeless.org, HomelessID.com): "Revolutionalize Homeless Cares to Success"
4/8/2019: I called Inspector General, spoke with secretary(Angelin) to have OIG call me back re: outstanding complaints filed with LAPD internal affair. I gave my phone# to call.(mandated !)
4/8/2019 : I called LAPD internal affair( ), Detective gelesky(? female) answered, asked "Who is calling?". I said "Dr.Noh", she put me on HOLD over 1 hr. So I called my district Council member's office(Cedillo), OIG(Bushman blatantly refused to call LAPD inernal affair and he has been like this all along,last time he even threatened me for possible putting his name on my website ---> then I called Police Commissioner office(Detective Chavez#35757) was very nice and took my message(Mrs debra Green was not in)-->I called FBI, let them hear through what LAPD internal affair's ON-Hold Music
FBI-LA has been taking my complaints over last several years. They know me by my name and phone # !
4/10/2019: Peace Parade's president(John Kim) asked me to call him !!
4/18/2019:
5/11/2019: dumping my properties from other rented room is Civil Matter!( Rampart Corruption 2019)(911 watch commander also dancing around)(nguyen#34595,#33290,#33684,#39555,#32256), called LAPD internal affair for Sgt Ward to call me back.
Kamala Harris defends criminal justice record in speech to South Carolina NAACP
Columbia, South Carolina (CNN)Before a majority black crowd in early primary state South Carolina, 2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris mounted a forceful defense of her career as a prosecutor.
Harris has been criticized by activists on the Democratic party's left for decisions she made as California's attorney general and San Francisco district attorney -- including on criminal justice reforms and truancy.
On Saturday to a predominantly middle aged southern crowd, Harris bucked that criticism and declared that she believes safety is a civil right that all people are entitled, and sought to dismiss the myth that black people don't want "public safety."
"There have been those who have questioned my motivations, my beliefs and what I have done," she said at the Palmetto State's NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Columbia."But my mother used to say, you don't let people tell you who you are. You tell them who you are. So that's what I'm gonna do. That's what I'm gonna do. Because let me be clear - self-appointed political commentators do not get to define who we are and what we believe,"
- Harris told the room that responded with a furor of applause and a near-standing ovation.
By addressing this head on, Harris is attempting to reframe her record as a prosecutor, and to a voting constituency she considers key to her campaign — black democrats in South Carolina and the rest of the country.
Black voters made up 61% of South Carolina's Democratic electorate in 2016.
Referencing the name of an unarmed black man who was shot by a white police officer in Charleston in 2015, Harris lamented the tensions African Americans face with law enforcement.
"What we don't want is excessive force," she said. "Or for being Black to be considered probable cause. What we don't want is for a parent to have to sit down with their 12-year-old and have "the talk" and explain to that child he may be arrested, he may be stopped, he may be chased, or he may be shot, because of the color of his skin. What we don't want is any more cases like Walter Scott."
To that, she highlighted how she prosecuted violent criminals and launched investigations "into acts of discrimination by law enforcement agencies. All because the people deserved justice."
Since launching her bid in January, critics have repeatedly written scathing op-eds, including one in the New York Times, that accused the former attorney general of staying silent on criminal justice reforms under her purview, such as not taking a side on California's three strikes law.
This comes as just last month, Harris shifted her stance on how police departments should handle fatal police shootings and alleged police brutally, saying that they should be carried out by independent investigators after previous arguing that local elected officials should lead any probes.
The 2020 hopeful said last month that if elected president, she would lead a Department of Justice that would double the civil rights division and direct law enforcement to counter the rise of extremism in the US.
And Harris has proposed legislation earlier this month that would support public defenders to improve representation for low income defendants, and touted her proposed policies on gun control as long overdue while acknowledging that she is a gun owner due to her line of work.
Another issue that's dogged Harris' throughout the campaign is her stance on truancy. In April, she expressed "regret" over backing a 2011 California truancy law as the state attorney general due to "unintended consequences" such as the criminalization of parents.
To an attentive crowd, she again defended her decision, framing it as holding the "system accountable" instead of being responsible for creating legislation that threatened to prosecute parents, who some feared would be poor and people of color.
"I held the system accountable, and got those kids back in school -- not by sending people to jail, but by getting families the resources they needed, because those children deserved justice."
Harris' speech culminated in a fierce argument that she is uniquely posed to take on President Donald Trump because of her prosecutorial roots.
She received a standing ovation, littered with a fervent "you go Kamala!" from a crowd member, when she said, "What we do want is a justice system where no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States."
Later she added, "We must hold him accountable by prosecuting the case in front of the American people against four more years of this Administration. And I've prosecuted a lot of cases. But rarely one with this much evidence."
Lillian Davis-Miller, a 68-year-old NAACP member, called Harris' speech a "hit," and said it was necessary for African Americans.
"Sen. Harris touched on every point, every issue that plagues black communities, areas of crime, things involving education and equality," Davis-Miller told CNN. "It helps the people in South Carolina to really understand the platform and where she's coming from. She's making public things that need to be addressed." Davis-Miller added that she believes the speech will help Harris in the Palmetto State.
Veronica Thomas, a 38-year-old phlebotomist from outside Columbia, likened Harris to former President Barack Obama.
"It was powerful. It was moving, it stirred emotions. We're due for change. I felt like Obama all over again."
Thomas told CNN she believes the speech could help bridge Harris' faltering gap with younger, more progressive voters.
"She spoke from the heart, it resonated with me," she said. "I'm a younger crowd and at the end of the day we need change. And if she's the one to help further down that path, then you know, that's what it is."Harris wrapped up her speech as a lawyer pleading a case might.
"So NAACP, we have a winning case," Harris said. "We have a winning case and we need a new president."
Harris has been criticized by activists on the Democratic party's left for decisions she made as California's attorney general and San Francisco district attorney -- including on criminal justice reforms and truancy.
On Saturday to a predominantly middle aged southern crowd, Harris bucked that criticism and declared that she believes safety is a civil right that all people are entitled, and sought to dismiss the myth that black people don't want "public safety."
"There have been those who have questioned my motivations, my beliefs and what I have done," she said at the Palmetto State's NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Columbia."But my mother used to say, you don't let people tell you who you are. You tell them who you are. So that's what I'm gonna do. That's what I'm gonna do. Because let me be clear - self-appointed political commentators do not get to define who we are and what we believe,"
- Harris told the room that responded with a furor of applause and a near-standing ovation.
By addressing this head on, Harris is attempting to reframe her record as a prosecutor, and to a voting constituency she considers key to her campaign — black democrats in South Carolina and the rest of the country.
Black voters made up 61% of South Carolina's Democratic electorate in 2016.
Referencing the name of an unarmed black man who was shot by a white police officer in Charleston in 2015, Harris lamented the tensions African Americans face with law enforcement.
"What we don't want is excessive force," she said. "Or for being Black to be considered probable cause. What we don't want is for a parent to have to sit down with their 12-year-old and have "the talk" and explain to that child he may be arrested, he may be stopped, he may be chased, or he may be shot, because of the color of his skin. What we don't want is any more cases like Walter Scott."
To that, she highlighted how she prosecuted violent criminals and launched investigations "into acts of discrimination by law enforcement agencies. All because the people deserved justice."
Since launching her bid in January, critics have repeatedly written scathing op-eds, including one in the New York Times, that accused the former attorney general of staying silent on criminal justice reforms under her purview, such as not taking a side on California's three strikes law.
This comes as just last month, Harris shifted her stance on how police departments should handle fatal police shootings and alleged police brutally, saying that they should be carried out by independent investigators after previous arguing that local elected officials should lead any probes.
The 2020 hopeful said last month that if elected president, she would lead a Department of Justice that would double the civil rights division and direct law enforcement to counter the rise of extremism in the US.
And Harris has proposed legislation earlier this month that would support public defenders to improve representation for low income defendants, and touted her proposed policies on gun control as long overdue while acknowledging that she is a gun owner due to her line of work.
Another issue that's dogged Harris' throughout the campaign is her stance on truancy. In April, she expressed "regret" over backing a 2011 California truancy law as the state attorney general due to "unintended consequences" such as the criminalization of parents.
To an attentive crowd, she again defended her decision, framing it as holding the "system accountable" instead of being responsible for creating legislation that threatened to prosecute parents, who some feared would be poor and people of color.
"I held the system accountable, and got those kids back in school -- not by sending people to jail, but by getting families the resources they needed, because those children deserved justice."
Harris' speech culminated in a fierce argument that she is uniquely posed to take on President Donald Trump because of her prosecutorial roots.
She received a standing ovation, littered with a fervent "you go Kamala!" from a crowd member, when she said, "What we do want is a justice system where no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States."
Later she added, "We must hold him accountable by prosecuting the case in front of the American people against four more years of this Administration. And I've prosecuted a lot of cases. But rarely one with this much evidence."
Lillian Davis-Miller, a 68-year-old NAACP member, called Harris' speech a "hit," and said it was necessary for African Americans.
"Sen. Harris touched on every point, every issue that plagues black communities, areas of crime, things involving education and equality," Davis-Miller told CNN. "It helps the people in South Carolina to really understand the platform and where she's coming from. She's making public things that need to be addressed." Davis-Miller added that she believes the speech will help Harris in the Palmetto State.
Veronica Thomas, a 38-year-old phlebotomist from outside Columbia, likened Harris to former President Barack Obama.
"It was powerful. It was moving, it stirred emotions. We're due for change. I felt like Obama all over again."
Thomas told CNN she believes the speech could help bridge Harris' faltering gap with younger, more progressive voters.
"She spoke from the heart, it resonated with me," she said. "I'm a younger crowd and at the end of the day we need change. And if she's the one to help further down that path, then you know, that's what it is."Harris wrapped up her speech as a lawyer pleading a case might.
"So NAACP, we have a winning case," Harris said. "We have a winning case and we need a new president."
How do I subpoena a police officer to my trial?A Sheriff's Deputy wrote a false report against me. During the actual event the officer assured that nothing was wrong and there were no issues or problems. There was 3 other witnesses that were present during this time.
For a Free Consult Call 213-516-9161"
*(Posted on Oct 31, 2012):
-You call the Sheriff's Department general number and ask to speak with the legal liaison or the legal coordinator or the person who accepts subpoenas for the deputies. That person will tell you how to serve the Sheriff's Department, that is, where to go, whom to ask for, etc.
You MUST give the deputy no less than five court days advance notice. If I were you, I would sub him immediately. Many officers have scheduled vacation days or training obligations which make them unavailable for trial. If you are told that the officer will be unavailable and you feel he is a material witness for your trial, make a motion in court under Penal Code 1050 to continue the trial to a date when he will be available. You would need to file this motion as soon as you know he will be unable to appear on the scheduled date.
If for some reason you can't get a hold of someone at the Sheriff's Department who accepts service like this, it is okay if you personally serve the deputy's commanding officer. That means you would have to go to the Sheriff's Department during his shift and serve the Watch Commander.
- (Posted on Nov 1, 2012)
*"Top Rated LA Defense Attorney. Former Senior Prosecutor. Harvard Law School Educated 323-521-4827"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asked: October 11, 2017
Pro Per Family Law- Subpoena police body camera,
-Do you use SUBP-010 from to subpoena police body camera? This is relating to child custody. If not SUBP-010, what is the form? What is the procedure?
Answered: Posted on Jun 1, 2016Your lawyer can issue the subpoena. If you are on your own then you have the court clerk issue it in blank. You fill out the rest of the information such as the case information, who you are subpoenaing and what you want them to bring. You may want to subpoena a copy of the police report...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBPOENA REQUEST GUIDELINES Chicago Police Department CPD-12.145 (6/14)
1 Direct all subpoenas for documents and witness appearances to: Chicago Police Department Records Services Division, Subpoena Unit 163 3510 S. Michigan, 1st Floor, Room 1027 Chicago, IL 60653 (312) 745-5603 and 745-5604
Subpoenas can be mailed to or dropped off at the address provided above. Do not address a subpoena for documents to an individually-named member of the CPD. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has access to many of the below-listed reports which may negate the need for a subpoena on a criminal case.
Items the Subpoena Unit can provide copies of: o Arrest Reports (also known as CBs) o Case, Incident and Supplemental Reports (also known as RDs) o Criminal History Reports (also known as Rap Sheets and IRs) o Inventory Slips o Traffic Crash Reports o Tactical Response Reports (TRRs) o Officer Battery Reports (OBRs)
When the item requested is kept by another unit within CPD, the Subpoena Unit will forward the subpoena to the appropriate unit for handling. Items maintained by other units include, but are not limited to, the following: o Area Investigative Files (also known as Detective Division Files, which may include General Progress Reports, also known as GPRs) o DUI Case Files (which may include Alcohol/Drug Influence Reports and Breath Test Printouts) o In-car Camera Video (90 day retention period) o Photographs and Crime Scene Video Describe only the specific item(s) you are requesting. The CPD response to your request will be unnecessarily delayed if you include language that you seek “any and all” documents related to a RD number when you are only seeking a specific type of document.
Information to provide within the body of the subpoena to assist the search for the requested items: o Name of arrestee with corresponding RD, CB and IR numbers – required for document requests o Arrestee date of birth o Address and date of arrest o Names and star numbers of CPD officers – required for court appearance o Beat number, vehicle number, date and time, CB number, primary arresting officer name and star number – required for in-car camera video requests SUBPOENA REQUEST GUIDELINES Chicago Police Department CPD-12.145 (6/14)
2 Select a response date which provides the CPD a reasonable amount of time within which to respond to your request, such as 21 days. Fees: o State Court Civil - $25.00 o Federal Court Civil Litigation - $45.00 No subpoena is needed to obtain a copy of a current Department Directive as they are available on the CPD website at http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/ .
-Please note that a copy of a rescinded or earlier version of a Department Directive must be requested via subpoena.
If you need an item of inventoried property brought to court, please send a subpoena for the Officer who inventoried the item to appear in court and include a request to that effect along with the CPD inventory number. Do not send a subpoena duces tecum for an item of inventoried property. In the event you want to communicate to CPD that you have not received a response and the materials are still needed or if you receive a partial response to your subpoena, do not send a second subpoena requesting the same information. Please direct inquiries about outstanding requests to (312) 745-5603 or 745-5604 and provide the court case number exactly as it appears on the subpoena you sent to CPD.
- Sending an additional subpoena or court order containing the identical request may only increase the response time to your original request.
Before filing a petition for a Rule to Show Cause,
- please contact the Subpoena Unit directly at (312) 745-5603 or 745-5604 so the status of your request can be determined. Delivery of responses by CPD: o 26th & California and Traffic Court – subpoena responses are delivered to the Clerk of the Circuit Court each business day, excluding court holidays. o Branch Courts – subpoena responses are sent daily via police mail to the court sergeant assigned to the courtroom. o Suburban courthouses – subpoena responses are delivered daily to the Clerk of the Circuit Court at 26th & California and routed from there by the Clerk’s Office.
Subpoena responses on criminal cases will not be delivered or mailed to a requesting attorney’s office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to request/subpoena surveillance camera footage?The police are investigating the theft of my car. Many of my personal items were dumped on the property of a restaurant, and the surveillance cameras likely caught it on tape. The police seem to be uninterested (they have yet to request this footage), and no suspects have yet been caught.
I would like to secure this footage for CIVIL ACTION against the perpetrators of the theft. Since the investigation is ongoing, and no suspects have been identified, no suit has yet been filed. How can I file a legal request for these documents from the involved restaurant?
Update: Yes, I'm aware that this needs to be done quickly.
Yes, I contacted the property owner who refused to divulge the tapes. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question.
Yes, I am nagging the police and detective with incredible persistence.
Most subpoena forms available online relate only to legal suits and discovery- not ongoing investigations. I tried looking online for hours before asking here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you need to get those tapes quick. often times footage is taped over... sometimes in as little as 24 hours.
have you tried asking the property owner directly? they may want to help
you also need to be on the *** of the detective on your case. call him every day to say whats up.
since you are not a lawyer, you have to file a request with the court and wait for a judge to make a decison. There are lots of sample forms on the internet and websites meant for helping people take care of their own legal matters. just google "how to file subpoena (your state or county)" or "how to get security camera footage"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I request a copy of a surveillance video as part of discovery without a lawyer?I was involved in an altercation last week outside a school building where there is video surveillance. I asked the school public safety office for a copy and they said they do not give them out to the public but that the local police department requested a copy and has it. I went to the police station tonight and asked if I can get a copy or see it. He told me no, but that I can request a copy as well as a copy of his report through the discovery process from the court. How do I go about this since I am not using an attorney. I am in Massachusetts. PLEASE HELP!!!
Answers:
1)I would file a motion for discovery and a motion to produce against the school and the police department. You can do this with an attorney or representing yourself on your own pro se.
This response is intended to be a general statement of law that should not be relied upon as legal advice and does not create an attorney/client relationship.
2)Is there a civil lawsuit already filed? If not, you can't file a motion for discovery. (There is some pre-suit discovery in Massachusetts under Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 27, but for depositions, not producing evidence.) One thing you should immediately do is send a letter to both the school and the police department demanding that they preserve the tapes as evidence in a potential lawsuit. You can also file a public records request for a copy from the police department.
If there is a filed lawsuit, consult the civil rules 26-37 (assuming the case is in state court) for details on how discovery works. You can simply send any defendant a Rule 34 production request for any video records of the events. But it sounds like the school is a non-party. If so, you need to issue a subpoena (see Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 45). You probably want to consult with an attorney in your area, even if it is one at legal aid or pro bono just walking you through the steps.
Have you been charged with a crime, such as assault? If so, you have a right to see the evidence from the police, but you should have a criminal defense attorney handle this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: GETTING MORE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR DEFENSE THEORY
Criminal defenseCriminal chargesWhite collar crimes
Show 9 more Sometimes, great evidence supporting your case theory exists outside of the immediate facts of the criminal charges. What more can we know about the parties involved? The Subpoena Duces Tecum is a creative and effective tool toward obtaining that important outside collateral evidence.
- What is a Subpoena Duces Tecum?A Subpoena Duces tecum is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and either (1) testify, and/or (2) produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. Practically speaking, the Subpoena Duces Tecum instructs the witness to bring in hand books, papers, or evidence for the court. It's a very helpful trial tactic to implement for cases where the defense wants to support their own defense or hurt the credibility of adverse witnesses.
- How and Why Would You Seek a Subpoena Duces Tecum?For example, if someone were charged with Assault, it would be wise to know whether the "victim" had serious mental health issues, disciplinary problems and/or a history of violent behavior. In this case, a defense attorney would seek the testimony from witnesses - say, a school teacher or former employer - who would state the victim had a history of violent outbursts and/or instigated violent confrontations with others. In other cases involving a Diminished Capacity Defense, a Subpoena Duces tecum might help obtain the cooperation of mental health experts/counselors who have treated the defendant in the past. Basically, the testimony of any person outside the facts of the case who is relevant to establishing a defense to the charges is a good candidate to issue a Subpoena Duces Tecum. Defense attorneys can become very creative in establishing why this outside information relates to the criminal charges.
- What is the Legal Authority Supporting a Subpoena Duces Tecum?Local court rules, the Washington State Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require the government to promptly disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant. When it comes to wanting the testimony of witnesses and/or victims, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Also, the Washington States Constitution states the accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses against him face to face. The purpose of such confrontation is to test the perception, memory and credibility of witnesses. In this case, a Subpoena Duces Tecum may order any witnesses to make themselves available for interviews and pretrial hearings under threat of being held in contempt of court. Consult an experienced and effective defense attorney on the issues of your case. Chances are, there is outside collateral evidence which might be obtainable with the help of a Subpoena Duces Tecum----------------
- PERSUADING JUDGES TO ADMIT COLLATERAL EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE FACTS OF THE CASE.
Criminal defenseCriminal chargesCriminal charges for assault and battery
Show 6 more This guide summariazes how outside evidence - here, called "Collateral Evidence" - can be used to support defenses to criminal charges and give juries a more complete understanding of your cases's dynamics and people's motives to testify. - What is Collateral Evidence?A collateral issue is an issue regarding a matter which is tenuously connected to the merits of the case. A trial court can admit or exclude evidence of collateral matters, depending upon the peculiarities of the case. Under evidence rules, court rules and caselaw; evidence on collateral issues can be relevant, if the fact that it tends to establish will tend to prove or disprove a fact at issue. For example - and hypothetically speaking - let's assume a defendant is charged with assault. The defense is self-defense. One important issue will be whether the defendant or the victim was the first aggressor. Another issue is WHY the defendant responded in self-defense. Did the defendant know the victim was violent and/or mentally ill? Was the defendant assaulted by the victim in the past? In these situations, certain evidence rules allow the defendant to show the victim's quarrelsome or violent disposition to be known to the jury. On the related issue of whether the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of danger, evidence demonstrating the victim's use of deadly weapons and quarrelsome disposition is possibly admissible. In these cases, collateral evidence could take the form of the victim's prior bad acts, mental health examinations, criminal history, acts of aggression indicating a violent disposition, school disciplinary records, etc. All of these facts are potential collateral evidence which might be admissible to a jury.
- How Do Judge's Decide Whether Collateral Evidence Is Acceptable?Under evidence rules, caselaw and court rule; Judges may properly exclude evidence which would have a tendency to mislead, distract, confuse, waste time, or be too remote. However, to be relevant, collateral evidence need not establish the proponent's case theory in and of itself, but it must be at least a piece of the puzzle underlying the facts of the case itself. Collateral evidence must be material and relevant to the matters which are sought to be proved. Through motions in limine and other pleadings, a competent criminal defense attorney will inform the Prosecutor and Judge of their intentions to elicit collateral evidence through the Prosecutor's "victim" as possible rebuttal evidence should the victim hold themselves out as flawless and pure as the driven snow. The Court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating these witnesses/victims and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the cross examination effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect the victim/witness from harassment or undue embarrassment.
- What Are Some Examples of Collateral Evidence?CPS Records, School Records, criminal history (with some exceptions), lawsuits between the parties, the defendant's past negative contacts with State's witnesses and/or the victim, etc. Competent defense attorneys are creative in this regard. Basically, any facts which may help clarify the dynamics of a case and/or relevantly challenge the credibility of witnesses and victims are fair game as collateral evidence to be used at trial.
- How Do I Obtain Good Collateral Evidence & Get It Admitted?Experienced attorneys try arguing motions to allow specific and specialized information from particular witnesses who have the authority, background and/or experience who are qualified to speak about the proposed collateral evidence. Some may try persuading judges to sign a Subpoena Duces Tecum (discussed in another legal guide). Other experienced attorneys try admitting collateral evidence by arguing pretrial motions to the judge. Understandably, opposing counsel will undoubtedly object that your proposed collateral evidence is inadmissible hearsay, irrelevant, confusing and/or a waste of time. Consequently, a competent defense attorney will seek collateral evidence that tends to "stand by itself" and survive the inevitable flurry of objections from opposing counsel. These matters require extensive legal research, knowledge of the law, substantive defenses and criminal procedure. At any rate, hire an experienced criminal defense attorney who is knowledgeable in the rules of evidence, court rules and caselaw on getting collateral evidence admitted.-------------------------------------------
- INSTRUCTIONS FOR U VISA DECLARATION - Visa for Victim of Crimes - U VIsa
ImmigrationImmigrant statusTypes of personal injuries
Show 9 more INSTRUCTIONS FOR U VISA DECLARATION- ENGLISH
[These instructions ask for quite a bit of detailin order to paint a clear picture for an adjudicator sitting at a desk in Vermont. The evidence standard for U Nonimmigrant Status is “any credible evidence," and the detail helps an adjudicator determine that the information in the declaration is credible. Your client’s story may not resemble this outline, but we recommend this level of detail as you work together with her to tell it.]
Declaration of ___________________
In Support of Application for U Nonimmigrant Status
I, _____________________ declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:
My name is ________________ I was born on _______________ in _______________________________. I came to the United States in _________________
.
I am applying for U Nonimmibrant status because I was a severe domestic violence that caused serous injuries and left me traumatized. I helped the police (and/or prosecution) and ________________________________ (what happened? Abuser arrested? Convicted? Deported? Now you are safe?)
On ____________________, I called the police because ______________ ___________________ (what he did, e.g. pushed me, broke my cell phone when I tried to use it to call police, and then punched me.) The police came and _________________________.
[DO A HEADING AND IN DEPTH DESCRIPTION LIKE THIS FOR EACH U-QUALIFYING CRIME]
One sentence on whether there were other incidents of abuse before this.
One sentence about what led to this incident
As many paragraphs as you need to discuss very specific details of the crime. Give at least two details about each aspect, including: - Where did the altercation start? Did it stay there or move to another place?
- Where were the abuser and you in relation to each other throughout the incident?
- What exactly did the perpetrator say during the assault (three specific words)?
- -How did perpetrator assault and injure you? Hit, choke, punch, shove, etc.
-What was the impact on you? E.g., did you stumble or fall or bang into something?
Immediately after the assault, what happened? Did something happen to make it end? - Did the perpetrator say anything afterward? Apologize? Blame you?
- Did you say anything afteward? What?
- Did either of you leave?
- Discuss interactions with police in detail.
- The call to the police. Who called the police?
- If it was you, how did you communicate with the operator?
- What did you say?
- What did the operator say?
- HOW LONG did it take police to arrive?
- Communication with police at the scene.
- How many officers were there?
- How were you and police officers able to communicate?
- Was an interpreter available? How?
- Spanish fluent officer?
- Language access line?
- Family member? Who?
- Friend or neighbor
- What specific questions did the police ask?
- Please give at least three specific words they used.
- What specific answers did you give?
- Please give at least three specific words you used
- Did you tell police about other incidents?
- What did you say?
- Did the police give you an emergency protective order? What did they say about it?
- Are there problems with the police report that contradict your story?
- [You can use the Police Report Clarification memo to go through problems, and then address why it's not accurate. Note that this is just for correcting a misstatement or misinterpretation in the police report, rather than explaining lack of cooperation, although the two are sometimes interconnected.)
- What happened with the arrest?
- Did you say you wanted the perpetrator arrested?
- Did you say you wanted the perpetrator “charged" or that you wanted to press charges?
- How did they ask?
- What did you think they meant?
- What did you say exactly?
- Follow Up: abuser's criminal case
- Was the perpetrator arrested?
- Did an investigator from the police department call you?
- Was the call in your language?
- If not, what did you do?
- Did you call back?
- What happened when you called back?
- Was the perpetrator jailed?
- How long was he in jail?
- Was he deported? - Before or after charges were brought against him?
- Were charges brought against him (was he ordered to go to court?
- Was the applicant subpoenaed to go to court?)
- Was you contacted by the District Attorney’s office?
- By who? A Victim Advocate or attorney?
- Then what happened with your abuser's case?
- Did you get a subpoena?
- Did you go to court? For more than one day? How long?
- Was you asked to testify?
- Did you testify? What happened?
- What happened with the abuser afterward
- Did a domestic violence advocate call you? If so, what happened?
- Did you get a Temporary Restraining Order?
- Did you get a Restraining Order After Hearing?
- Has the perpetrator violated the RO?
- If so, did you call the police?
- What happened?
- If you let him come back, why?
- Then what happened?
- I suffered substantial abuse from the domestic violence against me.
Abuse fromthisincident - Physical injury
- Please give three words for the type of pain. For example, did it:
- Sting, burn, ache, throb, dull, sharp, constant,
- How much did the injuries hurt? For example,
- Excruciating, racking, agonizing, deep, intense,
- How long did the pain last?
- An hour? Half a day? A day? Several days? A week? More than a week?
- Will the injury last for a very long time, like a scar or long-term damage to some part of your body?
- Did the injury prevent you from working or any other activities? What kinds of things?
- Emotional harm
- Can you give five words for how you felt? For example, angry, sad, helpless, hopeless (You can refer to a list of words that some abused people use to describe the way they felt.)
- Was control over you part of the abuse? Can you say how much of your life he controlled? All of it? Part of it? Did you feel like you had any control over your own life? (You can refer to the Power and Control wheel if it is useful)
- How has your life been affected? For example, are you afraid to go out, are you distrustful? (You can refer to the Trauma checklist factors
- Please grant a waiver of my immigration violations.
I am applying for a waiver of my unlawful entry to the U.S. Because if I am not given a waiver, I can’t get U Nonimmigrant Status. I am otherwise eligible for the U visa because as I have described above, I was a victim of __________ and I was helpful to _______________________________. I am protected in the United States, but I would not be in [home country]. It is also in the public interest to waive my violation because I would suffer hardships if I had to leave the U.S., and I believe I contribute to my community. - Give three examples of how you and your children would suffer if you had to leave the U.S.
- Describe how you and they would suffer if they had to stay in US without you
- Describe how you and they would suffer if they had to leave the U.S. with you
- Give three examples of how you are a good parent, worker, community member
- Signed this___day of _____ in _______________________
________________________(signature)
Nikki Mehrpoo Jacobson Attorney at Law / Professor of Law[email protected] THE JACOBSON LAW FIRM, APC Immigration & Nationality ǀ Workers' Compensation 510 West 6th St. Suite 326 Los Angeles , CA 90014 (310) 277-2266 (310) 277-3366 FAX Los Angeles Immigration Lawyers - Free Consultationwww.thelosangeleslawyers.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many reasons a case is continued. Sometimes the parties are not ready for court. Sometimes the lawyers are negotiating a way to bring the case to an end. Sometimes the prosecutor needs to speak to a victim or the defense attorney needs to talk to a client. It can be very frustrating, but there is usually a good reason for a delay, and most defense attorneys will not delay a case if it will hurt the client.
Felony cases are very serious, and it often takes weeks, months and occasionally years for them to be sorted out. Several continuances is not unusual. I hope this helps.(avvo.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.visitseattle.org/visitor-information/maps/
*why Seattle offers the Best Homeless Care in USA?
*why Seattle offers the Best Homeless Care in USA?
HAPTER 8. Conspiracy [182 - [185.]]
( Chapter 8 enacted 1872. )
182.
(a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.
(2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.
(3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.
(4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises.
(5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.
(6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States.
They are punishable as follows:
When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for five, seven, or nine years.
When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.
If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term.
When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they receive a felony conviction for conspiring to commit identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5, the court may impose a fine of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to effect the conspiracy shall be done.
(b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 272. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
182.5.
Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) or (b) of Section 182, any person who actively participates in any criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 186.22, with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 186.22, and who willfully promotes, furthers, assists, or benefits from any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang is guilty of conspiracy to commit that felony and may be punished as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 182.
(Added March 7, 2000, by initiative Proposition 21, Sec. 3. Note: Prop. 21 is titled the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998.)
183.
No conspiracies, other than those enumerated in the preceding section, are punishable criminally.
(Enacted 1872.)
( Chapter 8 enacted 1872. )
182.
(a) If two or more persons conspire:
(1) To commit any crime.
(2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.
(3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.
(4) To cheat and defraud any person of any property, by any means which are in themselves criminal, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses or by false promises with fraudulent intent not to perform those promises.
(5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.
(6) To commit any crime against the person of the President or Vice President of the United States, the Governor of any state or territory, any United States justice or judge, or the secretary of any of the executive departments of the United States.
They are punishable as follows:
When they conspire to commit any crime against the person of any official specified in paragraph (6), they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for five, seven, or nine years.
When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony. If the felony is one for which different punishments are prescribed for different degrees, the jury or court which finds the defendant guilty thereof shall determine the degree of the felony the defendant conspired to commit. If the degree is not so determined, the punishment for conspiracy to commit the felony shall be that prescribed for the lesser degree, except in the case of conspiracy to commit murder, in which case the punishment shall be that prescribed for murder in the first degree.
If the felony is conspiracy to commit two or more felonies which have different punishments and the commission of those felonies constitute but one offense of conspiracy, the penalty shall be that prescribed for the felony which has the greater maximum term.
When they conspire to do an act described in paragraph (4), they shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
When they conspire to do any of the other acts described in this section, they shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. When they receive a felony conviction for conspiring to commit identity theft, as defined in Section 530.5, the court may impose a fine of up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
All cases of conspiracy may be prosecuted and tried in the superior court of any county in which any overt act tending to effect the conspiracy shall be done.
(b) Upon a trial for conspiracy, in a case where an overt act is necessary to constitute the offense, the defendant cannot be convicted unless one or more overt acts are expressly alleged in the indictment or information, nor unless one of the acts alleged is proved; but other overt acts not alleged may be given in evidence.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 272. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec. 636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
182.5.
Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) or (b) of Section 182, any person who actively participates in any criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 186.22, with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 186.22, and who willfully promotes, furthers, assists, or benefits from any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang is guilty of conspiracy to commit that felony and may be punished as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 182.
(Added March 7, 2000, by initiative Proposition 21, Sec. 3. Note: Prop. 21 is titled the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998.)
183.
No conspiracies, other than those enumerated in the preceding section, are punishable criminally.
(Enacted 1872.)
Updated Chronology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3/22/2019: dept 133 assigned a new atty
2.3/22/2019: OIG(nilon Seals,police special investigator) promised he would contact Sgt Wards at LAPD internal affair re: why my complaint filed sept 2014/2015/more do NOT get any outcome of investigation. Sgt Wards always put my calls on hold hours and hours
3.called EMSA.CA.Gov re: investigative result
4.Olympia Hospital: my med record on jan 26,2014(per police report, MD cleared me to be arrested)( Officer Coco blocked MD to check my chest pain with underlying heart failure):5900 w.olympic blvd,310-657-5900
5. 3/22/2019: Jackie Lacey's special assistant(sherry) was contacted, requested my atty to call her re: DA's misconduct
6. 3/23/2019: I filed a damage claim to city of los angeles( against LAFD professional standard and city atty) for Fraud/Deceit/denying civil right/defamation/emotional distress(claim #:c19-05363)
7. 3/25/2019: called Sheriff Complaint Office(800-698-talk,deputy alexander ) to check my complaint's progress re: Sexual Molestation by black male deputy at solo cell in LAC Jail(Twin Tower)'s solo cell(6th floor). I filed complaint during 2014,2015 2016. I was housed at solo cell because many inmates harassed me, stole my mattress/foods/assaults because I was only one thin older logical defenseless ASIAN inmate..some inmates seem to never have had a gracious father figure or brother figure,they just want to toy me around as fun... also checked Office of Inspector General(OIG.LAcounty.gov)
8.3/24/2019: contacted Dean at UC Berkeley School of Law( Erwin Chemerinsky) as well as Mr.Beck,Mr.Casselman,ShouseLaw,Mark Gregos etc
9.3/20/19: contacted Korean Community Center( Jeff Lee) & Korean Church Preacher(LaOpendoor.org) to speak up for me
10.3/25/19: contacted Korean Newspaper to place a Whole Page AD, to expose my wrongful jail/my life story($1000 per ad) as well as Editor at La Opinion(Jorge Macias) & koreaTimes and KoreaDaily.com ,Los Angeles Blade,Wehoville,KTLA,Foxnews etc
11.3/25/2019: Opened a new blog website (www.AffordableAssistant.net, AffordableLawyer.net) for 900# consultation line
*I was a citizen of Honor featured on Vallejo Herald tribune(2001) but that news article also contained I alone cured what Vallejo's Police Dept had failed upon, in a scale of 90% under big budget.. of course, Vallejo police put me in jail under " profit under false pretense, felony".. Upon a hearing, Judge threw away my case within 5 min..Judge couldn't hide his LAUGH !
**I was a homeless of Honor featured on Seattle times(2009) (www.HomelessID.com)
***LA Superior Court Judge declared I was incompetent to stand a trial and sent me to Metropolitan Mental Hospital for 4 months (that required a waiting time of 6 months to get into mental hospital)
**** Federal Deportation Judge(kevin riley) declared I was incompetent to represent myself, forced an obnoxious atty who won't do any job for me but I convinced a new judge that my DEPORTATION MUST BE STOPPED FOR NOW, BECAUSE SHE(JUDGE RUAN) found that I WAS A VICTIM OF LAPD /LAFD CORRUPTION OVER THE LONG TIME !!(www.FuckLAPD.com)
*****I was able to Dismiss LAC superior court Judge(debra crhistian, dept 94) under Stupidity and I earned her full respect!
******I was honored by Cal Governor(Jerry Brown) for inventing NEW STYLE OF EMAIL SERVICE 4 ALL CALIFORNIAN CITIZENS(www.permaID.com)
******* I was a #1 student/graduate at Korea's Harvard Univ(Seoul National Univ) and I got full scholarship and stipend at north carolina med school
******* I used to have a perfect PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY, now at age of 62y, after traumatic LAC jail experience downgraded my talents .
-------DICK JUSTICE & DICK CHANEY, MR TRUMP, USA! USA! USA !! SHAMELESS, CLUELESS,MERCEYLESS -----
3/27/2019: 1AM I called 911 supervisor (Binn,#G977), to file a complaint against Sgt Fox(#36630) re: He always threatened me to shut down my website(FuckLAPD.com), and He always told me he can fabricate a crime story, like Sgt Clark,to put me back to Jail Again, He is only one who assaulted me, won't let me go poop when I was in UCLA harbor med hospital,5150 room etc, I told 911 supervisor Binn that I have filed more than 300 complaints into LAPD internal affair since of 2006 and I am familiar with somehow...NOW I HEARD THAT SGT FOX WORKS FOR LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIR.
Binn won't understand when I said I was asked to contact "Classification" in LAPD internal affair... SHE WAS DUMB !
I call Sgt Fox as Sgt Fuck ! and when I visited Olympic Station during Christmas, I brought over a teddy bear gift ,Sgt Fox took it ...although I was not happy with any LAPD service from Olympic div, I thought that I should show gratitude , because the dispatched Sgt were instructed from upper level , to go against me. (specifically, officer Morse(from SF) utterly said that,citing "Dr.Noh!, I have to commit a crime because I was told not to take care of your crime issue from upper level)
3/27/2019: 1:30AM Lieutenant De Armon(#35359) called me because I was not happy with supervisor Binn. Lieutenant knows 911 watch commander (ms Miller). IT IS MY BEST COMPLIMENT THAT LIEUTENANT DE ARMON WAS ONE OF BEST LAPD I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ! I will call LAPD internal affair, to file a compliment...again, I don't give a compliment to LAPD that often , because it was not warranted! BEST COP found !
4/1/2019: I received a Letter from LAPD internal affair(dated 3/6/2019) re:CF#:18-000676(contact Classification Unit, Sgt Joe Ward,213-473-6739--->"Demonstrably False"(investigation result)
** called 213-473-6739--> "no longer in service",--> called Main line(213-486-0150)-->Left Message with CF#
4/6/2019: I received a Letter from City Atty(mike feuer), rejecting my Damage Claim( cited " 6months statutory limit")
4/5/2019 : I opened Homeless Websites( GreenHomeless.org, HomelessID.com): "Revolutionalize Homeless Cares to Success"
4/8/2019: I called Inspector General, spoke with secretary(Angelin) to have OIG call me back re: outstanding complaints filed with LAPD internal affair. I gave my phone# to call.(mandated !)
4/8/2019 : I called LAPD internal affair( ), Detective gelesky(? female) answered, asked "Who is calling?". I said "Dr.Noh", she put me on HOLD over 1 hr. So I called my district Council member's office(Cedillo), OIG(Bushman blatantly refused to call LAPD inernal affair and he has been like this all along,last time he even threatened me for possible putting his name on my website ---> then I called Police Commissioner office(Detective Chavez#35757) was very nice and took my message(Mrs debra Green was not in)-->I called FBI, let them hear through what LAPD internal affair's ON-Hold Music
FBI-LA has been taking my complaints over last several years. They know me by my name and phone # !
4/10/2019: Peace Parade's president(John Kim) asked me to call him !!
4/18/2019:
5/11/2019: dumping my properties from other rented room is Civil Matter!( Rampart Corruption 2019)(911 watch commander also dancing around)(nguyen#34595,#33290,#33684,#39555,#32256), called LAPD internal affair for Sgt Ward to call me back.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3/22/2019: dept 133 assigned a new atty
2.3/22/2019: OIG(nilon Seals,police special investigator) promised he would contact Sgt Wards at LAPD internal affair re: why my complaint filed sept 2014/2015/more do NOT get any outcome of investigation. Sgt Wards always put my calls on hold hours and hours
3.called EMSA.CA.Gov re: investigative result
4.Olympia Hospital: my med record on jan 26,2014(per police report, MD cleared me to be arrested)( Officer Coco blocked MD to check my chest pain with underlying heart failure):5900 w.olympic blvd,310-657-5900
5. 3/22/2019: Jackie Lacey's special assistant(sherry) was contacted, requested my atty to call her re: DA's misconduct
6. 3/23/2019: I filed a damage claim to city of los angeles( against LAFD professional standard and city atty) for Fraud/Deceit/denying civil right/defamation/emotional distress(claim #:c19-05363)
7. 3/25/2019: called Sheriff Complaint Office(800-698-talk,deputy alexander ) to check my complaint's progress re: Sexual Molestation by black male deputy at solo cell in LAC Jail(Twin Tower)'s solo cell(6th floor). I filed complaint during 2014,2015 2016. I was housed at solo cell because many inmates harassed me, stole my mattress/foods/assaults because I was only one thin older logical defenseless ASIAN inmate..some inmates seem to never have had a gracious father figure or brother figure,they just want to toy me around as fun... also checked Office of Inspector General(OIG.LAcounty.gov)
8.3/24/2019: contacted Dean at UC Berkeley School of Law( Erwin Chemerinsky) as well as Mr.Beck,Mr.Casselman,ShouseLaw,Mark Gregos etc
9.3/20/19: contacted Korean Community Center( Jeff Lee) & Korean Church Preacher(LaOpendoor.org) to speak up for me
10.3/25/19: contacted Korean Newspaper to place a Whole Page AD, to expose my wrongful jail/my life story($1000 per ad) as well as Editor at La Opinion(Jorge Macias) & koreaTimes and KoreaDaily.com ,Los Angeles Blade,Wehoville,KTLA,Foxnews etc
11.3/25/2019: Opened a new blog website (www.AffordableAssistant.net, AffordableLawyer.net) for 900# consultation line
*I was a citizen of Honor featured on Vallejo Herald tribune(2001) but that news article also contained I alone cured what Vallejo's Police Dept had failed upon, in a scale of 90% under big budget.. of course, Vallejo police put me in jail under " profit under false pretense, felony".. Upon a hearing, Judge threw away my case within 5 min..Judge couldn't hide his LAUGH !
**I was a homeless of Honor featured on Seattle times(2009) (www.HomelessID.com)
***LA Superior Court Judge declared I was incompetent to stand a trial and sent me to Metropolitan Mental Hospital for 4 months (that required a waiting time of 6 months to get into mental hospital)
**** Federal Deportation Judge(kevin riley) declared I was incompetent to represent myself, forced an obnoxious atty who won't do any job for me but I convinced a new judge that my DEPORTATION MUST BE STOPPED FOR NOW, BECAUSE SHE(JUDGE RUAN) found that I WAS A VICTIM OF LAPD /LAFD CORRUPTION OVER THE LONG TIME !!(www.FuckLAPD.com)
*****I was able to Dismiss LAC superior court Judge(debra crhistian, dept 94) under Stupidity and I earned her full respect!
******I was honored by Cal Governor(Jerry Brown) for inventing NEW STYLE OF EMAIL SERVICE 4 ALL CALIFORNIAN CITIZENS(www.permaID.com)
******* I was a #1 student/graduate at Korea's Harvard Univ(Seoul National Univ) and I got full scholarship and stipend at north carolina med school
******* I used to have a perfect PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY, now at age of 62y, after traumatic LAC jail experience downgraded my talents .
-------DICK JUSTICE & DICK CHANEY, MR TRUMP, USA! USA! USA !! SHAMELESS, CLUELESS,MERCEYLESS -----
3/27/2019: 1AM I called 911 supervisor (Binn,#G977), to file a complaint against Sgt Fox(#36630) re: He always threatened me to shut down my website(FuckLAPD.com), and He always told me he can fabricate a crime story, like Sgt Clark,to put me back to Jail Again, He is only one who assaulted me, won't let me go poop when I was in UCLA harbor med hospital,5150 room etc, I told 911 supervisor Binn that I have filed more than 300 complaints into LAPD internal affair since of 2006 and I am familiar with somehow...NOW I HEARD THAT SGT FOX WORKS FOR LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIR.
Binn won't understand when I said I was asked to contact "Classification" in LAPD internal affair... SHE WAS DUMB !
I call Sgt Fox as Sgt Fuck ! and when I visited Olympic Station during Christmas, I brought over a teddy bear gift ,Sgt Fox took it ...although I was not happy with any LAPD service from Olympic div, I thought that I should show gratitude , because the dispatched Sgt were instructed from upper level , to go against me. (specifically, officer Morse(from SF) utterly said that,citing "Dr.Noh!, I have to commit a crime because I was told not to take care of your crime issue from upper level)
3/27/2019: 1:30AM Lieutenant De Armon(#35359) called me because I was not happy with supervisor Binn. Lieutenant knows 911 watch commander (ms Miller). IT IS MY BEST COMPLIMENT THAT LIEUTENANT DE ARMON WAS ONE OF BEST LAPD I HAVE ENCOUNTERED ! I will call LAPD internal affair, to file a compliment...again, I don't give a compliment to LAPD that often , because it was not warranted! BEST COP found !
4/1/2019: I received a Letter from LAPD internal affair(dated 3/6/2019) re:CF#:18-000676(contact Classification Unit, Sgt Joe Ward,213-473-6739--->"Demonstrably False"(investigation result)
** called 213-473-6739--> "no longer in service",--> called Main line(213-486-0150)-->Left Message with CF#
4/6/2019: I received a Letter from City Atty(mike feuer), rejecting my Damage Claim( cited " 6months statutory limit")
4/5/2019 : I opened Homeless Websites( GreenHomeless.org, HomelessID.com): "Revolutionalize Homeless Cares to Success"
4/8/2019: I called Inspector General, spoke with secretary(Angelin) to have OIG call me back re: outstanding complaints filed with LAPD internal affair. I gave my phone# to call.(mandated !)
4/8/2019 : I called LAPD internal affair( ), Detective gelesky(? female) answered, asked "Who is calling?". I said "Dr.Noh", she put me on HOLD over 1 hr. So I called my district Council member's office(Cedillo), OIG(Bushman blatantly refused to call LAPD inernal affair and he has been like this all along,last time he even threatened me for possible putting his name on my website ---> then I called Police Commissioner office(Detective Chavez#35757) was very nice and took my message(Mrs debra Green was not in)-->I called FBI, let them hear through what LAPD internal affair's ON-Hold Music
FBI-LA has been taking my complaints over last several years. They know me by my name and phone # !
4/10/2019: Peace Parade's president(John Kim) asked me to call him !!
4/18/2019:
5/11/2019: dumping my properties from other rented room is Civil Matter!( Rampart Corruption 2019)(911 watch commander also dancing around)(nguyen#34595,#33290,#33684,#39555,#32256), called LAPD internal affair for Sgt Ward to call me back.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How John Duran as my Atty ruined my case by "No Show" on Hearing Day ($5k)
There's no need to expunge by spending 5k steve Noh <[email protected]>Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 12:22 PM to John Yes, u misunderstood. 18 emails r too much? It was like one bi statement, u don't have to nitpick unmeritous item. I approved ur weekend peace,don't mean it doesn't worry through weekend. Listen, U seem ignorant n uncompassionte w ill client. I have to write when i have energy. Im ready for filing a fee dispute. If u didn't clear of potential deportation on a foreigner, ur near sighted. Ur a fault Well, im bonafide incompetent, i told u. I want full refund, u don't seem understand my situation. All criminal atty will rule out potential deportation on foreigner client. THERE IS NO CHANCE TO B CONVICTED |
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL INTAKE 845 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017
April 18, 2019 Hee Young Noh 1143 xxxxx Ave Los Angeles, CA 90006
RE: Case Number: 19-O-14370 - John Jude Duran
Dear Hee Young Noh: We have received your complaint against one or more California attorney(s). We have assigned the number shown above to this matter; please reference this number in your communications with us. Your complaint will first be reviewed in the Intake Unit, and that review may take up to 60 days. If we need further information, we will contact you. We will keep you informed of any determination in this matter.
If you have not heard from us and want to know the status of your complaint, you may contact us by calling the State Bar’s toll-free complaint line at 800-843- 9053. Thank you for your patience.
Very truly yours,
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
April 18, 2019 Hee Young Noh 1143 xxxxx Ave Los Angeles, CA 90006
RE: Case Number: 19-O-14370 - John Jude Duran
Dear Hee Young Noh: We have received your complaint against one or more California attorney(s). We have assigned the number shown above to this matter; please reference this number in your communications with us. Your complaint will first be reviewed in the Intake Unit, and that review may take up to 60 days. If we need further information, we will contact you. We will keep you informed of any determination in this matter.
If you have not heard from us and want to know the status of your complaint, you may contact us by calling the State Bar’s toll-free complaint line at 800-843- 9053. Thank you for your patience.
Very truly yours,
OFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
John Duran is Despicable Immoral Human Trash :
Summary of emails thus farJohn Duran <[email protected]>Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 11:57 AM
to me, Craig, John
-------------------------
Dear Dr. Noh:
I asked you on Saturday to please be patient and let me respond to you after the weekend was over. You sent me 12 messages after that with many inaccuracies and misstatements. I will try and address as many as I can in this email.
You contacted me on September 14, 2015. You asked me to prepare a motion to withdraw plea for you. You never asked me and I never would have agreed to do anything else including suing the LAPD, LA City Hall, the LA County Sheriffs or Fire Department or subpoena any of their records. I would have told you NO if you had. To emphasize that I was very clear from the start, here is the text of the email that I sent to you right after we spoke. I have underlined and bolded the relevant portions which told you exactly what we were going to do and for what fees:
“It was nice speaking to you today. This is to confirm that I have run your credit card for $5,000 to prepare and file a motion for withdrawal of your plea. I wanted to clarify that IF our motion is successful, we will require an additional $5,000 to handle the underlying felony. That retainer would cover all work except trial by jury (if we had to do a trial). Trials are very rare. If the motion is granted, I will have you sign a written retainer that will explain the $5,000 covers handling the felony case and trial is billed separately at $500 per hour.
I also wanted to repeat what I told you over the phone. We are beyond the 180 days limitation for withdrawing a plea. This is going to be very difficult to achieve. However, I explained and you said you understood the risks involved. We are going to have to convince a judge to grant our motion beyond the 180 day limitation. We could lose on the technicality alone. But we will do our best to explain to the judge that you were in custody and very ill and thus could not meet the 180 day deadline. Assuming that the judge allows us to file the motion late, we are still going to have to prove ineffective assistance of counsel in order to have the plea withdrawn. And if that occurs, then the felony is reinstated. I understand that the felony was reduced to a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor plea bargain will be voided. And the felony will be back on the table along with the felony exposure consequences to your life including medical license. I just wanted to make sure you were fully informed about the return of the original potential consequences”.
I followed up our conversation by having you sign a written retainer explaining exactly what our fee agreement is. The very first paragraph states:
The undersigned, hereinafter referred to as “you” or “client” hereby retains Duran Law Group, a Professional Law Corporation, hereinafter referred to as”attorney”, to represent client in the following matter: Plea Withdrawal on case BA 420787.
The retainer then continues with the paragraph on fees:
Retainer is to be paid as follows: $5000 flat fee. Paid in full by credit card. If plea withdrawal is successful, client will pay $5,000 additional to handle disposition of underlying felony case.
I tried to discourage you on the phone by telling you how expensive this would be. I told you it would be $5,000 just to withdraw the plea and another $5,000 just to fight it. But you were determined and said you wanted to move forward even though I told you it would be difficult if not impossible since the 6 months had expired.
What you didn’t tell me is that you had immigration issues. I assumed you were a US Citizen. I discovered this when I was reviewing the files of the public defender. The public defender’s office had 3 full files on your case. The reason that the file was so extensive was because you were subjected to competency hearings. This was also something that you did not tell me at any time – namely, that you had mental health issues. You did not tell me that was the reason that you remained in custody for so long.
Now, regarding jail time, you are NOT going back to jail at this moment. Repeat. You are NOT going back to jail. You would only have to concern yourself with that issue IF the motion for withdrawal was granted and the original felony was restored. The maximum for a misdemeanor is one year in the county jail (which you have already served). However, the maximum for the original felony is 3 years state prison/county jail. The granting of the motion would restore the original felony – which is something that I don’t think you considered fully even though I advised you of this possibility on the phone and in writing by email.
So, now that I have reviewed all 3 files from your public defender, did the case research and drafted the motion here is what I conclude:
1. The motion for withdrawal should not be filed because:
a. The 180 day period expired and it would be very difficult to overcome the statutory deadline.
b.If the motion was granted you might have exposure to additional jail time if you were convicted of the felony or could not post bail.
c.If the motion was granted you might experience immigration consequences including deportation if you are convicted of the felony.
2. You did not inform me at the beginning of this case that you had mental health competency hearings during your case.
3.You did not inform me at the beginning of this case that you were not a US Citizen and therefore could suffer immigration consequences.
4.There is no refund. The retainer was stated to be a flat fee from the beginning. Even assuming that I was billing at $500 per hour, I have spent more than 10 hours on this case already.
I did suggest in the alternative that we look at having the misdemeanor expunged or removed from your record. This would be another way to bring finality to your criminal case.
At no time did I ever agree to prosecute the LAPD, get a subpoena to investigate the LAPD, hire a photoshop expert, sue or prosecute the Fire Department, sue Los Angeles city hall or any of the other ideas you presented in your emails.
You hired me on September 14, 2015. It is now October 12, 2015. It has been about 30 days. And I did exactly what I told you I would do: investigate and prepare a motion for withdrawal of plea. During my investigation into your case, I discovered many of these other thorny issues involving immigration, mental health competency hearings and the reversal of a misdemeanor disposition that lead me to conclude that it would NOT be in your best interests to file the motion. That is why I came up with the alternative of a misdemeanor expungement instead.
So, please do not be angry or upset. I am not “chickening out” as you stated in your email. You hired me to counsel you. And now that I have all the facts, it appears that your public defender did do what was best for you given that you had already been in jail for more than a misdemeanor maximum sentence. She probably advised you to take the misdemeanor plea so that you would be released from custody immediately and not suffer any immigration consequences. That was a reasonable way to proceed given the circumstances.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss. Thank you.
John J. Duran, Esq.
THE DURAN LAW GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
9000 W. Sunset Boulevard #710
West Hollywood, CA 90069
424-777-0007 Phone
323-417-4928 Fax
[email protected]
www.duranlawgroup.com
to me, Craig, John
-------------------------
Dear Dr. Noh:
I asked you on Saturday to please be patient and let me respond to you after the weekend was over. You sent me 12 messages after that with many inaccuracies and misstatements. I will try and address as many as I can in this email.
You contacted me on September 14, 2015. You asked me to prepare a motion to withdraw plea for you. You never asked me and I never would have agreed to do anything else including suing the LAPD, LA City Hall, the LA County Sheriffs or Fire Department or subpoena any of their records. I would have told you NO if you had. To emphasize that I was very clear from the start, here is the text of the email that I sent to you right after we spoke. I have underlined and bolded the relevant portions which told you exactly what we were going to do and for what fees:
“It was nice speaking to you today. This is to confirm that I have run your credit card for $5,000 to prepare and file a motion for withdrawal of your plea. I wanted to clarify that IF our motion is successful, we will require an additional $5,000 to handle the underlying felony. That retainer would cover all work except trial by jury (if we had to do a trial). Trials are very rare. If the motion is granted, I will have you sign a written retainer that will explain the $5,000 covers handling the felony case and trial is billed separately at $500 per hour.
I also wanted to repeat what I told you over the phone. We are beyond the 180 days limitation for withdrawing a plea. This is going to be very difficult to achieve. However, I explained and you said you understood the risks involved. We are going to have to convince a judge to grant our motion beyond the 180 day limitation. We could lose on the technicality alone. But we will do our best to explain to the judge that you were in custody and very ill and thus could not meet the 180 day deadline. Assuming that the judge allows us to file the motion late, we are still going to have to prove ineffective assistance of counsel in order to have the plea withdrawn. And if that occurs, then the felony is reinstated. I understand that the felony was reduced to a misdemeanor. That misdemeanor plea bargain will be voided. And the felony will be back on the table along with the felony exposure consequences to your life including medical license. I just wanted to make sure you were fully informed about the return of the original potential consequences”.
I followed up our conversation by having you sign a written retainer explaining exactly what our fee agreement is. The very first paragraph states:
The undersigned, hereinafter referred to as “you” or “client” hereby retains Duran Law Group, a Professional Law Corporation, hereinafter referred to as”attorney”, to represent client in the following matter: Plea Withdrawal on case BA 420787.
The retainer then continues with the paragraph on fees:
Retainer is to be paid as follows: $5000 flat fee. Paid in full by credit card. If plea withdrawal is successful, client will pay $5,000 additional to handle disposition of underlying felony case.
I tried to discourage you on the phone by telling you how expensive this would be. I told you it would be $5,000 just to withdraw the plea and another $5,000 just to fight it. But you were determined and said you wanted to move forward even though I told you it would be difficult if not impossible since the 6 months had expired.
What you didn’t tell me is that you had immigration issues. I assumed you were a US Citizen. I discovered this when I was reviewing the files of the public defender. The public defender’s office had 3 full files on your case. The reason that the file was so extensive was because you were subjected to competency hearings. This was also something that you did not tell me at any time – namely, that you had mental health issues. You did not tell me that was the reason that you remained in custody for so long.
Now, regarding jail time, you are NOT going back to jail at this moment. Repeat. You are NOT going back to jail. You would only have to concern yourself with that issue IF the motion for withdrawal was granted and the original felony was restored. The maximum for a misdemeanor is one year in the county jail (which you have already served). However, the maximum for the original felony is 3 years state prison/county jail. The granting of the motion would restore the original felony – which is something that I don’t think you considered fully even though I advised you of this possibility on the phone and in writing by email.
So, now that I have reviewed all 3 files from your public defender, did the case research and drafted the motion here is what I conclude:
1. The motion for withdrawal should not be filed because:
a. The 180 day period expired and it would be very difficult to overcome the statutory deadline.
b.If the motion was granted you might have exposure to additional jail time if you were convicted of the felony or could not post bail.
c.If the motion was granted you might experience immigration consequences including deportation if you are convicted of the felony.
2. You did not inform me at the beginning of this case that you had mental health competency hearings during your case.
3.You did not inform me at the beginning of this case that you were not a US Citizen and therefore could suffer immigration consequences.
4.There is no refund. The retainer was stated to be a flat fee from the beginning. Even assuming that I was billing at $500 per hour, I have spent more than 10 hours on this case already.
I did suggest in the alternative that we look at having the misdemeanor expunged or removed from your record. This would be another way to bring finality to your criminal case.
At no time did I ever agree to prosecute the LAPD, get a subpoena to investigate the LAPD, hire a photoshop expert, sue or prosecute the Fire Department, sue Los Angeles city hall or any of the other ideas you presented in your emails.
You hired me on September 14, 2015. It is now October 12, 2015. It has been about 30 days. And I did exactly what I told you I would do: investigate and prepare a motion for withdrawal of plea. During my investigation into your case, I discovered many of these other thorny issues involving immigration, mental health competency hearings and the reversal of a misdemeanor disposition that lead me to conclude that it would NOT be in your best interests to file the motion. That is why I came up with the alternative of a misdemeanor expungement instead.
So, please do not be angry or upset. I am not “chickening out” as you stated in your email. You hired me to counsel you. And now that I have all the facts, it appears that your public defender did do what was best for you given that you had already been in jail for more than a misdemeanor maximum sentence. She probably advised you to take the misdemeanor plea so that you would be released from custody immediately and not suffer any immigration consequences. That was a reasonable way to proceed given the circumstances.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss. Thank you.
John J. Duran, Esq.
THE DURAN LAW GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
9000 W. Sunset Boulevard #710
West Hollywood, CA 90069
424-777-0007 Phone
323-417-4928 Fax
[email protected]
www.duranlawgroup.com
There's no need to expunge by spendingp 5k
Steve Noh <[email protected]>
Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 12:22 PM
to John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, u misunderstood.
18 emails r too much? It was like one bi statement, u don't have to nitpick unmeritous item.
I approved ur weekend peace,don't mean it doesn't worry through weekend.
Listen,
U seem ignorant n uncompassionte w ill client.
I have to write when i have energy.
Im ready for filing a fee dispute. If u didn't clear of potential deportation on a foreigner, ur near sighted.
Ur a fault
Well, im bonafide incompetent, i told u.
I want full refund, u don't seem understand my situation.
All criminal atty will rule out potential deportation on foreigner client.
THERE IS NO CHANCE TO B CONVICTED
Steve Noh <[email protected]>
Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 12:22 PM
to John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, u misunderstood.
18 emails r too much? It was like one bi statement, u don't have to nitpick unmeritous item.
I approved ur weekend peace,don't mean it doesn't worry through weekend.
Listen,
U seem ignorant n uncompassionte w ill client.
I have to write when i have energy.
Im ready for filing a fee dispute. If u didn't clear of potential deportation on a foreigner, ur near sighted.
Ur a fault
Well, im bonafide incompetent, i told u.
I want full refund, u don't seem understand my situation.
All criminal atty will rule out potential deportation on foreigner client.
THERE IS NO CHANCE TO B CONVICTED
John Duran sent Inappropriate Unnecessary Insulting-to-his-client Email to my Adversity Atty, decided He Won't do Anything after He took $5K over the phone, over 5 mins.
now he complains this and that, I did not tell him... He is an atty who is in charge, He should have known by reading through my legal document and I also told him about my deportation detention (over near 6months) which caused me to seek hiring Atty later than 6 months' Statutory Limit, on 1st phone call. That is only Phone Call I had with him.. He wanted to spend Minimal Time and Efforts and, defrauded 'defenseless' ill client who did not have any energy nor mental stability under suicidal major depression. I told him that is the reason I couldn't come to his office in person for 1st time consultation..
Broadcasting Police Corruption in Ktown, Olympic Div, completely Corrupted !
steve noh11:41 AM (16 minutes ago)
to Steve, kang, me
Mr. Kang
I thought about this whole page AD,
now wish to run only 1/3 page
content:
I am a Korean Edition of Rodney King's Torture
www.KoreanVictim.com ((( Rodney King's pic))
( my name is hee young noh, entered/graduated Seoul National University with president awards, by having raised myself as an orphan, came to USA Med School on Full Scholarship(1984)
Since of 2006, I have been arrested and wrongfully jailed so many times
Now facing deportation after 37 years, I even had to live homeless with multiple serious medical issues
www.HomelessID.org (( my homeless ID card image)
Charges: assault & injury to paramedic(2014 wrongful imprisonment): police report was 100% false,and crime evidences were 'photo-shopped' fake evidences
LAC Injustice System: LAPD internal affair and LAFD professional Standard won't release my complaints filed around Sept 2014 yet !! THEY ARE GUILTY AND HIDING !
Please Help !
a) Korean Community Center's President
b) Korean Consulate
c)Peace Parade's president
d) all Koreans in USA
my fund-raising link: GoFundMe ( QR code)
=======================================
I have invented a new generation of Email /Web System, awarded by Cal Governor (jerry Brown) www.permaID.com
per my invention, I am offering Cheapest Website for Korean Business Owners
$100/lifetime service
www.Ktown360.com
www.permaID.net
your business website ID is : www.Ktown360.com/Biz-Ph#
e-Business got Simple !
Next Google got invented by a Korean Top Brain
www.Tangle360.com
I will help your business to get linked online, with minimal fees, including Setup gmail, how to use Google products, open Facebook/Twitter/Youtube etc
and eNewsletter and email marketing and web content writing and graphic designing and brochure delivery
Leave your Business' marketing to me !
to Steve, kang, me
Mr. Kang
I thought about this whole page AD,
now wish to run only 1/3 page
content:
I am a Korean Edition of Rodney King's Torture
www.KoreanVictim.com ((( Rodney King's pic))
( my name is hee young noh, entered/graduated Seoul National University with president awards, by having raised myself as an orphan, came to USA Med School on Full Scholarship(1984)
Since of 2006, I have been arrested and wrongfully jailed so many times
Now facing deportation after 37 years, I even had to live homeless with multiple serious medical issues
www.HomelessID.org (( my homeless ID card image)
Charges: assault & injury to paramedic(2014 wrongful imprisonment): police report was 100% false,and crime evidences were 'photo-shopped' fake evidences
LAC Injustice System: LAPD internal affair and LAFD professional Standard won't release my complaints filed around Sept 2014 yet !! THEY ARE GUILTY AND HIDING !
Please Help !
a) Korean Community Center's President
b) Korean Consulate
c)Peace Parade's president
d) all Koreans in USA
my fund-raising link: GoFundMe ( QR code)
=======================================
I have invented a new generation of Email /Web System, awarded by Cal Governor (jerry Brown) www.permaID.com
per my invention, I am offering Cheapest Website for Korean Business Owners
$100/lifetime service
www.Ktown360.com
www.permaID.net
your business website ID is : www.Ktown360.com/Biz-Ph#
e-Business got Simple !
Next Google got invented by a Korean Top Brain
www.Tangle360.com
I will help your business to get linked online, with minimal fees, including Setup gmail, how to use Google products, open Facebook/Twitter/Youtube etc
and eNewsletter and email marketing and web content writing and graphic designing and brochure delivery
Leave your Business' marketing to me !
The L.A. Riots: 25 years later (LA Times,2017)
On the afternoon of April 29, 1992, a jury in Ventura County acquitted four LAPD officers of beating Rodney G. King. The incident, caught on amateur videotape, had sparked national debate about police brutality and racial injustice. The verdict stunned Los Angeles, where angry crowds gathered on street corners across the city. The flash point was a single intersection in South L.A., but it was a scene eerily repeated in many parts of the city in the hours that followed.(Read More)
|
LAFD professional standard office's contact info:
Steve Noh <[email protected]>Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 3:36 PM
to John, Kenneth
Dear Atty Duran
Mr.Knighten(captain, LAFD professional standard) has been honest with my case,consistently saying he indeed completed his investigation on my case.
However, per its policy, those result on investigation is NOT available to me.
1.I contacted Mr. Knighten (who knows me beforehand as a Medical Doctor , LA citizen) around Oct 2014, from Ca state mental hospital.
He told me he called my public defender(Ginsburg) to encourage/support Dismissal on my case !!!!!!! with his superior's permission to do so !!!!! AFTER his investigation with paramedic.
As of 2 weeks ago, I double confirmed that is true, per knighten.
2.which means my innocence was established by Oct,2014....that fact was based on Mr. Knighten's discovery...which also mean that Accusing LAFD somehow 'confessed' to Mr.Knighten .
3.Feb 2015, During plea bargain negotiation...DA said he would confirm whether that LAFD indeed got assaulted by me or not, in order for him to offer me a misdemeanor plea....a week after, DA came back and offered to a lower conviction of "Resistence to arrest". which means DA knew it....Evidence was 'withheld' knowingly.!!!
Ginsburg advised me to take that plea, because INS will not grab me when I get released, with that conviction, she said she got advised from her fellow public defender who is in charge of INS matter.
4.I have informed that ms. Ginsburg must work with mr. knighten for dismissal,but she failed to do so..She said Knighten called her april,2014 (not oct 2014: I was not able to call anyone outside from LAC jail due to no fund, however, mental hospital gives out $10 per month for inmates/mental patients to use....that was Oct 2014)
...she seemed confused,but won't spend enough time to get a scoop of my case which is a teamed-up LACITY employees' corruption,not just another assault case.
5.as I mentioned, LAC DA's Just Integrity Unit got my complaint letter. Sgt Bob Maus will notify me when he get my letter which takes 3 weeks or so to process, as well as LAC Grand Jury.
There is a chance LAC DA might prosecute those involved LAPD +LAFD before even we try on re-trial if plea gets withdrawn, or collaterally.
best,
steve noh
Steve Noh <[email protected]>Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 3:36 PM
to John, Kenneth
Dear Atty Duran
Mr.Knighten(captain, LAFD professional standard) has been honest with my case,consistently saying he indeed completed his investigation on my case.
However, per its policy, those result on investigation is NOT available to me.
1.I contacted Mr. Knighten (who knows me beforehand as a Medical Doctor , LA citizen) around Oct 2014, from Ca state mental hospital.
He told me he called my public defender(Ginsburg) to encourage/support Dismissal on my case !!!!!!! with his superior's permission to do so !!!!! AFTER his investigation with paramedic.
As of 2 weeks ago, I double confirmed that is true, per knighten.
2.which means my innocence was established by Oct,2014....that fact was based on Mr. Knighten's discovery...which also mean that Accusing LAFD somehow 'confessed' to Mr.Knighten .
3.Feb 2015, During plea bargain negotiation...DA said he would confirm whether that LAFD indeed got assaulted by me or not, in order for him to offer me a misdemeanor plea....a week after, DA came back and offered to a lower conviction of "Resistence to arrest". which means DA knew it....Evidence was 'withheld' knowingly.!!!
Ginsburg advised me to take that plea, because INS will not grab me when I get released, with that conviction, she said she got advised from her fellow public defender who is in charge of INS matter.
4.I have informed that ms. Ginsburg must work with mr. knighten for dismissal,but she failed to do so..She said Knighten called her april,2014 (not oct 2014: I was not able to call anyone outside from LAC jail due to no fund, however, mental hospital gives out $10 per month for inmates/mental patients to use....that was Oct 2014)
...she seemed confused,but won't spend enough time to get a scoop of my case which is a teamed-up LACITY employees' corruption,not just another assault case.
5.as I mentioned, LAC DA's Just Integrity Unit got my complaint letter. Sgt Bob Maus will notify me when he get my letter which takes 3 weeks or so to process, as well as LAC Grand Jury.
There is a chance LAC DA might prosecute those involved LAPD +LAFD before even we try on re-trial if plea gets withdrawn, or collaterally.
best,
steve noh
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/complaint/standard/index
FreedomPop.com offers Affordable Cell Phone & Hot Spot Service, by using ATT network
Police Corruptions:
The violation of state and federal laws or the violation of individuals' constitutional rights by police officers; also when police commit crimes for personal gain.
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is "procedural" when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; "criminal" when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; "unconstitutional" when it refers to police who violate a citizen's civil rights; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical or deadly force, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.
Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).
Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.
Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the justice department. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.
Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere negligence or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.
Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This immunity is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear of reprisal. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is "procedural" when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; "criminal" when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; "unconstitutional" when it refers to police who violate a citizen's civil rights; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical or deadly force, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.
Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).
Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.
Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of the justice department. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.
Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere negligence or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.
Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This immunity is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear of reprisal. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).
Are LASD gangs terrorizing communities? L.A. County has no idea. It better find out
A Times story last July reported on allegations that secret cliques of violent, tattooed sheriff’s deputies continue to operate in stations around Los Angeles County and that one may have played a role in a fatal shooting in 2016. County leaders reacted with alarm, and appropriately so, because it had been generally thought that these sorts of dangerous deputy gangs had been stamped out following a series of reforms several years earlier. It was necessary to find out if they had returned, or if indeed they had never left. Then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell promised a study and he was immediately joined by county lawyers, the inspector general and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission in a task force to get to the bottom of the issue. We expected to be learning their preliminary findings just about now.
So it was startling to hear what the Board of Supervisors and the commission had to say about the status of the inquiry in recent days. Had it been completed? No. Was it in progress? Kind of, but not really. What had happened to it? No one was quite sure. The task force had agreed at some point to hire a consultant to do the real work, and they had spent some weeks interviewing candidates but then stopped. They were somehow slowed by the 2018 sheriff election — although just why that would be the case is unclear. New Sheriff Alex Villanueva, in office since December, said no one had informed him about the process or asked him to participate.
Meanwhile, a brawl last September at the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s station involving a group of deputies that called themselves the Banditos resulted in the hospitalization of some younger members of the department, as reported by WitnessLA.com. Injured deputies filed legal claims against the county last month.
So much for the quaint notion that violent deputy cliques no longer exist.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has a long history of violent gang-like deputy groups beginning in the 1970s.
inRead invented
So it was startling to hear what the Board of Supervisors and the commission had to say about the status of the inquiry in recent days. Had it been completed? No. Was it in progress? Kind of, but not really. What had happened to it? No one was quite sure. The task force had agreed at some point to hire a consultant to do the real work, and they had spent some weeks interviewing candidates but then stopped. They were somehow slowed by the 2018 sheriff election — although just why that would be the case is unclear. New Sheriff Alex Villanueva, in office since December, said no one had informed him about the process or asked him to participate.
Meanwhile, a brawl last September at the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s station involving a group of deputies that called themselves the Banditos resulted in the hospitalization of some younger members of the department, as reported by WitnessLA.com. Injured deputies filed legal claims against the county last month.
So much for the quaint notion that violent deputy cliques no longer exist.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has a long history of violent gang-like deputy groups beginning in the 1970s.
inRead invented
Sheriff’s Department killing more misconduct investigations under Villanueva, report finds
Officials working under Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva have been inactivating internal investigations of department personnel at a high rate, with most of the cancellations not conforming with department policies, according to a report issued Friday by the Sheriff’s Department’s chief watchdog.
A handful of the 45 investigations inactivated from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28 involve criminal allegations such as child abuse, domestic violence and having sexual relations with an inmate, according to the report by Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, the interim leader of the Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General. Most of the other cases involve allegations of policy violations such as sleeping on duty and using derogatory language.
The inspector general also noted that other changes to employee discipline have been made in recent months, including cases in which the department moved to fire deputies for misconduct — including brandishing a weapon while intoxicated and fraternizing with a member of a criminal street gang — before entering into settlements that allowed the deputies to keep their jobs and serve days of suspension instead.
Villanueva, who has talked openly about being wrongfully disciplined as a deputy, has focused much of his public efforts on making sure deputies are treated fairly. He has said in recent statements to the county Board of Supervisors that he believes his predecessor, Jim McDonnell, opened too many administrative investigations against employees, the report noted.
The report sparked condemnation Friday from some members of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, with one member calling it “jaw-dropping.”
“To have such a large number of inactivations is — literally — to cover the public’s eyes on these matters before the truth comes out. It is the exact opposite of transparency,” Commissioner Hernán Vera, a business litigator, wrote in an email.
Castro-Silva wrote that, in early February, his office “observed a sharp increase” in inactivated administrative investigations in the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff’s officials told the inspector general’s staff that there was a department directive in mid-December that instructed chiefs, directors and captains to “reevaluate all open administrative investigations to determine whether any of them should be inactivated.”
The inspector general found that the number of cases that were made inactive in January and February was considerably higher than in the fourth quarter of 2018, when only 10 investigations were inactivated, according to the report. Most of the cases involve sworn officers at the rank of deputy, while a handful pertain to custody assistants and civilian employees.
The Sheriff’s Department, in a response appended to the report, did not dispute any of the inspector general’s findings but said the report provided a “superficial snapshot” of cases.
“The current administration is steadfast in ensuring a fair and balanced disciplinary process for its sworn and civilian employees. Accordingly, as it relates to administrative investigations, as new information arises that mandates a different course of action be taken, it is the duty of the department executives to respond in a manner that is in the best interest of both the employee and the department,” the response said.
Sheriff’s Department spokesman Capt. Darren Harris said he had no comment beyond what was already provided in the department’s official response to the report.
The inspector general’s office, which has access to internal Sheriff’s Department files, generated the report in response to the Board of Supervisors’ motion March 12 asking for information about outcomes and dispositions on disciplinary actions by the department.
Department policy allows a “decision-maker” such as a chief or division director, under limited circumstances, to send a memo to the captain of the Internal Affairs Bureau requesting that a case be inactivated and detailing the reasons for the change, according to the report. Once a case is inactivated, the investigation stops and no findings are made.
A case may be canceled if the subject of the investigation leaves the department, if a complainant withdraws a complaint or refuses to cooperate, or if a complainant’s allegations, even if found to be true, would not constitute a violation of law or policy, the report says.
But the inspector general found that 31 of the 45 inactivated investigations did not meet any of those criteria and were closed without officials providing a detailed explanation, such as noting the emergence of new evidence. In some cases, policy violations were reclassified as “training issues.”
In one instance, a criminal case alleging cruel and unusual punishment was filed against several employees after a naked inmate suspected of secreting narcotics was tethered to a wall for a long period of time. The report says that after after the criminal case was dismissed, a chief requested that the Internal Affairs Bureau launch an investigation into potential policy violations related to tying inmates to fixed objects.
The chief was replaced, and in January, the case was canceled after “a review of the case and circumstances,” according to the report. The report says that the inactivation memo does not include further details and that it is unclear whether any investigation took place.
In another case, a supervisor discovered drawers containing more than 200 inmate requests or grievances that were about a year old and had not been addressed. A sergeant who had previously been disciplined for misconduct involving inmate care was identified as being possibly responsible for some of the buried complaints, but the investigation into him was inactivated after a chief determined no policy violation had occurred. It was unclear what evidence led to the chief’s decision, the report said.
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who has publicly criticized Villanueva over his decision to reinstate a deputy who was fired for violating policies regarding domestic violence and dishonesty, said the report renews her concern about the department’s commitment to public safety.
“I didn’t think I could be further shocked by the actions of the sheriff,” Kuehl said. “The things some of these deputies were investigated for were criminal, so to simply terminate an investigation is very troubling.”
Priscilla Ocen, a Loyola Law School professor and member of the oversight commission, said she believes the department is disregarding due process by stopping administrative investigations before they’re finished.
“An investigation is due process. Development of the facts and evidence is due process,” she said. “What Villanueva is doing is denying due process to communities when there are allegations of Sheriff’s Department misconduct.”
The department also made disciplinary modifications to 21 cases in which there were findings of wrongdoing.
In October, the department moved to discharge a deputy for driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15% and brandishing a firearm while intoxicated. After a Skelly hearing — a pre-disciplinary meeting in which a deputy can respond to allegations against him or her — the department allowed the deputy to remain employed and serve a 25-day suspension, while the findings were kept intact, according to the report.
Another deputy was found to have repeatedly punched and shocked with a Taser a naked person who was no longer acting aggressively, resulting in an initial decision in October to suspend the deputy for 15 days for using unreasonable force. After a grievance hearing, a settlement resulted in the deputy serving a three-day suspension while the force violations were changed to “unfounded.”
Spokespeople for the department have emphasized that there is nothing unusual, under any sheriff, about initial disciplinary decisions being changed after employees are afforded due process and the chance to address allegations against them.
In its response to the inspector general’s report, the department said the grievance process, which could include modifications to discipline, “is a crucial component in maintaining an equitable disciplinary process.”
A handful of the 45 investigations inactivated from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28 involve criminal allegations such as child abuse, domestic violence and having sexual relations with an inmate, according to the report by Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, the interim leader of the Los Angeles County Office of Inspector General. Most of the other cases involve allegations of policy violations such as sleeping on duty and using derogatory language.
The inspector general also noted that other changes to employee discipline have been made in recent months, including cases in which the department moved to fire deputies for misconduct — including brandishing a weapon while intoxicated and fraternizing with a member of a criminal street gang — before entering into settlements that allowed the deputies to keep their jobs and serve days of suspension instead.
Villanueva, who has talked openly about being wrongfully disciplined as a deputy, has focused much of his public efforts on making sure deputies are treated fairly. He has said in recent statements to the county Board of Supervisors that he believes his predecessor, Jim McDonnell, opened too many administrative investigations against employees, the report noted.
The report sparked condemnation Friday from some members of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, with one member calling it “jaw-dropping.”
“To have such a large number of inactivations is — literally — to cover the public’s eyes on these matters before the truth comes out. It is the exact opposite of transparency,” Commissioner Hernán Vera, a business litigator, wrote in an email.
Castro-Silva wrote that, in early February, his office “observed a sharp increase” in inactivated administrative investigations in the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff’s officials told the inspector general’s staff that there was a department directive in mid-December that instructed chiefs, directors and captains to “reevaluate all open administrative investigations to determine whether any of them should be inactivated.”
The inspector general found that the number of cases that were made inactive in January and February was considerably higher than in the fourth quarter of 2018, when only 10 investigations were inactivated, according to the report. Most of the cases involve sworn officers at the rank of deputy, while a handful pertain to custody assistants and civilian employees.
The Sheriff’s Department, in a response appended to the report, did not dispute any of the inspector general’s findings but said the report provided a “superficial snapshot” of cases.
“The current administration is steadfast in ensuring a fair and balanced disciplinary process for its sworn and civilian employees. Accordingly, as it relates to administrative investigations, as new information arises that mandates a different course of action be taken, it is the duty of the department executives to respond in a manner that is in the best interest of both the employee and the department,” the response said.
Sheriff’s Department spokesman Capt. Darren Harris said he had no comment beyond what was already provided in the department’s official response to the report.
The inspector general’s office, which has access to internal Sheriff’s Department files, generated the report in response to the Board of Supervisors’ motion March 12 asking for information about outcomes and dispositions on disciplinary actions by the department.
Department policy allows a “decision-maker” such as a chief or division director, under limited circumstances, to send a memo to the captain of the Internal Affairs Bureau requesting that a case be inactivated and detailing the reasons for the change, according to the report. Once a case is inactivated, the investigation stops and no findings are made.
A case may be canceled if the subject of the investigation leaves the department, if a complainant withdraws a complaint or refuses to cooperate, or if a complainant’s allegations, even if found to be true, would not constitute a violation of law or policy, the report says.
But the inspector general found that 31 of the 45 inactivated investigations did not meet any of those criteria and were closed without officials providing a detailed explanation, such as noting the emergence of new evidence. In some cases, policy violations were reclassified as “training issues.”
In one instance, a criminal case alleging cruel and unusual punishment was filed against several employees after a naked inmate suspected of secreting narcotics was tethered to a wall for a long period of time. The report says that after after the criminal case was dismissed, a chief requested that the Internal Affairs Bureau launch an investigation into potential policy violations related to tying inmates to fixed objects.
The chief was replaced, and in January, the case was canceled after “a review of the case and circumstances,” according to the report. The report says that the inactivation memo does not include further details and that it is unclear whether any investigation took place.
In another case, a supervisor discovered drawers containing more than 200 inmate requests or grievances that were about a year old and had not been addressed. A sergeant who had previously been disciplined for misconduct involving inmate care was identified as being possibly responsible for some of the buried complaints, but the investigation into him was inactivated after a chief determined no policy violation had occurred. It was unclear what evidence led to the chief’s decision, the report said.
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who has publicly criticized Villanueva over his decision to reinstate a deputy who was fired for violating policies regarding domestic violence and dishonesty, said the report renews her concern about the department’s commitment to public safety.
“I didn’t think I could be further shocked by the actions of the sheriff,” Kuehl said. “The things some of these deputies were investigated for were criminal, so to simply terminate an investigation is very troubling.”
Priscilla Ocen, a Loyola Law School professor and member of the oversight commission, said she believes the department is disregarding due process by stopping administrative investigations before they’re finished.
“An investigation is due process. Development of the facts and evidence is due process,” she said. “What Villanueva is doing is denying due process to communities when there are allegations of Sheriff’s Department misconduct.”
The department also made disciplinary modifications to 21 cases in which there were findings of wrongdoing.
In October, the department moved to discharge a deputy for driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15% and brandishing a firearm while intoxicated. After a Skelly hearing — a pre-disciplinary meeting in which a deputy can respond to allegations against him or her — the department allowed the deputy to remain employed and serve a 25-day suspension, while the findings were kept intact, according to the report.
Another deputy was found to have repeatedly punched and shocked with a Taser a naked person who was no longer acting aggressively, resulting in an initial decision in October to suspend the deputy for 15 days for using unreasonable force. After a grievance hearing, a settlement resulted in the deputy serving a three-day suspension while the force violations were changed to “unfounded.”
Spokespeople for the department have emphasized that there is nothing unusual, under any sheriff, about initial disciplinary decisions being changed after employees are afforded due process and the chance to address allegations against them.
In its response to the inspector general’s report, the department said the grievance process, which could include modifications to discipline, “is a crucial component in maintaining an equitable disciplinary process.”
Deputy D.A. becomes latest to challenge Jackie Lacey
A Los Angeles County deputy district attorney announced plans Wednesday to challenge Jackie Lacey in the 2020 election, making him the second insurgent candidate promising to bring a more progressive bent to the county’s top law enforcement post.
Joseph Iniguez, a 33-year-old prosecutor currently trying cases in the Alhambra courthouse, said that although he respects Lacey, he believes she has prevented the district attorney’s office from leading the country in the kinds of criminal justice reforms that have sprouted under other progressive prosecutors in Philadelphia and San Francisco.
“It’s time we ask ourselves some basic questions. Why are people of color arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated more than any other population in L.A. County?” he asked in a video released Wednesday morning announcing his candidacy. “Why do we continue to treat addiction as a crime, instead of a disease?”
A Southern California native who previously worked as a defense attorney in Riverside County and as a high school teacher in La Puente, Iniguez was admitted to the California State Bar in 2012 and joined the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office in 2015.
Asked about his relative inexperience, Iniguez said his youth and background will allow him to bring an alternative perspective to the district attorney’s office.
“I understand what it’s like to be on the other side,” he said in a separate interview with The Times, referring to his time as a defense attorney. “I know what it’s like to be with police officers on the street in their patrol car, and I know what it’s like to be with a prosecutor sitting with your victims. In the year 2047, when I’m the age of Jackie Lacey, what do I want the system to look like? What I decided is I can’t sit by and wait.”
Lacey announced her reelection bid this year and has already garnered a slew of endorsements from political heavyweights, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, U.S. Reps. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) and Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia and four members of the county Board of Supervisors.
Her early campaign, however, has not been without headaches. Last month, a Times investigation found Lacey had received a number of questionable campaign contributions from people accused of serious crimes or relatives and associates of defendants implicated in severe wrongdoing.
The donors included the parents of a Sherman Oaks man awaiting trial on murder charges, a chiropractor facing insurance fraud charges in Orange County and a Sun Valley man convicted of trying to smuggle missile parts to Iran. Lacey’s campaign returned $13,000 in donations after being contacted by The Times.
Iniguez criticized Lacey for being too cozy with defense attorneys who had contributed to her campaigns in the past. He said he was working in the same Van Nuys courthouse where an off-duty firefighter was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor after choking someone unconscious during a 2015 Halloween clash.
The firefighter’s attorney, Michael Goldstein, had previously served as Lacey’s campaign finance director and donated thousands to her political accounts. The firefighter had originally faced up to seven years in prison but was granted probation, over the protests of the veteran Los Angeles police detective who investigated the case.
“When defense attorneys are donating to the district attorney, and those individuals are getting better outcomes, that’s a problem,” said Iniguez, who stopped short of promising to decline donations from defense attorneys.
At the time of the controversy, the district attorney’s office issued a statement to The Times saying Goldstein’s "relationship with [Lacey] had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution” of the case.
Joseph Iniguez, a 33-year-old prosecutor currently trying cases in the Alhambra courthouse, said that although he respects Lacey, he believes she has prevented the district attorney’s office from leading the country in the kinds of criminal justice reforms that have sprouted under other progressive prosecutors in Philadelphia and San Francisco.
“It’s time we ask ourselves some basic questions. Why are people of color arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated more than any other population in L.A. County?” he asked in a video released Wednesday morning announcing his candidacy. “Why do we continue to treat addiction as a crime, instead of a disease?”
A Southern California native who previously worked as a defense attorney in Riverside County and as a high school teacher in La Puente, Iniguez was admitted to the California State Bar in 2012 and joined the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office in 2015.
Asked about his relative inexperience, Iniguez said his youth and background will allow him to bring an alternative perspective to the district attorney’s office.
“I understand what it’s like to be on the other side,” he said in a separate interview with The Times, referring to his time as a defense attorney. “I know what it’s like to be with police officers on the street in their patrol car, and I know what it’s like to be with a prosecutor sitting with your victims. In the year 2047, when I’m the age of Jackie Lacey, what do I want the system to look like? What I decided is I can’t sit by and wait.”
Lacey announced her reelection bid this year and has already garnered a slew of endorsements from political heavyweights, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, U.S. Reps. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) and Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia and four members of the county Board of Supervisors.
Her early campaign, however, has not been without headaches. Last month, a Times investigation found Lacey had received a number of questionable campaign contributions from people accused of serious crimes or relatives and associates of defendants implicated in severe wrongdoing.
The donors included the parents of a Sherman Oaks man awaiting trial on murder charges, a chiropractor facing insurance fraud charges in Orange County and a Sun Valley man convicted of trying to smuggle missile parts to Iran. Lacey’s campaign returned $13,000 in donations after being contacted by The Times.
Iniguez criticized Lacey for being too cozy with defense attorneys who had contributed to her campaigns in the past. He said he was working in the same Van Nuys courthouse where an off-duty firefighter was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor after choking someone unconscious during a 2015 Halloween clash.
The firefighter’s attorney, Michael Goldstein, had previously served as Lacey’s campaign finance director and donated thousands to her political accounts. The firefighter had originally faced up to seven years in prison but was granted probation, over the protests of the veteran Los Angeles police detective who investigated the case.
“When defense attorneys are donating to the district attorney, and those individuals are getting better outcomes, that’s a problem,” said Iniguez, who stopped short of promising to decline donations from defense attorneys.
At the time of the controversy, the district attorney’s office issued a statement to The Times saying Goldstein’s "relationship with [Lacey] had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution” of the case.
2015 salaries for Los Angeles County Employees :
NameJob titleRegular payTotal payBenefitsTotal pay &
benefitsDORIAN DUNLAPLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$434.23$434.23$13.03$447.26CYNDIA O'NEALRECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$436.53$436.53$13.09$449.62SARAH SIMSINTERMEDIATE CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015-$0.04$440.15$13,915.77$14,355.92ERIC HARTMANCIVILIAN INVESTIGATOR
Los Angeles County, 2015$441.41$441.41$0.00$441.41NICOLE FISSLABORATORY ASSISTANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$427.58$441.74$0.00$441.74ALMA SANCHEZINTERMEDIATE TYPIST-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$442.20$442.20$0.00$442.20WENDY MEDEIROSCASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$444.21$444.21$13.34$457.55ROBERTA ARANAENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST I
Los Angeles County, 2015$444.47$444.47$0.00$444.47TIMOTHY INIGUEZPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.24$449.24$13.47$462.71Hasmik ShahnazaryanACCOUNTANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.60$449.60$0.00$449.60BRANDON REINAFIRE SUPPRESSION AID
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.68$449.68$13.49$463.17LINA NOLASCOCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$442.41$449.89$12.88$462.77JOSEPH WETZLERMEMBER, PRODUCTIVITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Los Angeles County, 2015$450.00$450.00$0.00$450.00MARY PUGHCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$451.33$451.33$13.15$464.48WILLIAM MARTINEZLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$452.32$452.32$13.57$465.89JESSICA BOARDMANPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$452.43$452.43$13.57$466.00CHARLES FERRARODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$452.89$13.59$466.48HARRY MORTONDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$452.89$13.59$466.48VERONICA MITRICASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$454.65$454.65$13.64$468.29GABRIELLE LANGFORDSECRETARY III
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$455.00$9,548.20$10,003.20GEORGE FISHSENIOR APPLICATION DEVELOPER
Los Angeles County, 2015-$0.17$457.33$3,154.76$3,612.09CATHERINE BURRELLPOOL MANAGER
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.57$457.40$13.71$471.11DONALD BUSCHDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$458.11$13.74$471.85HERBERT JAMES IVDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$458.11$13.74$471.85LUCIUS KHOODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$459.11$13.77$472.88MANUEL TORRES JRSTUDENT PROFESSIONAL WORKER I
Los Angeles County, 2015$461.40$461.40$13.84$475.24ROBERT MEJIADEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$462.10$13.86$475.96JEONNI SWINTCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$455.36$463.05$13.26$476.31JASON DEBONISPHYSICIAN, MD, EMERGENCY ROOM
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.60$463.60$13.91$477.51SETH BRINDISPHYSICIAN, MD, EMERGENCY ROOM
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.60$463.60$0.00$463.60DOMINICK CLINESNURSING ATTENDANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.70$463.70$13.91$477.61VICTORIA FIGUEROANURSING ATTENDANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$464.44$1,300.06$1,764.50IZOLDA SIGAL-LIBERMANCHILDREN SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$464.83$51,399.55$51,864.38REBECCA WRIGHTCASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$465.89$465.89$13.97$479.86ALFRED ALVAREZDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$466.09$13.98$480.07MATTHEW DUNLOPDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$466.09$13.98$480.07ELMA SHAKHULYANCHILDREN'S SOCIAL WORKER TRAINEE
Los Angeles County, 2015$466.52$466.52$0.00$466.52DAVID MOTTSDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$467.09$0.00$467.09SCOTT FORNARODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$467.09$14.01$481.10GERARD WATSONLOCKER ROOM ATTENDANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$468.00$468.00$14.04$482.04IMELDA AGUAYOCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$461.27$468.96$13.43$482.39OLIVER STIOVIDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$471.15$14.13$485.28JOSE CASTILLORECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$340.22$471.69$14.15$485.84SASHA GOFFRECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$471.90$471.90$14.15$486.05FRANCISCO CHAVEZLOCKER ROOM ATTENDANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$472.50$472.50$14.17$486.67CARMINA DE SANTIAGOPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$473.09$473.09$14.19$487.28JENNIFER ANGERCONSULTING SPECIALIST,M.D.
Los Angeles County, 2015$474.00$474.00$14.22$488.22TERESA GONZALESSENIOR SECRETARY III
Los Angeles County, 2015$474.82$474.82$0.00$474.82PETER SMILEYLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$475.06$475.06$14.25$489.31JESSICA MORA-RIVERACLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$467.19$475.08$13.60$488.68
benefitsDORIAN DUNLAPLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$434.23$434.23$13.03$447.26CYNDIA O'NEALRECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$436.53$436.53$13.09$449.62SARAH SIMSINTERMEDIATE CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015-$0.04$440.15$13,915.77$14,355.92ERIC HARTMANCIVILIAN INVESTIGATOR
Los Angeles County, 2015$441.41$441.41$0.00$441.41NICOLE FISSLABORATORY ASSISTANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$427.58$441.74$0.00$441.74ALMA SANCHEZINTERMEDIATE TYPIST-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$442.20$442.20$0.00$442.20WENDY MEDEIROSCASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$444.21$444.21$13.34$457.55ROBERTA ARANAENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST I
Los Angeles County, 2015$444.47$444.47$0.00$444.47TIMOTHY INIGUEZPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.24$449.24$13.47$462.71Hasmik ShahnazaryanACCOUNTANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.60$449.60$0.00$449.60BRANDON REINAFIRE SUPPRESSION AID
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.68$449.68$13.49$463.17LINA NOLASCOCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$442.41$449.89$12.88$462.77JOSEPH WETZLERMEMBER, PRODUCTIVITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Los Angeles County, 2015$450.00$450.00$0.00$450.00MARY PUGHCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$451.33$451.33$13.15$464.48WILLIAM MARTINEZLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$452.32$452.32$13.57$465.89JESSICA BOARDMANPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$452.43$452.43$13.57$466.00CHARLES FERRARODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$452.89$13.59$466.48HARRY MORTONDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$452.89$13.59$466.48VERONICA MITRICASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$454.65$454.65$13.64$468.29GABRIELLE LANGFORDSECRETARY III
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$455.00$9,548.20$10,003.20GEORGE FISHSENIOR APPLICATION DEVELOPER
Los Angeles County, 2015-$0.17$457.33$3,154.76$3,612.09CATHERINE BURRELLPOOL MANAGER
Los Angeles County, 2015$449.57$457.40$13.71$471.11DONALD BUSCHDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$458.11$13.74$471.85HERBERT JAMES IVDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$458.11$13.74$471.85LUCIUS KHOODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$459.11$13.77$472.88MANUEL TORRES JRSTUDENT PROFESSIONAL WORKER I
Los Angeles County, 2015$461.40$461.40$13.84$475.24ROBERT MEJIADEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$462.10$13.86$475.96JEONNI SWINTCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$455.36$463.05$13.26$476.31JASON DEBONISPHYSICIAN, MD, EMERGENCY ROOM
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.60$463.60$13.91$477.51SETH BRINDISPHYSICIAN, MD, EMERGENCY ROOM
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.60$463.60$0.00$463.60DOMINICK CLINESNURSING ATTENDANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$463.70$463.70$13.91$477.61VICTORIA FIGUEROANURSING ATTENDANT I
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$464.44$1,300.06$1,764.50IZOLDA SIGAL-LIBERMANCHILDREN SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$464.83$51,399.55$51,864.38REBECCA WRIGHTCASHIER-CLERK
Los Angeles County, 2015$465.89$465.89$13.97$479.86ALFRED ALVAREZDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$466.09$13.98$480.07MATTHEW DUNLOPDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$466.09$13.98$480.07ELMA SHAKHULYANCHILDREN'S SOCIAL WORKER TRAINEE
Los Angeles County, 2015$466.52$466.52$0.00$466.52DAVID MOTTSDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$467.09$0.00$467.09SCOTT FORNARODEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$467.09$14.01$481.10GERARD WATSONLOCKER ROOM ATTENDANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$468.00$468.00$14.04$482.04IMELDA AGUAYOCLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$461.27$468.96$13.43$482.39OLIVER STIOVIDEPUTY SHERIFF, NC HOURLY ONLY
Los Angeles County, 2015$0.00$471.15$14.13$485.28JOSE CASTILLORECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$340.22$471.69$14.15$485.84SASHA GOFFRECREATION SERVICES LEADER
Los Angeles County, 2015$471.90$471.90$14.15$486.05FRANCISCO CHAVEZLOCKER ROOM ATTENDANT
Los Angeles County, 2015$472.50$472.50$14.17$486.67CARMINA DE SANTIAGOPOOL LIFEGUARD
Los Angeles County, 2015$473.09$473.09$14.19$487.28JENNIFER ANGERCONSULTING SPECIALIST,M.D.
Los Angeles County, 2015$474.00$474.00$14.22$488.22TERESA GONZALESSENIOR SECRETARY III
Los Angeles County, 2015$474.82$474.82$0.00$474.82PETER SMILEYLAKE LIFEGUARD, PARKS & REC
Los Angeles County, 2015$475.06$475.06$14.25$489.31JESSICA MORA-RIVERACLERK,NC
Los Angeles County, 2015$467.19$475.08$13.60$488.68
how 2 sue gov ?
tort
/tôrt/
noun
LAW
a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
"public nuisance is a crime as well as a tort"
Tort LawREVIEWED BY WILL KENTON
Updated Jul 20, 2018
What is the Tort Law
Tort law is the area of the law that covers most civil suits. Generally, every claim that arises in civil court, with the exception of contractual disputes, falls under tort law. The concept of this area of law is to redress a wrong done to a person and provide relief from the wrongful acts of others, usually by awarding monetary damages as compensation. The original intent of tort is to provide full compensation for proved harms. Lawsuits involving contracts fall under contract law.
Tort law requires those who are found to be at fault for harming others to compensate the victims. Typical harms include the loss of past or future income, payment of medical expenses, payment for pain and suffering, and may also include additional punitive damages that are meant to punish the plaintiff in excess of full compensation.
What is a Tort Case?
Tort law determines whether a person should be held legally accountable for an injury against another, as well as what type of compensation the injured party is entitled to.
The four elements to every successful tort case are: duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. For a tort claim to be well-founded, there must have been a breach of duty made by the defendant against the plaintiff, which resulted in an injury. Tort lawsuits are the biggest category of civil litigation, and can encompass a wide range of personal injury cases - however, there are three main types: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.
Intentional Torts
An intentional tort is when an individual or entity purposely engages in conduct that causes injury or damage to another. For example, striking someone in a fight would be consider an intentional act that would fall under the tort of battery; whereas accidentally hitting another person would not qualify as “intentional” because there was no intent to strike the individual (…however, this act may be considered negligent if the person hit was injured).
Although it may seem like an intentional tort can be categorized as a criminal case, there are important differences between the two. A crime can be defined as a wrongful act that injures or interferes with the interests of society.
In comparison, intentional torts are wrongful acts that injure or interfere with an individual’s well-being or property. While criminal charges are brought by the government and can result in a fine or jail sentence, tort charges are filed by a plaintiff seeking monetary compensation for damages that the defendant must pay if they lose. Sometimes a wrongful act may be both a criminal and tort case.
Examples of Intentional Torts
If a government agency, employee, or the government itself is responsible for your injuries, there are very specific requirements you must follow in order to file a personal injury lawsuit against the government. Under the California Tort Claims Act, you are required to give notice to the government within a set period of time or you lose your opportunity to seek money damages from the party that injured you.
In most California Tort Claim Act claims, proper notice of a claim must be filed within six months of the injury or accident.
The California Tort Claims Act limits the types of accidents and injuries for which the State of California can be liable. This limitation of liability, called "sovereign immunity" in the common law, generally prevents individuals from suing the government or a government agency for personal injury.
However, the Act carves out certain exceptions, allowing the government to be held liable in those limited circumstances. These exclusions include for premises liability where the government had notice of the dangerous condition, or where the government is vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee.
If you are successful in your claim against the government, you can be awarded financial compensation for your injuries. Compensatory damages in a personal injury lawsuit can include:
Example: If a government agency is responsible for ensuring that roads are kept in a safe manner, and the agency negligently fails to correct a large pothole it has known about for months, a person injured by the unsafe road condition may be able to sue the agency for damages under the Act.
What are the time limits for filing my claim under the California Tort Claims Act?The act sets forth very strict guidelines for filing a claim against a government entity or agency. Failure to follow these strict guidelines may result in dismissal of any late claim. This means that an otherwise proper lawsuit for which a plaintiff could receive damages may be invalidated because it was outside of the strict, and often short, time period in which to file.
Most personal injury claims have a limited time to file a claim. However, the statute of limitations, or time allowed to file a claim against government entities is generally shorter than claims against private parties.
A notice must be filed within six months for claims which concern:
Claims which relate to all other causes must be brought within one year of the injury. These actions would include, but are not limited to:
Can I file a late claim?
Late claims without a qualifying reason will generally be denied. However, a late claim may sometimes be accepted when the claimant files their claim along with an "application for late filing." There are four valid reasons for being late in filing a claim:
How do I file a claim under the California Tort Claims Act?
To file a claim against the State of California, a county government, or a municipal government agency, the injury victim must give notice of his or her claim.6 This may include filing a report or sending a letter which may suffice as notice, so long as it contains all of the necessary requirements. However, many agencies and municipalities have claim forms that individuals can fill out to provide notice of the claim.
What information does my claim have to include?The person seeking to file a lawsuit against the government agency or entity must file a claim which includes the following information:
/tôrt/
noun
LAW
a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
"public nuisance is a crime as well as a tort"
Tort LawREVIEWED BY WILL KENTON
Updated Jul 20, 2018
What is the Tort Law
Tort law is the area of the law that covers most civil suits. Generally, every claim that arises in civil court, with the exception of contractual disputes, falls under tort law. The concept of this area of law is to redress a wrong done to a person and provide relief from the wrongful acts of others, usually by awarding monetary damages as compensation. The original intent of tort is to provide full compensation for proved harms. Lawsuits involving contracts fall under contract law.
Tort law requires those who are found to be at fault for harming others to compensate the victims. Typical harms include the loss of past or future income, payment of medical expenses, payment for pain and suffering, and may also include additional punitive damages that are meant to punish the plaintiff in excess of full compensation.
What is a Tort Case?
Tort law determines whether a person should be held legally accountable for an injury against another, as well as what type of compensation the injured party is entitled to.
The four elements to every successful tort case are: duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. For a tort claim to be well-founded, there must have been a breach of duty made by the defendant against the plaintiff, which resulted in an injury. Tort lawsuits are the biggest category of civil litigation, and can encompass a wide range of personal injury cases - however, there are three main types: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability.
Intentional Torts
An intentional tort is when an individual or entity purposely engages in conduct that causes injury or damage to another. For example, striking someone in a fight would be consider an intentional act that would fall under the tort of battery; whereas accidentally hitting another person would not qualify as “intentional” because there was no intent to strike the individual (…however, this act may be considered negligent if the person hit was injured).
Although it may seem like an intentional tort can be categorized as a criminal case, there are important differences between the two. A crime can be defined as a wrongful act that injures or interferes with the interests of society.
In comparison, intentional torts are wrongful acts that injure or interfere with an individual’s well-being or property. While criminal charges are brought by the government and can result in a fine or jail sentence, tort charges are filed by a plaintiff seeking monetary compensation for damages that the defendant must pay if they lose. Sometimes a wrongful act may be both a criminal and tort case.
Examples of Intentional Torts
- Assault
- Battery
- False imprisonment
- Conversion
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Fraud/deceit
- Trespass (to land and property)
- Defamation
- ============================
If a government agency, employee, or the government itself is responsible for your injuries, there are very specific requirements you must follow in order to file a personal injury lawsuit against the government. Under the California Tort Claims Act, you are required to give notice to the government within a set period of time or you lose your opportunity to seek money damages from the party that injured you.
In most California Tort Claim Act claims, proper notice of a claim must be filed within six months of the injury or accident.
The California Tort Claims Act limits the types of accidents and injuries for which the State of California can be liable. This limitation of liability, called "sovereign immunity" in the common law, generally prevents individuals from suing the government or a government agency for personal injury.
However, the Act carves out certain exceptions, allowing the government to be held liable in those limited circumstances. These exclusions include for premises liability where the government had notice of the dangerous condition, or where the government is vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee.
If you are successful in your claim against the government, you can be awarded financial compensation for your injuries. Compensatory damages in a personal injury lawsuit can include:
- Medical bills,
- Loss of income,
- Property damage, and
- Pain & suffering.
- Car accidents;
- Bus accidents;
- Burn injuries;
- Slip and fall accidents;
- Medical negligence;
- Nuisance;
- Sports injuries at school;
- Breach of contract; and
- Intentional torts, like assault & battery.
Example: If a government agency is responsible for ensuring that roads are kept in a safe manner, and the agency negligently fails to correct a large pothole it has known about for months, a person injured by the unsafe road condition may be able to sue the agency for damages under the Act.
What are the time limits for filing my claim under the California Tort Claims Act?The act sets forth very strict guidelines for filing a claim against a government entity or agency. Failure to follow these strict guidelines may result in dismissal of any late claim. This means that an otherwise proper lawsuit for which a plaintiff could receive damages may be invalidated because it was outside of the strict, and often short, time period in which to file.
Most personal injury claims have a limited time to file a claim. However, the statute of limitations, or time allowed to file a claim against government entities is generally shorter than claims against private parties.
A notice must be filed within six months for claims which concern:
- Personal injury,
- Wrongful death,
- Damage to personal property, or
- Damage to crops.
Claims which relate to all other causes must be brought within one year of the injury. These actions would include, but are not limited to:
- Breach of contract actions;
- Damage to real property; or
- Declaratory judgment actions not subject to a six-month limitation.
Can I file a late claim?
Late claims without a qualifying reason will generally be denied. However, a late claim may sometimes be accepted when the claimant files their claim along with an "application for late filing." There are four valid reasons for being late in filing a claim:
- Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
- Minority (claimant was a minor under the age of 18 during the entire six-month period);
- Mental or physical incapacity; or
- Death of a claimant.9
How do I file a claim under the California Tort Claims Act?
To file a claim against the State of California, a county government, or a municipal government agency, the injury victim must give notice of his or her claim.6 This may include filing a report or sending a letter which may suffice as notice, so long as it contains all of the necessary requirements. However, many agencies and municipalities have claim forms that individuals can fill out to provide notice of the claim.
What information does my claim have to include?The person seeking to file a lawsuit against the government agency or entity must file a claim which includes the following information:
- The name and postal office address of the claimant.
- The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
- The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.
- A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.
- The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
- The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. 7
https://emsa.ca.gov/enforcement/
Enforcement Process
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Enforcement Process
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Enforcement Process
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Enforcement Process
- Paramedic Disciplinary Process
- Procedure for Immediate Suspension
- Role of the Director in Enforcement Proceedings
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Enforcement Process
- Paramedic Disciplinary Process
- Procedure for Immediate Suspension
- Role of the Director in Enforcement Proceedings
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Enforcement Process
- Paramedic Disciplinary Process
- Procedure for Immediate Suspension
- Role of the Director in Enforcement Proceedings
To file a complaint or request for a paramedic investigation, you can obtain a copy of the complaint request form here.
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Secret records of police misconduct and shootings must be released under new law, L.A. judge rules(LA Times,feb 21,2019)
|
|
2012 Wrongful Imprisonment :
2012 plea and LAPD corruption case:
Assault with deadly weapon(misdemeanor)
case#:2CA13841(officer Yah? & short irish officer) jun young bae vs steve noh(korean boarding house):public defender(Laurel Mend)213-974-2821
2012 conviction has too many holes: Wrongful Imprisonment by Olympic Div
1.LAPD cherry-picked a clip of CCTV which was illegally installed,and nobody knew about(it is a single family house, but illegally added many rooms , to run Boarding House)
2.I was so honored , I did not have to pay any more RENT per landlady
3.Accuser is a also korean, but he weighs 2.5times as mine
4.there were sexual harassment issues(involving Landlord's brother in law, 2 other tenants which landlord confirmed via reviewing their CCTV)
5.I was a victim of Assault by house manager(who is a son of landlord), again he is despicable man
6.he abused sexually many of young japanese /korean students at boarding house
7.while I was in jail, He tried to cash my monthly disability check.
( my disability insurance detected it and stopped issuing more check until I clarified)
8.Landlord was on exile to korea because He Had an official Levy on his paycheck from delivering korean newspaper...
I posted it with other stories of this boarding house at www.UglyKorean.net
9.while I was in jail, landlady who loved me to death FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER knowingly I was not physically able to show up at civil court to defend.
THAT WAS ONLY WAY THEY COULD HAVE EVICTED ME(EVEN AFTER LAC JAIL RELEASED ME) BECAUSE MY CONTRACT WAS MADE BETWEEN ME AND LANDLORD and its facility was registered under someone else's name due to LEVY he had. And because of illegality structured, under rent control, it would be a difficult eviction case for them.
Original Police Report did not mention anything about my possible assault to landlady who was divorced from my landlord
10.they never paid income tax, nor registered as a business
11.Accuser also hired a CRIMINAL ATTY TO HAVE PROSECUTED ME.
I believe he hired a criminal lawyer who could defend his criminal assault.
But during restitution court hearing, Accuser played a foul game when judge asked him to step outside while his mom was testifying,but he deceived the court and got caught.
JUDGE ASKED TO ACCUSER :" YOU HIRED ATTY TO PROSECUTE YOUR ROOMMATE? I DONT BELIEVE YOU"
Accuser was asking his legal fee added to restitutional reward sheet, asking $80K.
Judge ordered me to pay minimum, eventually it got dismissed under I was homeless and was not able to pay as scheduled.
AND I asked my public defender (Philip Bouche) to file a motion to withdraw plea, he refused.
So when I was in jail from 2014 charges, I contacted Head Deputy(jeff gilliam) who set my court date on same day as my 2014 charges' court date.
I called one day before to see how it could be possible for me to appear at 2 different court rooms while in custody. But its secretary told me "dont worry about it, because you spoke with our Head Deputy"
He admitted his fault and assigned Public Defender Jeff Levy who simply refused interviewing me and refused my case completely when I contacted him later on
---------------------
Please let me know if you are interested in Withdraw of Plea pursuant to penal code 1473.7
a)legal counsel did not explain Immigration Complication when I was offered plea,also he did not even exam Video Clip evidences. he said he heard from DA that they have a Video Clip.
b)existence of actual innocence.
c) I was contained in solo cell due to mental illnesses and incompetence to stand a trial. I was mentally ill
d)medically, I was not able to sustain/endure 5 days' trial ordeal, specially while I was in Jail. I had to get up 4AM, contained with other blacks and mexicans, making me Vulnerable to Any Assaults during confinement.
And almost 1 year later, I contacted Olympic Div's detective(denise wise) who interviewed me and confirmed I might have a good merit.
He requested me to contact DA,but I contacted my public defender (Phil Bouche) instead while a Restitution court was in progress. Mr.Bouche refused and ended up retiring. And his substitute Public Defender (Jeff Levy) also refused my case ,even against his Head Deputy(Jeff Gilliam)
When LAPD officer Yah(?) asked me what kind of med issues I have, I answered semi-terminal illnesses and major depression etc. He told me if I say I have multiple semi-terminal illnesses, I would go to LAC Jail where Big Boys/Gangs are contained. Officer Yeh(Yah?) tried to push me into LA CITY JAIL where LAPD has more manipulative influence. Officer Yeh also made me go through a practice( Questions: what kind of med issues do YOU have, mr Noh?
my Revised Answer: I have deep depression. He responded "great, perfect".
When they showed up on next day at LAC Jail(instead of LA city jail) to transport me or book me (whatever was). A Training Officer(white short irish guy) was extremely upset,and HE SNATCHED MY PINK SLIP off my hand. So I did not know what I was charged while I was contained in a solo suicidal cell for a long time.
Accusing party’s father added more than 25 illegal rooms in 2 adjunct houses, ran illegal deceptive fraudulent Boarding Houses, mainly targeting Korean/Japanese Students who did not speak english well. Their AD said “landlady has 3 chef certificates”, but foods were inedible every single day.
Any former tenants will testify the same, now I believe they stopped renting rooms.
House Manager( in young 30’s) and his mother(landlady) both held 2nd jobs but never paid TAX, including tax from boarding income. THIS IS A CROOK FAMILY.
Landlord told me 2 houses are his but registered under Kim’s Family Trust.
Head Deputy(misdemeanor, Jeff Gilliam) got terminated upon my complaint, now he is working for Venice Court.
Assault with deadly weapon(misdemeanor)
case#:2CA13841(officer Yah? & short irish officer) jun young bae vs steve noh(korean boarding house):public defender(Laurel Mend)213-974-2821
2012 conviction has too many holes: Wrongful Imprisonment by Olympic Div
1.LAPD cherry-picked a clip of CCTV which was illegally installed,and nobody knew about(it is a single family house, but illegally added many rooms , to run Boarding House)
2.I was so honored , I did not have to pay any more RENT per landlady
3.Accuser is a also korean, but he weighs 2.5times as mine
4.there were sexual harassment issues(involving Landlord's brother in law, 2 other tenants which landlord confirmed via reviewing their CCTV)
5.I was a victim of Assault by house manager(who is a son of landlord), again he is despicable man
6.he abused sexually many of young japanese /korean students at boarding house
7.while I was in jail, He tried to cash my monthly disability check.
( my disability insurance detected it and stopped issuing more check until I clarified)
8.Landlord was on exile to korea because He Had an official Levy on his paycheck from delivering korean newspaper...
I posted it with other stories of this boarding house at www.UglyKorean.net
9.while I was in jail, landlady who loved me to death FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER knowingly I was not physically able to show up at civil court to defend.
THAT WAS ONLY WAY THEY COULD HAVE EVICTED ME(EVEN AFTER LAC JAIL RELEASED ME) BECAUSE MY CONTRACT WAS MADE BETWEEN ME AND LANDLORD and its facility was registered under someone else's name due to LEVY he had. And because of illegality structured, under rent control, it would be a difficult eviction case for them.
Original Police Report did not mention anything about my possible assault to landlady who was divorced from my landlord
10.they never paid income tax, nor registered as a business
11.Accuser also hired a CRIMINAL ATTY TO HAVE PROSECUTED ME.
I believe he hired a criminal lawyer who could defend his criminal assault.
But during restitution court hearing, Accuser played a foul game when judge asked him to step outside while his mom was testifying,but he deceived the court and got caught.
JUDGE ASKED TO ACCUSER :" YOU HIRED ATTY TO PROSECUTE YOUR ROOMMATE? I DONT BELIEVE YOU"
Accuser was asking his legal fee added to restitutional reward sheet, asking $80K.
Judge ordered me to pay minimum, eventually it got dismissed under I was homeless and was not able to pay as scheduled.
AND I asked my public defender (Philip Bouche) to file a motion to withdraw plea, he refused.
So when I was in jail from 2014 charges, I contacted Head Deputy(jeff gilliam) who set my court date on same day as my 2014 charges' court date.
I called one day before to see how it could be possible for me to appear at 2 different court rooms while in custody. But its secretary told me "dont worry about it, because you spoke with our Head Deputy"
He admitted his fault and assigned Public Defender Jeff Levy who simply refused interviewing me and refused my case completely when I contacted him later on
---------------------
Please let me know if you are interested in Withdraw of Plea pursuant to penal code 1473.7
a)legal counsel did not explain Immigration Complication when I was offered plea,also he did not even exam Video Clip evidences. he said he heard from DA that they have a Video Clip.
b)existence of actual innocence.
c) I was contained in solo cell due to mental illnesses and incompetence to stand a trial. I was mentally ill
d)medically, I was not able to sustain/endure 5 days' trial ordeal, specially while I was in Jail. I had to get up 4AM, contained with other blacks and mexicans, making me Vulnerable to Any Assaults during confinement.
And almost 1 year later, I contacted Olympic Div's detective(denise wise) who interviewed me and confirmed I might have a good merit.
He requested me to contact DA,but I contacted my public defender (Phil Bouche) instead while a Restitution court was in progress. Mr.Bouche refused and ended up retiring. And his substitute Public Defender (Jeff Levy) also refused my case ,even against his Head Deputy(Jeff Gilliam)
When LAPD officer Yah(?) asked me what kind of med issues I have, I answered semi-terminal illnesses and major depression etc. He told me if I say I have multiple semi-terminal illnesses, I would go to LAC Jail where Big Boys/Gangs are contained. Officer Yeh(Yah?) tried to push me into LA CITY JAIL where LAPD has more manipulative influence. Officer Yeh also made me go through a practice( Questions: what kind of med issues do YOU have, mr Noh?
my Revised Answer: I have deep depression. He responded "great, perfect".
When they showed up on next day at LAC Jail(instead of LA city jail) to transport me or book me (whatever was). A Training Officer(white short irish guy) was extremely upset,and HE SNATCHED MY PINK SLIP off my hand. So I did not know what I was charged while I was contained in a solo suicidal cell for a long time.
Accusing party’s father added more than 25 illegal rooms in 2 adjunct houses, ran illegal deceptive fraudulent Boarding Houses, mainly targeting Korean/Japanese Students who did not speak english well. Their AD said “landlady has 3 chef certificates”, but foods were inedible every single day.
Any former tenants will testify the same, now I believe they stopped renting rooms.
House Manager( in young 30’s) and his mother(landlady) both held 2nd jobs but never paid TAX, including tax from boarding income. THIS IS A CROOK FAMILY.
Landlord told me 2 houses are his but registered under Kim’s Family Trust.
Head Deputy(misdemeanor, Jeff Gilliam) got terminated upon my complaint, now he is working for Venice Court.
Indoor Spy Camera in room rentals without a notice-
1.https://www.foxnews.com/tech/watch-out-for-indoor-spy-cameras-when-renting-a-house-apartment-or-room
What to do if you find a camera: If the presence of indoor surveillance cameras was not disclosed to you, the answer is simple: Pick up the phone and call the police. Tell them you have direct evidence that your landlord is spying on you, without your knowledge or permission, inside your rental home. Use this exact phrase.
2. Answer: There are no laws or, or restrictions, for a private person to have video surveillance cameras around their property for the purposes of security. However, there are laws, and constitutional rights, regarding privacy. The California Constitution contains a guarantee of privacy.
3.Residential Security Cameras Laws Explained – Is Your Setup Legal?
https://www.securityguardtrainingcentral.com/residential-security-cameras-laws-explained-setup-legal/
Yet, the decision whether, where and how to mount home security cameras implicate certain legal issues. If you’re considering home video surveillance, you must consider the privacy interests of those in your home and neighbors, rules for developments and ensuring that what you capture can be used in court.
4.Recording ConversationsAside from where and what the homeowner can video, there’s the question of the audio if the system includes the ability to record sound and speech. Federal and state wiretap statutes restrict your ability to monitor and record conversations, even in your own home.
Generally, it is illegal to record a conversation without the permission of at least one participant. In some states, if you are one of the participants in the conversation, your obvious consent to recording yourself is enough and the act of recording does not violate wiretapping laws. In several states, all parties to the conversation must consent. These states would require a nanny, baby sitter, contractor or other guest to give permission to have the conversation or audio recorded.
5.Consent to Videotape:
California Laws for Video Surveillance
https://legalbeagle.com/6708722-california-laws-video-surveillance.html#socialshare.
Under federal law, a conversation or other encounter may be videotaped as long as one person consents to the recording. However, California has expanded the law to both parties. As a result, if you wanted to interview a celebrity in a private location, he or she would need to consent to being taped before you could proceed. Violation of this law is punishable under Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. A first offense of electronic eavesdropping is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year of jail. Recording and disclosure of footage carries a separate penalty. Under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), any victim of these violations can recover punitive civil damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages.(By Noel Lawrence - Updated May 31, 2017)
6.California Penal Code § 632 states “[e]very person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, … shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand ...Jan 17, 2013
7.Legal definition of eavesdropping in California (Penal Code 632 PC)
https://www.shouselaw.com/eavesdropping.htmla) Penal Code 632 PC, California's criminal law against eavesdropping, criminalizes only a very particular kind of eavesdropping. In order to be a crime, eavesdropping needs to have the following characteristics:
Let's say you use an electronic device to eavesdrop on someone in order to get evidence that you can use against them in a civil lawsuit (like a business contract dispute or a divorce). This may seem like a very reasonable way of fighting for your side in the court case. Unfortunately, though, not only might you face criminal charges for the eavesdropping...but any evidence you obtain that way will NOT be allowed in the court proceeding.18
c)Exceptional situation to penal code632
That person is recording the conversation in order to gather evidence that they reasonably believe is related to the commission, by the other party to the conversation, of one of the following crimes: a. Extortion, b.Kidnapping c. Bribery,
d. Any felony involving violence against another person (such as murder or rape), or
e. Annoying Phone Calls(penal code 653m)
(This less serious crime (Penal Code 653m) may not seem to fit in with the rest-but in fact it makes some sense to allow people who think they are receiving annoying telephone calls to record those calls for evidence.)
----------------------------------------------
the California Constitution contains an explicit guarantee of privacy in Article I, Section 1 of its “Declaration of Rights.” Its courts have applied this protection to the workplace, schools and the state government. For this right to be violated, video surveillance must fulfill three criteria: 1) It constitutes an intrusion. 2) It intrudes in a location or context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 3) It outweighs other interests by the gravity of the alleged violation. A good example of a constitutional violation would be if your boss installed a hidden camera inside the toilet stall of a restroom. That would be a location where privacy is assumed and the location could not be justified as a security risk (as opposed to near a cash register).
Surveillance of Public AreasBy 2009, 37 cities in California have established video surveillance systems for law enforcement agencies to monitor activity on public streets. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in its report “Under The Watchful Eye,” few of these cities have privacy policies to regulate the use of these cameras. Furthermore, under the California Public Records Act, private citizens have the right to access any of the video surveillance footage. As a result, there would be a public record of your outdoor movements and activities that could be accessed by anyone at any time.
Surveillance of Internet CafesIn 2004, the city of Garden Grove passed an ordinance requiring cyber cafes to install video surveillance systems for recording the activity and actions of patrons who use their computer terminals and to monitor all areas of the premises besides the bathrooms and office. The surveillance system is subject to inspection by local law enforcement and all footage must be preserved for a minimum of 72 hours. The law was challenged under Article I of the California Constitution but the law was upheld by the state Court of Appeals. Among other things, the court argued that people in a retail establishment lacked a “reasonable expectation in privacy.”
Consent to VideotapeUnder federal law, a conversation or other encounter may be videotaped as long as one person consents to the recording. However, California has expanded the law to both parties. As a result, if you wanted to interview a celebrity in a private location, he or she would need to consent to being taped before you could proceed. Violation of this law is punishable under Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. A first offense of electronic eavesdropping is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year of jail. Recording and disclosure of footage carries a separate penalty. Under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), any victim of these violations can recover punitive civil damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages.
*reference:https://legalbeagle.com/6708722-california-laws-video-surveillance.html#socialshare
1.https://www.foxnews.com/tech/watch-out-for-indoor-spy-cameras-when-renting-a-house-apartment-or-room
What to do if you find a camera: If the presence of indoor surveillance cameras was not disclosed to you, the answer is simple: Pick up the phone and call the police. Tell them you have direct evidence that your landlord is spying on you, without your knowledge or permission, inside your rental home. Use this exact phrase.
2. Answer: There are no laws or, or restrictions, for a private person to have video surveillance cameras around their property for the purposes of security. However, there are laws, and constitutional rights, regarding privacy. The California Constitution contains a guarantee of privacy.
3.Residential Security Cameras Laws Explained – Is Your Setup Legal?
https://www.securityguardtrainingcentral.com/residential-security-cameras-laws-explained-setup-legal/
Yet, the decision whether, where and how to mount home security cameras implicate certain legal issues. If you’re considering home video surveillance, you must consider the privacy interests of those in your home and neighbors, rules for developments and ensuring that what you capture can be used in court.
4.Recording ConversationsAside from where and what the homeowner can video, there’s the question of the audio if the system includes the ability to record sound and speech. Federal and state wiretap statutes restrict your ability to monitor and record conversations, even in your own home.
Generally, it is illegal to record a conversation without the permission of at least one participant. In some states, if you are one of the participants in the conversation, your obvious consent to recording yourself is enough and the act of recording does not violate wiretapping laws. In several states, all parties to the conversation must consent. These states would require a nanny, baby sitter, contractor or other guest to give permission to have the conversation or audio recorded.
5.Consent to Videotape:
California Laws for Video Surveillance
https://legalbeagle.com/6708722-california-laws-video-surveillance.html#socialshare.
Under federal law, a conversation or other encounter may be videotaped as long as one person consents to the recording. However, California has expanded the law to both parties. As a result, if you wanted to interview a celebrity in a private location, he or she would need to consent to being taped before you could proceed. Violation of this law is punishable under Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. A first offense of electronic eavesdropping is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year of jail. Recording and disclosure of footage carries a separate penalty. Under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), any victim of these violations can recover punitive civil damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages.(By Noel Lawrence - Updated May 31, 2017)
6.California Penal Code § 632 states “[e]very person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, … shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand ...Jan 17, 2013
7.Legal definition of eavesdropping in California (Penal Code 632 PC)
https://www.shouselaw.com/eavesdropping.htmla) Penal Code 632 PC, California's criminal law against eavesdropping, criminalizes only a very particular kind of eavesdropping. In order to be a crime, eavesdropping needs to have the following characteristics:
- It needs to be intentional-not accidental.7
- It needs to take place without the permission of one of the parties to the overheard conversation. If one party consents and the other doesn't, it is still eavesdropping.8
- The conversation needs to be confidential.9 This means that it needs to take place in circumstances that reasonably indicate that at least one party to the conversation intends for no one else to overhear it.10
- Most importantly, eavesdropping needs to involve the use of an electronic amplifying or recording device, either to overhear the conversation in the first place or to record it.11
Let's say you use an electronic device to eavesdrop on someone in order to get evidence that you can use against them in a civil lawsuit (like a business contract dispute or a divorce). This may seem like a very reasonable way of fighting for your side in the court case. Unfortunately, though, not only might you face criminal charges for the eavesdropping...but any evidence you obtain that way will NOT be allowed in the court proceeding.18
c)Exceptional situation to penal code632
That person is recording the conversation in order to gather evidence that they reasonably believe is related to the commission, by the other party to the conversation, of one of the following crimes: a. Extortion, b.Kidnapping c. Bribery,
d. Any felony involving violence against another person (such as murder or rape), or
e. Annoying Phone Calls(penal code 653m)
(This less serious crime (Penal Code 653m) may not seem to fit in with the rest-but in fact it makes some sense to allow people who think they are receiving annoying telephone calls to record those calls for evidence.)
----------------------------------------------
the California Constitution contains an explicit guarantee of privacy in Article I, Section 1 of its “Declaration of Rights.” Its courts have applied this protection to the workplace, schools and the state government. For this right to be violated, video surveillance must fulfill three criteria: 1) It constitutes an intrusion. 2) It intrudes in a location or context where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 3) It outweighs other interests by the gravity of the alleged violation. A good example of a constitutional violation would be if your boss installed a hidden camera inside the toilet stall of a restroom. That would be a location where privacy is assumed and the location could not be justified as a security risk (as opposed to near a cash register).
Surveillance of Public AreasBy 2009, 37 cities in California have established video surveillance systems for law enforcement agencies to monitor activity on public streets. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in its report “Under The Watchful Eye,” few of these cities have privacy policies to regulate the use of these cameras. Furthermore, under the California Public Records Act, private citizens have the right to access any of the video surveillance footage. As a result, there would be a public record of your outdoor movements and activities that could be accessed by anyone at any time.
Surveillance of Internet CafesIn 2004, the city of Garden Grove passed an ordinance requiring cyber cafes to install video surveillance systems for recording the activity and actions of patrons who use their computer terminals and to monitor all areas of the premises besides the bathrooms and office. The surveillance system is subject to inspection by local law enforcement and all footage must be preserved for a minimum of 72 hours. The law was challenged under Article I of the California Constitution but the law was upheld by the state Court of Appeals. Among other things, the court argued that people in a retail establishment lacked a “reasonable expectation in privacy.”
Consent to VideotapeUnder federal law, a conversation or other encounter may be videotaped as long as one person consents to the recording. However, California has expanded the law to both parties. As a result, if you wanted to interview a celebrity in a private location, he or she would need to consent to being taped before you could proceed. Violation of this law is punishable under Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. A first offense of electronic eavesdropping is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year of jail. Recording and disclosure of footage carries a separate penalty. Under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), any victim of these violations can recover punitive civil damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages.
*reference:https://legalbeagle.com/6708722-california-laws-video-surveillance.html#socialshare
PENAL CODE 632
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=632
CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55]
( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. )
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto,( but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.)
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees, or agents thereof, if the acts otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 855, Sec. 1. (AB 1671) Effective January 1, 2017.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=632
CHAPTER 1.5. Invasion of Privacy [630 - 638.55]
( Chapter 1.5 added by Stats. 1967, Ch. 1509. )
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto,( but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.)
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
(e) This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees, or agents thereof, if the acts otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear.
(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 855, Sec. 1. (AB 1671) Effective January 1, 2017.)
2014 Wrongful Imprisonment by Olympic Div
Jan 26,2014:Max Johnson at 1832 Arlington Ave,La,CA90019 assaulted my chest and I called 911.
LAPD officer Coco and Oh arrived with Paramedics(Philip Campenella & Evan Swanton).
LAPD asked me to jump in the Paramedic Van & within 10mins, LAFD cooked up a crime story and got me arrested inside Paramedic Van
-------------------------------------------
About 1832 Arlington Ave's House (=Alcoholic Recovery Group, mandated by LA County Superior Court) where my old friend( Charles House, short white guy) whom I met in LA County Jail during 2012 LAPD corruption case.
The owner of house was Mrs Issac whose brother passed away long ago but left his old BMW in backyard. That reminded her of her deceased brother each time when she got to look at. So She gave it to Mr.Charles House who sold to me but failed to give me a car key, because Mrs Isaac lost it. To replace it, it costs $150-$200 at BMW dealer.
And I let them borrow my beautifully-designed Container Gardens( about 10 of them, each costed me $50-$70 to start with). I was allowed to go in & Clean Up old BMW which had a flat tires and poops inside the car etc, as well as watering my Pot Plants.
The problem with this house AA guests is: coming to our neighbors' house and beg $$ for their alcoholic habits and steals things allegedly. My friend(Charles House) even had to borrow my shoes because AA guests steal even shoes !
----------------------------------------------------
So I complained to Max Johnson(manager of AA house) 1-2 days before an Assault Incident,
1. Give me a car key
2. Take care of your house AA Guests, so that they won't visit our home and our neighbors
When confronted with a car key issue, Max Johnson told me Charles House attempted a suicide last night, now he is in Cedar Sinai Hospital, so I need go there to resolve an issue !!
I insisted upon meeting Mrs. Isaac who liked me because I beautified her deserted backyard and buying off that ugly BMW car, and placing Flowers/Plants Pots all around and organize their backyard's tools etc. Because she was officially the owner of the car, she can order a new car key from BMW dealer(since Charles House did not file New Ownership with DMV)
On Jan 26,2014. As usual , I tried to enter their backyard,but it was chain-locked, so I went to the Front Door, HERE WE GO !
Charles House and Max(Tyrone) Johnson(Court Document said mr.Johnson has long rap sheet) opened the door, immediately Max Johnson( Manager) threw a strong punch to my Chest, causing Excruciating Pain !
Charles House complained that I even contacted his younger brother about his abusing my friendship( borrowing money for his alcohol habits and constantly lying, and taking things from me etc)
----------------------------
WHAT POLICE REPORT SAYS:
1. I was homeless who tried to trespass,after 2 warnings.
I was the suspect, rather than a victim...But there is no reasoning under being a suspect !! WHY IN THE WORLD I WANTED TO TRESPASS MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE , TO BEGIN WITH???
2.there were 2 black men who got into arguement with me, but Max Johnson is a black man,but Charles House is a white man. We did not get into much arguement either.
3. The arriving LAPD officer Coco hated me before this incident , he knew my House was 1/4 block away. had been to my house 1/2 dozen times,but his supervisor hated me more , later allegedly Sgt planted a boobytrap with my next door.
4.One day before this incident, I happened to call Olympic LAPD station, to get Captain's serial number so that I can send Emails re: Sgt Clark(watch-commander)'s ongoing misconduct/fraud/ethic violation etc...However, Sgt Clark got on the phone...I WARNED HIM I WOULD FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM INTO LA COUNTY GRAND JURY !
5.Olympic Station has been going after me over some decades,jailing me in2008,in2012 under Frauds as well.
6.Olympic Station knows I go to Police Commission Meeting , to complain,too AND they know I filed more than x complaints into LAPD Internal Affair. I do not lie, nor exaggerate !! ( I offered them to put me through Polygraph Test on each complaint of mine, since I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY,although my aging diminishes its talent. ( more than 100 complaints are still sitting 'unopened') on the desk of 911 CALL CENTER, yes you can file a complaint with 911 call center's supervisor/watch-commander)
7. At 227 s western ave korean boarding house,my house manager's husband(former korean gang) assaulted me while I was taking pictures around the kitchen, to DEFEND an eviction filed, per my atty's request.
Arriving LAPD Abraham told me his supervisor knows the history of 911 calls stemmed from this house, and ASKED ME to file a restraint order. On very next day, my house manager(female,60y old) FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER ON ME citing I assaulted her wrist in front of her husband.
She also mobilized 3 phony witnesses,but only witness(=her husband) did not show up at court. TRO got denied as 'perjury'. I subpoenaed one of my roommate(who said he would rather go to jail than testfying against her, knowing her past)
8.and my UPS deliveries were missing all the time etc
so I filed TRO on my house manager although she had an atty this time,IT WAS GRANTED ! Judge required her to maintain her atty during Restrained period,due to being lawless. She violated my TRO 6times, but none of arriving LAPD would arrest her, making worse, Sgt Fox blatantly refused to arrest her, instead he demanded i shall shut down www.FuckLAPD.com which has my own story with polygraph result. I am not associated with cop-hating groups or any group. My own honest blog site !
8a. Later when house manager failed on 5th eviction attempt (after Perjury TRO), his son(Jay Youn vs Steve Noh) filed a perjury TRO which contained LAPD Sgt Dolan and Sgt Arnold's declarations and old marijuana license(from 2004 wrongful arrest although they examed my updated Medicinal Marijuana License in my pocket and months ago, also LAPD alfaro confirmed I had a valid currrent 420 license) BUT JAY YOUN DID NOT LIVE WITH ME,NOR I HAVE MET HIM BEFORE. So Judge denied his TRO under perjury !(no matter How multiple Sgt entered their own declaration, criminal threat, illegal marijuana consumption etc). As soon as I won this TRO, I contacted LAC DA Just Integrity Unit's Lieutenant Aloise who punished several High Ranks Sgts out of job( Sgt Dolan, Sgt craig brown, sgt arnold,etc)
9.I called 911,but LAPD won't respond over more than 10 hours, finally late at night LAPD(Sgt Kim & Sgt Counts) showed up. Sgt Counts recognized me from 1716 Arlington Ave residency(but I did not recognize him at dark).
His first reaction /question to me was : "Where is a tape?" hinting I told them I tape-recorded Watch-Commander Sgt Clark's lie when I visited Olympic Station. If I ever stored online or on my website, IT WOULD DEFINITELY INDICT SGT CLARK !! 1716 arlington house is 2 story house, where a house manager lived upstairs and I lived in downstairs..
He said the reason he couldn't arrest my house manager (who lives upstairs) was I AND HE SHARED THE SAME SPACE,THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A TRESPASSING.
10.Another time I called 911, LAPD showed up at my house and they won't talk to me and but teasing me around by hugging the suspect's geriatric mother and ran off and back.
I had to call 911 more than 4 times over 12hrs time frame.
911 call center supervisors(Ms.Miller, Reeves,Dale,Adler) had to fight with Watch-commander Sgt Clark,finally Sgt Sparksman took my crime report over the phone and later days, he visited me and gave me a strong warning LAPD might go after me. He was a gracious black cop !
11. my house manager kicked my door and split my door frame in a half in 2 weeks. LAPD Lim was called in by my house manager and inspected thoroughly corner to corner and determined my house manager INDEED trespassed my unit( I lived in downstairs). My assumption was: when I called 911, the all arriving LAPD were pre-coached by Sgt Clark. they were going after me and going against me.
12.my house manager called 911 again after he chased me around the house and assaulted me, BUT HE CALLED 911.
THEN LAPD LIM AGAIN ARRIVED AND ASKED ME WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME. I HAD 2 OTHER NEIGHBORS AS WITNESSES. HE GOT ARRESTED,finally.
In my opinion, LAPD Lim was called in by my house manager, not by me....therefore LAPD Lim was not coached nor ordered by Sgt Clark to go against me... Officer Lim did an honesty job by evaluating right and arresting him !
13.Jan 26,2014, when I was transported from Olympian Hospital to Olympic Station of LAPD, Sgt Clark approved my arrest without even asking any question.. Within a min, I got jailed. THAT OFFICER WAS LAPD COCO WHO HAS BEEN TO MY HOUSE 1/2DOZEN TIME, and he was accompanied by LAPD Oh.... However Officer Coco name was not found on Police Report, rather other LAPD name was on .. On very next day, Officer Coco came to city jail, in order to transport me to LAC Jail because I have a serious medical issues/mental issues.
14.per Police Report, I was holding 'Unidentified Object" to assault them( I had my handbag only, it was zipped up, it was taken away from me when I lied down on guerney).
And Crime Evidences was delivered in Digital Photo format only. The investigating LAPD wrote "I tried to call the Accusing Paramedic,but he had a day off, so I was not able to speak with him re: Incident". and continued " I was not able to view Photo Evidences because those were sent to LAPD(?) special div... OUTRAGEOUS !!! Investigator had no convincing evidence,but processed to ARREST !!
15. and Philip Campenella(LAFD) testified during prelimiary trial that Evan Swanton went to Cedar Sinai hospital for Wound Care,but DA won't submit his med care record, NOR CRIME EVIDENCES(faky face wound),never.
LAFD even forcefully withdrew my blood, to make sure I did not infect any viral diseases to him ~ !
That crime evidence pictures were taken in gang zone, in which background abandoned business door has Gang Graffitti, and his face expression was NOT for photo-shooting for crime evidences. He looked so sad and guilty!
16.Officer Coco pushed Emergency MD at Olympican Hospital when MD approached me on Guerney. Police Report says I got cleared to be jailed. THEN OLYMPIAN HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE MY MED RECORD FOR THAT VISIT. they can not possibly have it because I was not even registered and MD did not get to exam my main complaint of Chest Pain(police report even says I complained ankle /wrist pain, too...that is a lie)
So Much Complicated Conspiracy involving many of LAPD and LAFD !! My public defender(robin ginsburg) said there are too many Sworn-in officers are involved, Jurors won't buy my side of story, I MIGHT GET CONVICTED AND DEPORTED , SHE THREATENED ME WHILE SHE NEVER SHOWED UP 5 OF VIDEO CONFERENCES, to discuss the details of how I was innocent !! Making a call to her was impossible because Jail locked us up all the time. I couldn't call 7:30AM or 3:30PM as my Public Defender requested.
Therefore, she did not prepare for a Trial, I HAD TO ACCEPT A PLEA BARGAIN of "resistence to arrest", no probation, no deportation problems.... That was all lie.
She said it is a petty minor misdemeanor offense !
========================================
ALL MOST EVERY ARREST/JAILING IN LA SINCE OF 2006 , WAS ILLEGALLY DONE ! I stipulate as " Retaliation since I filed a complaint against LAPD Kim for helping Korean Gang Team". Almost All Arrests or Police Misconducts involved korean cop ! Korean Cops adopt quickly HOW SEOUL POLICE COLLECT BRIBERY/FAVORS ETC.
Korean Cops in LAPD are more likely involved in some kind of illegal activities , in my experience.
---------------------------------------------------------
1.I was living in a Korean Boarding House, located 702 s.Crenshaw, but my landlord(Mr.Youn) did not like me for bringing in my church people. He used korean gangs + LAPD Kim, to break my door open, and threatened me to move out within 5 min. I opened my cell phone to call 911.
One of korean gang was in early 20's with full body tatoo'd korean(acting more likely he has been born in usa). He snatched my cell phone and BROKE IN A HALF !
and another gang member was in late 40's,and showed me a badge(somekind) and threatened with near-hit head Assault, to intimidate (in korean culture, he seems to have been in usa for short time, determined by his body language). There were 2 other white big boys,too.
As soon as I walked out of my room with one backpack, HERE WE GO ! OFFICER KIM WAS AWAITING OUTSIDE, HIDDEN.
I looked around,but found no near Neighbors.
I couln't belive I was in USA !!!
I said "This can NOT be Real, I am in USA"
--------------------------------------------
then I moved to 347(?) Kingsley ,ktown which is also a Korean Boarding House. One night, Sgt Hwang from Hollywood station came over and setting up a bubby-trap on me and threatened me .He Gave me His Business Card!
I called Hollywood station and spoke with Lieut Miller(? female) why Sgt Hwang was at my home and threatened me WHILE MY ADDRESS FALLS UNDER WILSHIRE STATION OF LAPD. She said that was illegal visit of Sgt Hwang !
weeks after, my room door got kicked opened again !
THE SAME KOREAN GANG TEAM + MR YOUN of 702 Crenshaw Bld Owner +2 big white muscle boys),and forced me to go to Olympian Emerg Hospital and stayed overnight.
On the next morning, 2 LAPD showed up and I said " I know FBI bld location as 7000(?) whilsre, and 17th floor ! I will file a complaint against you, both cops !
They released my handcuffs immediately and RAN OFF.
---------------------------------------------------
then, I moved to 169(?) Oxford korean boarding house.
Here we go again ! Mr. Yang( he might be an undercover) moved in the night before. On next day, I got arrested on accusation of my assaulting my landlady !
LAPD Medina was waiting outside, and mr.yang and officer Medina appeared to be friends. I became Homeless !(2008)
Days before my arrest, there were several illegal invasions by LAPD(Ashpaugh who recently became as Sgt at Olympic Div)
my landlady signaled to pursue her plot (with her american-grown young son) to fabricate a crime story WHEN THERE WAS A BIG EARTHQUAKE, AND I FINALLY CAME OUT OF ROOM TO WATCH TV. I don't come out of room often at all,
this house was reported as Illegal ongoing construction by me, and Landlady won't cook for us after she got paid...Everybody was avoiding her since SHE WAS JUST DESPICABLE per American Social Standard. Foods was not served at all, often..while continous illegal room Addition was going on by Handymen.
-------------------------------------------------------
LAPD officer Coco and Oh arrived with Paramedics(Philip Campenella & Evan Swanton).
LAPD asked me to jump in the Paramedic Van & within 10mins, LAFD cooked up a crime story and got me arrested inside Paramedic Van
-------------------------------------------
About 1832 Arlington Ave's House (=Alcoholic Recovery Group, mandated by LA County Superior Court) where my old friend( Charles House, short white guy) whom I met in LA County Jail during 2012 LAPD corruption case.
The owner of house was Mrs Issac whose brother passed away long ago but left his old BMW in backyard. That reminded her of her deceased brother each time when she got to look at. So She gave it to Mr.Charles House who sold to me but failed to give me a car key, because Mrs Isaac lost it. To replace it, it costs $150-$200 at BMW dealer.
And I let them borrow my beautifully-designed Container Gardens( about 10 of them, each costed me $50-$70 to start with). I was allowed to go in & Clean Up old BMW which had a flat tires and poops inside the car etc, as well as watering my Pot Plants.
The problem with this house AA guests is: coming to our neighbors' house and beg $$ for their alcoholic habits and steals things allegedly. My friend(Charles House) even had to borrow my shoes because AA guests steal even shoes !
----------------------------------------------------
So I complained to Max Johnson(manager of AA house) 1-2 days before an Assault Incident,
1. Give me a car key
2. Take care of your house AA Guests, so that they won't visit our home and our neighbors
When confronted with a car key issue, Max Johnson told me Charles House attempted a suicide last night, now he is in Cedar Sinai Hospital, so I need go there to resolve an issue !!
I insisted upon meeting Mrs. Isaac who liked me because I beautified her deserted backyard and buying off that ugly BMW car, and placing Flowers/Plants Pots all around and organize their backyard's tools etc. Because she was officially the owner of the car, she can order a new car key from BMW dealer(since Charles House did not file New Ownership with DMV)
On Jan 26,2014. As usual , I tried to enter their backyard,but it was chain-locked, so I went to the Front Door, HERE WE GO !
Charles House and Max(Tyrone) Johnson(Court Document said mr.Johnson has long rap sheet) opened the door, immediately Max Johnson( Manager) threw a strong punch to my Chest, causing Excruciating Pain !
Charles House complained that I even contacted his younger brother about his abusing my friendship( borrowing money for his alcohol habits and constantly lying, and taking things from me etc)
----------------------------
WHAT POLICE REPORT SAYS:
1. I was homeless who tried to trespass,after 2 warnings.
I was the suspect, rather than a victim...But there is no reasoning under being a suspect !! WHY IN THE WORLD I WANTED TO TRESPASS MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE , TO BEGIN WITH???
2.there were 2 black men who got into arguement with me, but Max Johnson is a black man,but Charles House is a white man. We did not get into much arguement either.
3. The arriving LAPD officer Coco hated me before this incident , he knew my House was 1/4 block away. had been to my house 1/2 dozen times,but his supervisor hated me more , later allegedly Sgt planted a boobytrap with my next door.
4.One day before this incident, I happened to call Olympic LAPD station, to get Captain's serial number so that I can send Emails re: Sgt Clark(watch-commander)'s ongoing misconduct/fraud/ethic violation etc...However, Sgt Clark got on the phone...I WARNED HIM I WOULD FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM INTO LA COUNTY GRAND JURY !
5.Olympic Station has been going after me over some decades,jailing me in2008,in2012 under Frauds as well.
6.Olympic Station knows I go to Police Commission Meeting , to complain,too AND they know I filed more than x complaints into LAPD Internal Affair. I do not lie, nor exaggerate !! ( I offered them to put me through Polygraph Test on each complaint of mine, since I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY,although my aging diminishes its talent. ( more than 100 complaints are still sitting 'unopened') on the desk of 911 CALL CENTER, yes you can file a complaint with 911 call center's supervisor/watch-commander)
7. At 227 s western ave korean boarding house,my house manager's husband(former korean gang) assaulted me while I was taking pictures around the kitchen, to DEFEND an eviction filed, per my atty's request.
Arriving LAPD Abraham told me his supervisor knows the history of 911 calls stemmed from this house, and ASKED ME to file a restraint order. On very next day, my house manager(female,60y old) FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER ON ME citing I assaulted her wrist in front of her husband.
She also mobilized 3 phony witnesses,but only witness(=her husband) did not show up at court. TRO got denied as 'perjury'. I subpoenaed one of my roommate(who said he would rather go to jail than testfying against her, knowing her past)
8.and my UPS deliveries were missing all the time etc
so I filed TRO on my house manager although she had an atty this time,IT WAS GRANTED ! Judge required her to maintain her atty during Restrained period,due to being lawless. She violated my TRO 6times, but none of arriving LAPD would arrest her, making worse, Sgt Fox blatantly refused to arrest her, instead he demanded i shall shut down www.FuckLAPD.com which has my own story with polygraph result. I am not associated with cop-hating groups or any group. My own honest blog site !
8a. Later when house manager failed on 5th eviction attempt (after Perjury TRO), his son(Jay Youn vs Steve Noh) filed a perjury TRO which contained LAPD Sgt Dolan and Sgt Arnold's declarations and old marijuana license(from 2004 wrongful arrest although they examed my updated Medicinal Marijuana License in my pocket and months ago, also LAPD alfaro confirmed I had a valid currrent 420 license) BUT JAY YOUN DID NOT LIVE WITH ME,NOR I HAVE MET HIM BEFORE. So Judge denied his TRO under perjury !(no matter How multiple Sgt entered their own declaration, criminal threat, illegal marijuana consumption etc). As soon as I won this TRO, I contacted LAC DA Just Integrity Unit's Lieutenant Aloise who punished several High Ranks Sgts out of job( Sgt Dolan, Sgt craig brown, sgt arnold,etc)
9.I called 911,but LAPD won't respond over more than 10 hours, finally late at night LAPD(Sgt Kim & Sgt Counts) showed up. Sgt Counts recognized me from 1716 Arlington Ave residency(but I did not recognize him at dark).
His first reaction /question to me was : "Where is a tape?" hinting I told them I tape-recorded Watch-Commander Sgt Clark's lie when I visited Olympic Station. If I ever stored online or on my website, IT WOULD DEFINITELY INDICT SGT CLARK !! 1716 arlington house is 2 story house, where a house manager lived upstairs and I lived in downstairs..
He said the reason he couldn't arrest my house manager (who lives upstairs) was I AND HE SHARED THE SAME SPACE,THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A TRESPASSING.
10.Another time I called 911, LAPD showed up at my house and they won't talk to me and but teasing me around by hugging the suspect's geriatric mother and ran off and back.
I had to call 911 more than 4 times over 12hrs time frame.
911 call center supervisors(Ms.Miller, Reeves,Dale,Adler) had to fight with Watch-commander Sgt Clark,finally Sgt Sparksman took my crime report over the phone and later days, he visited me and gave me a strong warning LAPD might go after me. He was a gracious black cop !
11. my house manager kicked my door and split my door frame in a half in 2 weeks. LAPD Lim was called in by my house manager and inspected thoroughly corner to corner and determined my house manager INDEED trespassed my unit( I lived in downstairs). My assumption was: when I called 911, the all arriving LAPD were pre-coached by Sgt Clark. they were going after me and going against me.
12.my house manager called 911 again after he chased me around the house and assaulted me, BUT HE CALLED 911.
THEN LAPD LIM AGAIN ARRIVED AND ASKED ME WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME. I HAD 2 OTHER NEIGHBORS AS WITNESSES. HE GOT ARRESTED,finally.
In my opinion, LAPD Lim was called in by my house manager, not by me....therefore LAPD Lim was not coached nor ordered by Sgt Clark to go against me... Officer Lim did an honesty job by evaluating right and arresting him !
13.Jan 26,2014, when I was transported from Olympian Hospital to Olympic Station of LAPD, Sgt Clark approved my arrest without even asking any question.. Within a min, I got jailed. THAT OFFICER WAS LAPD COCO WHO HAS BEEN TO MY HOUSE 1/2DOZEN TIME, and he was accompanied by LAPD Oh.... However Officer Coco name was not found on Police Report, rather other LAPD name was on .. On very next day, Officer Coco came to city jail, in order to transport me to LAC Jail because I have a serious medical issues/mental issues.
14.per Police Report, I was holding 'Unidentified Object" to assault them( I had my handbag only, it was zipped up, it was taken away from me when I lied down on guerney).
And Crime Evidences was delivered in Digital Photo format only. The investigating LAPD wrote "I tried to call the Accusing Paramedic,but he had a day off, so I was not able to speak with him re: Incident". and continued " I was not able to view Photo Evidences because those were sent to LAPD(?) special div... OUTRAGEOUS !!! Investigator had no convincing evidence,but processed to ARREST !!
15. and Philip Campenella(LAFD) testified during prelimiary trial that Evan Swanton went to Cedar Sinai hospital for Wound Care,but DA won't submit his med care record, NOR CRIME EVIDENCES(faky face wound),never.
LAFD even forcefully withdrew my blood, to make sure I did not infect any viral diseases to him ~ !
That crime evidence pictures were taken in gang zone, in which background abandoned business door has Gang Graffitti, and his face expression was NOT for photo-shooting for crime evidences. He looked so sad and guilty!
16.Officer Coco pushed Emergency MD at Olympican Hospital when MD approached me on Guerney. Police Report says I got cleared to be jailed. THEN OLYMPIAN HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE MY MED RECORD FOR THAT VISIT. they can not possibly have it because I was not even registered and MD did not get to exam my main complaint of Chest Pain(police report even says I complained ankle /wrist pain, too...that is a lie)
So Much Complicated Conspiracy involving many of LAPD and LAFD !! My public defender(robin ginsburg) said there are too many Sworn-in officers are involved, Jurors won't buy my side of story, I MIGHT GET CONVICTED AND DEPORTED , SHE THREATENED ME WHILE SHE NEVER SHOWED UP 5 OF VIDEO CONFERENCES, to discuss the details of how I was innocent !! Making a call to her was impossible because Jail locked us up all the time. I couldn't call 7:30AM or 3:30PM as my Public Defender requested.
Therefore, she did not prepare for a Trial, I HAD TO ACCEPT A PLEA BARGAIN of "resistence to arrest", no probation, no deportation problems.... That was all lie.
She said it is a petty minor misdemeanor offense !
========================================
ALL MOST EVERY ARREST/JAILING IN LA SINCE OF 2006 , WAS ILLEGALLY DONE ! I stipulate as " Retaliation since I filed a complaint against LAPD Kim for helping Korean Gang Team". Almost All Arrests or Police Misconducts involved korean cop ! Korean Cops adopt quickly HOW SEOUL POLICE COLLECT BRIBERY/FAVORS ETC.
Korean Cops in LAPD are more likely involved in some kind of illegal activities , in my experience.
---------------------------------------------------------
1.I was living in a Korean Boarding House, located 702 s.Crenshaw, but my landlord(Mr.Youn) did not like me for bringing in my church people. He used korean gangs + LAPD Kim, to break my door open, and threatened me to move out within 5 min. I opened my cell phone to call 911.
One of korean gang was in early 20's with full body tatoo'd korean(acting more likely he has been born in usa). He snatched my cell phone and BROKE IN A HALF !
and another gang member was in late 40's,and showed me a badge(somekind) and threatened with near-hit head Assault, to intimidate (in korean culture, he seems to have been in usa for short time, determined by his body language). There were 2 other white big boys,too.
As soon as I walked out of my room with one backpack, HERE WE GO ! OFFICER KIM WAS AWAITING OUTSIDE, HIDDEN.
I looked around,but found no near Neighbors.
I couln't belive I was in USA !!!
I said "This can NOT be Real, I am in USA"
--------------------------------------------
then I moved to 347(?) Kingsley ,ktown which is also a Korean Boarding House. One night, Sgt Hwang from Hollywood station came over and setting up a bubby-trap on me and threatened me .He Gave me His Business Card!
I called Hollywood station and spoke with Lieut Miller(? female) why Sgt Hwang was at my home and threatened me WHILE MY ADDRESS FALLS UNDER WILSHIRE STATION OF LAPD. She said that was illegal visit of Sgt Hwang !
weeks after, my room door got kicked opened again !
THE SAME KOREAN GANG TEAM + MR YOUN of 702 Crenshaw Bld Owner +2 big white muscle boys),and forced me to go to Olympian Emerg Hospital and stayed overnight.
On the next morning, 2 LAPD showed up and I said " I know FBI bld location as 7000(?) whilsre, and 17th floor ! I will file a complaint against you, both cops !
They released my handcuffs immediately and RAN OFF.
---------------------------------------------------
then, I moved to 169(?) Oxford korean boarding house.
Here we go again ! Mr. Yang( he might be an undercover) moved in the night before. On next day, I got arrested on accusation of my assaulting my landlady !
LAPD Medina was waiting outside, and mr.yang and officer Medina appeared to be friends. I became Homeless !(2008)
Days before my arrest, there were several illegal invasions by LAPD(Ashpaugh who recently became as Sgt at Olympic Div)
my landlady signaled to pursue her plot (with her american-grown young son) to fabricate a crime story WHEN THERE WAS A BIG EARTHQUAKE, AND I FINALLY CAME OUT OF ROOM TO WATCH TV. I don't come out of room often at all,
this house was reported as Illegal ongoing construction by me, and Landlady won't cook for us after she got paid...Everybody was avoiding her since SHE WAS JUST DESPICABLE per American Social Standard. Foods was not served at all, often..while continous illegal room Addition was going on by Handymen.
-------------------------------------------------------
1. detective K contacted LAFD internal affair re: my wrongful arrest,but no return call. NO RESPONSE between 2 different branches' LA city hall Investigators !
2.finally Obstruction of Justice was accused
3.now they hired a damage control attorney(specializing in Labor Relation,not in improving against my case, so that LAFD Internal Affair's Chief and Captain won't be exposed on their lies as easy as, Atty is just a cover-up 4 Corruption inside ). why in the world Internal Affair office hires to defend WHAT,my case??( to minimize Veracity of Corruption Circle which soon will be EXPOSED in LA High Ranks)
4.LAC DA Jackie Lacey's office investigates 'photo-shopped crime evidences'
5.Jan 29,2019: I left a voicemail to Chief of Staff at LAFD main office re: LAFD internal affair is corrupted.
6.LAPD Internal Affair(Sgt Zavala) took my complaint against Officer Coco who is a main master-mind .
7.LAC Fraud Line took my complaint against DA Robert Wallace.
8.Dept 133's new DA(Sandi Roth) has been informed of "fake crime evidences" they used to wrongfully prosecute a semi-terminally ill person, subsequently facing Deportation.
Heartless,Moral-less,Mean-Spirit Con Artists must be jailed!
DA Lying is Uprising !(Salon.com reports ): Uncle Sam's Integrity is getting rotten along with Trump.
Los Angeles County Fraud Hotline
DA robert wallace is under Fraud Investigation ~ !
500 West Temple Street, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hotline Tel: 1-800-544-6861 | Fax: 213.633.0991
E-mail: [email protected]
Visit us on the Internet at http://fraud.lacounty.gov
From: LA County Fraud Hotline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:05 PM
To: AC-OCIHotline <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional Information
news AD starts:
Crime Story Writer(wanted)
I am a victim of LAPD and LAFD, DA corruption.spent years in jail,now facing deportation.
www.FuckLAPD.com
feb6,2019: dept 133
sandi roth sneaked into my document meant for Judge, tried to school me FUCKLAPD.com is profanity and bad for your paperwork. I said it is one word, and IT IS my web address. you are an idiot. Don't school me, that is not your job.. AND she asked me why I came to her office yesterday. but she was NOT sure that was me... I responded I was sick in bed yesterday. I asked what characters of that person you noticed to accuse that was ME? NOTHING. JUST GUESS !
She called Muscle Boys to arrest me !
One of that Dick is Joe Henry(DA EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP OFFICE: 213-257-3030,elizabeth) who warned me I shall not contact sandi roth in any possible way. THEN THIS BITCH IS HULLUCITING I WAS AT HER OFFICE YERSTERDAY, WHY SHE DARED TO SCHOOL ME ON MY OWN LEGAL DOCUEMENT, WHY SHE CONTINUED TO SPEAK WITH ME (DESPITE I ASKED HER TO STOP CONTACT ME DIRECTLY AS THAT MUSCLE DICK WARNED ME AS)
I AM DEALING WITH SANDI ROTH'S PREDECESSOR WHO PROSECUTED ME WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL EVIDENCES HE WAS WILLING TO SHARE, in the middle of it all, SANDI ROTH HERSELF RECYCLES WHAT ROBERT WALLACE DID.
TRADITION OF LAC DA LIVES ON WELL ! Stupidity/fraud!
2.finally Obstruction of Justice was accused
3.now they hired a damage control attorney(specializing in Labor Relation,not in improving against my case, so that LAFD Internal Affair's Chief and Captain won't be exposed on their lies as easy as, Atty is just a cover-up 4 Corruption inside ). why in the world Internal Affair office hires to defend WHAT,my case??( to minimize Veracity of Corruption Circle which soon will be EXPOSED in LA High Ranks)
4.LAC DA Jackie Lacey's office investigates 'photo-shopped crime evidences'
5.Jan 29,2019: I left a voicemail to Chief of Staff at LAFD main office re: LAFD internal affair is corrupted.
6.LAPD Internal Affair(Sgt Zavala) took my complaint against Officer Coco who is a main master-mind .
7.LAC Fraud Line took my complaint against DA Robert Wallace.
8.Dept 133's new DA(Sandi Roth) has been informed of "fake crime evidences" they used to wrongfully prosecute a semi-terminally ill person, subsequently facing Deportation.
Heartless,Moral-less,Mean-Spirit Con Artists must be jailed!
DA Lying is Uprising !(Salon.com reports ): Uncle Sam's Integrity is getting rotten along with Trump.
Los Angeles County Fraud Hotline
DA robert wallace is under Fraud Investigation ~ !
500 West Temple Street, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Hotline Tel: 1-800-544-6861 | Fax: 213.633.0991
E-mail: [email protected]
Visit us on the Internet at http://fraud.lacounty.gov
From: LA County Fraud Hotline <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:05 PM
To: AC-OCIHotline <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional Information
news AD starts:
Crime Story Writer(wanted)
I am a victim of LAPD and LAFD, DA corruption.spent years in jail,now facing deportation.
www.FuckLAPD.com
feb6,2019: dept 133
sandi roth sneaked into my document meant for Judge, tried to school me FUCKLAPD.com is profanity and bad for your paperwork. I said it is one word, and IT IS my web address. you are an idiot. Don't school me, that is not your job.. AND she asked me why I came to her office yesterday. but she was NOT sure that was me... I responded I was sick in bed yesterday. I asked what characters of that person you noticed to accuse that was ME? NOTHING. JUST GUESS !
She called Muscle Boys to arrest me !
One of that Dick is Joe Henry(DA EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP OFFICE: 213-257-3030,elizabeth) who warned me I shall not contact sandi roth in any possible way. THEN THIS BITCH IS HULLUCITING I WAS AT HER OFFICE YERSTERDAY, WHY SHE DARED TO SCHOOL ME ON MY OWN LEGAL DOCUEMENT, WHY SHE CONTINUED TO SPEAK WITH ME (DESPITE I ASKED HER TO STOP CONTACT ME DIRECTLY AS THAT MUSCLE DICK WARNED ME AS)
I AM DEALING WITH SANDI ROTH'S PREDECESSOR WHO PROSECUTED ME WITHOUT ANY CRIMINAL EVIDENCES HE WAS WILLING TO SHARE, in the middle of it all, SANDI ROTH HERSELF RECYCLES WHAT ROBERT WALLACE DID.
TRADITION OF LAC DA LIVES ON WELL ! Stupidity/fraud!
California Law re "Planting or Tampering with Evidence" :
Penal Code 141 PC
https://www.shouselaw.com/planting-tampering-evidence.html
1. California law as to planting or tempering with evidence (Penal Code 141 PC)1.1. Actions that violate Penal Code 141 PCYou violate Penal Code 141 PC when you tamper with evidence (or potential evidence) by doing any of the following:
Note that this isn't just limited to criminal trials. You can be charged with planting evidence in connection with a civil trial, a criminal investigation that hasn't led to charges yet, or pretty much any other kind of legal process.6
Example: Donna is in the process of getting a divorce from her husband, Mike. Donna knows Mike has a violent temper and doesn't want to share custody of their children with him. So she uses a hammer to punch a hole in the wall of her house. Her intention is to present a picture of the hole in the divorce proceedings, and to claim that Mike made the hole with his fist while they were still living together.
Donna may be guilty of the crime of evidence tampering even though she didn't intend to have Mike charged with a crime.1.3. Required state of mind for planting evidenceThe most important "element" of the crime of planting evidence / evidence tampering is the defendant's state of mind when they tampered with the evidence.
So a defendant can't be convicted of this crime under Penal Code 141 PC unless it can be proven that ALL of these things are true:
Kent and Jill may be guilty of planting evidence...they put the drugs in Kelli's car willfully and knowingly, and their intention was for Kelli to be charged with a drug crime .10
Example: Jeff is a police officer who badly wants to receive workers' compensation payments. So he shoots himself and claims that a car burglary suspect did it. This leads to a major manhunt before the rest of the department figures out that he was lying.
In addition to probably being guilty of workers' compensation
fraud, Jeff can be charged with planting evidence...since his intention was for his shooting to be used as evidence in the legal proceeding to help him get workers' compensation payments.112. Penalties for planting evidenceFor defendants who are not police officers, the California crime of planting evidence (evidence tampering) is a misdemeanor.12 This means that the maximum penalty is up to six (6) months in county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.13
But for defendants who are law enforcement officers(LAPD), the penalty is much steeper. In these cases, planting evidence is a felony. A police officer convicted of evidence tampering will be sentenced to either probation with up to a year in county jail, OR two (2), three (3) or five (5) years in state prison.14
For defendants who are not police officers, the California crime of planting evidence (evidence tampering) is a misdemeanor.According to Long Beach criminal defense attorney John Murray:15
"When you think about it, it makes sense that the crime of planting evidence is punished much more harshly when a law enforcement officer does it. Police officers' jobs give them countless opportunities to frame people they dislike personally, or to plant evidence just in order to get an arrest. Because the danger of them abusing this power is so great, it's important that there be steep penalties when they do so."
3. Legal defenses against charges of planting evidence /evidence tamperingObstruction of justice crimes are a serious business...and the California crime of planting evidence is no exception. But there are legal defenses that can help if you are charged with evidence tampering.
3.1. Mistake of factYou may remember that state of mind is an important element of the crime of planting evidence or tampering with evidence. You need to have acted willfully, knowingly, and with intent to have someone charged with a crime or to have the evidence presented in a legal proceeding.16
Because of this, the common legal defense of mistake of fact can help you defend yourself against evidence planting charges. If you made a reasonable mistake that meant you could not have known you were planting or tampering with evidence...or if you mistakenly believed that the evidence would not be presented in court...you may be able to get an acquittal on this basis.
3.2. False accusationsIf you are accused of planting false evidence on someone, there's a good chance there's some bad blood between you and that person. The person who accuses you may very well be lying...as a way to gain traction in a lawsuit or legal dispute with you, or as a way to avoid a criminal conviction themselves.
False accusations are a common feature of criminal cases involving evidence planting. If you are falsely accused of tampering with evidence, a skilled California criminal defense attorney can help you straighten out the facts and use this defense.
4. Related Offenses4.1. Conspiracy to plant or tamper with evidencePlanting evidence can present some real logistical hassles. For this reason, it's common for two or more people to work together to plant or tamper with evidence.
If this happens, everyone involved can be charged not just with planting evidence, but with criminal conspiracy to plant evidence or tamper with evidence. A criminal conspiracy takes place when both of the following occur:
This means that the maximum jail sentence for conspiracy to plant evidence goes up to sixteen (16) months or even two (2) or three (3) years!20 In other words, you can be punished much more harshly if you plant evidence with other people than if you work alone.
4.2. Offering false evidence (Penal Code 132 PC)Penal Code 132 PC covers another obstruction of justice crime...the crime of offering false evidence. This law makes it a crime to present any kind of fake, forged, or incorrectly dated written evidence in any kind of legal trial or proceeding.21
Offering false evidence is a felony. A conviction for this crime can result in a maximum sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years in prison.22
4.3. Preparing false evidence (Penal Code 134 PC)It is also an obstruction of justice crime to prepare any false evidence with the intention of presenting it in a legal proceeding...even if it never actually gets used for that purpose.23 The crime of preparing false evidence extends to all kinds of evidence...including things like photographs and urine samples.24
The crime of preparing false evidence (Penal Code 134) is a felony and, in the worst case, can result in a maximum prison sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years.25
It is also an obstruction of justice crime crime to intentionally destroy or hide evidence that you know may be presented in court or another kind of legal proceeding4.4. Destroying evidence (Penal Code 135 PC)It is also an obstruction of justice crime to intentionally destroy or hide evidence that you know may be presented in court or another kind of legal proceeding.26
Penal Code 135 PC, California's law against destroying or concealing evidence, makes destroying or concealing evidence a misdemeanor in California.27 The maximum penalty is up to six (6) months in county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.28
4.5. PerjuryIf you are charged with planting evidence, there's a good chance you could also be charged with perjury. The crime of perjury consists of willfully saying something false when testifying under oath.29
If you plant evidence, you may end up testifying falsely in court or a sworn written statement that the evidence is genuine and/or was not planted or moved. In that case, you could be charged both with evidence tampering and with perjury. Perjury is a felony and can lead to a sentence of two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in jail.30
5. What if someone plants evidence on you?Of course, many criminal defendants are not guilty of evidence planting...instead, they are victims of evidence planting or evidence tampering.
It is particularly common for police to plant evidence on innocent people in order to "score" an arrest. In one case, a Texas man who pled guilty to a cocaine possession charge was able to produce a video that he claimed showed cops planting a bag of cocaine in his car during a routine traffic stop.31
If you have been charged with a crime because someone else planted evidence on you, you can -- and should -- fight back. The first order of business should be to get the planted evidence thrown out so the charges can be dropped. But because California law makes evidence tampering a crime, you may also be able to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing the person responsible for planting the evidence prosecuted for what they did.
- Changing the evidence,
- Planting or placing the evidence in a particular place,
- Hiding the evidence,
- Moving the evidence, or
- Making or manufacturing evidence.4
Note that this isn't just limited to criminal trials. You can be charged with planting evidence in connection with a civil trial, a criminal investigation that hasn't led to charges yet, or pretty much any other kind of legal process.6
Example: Donna is in the process of getting a divorce from her husband, Mike. Donna knows Mike has a violent temper and doesn't want to share custody of their children with him. So she uses a hammer to punch a hole in the wall of her house. Her intention is to present a picture of the hole in the divorce proceedings, and to claim that Mike made the hole with his fist while they were still living together.
Donna may be guilty of the crime of evidence tampering even though she didn't intend to have Mike charged with a crime.1.3. Required state of mind for planting evidenceThe most important "element" of the crime of planting evidence / evidence tampering is the defendant's state of mind when they tampered with the evidence.
So a defendant can't be convicted of this crime under Penal Code 141 PC unless it can be proven that ALL of these things are true:
- S/he planted or tampered with evidence willfully and intentionally...that is, they didn't do it on accident;7
- S/he knew they were planting or tampering with evidence;8 and
- When s/he planted or tampered with evidence, they intended EITHER:
- a. that it would lead to someone being charged with a crime, OR
- b. that the evidence would wrongfully be produced as genuine or true in a legal proceeding.9
Kent and Jill may be guilty of planting evidence...they put the drugs in Kelli's car willfully and knowingly, and their intention was for Kelli to be charged with a drug crime .10
Example: Jeff is a police officer who badly wants to receive workers' compensation payments. So he shoots himself and claims that a car burglary suspect did it. This leads to a major manhunt before the rest of the department figures out that he was lying.
In addition to probably being guilty of workers' compensation
fraud, Jeff can be charged with planting evidence...since his intention was for his shooting to be used as evidence in the legal proceeding to help him get workers' compensation payments.112. Penalties for planting evidenceFor defendants who are not police officers, the California crime of planting evidence (evidence tampering) is a misdemeanor.12 This means that the maximum penalty is up to six (6) months in county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.13
But for defendants who are law enforcement officers(LAPD), the penalty is much steeper. In these cases, planting evidence is a felony. A police officer convicted of evidence tampering will be sentenced to either probation with up to a year in county jail, OR two (2), three (3) or five (5) years in state prison.14
For defendants who are not police officers, the California crime of planting evidence (evidence tampering) is a misdemeanor.According to Long Beach criminal defense attorney John Murray:15
"When you think about it, it makes sense that the crime of planting evidence is punished much more harshly when a law enforcement officer does it. Police officers' jobs give them countless opportunities to frame people they dislike personally, or to plant evidence just in order to get an arrest. Because the danger of them abusing this power is so great, it's important that there be steep penalties when they do so."
3. Legal defenses against charges of planting evidence /evidence tamperingObstruction of justice crimes are a serious business...and the California crime of planting evidence is no exception. But there are legal defenses that can help if you are charged with evidence tampering.
3.1. Mistake of factYou may remember that state of mind is an important element of the crime of planting evidence or tampering with evidence. You need to have acted willfully, knowingly, and with intent to have someone charged with a crime or to have the evidence presented in a legal proceeding.16
Because of this, the common legal defense of mistake of fact can help you defend yourself against evidence planting charges. If you made a reasonable mistake that meant you could not have known you were planting or tampering with evidence...or if you mistakenly believed that the evidence would not be presented in court...you may be able to get an acquittal on this basis.
3.2. False accusationsIf you are accused of planting false evidence on someone, there's a good chance there's some bad blood between you and that person. The person who accuses you may very well be lying...as a way to gain traction in a lawsuit or legal dispute with you, or as a way to avoid a criminal conviction themselves.
False accusations are a common feature of criminal cases involving evidence planting. If you are falsely accused of tampering with evidence, a skilled California criminal defense attorney can help you straighten out the facts and use this defense.
4. Related Offenses4.1. Conspiracy to plant or tamper with evidencePlanting evidence can present some real logistical hassles. For this reason, it's common for two or more people to work together to plant or tamper with evidence.
If this happens, everyone involved can be charged not just with planting evidence, but with criminal conspiracy to plant evidence or tamper with evidence. A criminal conspiracy takes place when both of the following occur:
- Two (2) or more people agree to commit a crime, and/or to falsely indict someone else for a crime they didn't commit, and
- One (1) of those people commits some overt act to further the agreement.17
This means that the maximum jail sentence for conspiracy to plant evidence goes up to sixteen (16) months or even two (2) or three (3) years!20 In other words, you can be punished much more harshly if you plant evidence with other people than if you work alone.
4.2. Offering false evidence (Penal Code 132 PC)Penal Code 132 PC covers another obstruction of justice crime...the crime of offering false evidence. This law makes it a crime to present any kind of fake, forged, or incorrectly dated written evidence in any kind of legal trial or proceeding.21
Offering false evidence is a felony. A conviction for this crime can result in a maximum sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years in prison.22
4.3. Preparing false evidence (Penal Code 134 PC)It is also an obstruction of justice crime to prepare any false evidence with the intention of presenting it in a legal proceeding...even if it never actually gets used for that purpose.23 The crime of preparing false evidence extends to all kinds of evidence...including things like photographs and urine samples.24
The crime of preparing false evidence (Penal Code 134) is a felony and, in the worst case, can result in a maximum prison sentence of sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years.25
It is also an obstruction of justice crime crime to intentionally destroy or hide evidence that you know may be presented in court or another kind of legal proceeding4.4. Destroying evidence (Penal Code 135 PC)It is also an obstruction of justice crime to intentionally destroy or hide evidence that you know may be presented in court or another kind of legal proceeding.26
Penal Code 135 PC, California's law against destroying or concealing evidence, makes destroying or concealing evidence a misdemeanor in California.27 The maximum penalty is up to six (6) months in county jail, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.28
4.5. PerjuryIf you are charged with planting evidence, there's a good chance you could also be charged with perjury. The crime of perjury consists of willfully saying something false when testifying under oath.29
If you plant evidence, you may end up testifying falsely in court or a sworn written statement that the evidence is genuine and/or was not planted or moved. In that case, you could be charged both with evidence tampering and with perjury. Perjury is a felony and can lead to a sentence of two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in jail.30
5. What if someone plants evidence on you?Of course, many criminal defendants are not guilty of evidence planting...instead, they are victims of evidence planting or evidence tampering.
It is particularly common for police to plant evidence on innocent people in order to "score" an arrest. In one case, a Texas man who pled guilty to a cocaine possession charge was able to produce a video that he claimed showed cops planting a bag of cocaine in his car during a routine traffic stop.31
If you have been charged with a crime because someone else planted evidence on you, you can -- and should -- fight back. The first order of business should be to get the planted evidence thrown out so the charges can be dropped. But because California law makes evidence tampering a crime, you may also be able to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing the person responsible for planting the evidence prosecuted for what they did.
LAFD paramedics in conspiracy: Evan Swanton & Philip Campenella
Police Report says : I kicked,assaulted hands and wounded face of "driver" Paramedic !!
I was very weak and skinny & bony...EVEN IF I WAS CRAZY TO ATTACK PARAMEDIC FOR NO GOOD REASON, THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESTRAINT 'CRAZY PATIENT' ?? let it happen to even a Driver LAFD's Face and they had to dispatch Additional LAPD ?
POLICE REPORT WAS 100% FALSE !, the Involved Officer Coco's name was NOT found on the Police Report !
Police Report says : I kicked,assaulted hands and wounded face of "driver" Paramedic !!
I was very weak and skinny & bony...EVEN IF I WAS CRAZY TO ATTACK PARAMEDIC FOR NO GOOD REASON, THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESTRAINT 'CRAZY PATIENT' ?? let it happen to even a Driver LAFD's Face and they had to dispatch Additional LAPD ?
POLICE REPORT WAS 100% FALSE !, the Involved Officer Coco's name was NOT found on the Police Report !
Face Wound was 'Photo-shopped' ~ !
L.A. to pay $12 million in wrongful-conviction case against former LAPD detective
The Los Angeles City Council agreed Wednesday to pay $12 million to Susan Mellen, who spent 17 years behind bars for a murder she didn’t commit.
After being released in 2014, Mellen and her three children sued former Los Angeles Police Det. Marcella Winn. They contended the detective had been told a witness against Mellen was “a habitual liar,” but failed to disclose that to the defense.
Through numerous legal proceedings, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Augustthat the suit against Winn should go to trial.
A judge ruled Winn withheld the evidence and “acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard.”
Winn and Mellen could not be immediately reached for comment.
Neither the LAPD nor Innocence Matters, a nonprofit legal organization that helped win Mellen’s release, responded to requests for comment.
In June 2015, the state of California awarded Mellen $597,200 in compensation for the 1998 conviction.
The $12-million settlement isn’t the first one involving Winn. She also was the lead detective in the prosecution of Obie Anthony, who was declared innocent after spending 17 years behind bars for a killing outside a brothel in South Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles paid Anthony $8.3 million in compensation.
Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit said Mellen was convicted “based solely” on the testimony of June Patti, who claimed that Mellen had confessed to her that she killed Richard Daly. The body of the 30-year-old transient and father of two was found near a trash bin in San Pedro.
Patti’s sister, Laura Patti, a police officer in Torrance at the time, said she told Winn that June was a habitual liar, the court said.
Laura Patti said in a deposition that her conversation with Winn was brief, and that the detective did not ask why she believed June Patti was a liar.
“But it turned out that Laura was right about her sister,” the 9th Circuit said.
After being released in 2014, Mellen and her three children sued former Los Angeles Police Det. Marcella Winn. They contended the detective had been told a witness against Mellen was “a habitual liar,” but failed to disclose that to the defense.
Through numerous legal proceedings, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Augustthat the suit against Winn should go to trial.
A judge ruled Winn withheld the evidence and “acted with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard.”
Winn and Mellen could not be immediately reached for comment.
Neither the LAPD nor Innocence Matters, a nonprofit legal organization that helped win Mellen’s release, responded to requests for comment.
In June 2015, the state of California awarded Mellen $597,200 in compensation for the 1998 conviction.
The $12-million settlement isn’t the first one involving Winn. She also was the lead detective in the prosecution of Obie Anthony, who was declared innocent after spending 17 years behind bars for a killing outside a brothel in South Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles paid Anthony $8.3 million in compensation.
Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit said Mellen was convicted “based solely” on the testimony of June Patti, who claimed that Mellen had confessed to her that she killed Richard Daly. The body of the 30-year-old transient and father of two was found near a trash bin in San Pedro.
Patti’s sister, Laura Patti, a police officer in Torrance at the time, said she told Winn that June was a habitual liar, the court said.
Laura Patti said in a deposition that her conversation with Winn was brief, and that the detective did not ask why she believed June Patti was a liar.
“But it turned out that Laura was right about her sister,” the 9th Circuit said.
Perjury USA: Rampant police lying taints criminal justice system
nationwideLying under oath to get a conviction is shockingly common. Being held accountable is much less soANUARY 6, 2016 9:57PM (UTC)That Chicago police who witnessed Officer Jason Van Dyke kill Laquan McDonald in a hail of sixteen bullets may have lied to cover it up is a reminder that misplaced trust in law enforcement can lead to injustice. According to civil rights attorneys, the systemic police lying evidenced
Lies, he says, are told not just to cover up major events like a shooting but also to justify illegal searches in run-of-the-mill cases.
“If the facts are very helpful to a police officer, obviously they're going to tell the truth. But if they're not,” says Edwards, “a lot of the time you'll be dealing with testimony that's less than honest.”
Police departments, in Chicago and across the country, do little to detect, combat or punish these police lies. Last month, Salon published an investigation exposing how Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, under heavy fire for her handling of the McDonald killing, in February 2014 overruled a recommendation to prosecute two police officers who had freely admitted to lying about a shooting case.
in Chicago is a nationwide problem.
“It has been shown repeatedly that police usually close ranks and form a narrative that immediately puts the police in the defensive to justify whatever force was used,” says Ezekial Edwards, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Criminal Law Reform Project.
Craig Futterman, a civil rights attorney and professor at University of Chicago Law School, called the case “a powerful example of State’s Attorney Alvarez’s refusal to address systemic perjury by Chicago police.”
He said that not only do prosecutors ignore perjury, they also depend on it to win prized convictions.
While individual cases of perjury can be difficult to prove, evidence of possible lying is readily available from arrest reports and judicial rulings. Police officials and prosecutors around the country, however, don't pay much attention to it—unless they're forced to.
In Philadelphia, local reporting has forced District Attorney Seth Williams' Office to confront, however modestly, abuses and perjury they had long ignored. In Chicago, the Sun-Times reports, “Cook County prosecutors acknowledge they’re having a tougher time getting convictions” in illegal gun cases due in part to “growing skepticism among jurors about the credibility of police officers.”
In New York, the NYPD is still working to create a system, recommended in 1999 by the Commission to Combat Police Corruption, to ensure that the department obtains information on judges' decisions to suppress evidence because it may have been obtained illegally, according to an October WNYC investigation.
Complaints of police lying in the city on are the rise, according to WNYC. But officers are rarely fired for making false statements.
Police who lie most prolifically, says Brooklyn Law School professor Bennett Capers, often have a reputation for doing so. But little to nothing is done as a result.
Capers says that during his time as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, one staffer was charged with keeping a list of law enforcement officers whose testimony could not be trusted. The protocol was routine: Prosecutors working on a case would give that staffer a list of the officers they planned to call to testify. Any officer with their name on the list would not be put on the stand. Those officers, however, were never prosecuted for their lies, Capers complains, and only rarely investigated.
“They're still law enforcement officers for all intents and purposes,” says Capers. “The only thing we avoid doing is calling them as witnesses in future cases.”
Capers recalls one incident when his office did try to crack down on lies made by officers working with the Drug Enforcement Administration. In response, the DEA punitively “turned around and basically stopped bringing us cases,” he says, and diverted prosecutions to the neighboring Eastern District of New York.
Prosecutions of law enforcement for perjury are “incredibly rare,” says Capers, because “prosecutors don't want to prosecute the people who are supposed to be on their team. There's almost an inherent conflict of interest there.”
One very rare federal perjury prosecution of a police officer was successfully completed in 2011, when a jury convicted former New Orleans Police Officer Ronald Mitchell. Mitchell had shot and killed an unarmed man named Danny Brumfield in 2005 amidst the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Hurricane Katrina's wake. Mitchell was not prosecuted for the killing, which he claimed was justified because he believed that Brumfield had a gun. Instead, Mitchell was prosecuted because he lied under oath when he said that he stopped to get out and check Brumfield's vital signs. He had not done so.
The prosecution resulted from a Times-Picayune, PBS "Frontline" and ProPublica investigation that found that the police “department conducted cursory investigations of several post-Katrina police shootings, relying largely on the statements made by the officers involved, failing to talk to civilian witnesses and neglecting to collect physical evidence.”
The evidence for rarely filed perjury charges is often produced by defense lawyers, even though it is prosecutors' job to look for evidence of criminal behavior.
In 2012 and 2014, three Los Angeles Police officers were convicted of writing false reports and perjury in connection to a drug possession case, according to the Los Angeles Times. Officers had claimed that a man had run from them and thrown a box onto the ground which, breaking open, was revealed to contain crack and powder cocaine. Video produced by the defense attorney, however, showed that the box of cocaine was only discovered after a search that took more than 20 minutes. One officer told another: “Be creative in your writing.”
Police shootings understandably garner the lion's share of public attention.
But officers often lie in more mundane cases, including to secure convictions in cases where they think a defendant is actually guilty. That type of lying is accepted as commonplace by many in the criminal justice system but rarely confronted. The extent of the problem is hard to measure because authorities pay so little attention.
“Lying intended to convict the guilty—in particular, lying to evade the consequences of the exclusionary rule —is so common and so accepted in some jurisdictions that the police themselves have come up with a name for it: 'testilying,'” wrote Christopher Slobogin, director of the Vanderbilt Law School Criminal Justice Program, in a 1996 Colorado Law Review article.
Indeed, 76-percent of Chicago officers reported that colleagues sometimes "shaded the facts a little (or a lot) to establish probable cause when there may not have been probable cause,” according to a frequently-cited survey (with a very small sample) published in a 1987 University of Chicago Law Review article.
Whatever the motivation, police perjury substitutes an officer's opinion for the judicial process and for constitutionally-established rule of law. And it can lead to injustice.
A 2013 Washington University Law Review article by Georgia State University College of Law Professor Russell Covey examined two high-profile cases of police misconduct in Los Angeles and Tulia, Texas. Both resulted not only in the violation of the rights of people who may have been guilty but also in wrongful convictions: an innocent defendant, facing a long prisons sentence, has a major incentive to plead guilty to receive a shorter sentence instead of trying to convince a fact finder that police are lying.
“Time and again,” Covey writes, “actually innocent defendants asked by investigators to explain why they pled guilty repeated a common mantra: it was their word against that of the police, and who were the prosecutors, judges, or jurors going to believe?”
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/perjury_usa_rampant_police_lying_taints_criminal_justice_system_nationwide/
-------------------------------------------------
How Philadelphia prosecutors protect police misconduct: Cops get caught lying — and then get off the hookOfficer Christopher Hulmes lied under oath, but for years never charged with perjury. Now 500 cases are at risk. https://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/how_philadelphia_prosecutors_protect_police_misconduct_cops_get_caught_lying_and_then_get_off_the_hook/
In Philadelphia, widespread allegations of corruption and perjury against members of the nation's fourth largest police department have in recent years shaken the criminal justice system.
Currently, the Defender Association of Philadelphia is seeking to have more than 500 convictions involving Officer Christopher Hulmes reopened and tossed out. In 2011, Hulmes admitted to lying in open court in a drug-and-gun case against two black men who claim they were framed. He did so in front of a judge and prosecutor. But he was not charged with perjury until this April, in the wake of reporting by this reporter when he was employed at the now-defunct Philadelphia City Paper.
Entire N.C. police department shut down after chief arrested
https://www.upi.com/Entire-NC-police-department-shut-down-after-chief-arrested/3521532930075/
July 30 (UPI) -- The entire police department in Southport, N.C., has been "functionally closed" after the arrest of its police chief and second-in-command following an FBI investigation.
Southport Police Department Chief Gary Lee Smith, 46, and Lt. Michael Christian Simmons, 48, were both charged with conspiracy to obtain property by false pretenses, willful failure to discharge duties, and obstruction of justice, the Port City Daily reported. The two are suspected of working a trucking job while they claimed to be on the clock for police work.
"The joint investigation revealed Smith and Simmons were reporting for work at a local trucking company where they were completing overnight shifts during the same hours they had claimed on their daily activity reports to be working at the Southport Police Department," North Carolina's State Bureau of Investigation said in a press release. "Multiple search warrants were conducted today at the police department, town hall and the trucking company."
District Attorney Jon David said the trucking jobs required Smith and Simmons to be out of town for extended periods of time. It's not clear how long the two officers are suspected of running the scheme, but officials said the investigation began in April after other officers called authorities to complain.
RELATED California judges: Trump supporter's lawsuit against San Jose police may go forward
With the top two officers facing charges, the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office took over policing duties in the town. The rest of the SPD -- about nine officers -- have been put on paid leave.
During a press conference, David said the other officers are not necessarily part of the investigation.
"A lot of these officers have done absolutely nothing wrong. Some of them are the ones that first came forward," David said, according to WECT-TV. "This stain should not be extended to the officers who take seriously their duty to serve and protect."
July 30 (UPI) -- The entire police department in Southport, N.C., has been "functionally closed" after the arrest of its police chief and second-in-command following an FBI investigation.
Southport Police Department Chief Gary Lee Smith, 46, and Lt. Michael Christian Simmons, 48, were both charged with conspiracy to obtain property by false pretenses, willful failure to discharge duties, and obstruction of justice, the Port City Daily reported. The two are suspected of working a trucking job while they claimed to be on the clock for police work.
"The joint investigation revealed Smith and Simmons were reporting for work at a local trucking company where they were completing overnight shifts during the same hours they had claimed on their daily activity reports to be working at the Southport Police Department," North Carolina's State Bureau of Investigation said in a press release. "Multiple search warrants were conducted today at the police department, town hall and the trucking company."
District Attorney Jon David said the trucking jobs required Smith and Simmons to be out of town for extended periods of time. It's not clear how long the two officers are suspected of running the scheme, but officials said the investigation began in April after other officers called authorities to complain.
RELATED California judges: Trump supporter's lawsuit against San Jose police may go forward
With the top two officers facing charges, the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office took over policing duties in the town. The rest of the SPD -- about nine officers -- have been put on paid leave.
During a press conference, David said the other officers are not necessarily part of the investigation.
"A lot of these officers have done absolutely nothing wrong. Some of them are the ones that first came forward," David said, according to WECT-TV. "This stain should not be extended to the officers who take seriously their duty to serve and protect."
LAPD Officer Coco blocked Olympia Emergency MD from examing me on the Guerney as he approached me for urgent examination ! Instead, He forced MD to clear and to allow LAPD Coco to arrest me. Took me to Olympic Station of LAPD. Awaiting watch-commander, Sgt Clark, approved my Arrest ,without asking any question. So I was transported to city jail IMMEDIATELY... Without no pink slip,without no explanation why I was arrested..
Not surprisingly, on Police Report, Officer Coco name was not found at all ! He is a very tall and black cop.
*feb 25,2019: 800-339-6868(classification) Detective Melaie(female officer) released CF# 16000082 for Officer Coco's case while Detective Atigate put me on hold over 45 min ,,and by using my 2nd phone, I called LAPD internal affair (classification) and had to inform I was still waiting on the phone, only in vain. so I had to call Office of Inspector General and complained to Detective Bushman. Bushman has known me over last several years and promised me he would call LAPD Internal Affair to TALK TO ME without avoiding me
Not surprisingly, on Police Report, Officer Coco name was not found at all ! He is a very tall and black cop.
*feb 25,2019: 800-339-6868(classification) Detective Melaie(female officer) released CF# 16000082 for Officer Coco's case while Detective Atigate put me on hold over 45 min ,,and by using my 2nd phone, I called LAPD internal affair (classification) and had to inform I was still waiting on the phone, only in vain. so I had to call Office of Inspector General and complained to Detective Bushman. Bushman has known me over last several years and promised me he would call LAPD Internal Affair to TALK TO ME without avoiding me
When I got to LAC Jail, I was suicidal for a while and housed at Mental Inmate Unit.
I did not have any money and did not have anyone who could offer any help...I was under major depression, lived like an animal.
I did not have any money and did not have anyone who could offer any help...I was under major depression, lived like an animal.
Public Defender ,Robin Ginsburg, 213-974-0858.
Ginsburg failed to show up at 5 of Video Conference Calls in LAC Jail ,Nor I was able to call and speak with her from jail. Then Jeff Gilliam (Head Deputy at misdemeanor) promised me he would talk to her , more than 10 times.. I believe on that reason, Jeff Gilliam got fired,now working at Venice Beach Court.
Due to Ginsburg's negligence, Public Defender's Head Deputies(Jill Thomas at felony dept and Jeff Gilliam at misdemeanor dept got terminated)
Ginsburg failed to show up at 5 of Video Conference Calls in LAC Jail ,Nor I was able to call and speak with her from jail. Then Jeff Gilliam (Head Deputy at misdemeanor) promised me he would talk to her , more than 10 times.. I believe on that reason, Jeff Gilliam got fired,now working at Venice Beach Court.
Due to Ginsburg's negligence, Public Defender's Head Deputies(Jill Thomas at felony dept and Jeff Gilliam at misdemeanor dept got terminated)
I have noticed THERE IS NO BOOK TO READ IN LAC JAIL ~ ~ ! (EXCEPT BIBLES, HARD-CORE STORY BOOKS).
THE FACT IS THAT MOST INMATES DO NOT HAVE GED DEGREE AND DO NOT READ ~ !
JAIL CELL IS THE BEST COLLEGE ONE CAN DREAM OF: no bus to ride, no lunch to prepare, no late for class, there are plenty of inmates who can TEACH you if you do not know HomeWorks.
I came up with Radio Jail Class which do not require 'READING', rather just lie down on his/her bed and listen to Amusingly Recorded Class Sessions ~ ! BRAIN-WASH THEM ! starting from How to survive as Homeless(once one gets out of Jail), how to apply Public Benefits, how to learn Computer and online searches etc
* more details are here: www.HomelessID.com ( Homeless People are Different Animals ! , they came from different families and they lived different lifes,and THEY WILL CONTINUE 'LEFT OUT' of technology-enriched life-enhancing educations/ devices....
THE FACT IS THAT MOST INMATES DO NOT HAVE GED DEGREE AND DO NOT READ ~ !
JAIL CELL IS THE BEST COLLEGE ONE CAN DREAM OF: no bus to ride, no lunch to prepare, no late for class, there are plenty of inmates who can TEACH you if you do not know HomeWorks.
I came up with Radio Jail Class which do not require 'READING', rather just lie down on his/her bed and listen to Amusingly Recorded Class Sessions ~ ! BRAIN-WASH THEM ! starting from How to survive as Homeless(once one gets out of Jail), how to apply Public Benefits, how to learn Computer and online searches etc
* more details are here: www.HomelessID.com ( Homeless People are Different Animals ! , they came from different families and they lived different lifes,and THEY WILL CONTINUE 'LEFT OUT' of technology-enriched life-enhancing educations/ devices....
Judge Craig Mitchell( per Jail Psychologist Dr.Romanoff's Recommendation) sent me to Metroplitan State Mental Hospital from where I called LAFD Internal Affair...I spoke with Captain Knighten on multiple times !! He cited I was Innocent and he called my public defender(robin ginsburg) to dismiss my case. Captain Knighten made sure it is NOT his own bold decision... HE EVEN GOT A PERMISSION FROM HIS SUPERVISOR( I did not know a Captain has his own Supervisor in his office) TO CONFESS MY INNOCENSE.
But He did not call District Attorney citing I gave only my public defender's phone number. HE DID NOT MAKE HIS OBLIGATION TO FIND OUT AND TO CALL DISTRICT ATTY(ROBERT WALLACE) !!!. I allege Captain Knighten has a pattern of HIDING LAFD INTERNAL AFFAIR'S BAD RECORDS. Before my arrest, He tried to scare/seduce to meet me in person, with a hint of BRIBERY IF I WITHDRAW MY SOLID COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID SPENCER..... I HAVE THAT EMAIL I SENT TO CAPTAIN KNIGHTEN BEFORE A PLANNED MEETING !! In Addition, Captain Knighten will not issue any written statement of my being innocent either.
On Dec 8th,2018. I sent another DEMAND LETTER via usps, to LAFD Professional Standard(aka Interna affair 213-202-3190), TO RELEASE A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, SINCE MANY ATTORNEYS(INCLUDING MY IMMIGRATION ATTY) WANTED TO SEE THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT...ONLY IN VAIN ! OVER LAST 3.5YRS !
But He did not call District Attorney citing I gave only my public defender's phone number. HE DID NOT MAKE HIS OBLIGATION TO FIND OUT AND TO CALL DISTRICT ATTY(ROBERT WALLACE) !!!. I allege Captain Knighten has a pattern of HIDING LAFD INTERNAL AFFAIR'S BAD RECORDS. Before my arrest, He tried to scare/seduce to meet me in person, with a hint of BRIBERY IF I WITHDRAW MY SOLID COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID SPENCER..... I HAVE THAT EMAIL I SENT TO CAPTAIN KNIGHTEN BEFORE A PLANNED MEETING !! In Addition, Captain Knighten will not issue any written statement of my being innocent either.
On Dec 8th,2018. I sent another DEMAND LETTER via usps, to LAFD Professional Standard(aka Interna affair 213-202-3190), TO RELEASE A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, SINCE MANY ATTORNEYS(INCLUDING MY IMMIGRATION ATTY) WANTED TO SEE THAT WRITTEN STATEMENT...ONLY IN VAIN ! OVER LAST 3.5YRS !
Check this above store's YELP Ratings' content: Fishy Scammy comments one after another, One person even wrote its contact Email ID. Their comments are ' cheap, fast,friend' on Simple Priting Jobs, No Comment about HOW GREAT 'DESIGNING' WAS DONE OR OTHER TECHNICAL TALENTS/ THEY SELL ONLY A FEW PRINTER.
THE REASON WORK WAS DONE "FAST AND CHEAPEST"= BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH BUSINESS !
Young Owner is the key Witness HOW LAPD ARRIVED AND BEHAVED ,HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARRESTED ....
THE REASON WORK WAS DONE "FAST AND CHEAPEST"= BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH BUSINESS !
Young Owner is the key Witness HOW LAPD ARRIVED AND BEHAVED ,HOW MANY TIMES THEY ARRESTED ....
Due to my PD's mistake of entering my jail time as 365days (instead of 364 days), it appeared to be 'Felony' conviction, rather than Misdemeanor. So ICE imprisoned me to Santa Ana Jail.
Deportation Federal Judge(Kevin Riley) found me to be incompetent,and assigned Pro Bono Attorney (Esperanza Immigration Service)
Deportation Federal Judge(Kevin Riley) found me to be incompetent,and assigned Pro Bono Attorney (Esperanza Immigration Service)
APD,Janice Yang(?) refused to take up my case, demanded me to file APPEAL , pro per
Dec 20,2018: new Alternate PD(Matt Hale,213-974-6626) got assigned !but fights off Assignment
Dec 20,2018: new Alternate PD(Matt Hale,213-974-6626) got assigned !but fights off Assignment
Appeal Court denied my application, based on "lack of certificate (?)"
When I got out of Immigration Camp on Bail & Ankle GPS, on July 7th 2015...I immediately spoke with Sgt Bob Maus at LAC DA Just Integrity Unit and filed a formal complaint.
After Sgt got scared out of my case, his Lieutenant Richard Aloise(213-974-5010) took over my case and its Head Deputy(James Garrison) got informed of "Corruption at Olympic LAPD Station". HD( James Garrison,974-3888) got terminated due to his inability to prosecute High Ranks of LAPD's corruption
--------------------------------------------------
new DA(Sandy Roth 213-974-3887) will not prosecute 'Corrupted LAFD' and 'LAPD'. Her Supervisor (Greg Jennings 213-974-5069) jumped into the Case & JUMPED OFF FEB 1,2019
After Sgt got scared out of my case, his Lieutenant Richard Aloise(213-974-5010) took over my case and its Head Deputy(James Garrison) got informed of "Corruption at Olympic LAPD Station". HD( James Garrison,974-3888) got terminated due to his inability to prosecute High Ranks of LAPD's corruption
--------------------------------------------------
new DA(Sandy Roth 213-974-3887) will not prosecute 'Corrupted LAFD' and 'LAPD'. Her Supervisor (Greg Jennings 213-974-5069) jumped into the Case & JUMPED OFF FEB 1,2019
Civil Grand Jury Complaint Form
Complainer’s Info: Hee Young Noh, pobox 74074, LA,CA90004, 213-373-4141
Email: [email protected]
Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A:subject of complaint: Criminal Case #: BA420787
wrongful imprisonment through DA(robert wallace)’s misconduct and my public defender(robin ginsburg)’s misconduct/negligence/deception to threaten me into accepting a plea when I was innocent, LAC DA Just Integrity Unit(lieutenant Aloise and head deputy james garrison)’s failure to investigate and prosecute ,and Alternate Public Defender(jane yang)’s refusal to represent me at APPEAL Court, LA City Gov’s failure on Transparency in “Orchestrated among multiple city and county agent( LAPD Internal Affair and LAFD Professional Standard), BOS Shiela Khul’ office’s failure to enforce LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to investigate on my wrongful imprisonment which allegedly involved ‘corrupted LAFD’ + ‘corrutped LAPD’ + Corrupted LAC DA.
B.Chronology and allegations of improper actions/illegal actions committed by LAFD/LAPD/LAC DA/LAC Public Defender/LAC Alternate Public Defender and LAC DA Just Integrity Unit etc
1.Jan 2014: I was assaulted by my neighbor and called 911, Arriving LAPD officer Coco had been hating me beforehand,and He conspired LAFD (evan Swanton + Philip Campenella) to fabricate a crime story inside paramedic van and ‘photo-shopped’ wound on face of Evan Swonton and put me in LAC Jail
2.Feb 2014: LAC DA(robert wallace) hid Exculpartory Evidences, to deceptively have prosecuted me. I allege Robert Wallace was also conspired by LAPD.(=intentionally hiding exculpatory evidences)
3.Jan 2014-Feb 2014: my public defender(robin ginsburg) had deceived/misled/threatened me to accept Plea Bargain and refused to Subpoena ‘photo-shopped’ Crime Evidences(= illegal choice) and misled re: immigration complication (EXH___________). My PD failed to show up the scheduled 5 of Video Conferences, so that I lost much of communication re: my options and how to complicate my immigration matter etc.(=Gross Negligence) . As I reported about this with LAC Gov, Ginsburg’s Supervisors(head deput, Ms Thomas & Jeff Gilliam) got terminated.
4.March 2016: Alternate Public Defender(jane yang) refused to represent my APPEAL Court,based on my fragile health( =Unethical practice of law)
5.In contrast to my Public Defender’s confirmation, I was jailed into Immigration Camp
6.April 2016. I wrote a letter to Robin Ginsburg to show my strong interest to withdraw PLEA,but she failed to tell me in time that THERE IS 6MONTHS’ STATUTORY LIMIT. (=negligence)
7.July 7,2015: I filed a complaint to LAC DA Just Integrity Unit, in writing( Sgt Bob Maus confirmed my letter), later Lieutenant Aolise took over the investigation, under Head Deputy (James Garrison) re: LAPD corruption which allegedly seduced LAFD and DA to have jailed me.
LAC DA rejected any investigation on ‘conspired framed wrongful jailing’. Head Deputy(james garrison) got terminated.
8.sept 2014: I called LAFD Professional Standard Captain Knighten, to investigate my complaint of wrongful charges made by LAFD. It took only 10 sec,and on very next day, Captain Knighten informed me of my Innocense.
9.sept 2014: I called LAPD Internal Affair to file a complaint against Office Coco re: wrongful arrest
10.Jan 2019: I pressed a perjury charge on ‘Accusing LAFD(Evan Swanton)” and his partner (philip campenella). Hollywood Detective Klnor took my case ,priminarily contingent upon what LAFD Captain Knighten would say(whether he would say the same result as what he told me before multiple times). But Detective Klnor told me LAFD Professional Standard will NOT cooperate with Upper-handed LAPD detective over 2 weeks. Now they hired High Rank City Atty for Damage Control on my issue alone.
11. I called LAFD Professional Standard and spoke with a supervisor to Captain Knighten(his name is Vice Chief, Guteirrez) who released a contradicting outcome of his investigation citing Evan Swanton and Philip Campenella did not do anything wrong(=perjury by top authority at LAFD Professional Standard).(= mr guteirrez committed Perjury)
12.may, 2015. I took my own polygraph accusing LAPD never asked any question re: why I called 911 call on Jan 26,2014 and what happened) and I never touched ‘Accusing LAFD’s Face as Evan Swanton charged me for: I PASSED MY POLYGRAPH 100%(can be seen at www.FuckLAPD.com)
13.LAPD Internal Affair has been evasive when I demanded an outcome of investigation on my complaint over last 4.5years, over more than 80 phone calls.(Sgt Ward )(may 2015-feb2019), they have not released Mandated Explanation on an Outcome.(=gross disrespect to city hall policy)
14.LAPD sgt Arnold and sgt dolan were involved to help a stranger to file Restraint Order under Perjury. LAC DA Just Integrity(Lieutenant Aolise) caused Termination of ALL involved high ranks of Olympic Div LAPD Sgts.(feb 2017) but on my same complaint filed with LAPD Internal Affair announced Sgt Dolan did not do anything wrong. LAPD Police Chief had to resign !
15. Aug 2015-may 2017: I have contacted my district LAC BOS (sheila khul) but 6 of her officer staffs failed to pressue LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to go forward its Investigation. Due to failure, 6 of Sheila Khul’s office employeed got termianted
13.may 2018: Federal Deportation Court Judge found I might have been a victim of LAPD corruption and put my deportation removing proceeding to SLEEP MODE, in order for me to Prepare U-Visa Documents as required. (=even Fed Judge agreed to my assertion that I was a victim of LAPD/LAFD/DA/Public Defenders’ MISCONDUCTS/PERJURY/FRAUD). She did not issue a Final Removal, based on Probable Massive Gov Corruption in LA county and their gov.
My Final Allegations in summary:
I believe Officer Coco(who was going after me for a while before Jan 2014 arrest) orchestrated to seduce LAFD to commit perjury and fabricated Crime Evidences(such as photoshopping Wound Effect on face) and bribed LAC DA to hide Exculpatory Evidences of ‘wounded face picture’ in color format and Medical Record for ‘Wounded’ Face care as testified by Philip Campenella and Police Report.
Therefore, I am accusing LAFD, LAPD, LAFD professional standard office, LAPD internal affair, LAC DA, LAC Public Defender were corrupted in prosecuting Semi-Terminal Ill person with No Evidence to Share /Prove, by using Legal or Justice System’s Loopholes.
Complainer’s Info: Hee Young Noh, pobox 74074, LA,CA90004, 213-373-4141
Email: [email protected]
Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A:subject of complaint: Criminal Case #: BA420787
wrongful imprisonment through DA(robert wallace)’s misconduct and my public defender(robin ginsburg)’s misconduct/negligence/deception to threaten me into accepting a plea when I was innocent, LAC DA Just Integrity Unit(lieutenant Aloise and head deputy james garrison)’s failure to investigate and prosecute ,and Alternate Public Defender(jane yang)’s refusal to represent me at APPEAL Court, LA City Gov’s failure on Transparency in “Orchestrated among multiple city and county agent( LAPD Internal Affair and LAFD Professional Standard), BOS Shiela Khul’ office’s failure to enforce LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to investigate on my wrongful imprisonment which allegedly involved ‘corrupted LAFD’ + ‘corrutped LAPD’ + Corrupted LAC DA.
B.Chronology and allegations of improper actions/illegal actions committed by LAFD/LAPD/LAC DA/LAC Public Defender/LAC Alternate Public Defender and LAC DA Just Integrity Unit etc
1.Jan 2014: I was assaulted by my neighbor and called 911, Arriving LAPD officer Coco had been hating me beforehand,and He conspired LAFD (evan Swanton + Philip Campenella) to fabricate a crime story inside paramedic van and ‘photo-shopped’ wound on face of Evan Swonton and put me in LAC Jail
2.Feb 2014: LAC DA(robert wallace) hid Exculpartory Evidences, to deceptively have prosecuted me. I allege Robert Wallace was also conspired by LAPD.(=intentionally hiding exculpatory evidences)
3.Jan 2014-Feb 2014: my public defender(robin ginsburg) had deceived/misled/threatened me to accept Plea Bargain and refused to Subpoena ‘photo-shopped’ Crime Evidences(= illegal choice) and misled re: immigration complication (EXH___________). My PD failed to show up the scheduled 5 of Video Conferences, so that I lost much of communication re: my options and how to complicate my immigration matter etc.(=Gross Negligence) . As I reported about this with LAC Gov, Ginsburg’s Supervisors(head deput, Ms Thomas & Jeff Gilliam) got terminated.
4.March 2016: Alternate Public Defender(jane yang) refused to represent my APPEAL Court,based on my fragile health( =Unethical practice of law)
5.In contrast to my Public Defender’s confirmation, I was jailed into Immigration Camp
6.April 2016. I wrote a letter to Robin Ginsburg to show my strong interest to withdraw PLEA,but she failed to tell me in time that THERE IS 6MONTHS’ STATUTORY LIMIT. (=negligence)
7.July 7,2015: I filed a complaint to LAC DA Just Integrity Unit, in writing( Sgt Bob Maus confirmed my letter), later Lieutenant Aolise took over the investigation, under Head Deputy (James Garrison) re: LAPD corruption which allegedly seduced LAFD and DA to have jailed me.
LAC DA rejected any investigation on ‘conspired framed wrongful jailing’. Head Deputy(james garrison) got terminated.
8.sept 2014: I called LAFD Professional Standard Captain Knighten, to investigate my complaint of wrongful charges made by LAFD. It took only 10 sec,and on very next day, Captain Knighten informed me of my Innocense.
9.sept 2014: I called LAPD Internal Affair to file a complaint against Office Coco re: wrongful arrest
10.Jan 2019: I pressed a perjury charge on ‘Accusing LAFD(Evan Swanton)” and his partner (philip campenella). Hollywood Detective Klnor took my case ,priminarily contingent upon what LAFD Captain Knighten would say(whether he would say the same result as what he told me before multiple times). But Detective Klnor told me LAFD Professional Standard will NOT cooperate with Upper-handed LAPD detective over 2 weeks. Now they hired High Rank City Atty for Damage Control on my issue alone.
11. I called LAFD Professional Standard and spoke with a supervisor to Captain Knighten(his name is Vice Chief, Guteirrez) who released a contradicting outcome of his investigation citing Evan Swanton and Philip Campenella did not do anything wrong(=perjury by top authority at LAFD Professional Standard).(= mr guteirrez committed Perjury)
12.may, 2015. I took my own polygraph accusing LAPD never asked any question re: why I called 911 call on Jan 26,2014 and what happened) and I never touched ‘Accusing LAFD’s Face as Evan Swanton charged me for: I PASSED MY POLYGRAPH 100%(can be seen at www.FuckLAPD.com)
13.LAPD Internal Affair has been evasive when I demanded an outcome of investigation on my complaint over last 4.5years, over more than 80 phone calls.(Sgt Ward )(may 2015-feb2019), they have not released Mandated Explanation on an Outcome.(=gross disrespect to city hall policy)
14.LAPD sgt Arnold and sgt dolan were involved to help a stranger to file Restraint Order under Perjury. LAC DA Just Integrity(Lieutenant Aolise) caused Termination of ALL involved high ranks of Olympic Div LAPD Sgts.(feb 2017) but on my same complaint filed with LAPD Internal Affair announced Sgt Dolan did not do anything wrong. LAPD Police Chief had to resign !
15. Aug 2015-may 2017: I have contacted my district LAC BOS (sheila khul) but 6 of her officer staffs failed to pressue LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to go forward its Investigation. Due to failure, 6 of Sheila Khul’s office employeed got termianted
13.may 2018: Federal Deportation Court Judge found I might have been a victim of LAPD corruption and put my deportation removing proceeding to SLEEP MODE, in order for me to Prepare U-Visa Documents as required. (=even Fed Judge agreed to my assertion that I was a victim of LAPD/LAFD/DA/Public Defenders’ MISCONDUCTS/PERJURY/FRAUD). She did not issue a Final Removal, based on Probable Massive Gov Corruption in LA county and their gov.
My Final Allegations in summary:
I believe Officer Coco(who was going after me for a while before Jan 2014 arrest) orchestrated to seduce LAFD to commit perjury and fabricated Crime Evidences(such as photoshopping Wound Effect on face) and bribed LAC DA to hide Exculpatory Evidences of ‘wounded face picture’ in color format and Medical Record for ‘Wounded’ Face care as testified by Philip Campenella and Police Report.
Therefore, I am accusing LAFD, LAPD, LAFD professional standard office, LAPD internal affair, LAC DA, LAC Public Defender were corrupted in prosecuting Semi-Terminal Ill person with No Evidence to Share /Prove, by using Legal or Justice System’s Loopholes.
6 of Sheila's Staffs got terminated/fired after I spoke in front of Board of Supervisors Meeting.
The Reason: staffs failed to enforce LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to 'prosecute Corrupted LAPD'.
BOS Shiela was my former residence' District Board of Supervisor.
The Reason: staffs failed to enforce LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to 'prosecute Corrupted LAPD'.
BOS Shiela was my former residence' District Board of Supervisor.
First time,(out of numerous complaints of mine) LAPD Chief Charlie Beck sent me a letter citing Sgt Dolan did not do anything wrong.
In Contrast, LAC DA Just Integrity Unit fired Sgt Dolan & Sgt Arnold(Reputable Sgt/watch-commander Sgt Craig Brown) and more High Ranks for serious corruption,including to 'fabricate TRO' for my House Manager's Son to put me on TRO. But Jae Yoo vs Steve Noh(denied based on "jae yoo doesn't live here and I never met him before). Jae Yoo's mother filed a perjury TRO on me before and also got denied, but I put her on my TRO( she is a manager of House)
Integrity Guy, Sgt Craig Brown visited my home, unannounced and gave me a sympathy hugs and encouraged me to stay strong( HE KNEW LAPD OLYMPIC DIV'S HIGH RANKS MIGHT START ANOTHER CORRUPTIONS ON ME, BECAUSE MY WEBSITE(FuckLAPD.com) contained my Polygraph which was too embarassing ~ ! He got tangled in Sgt Dolan and another Sgt's fraudulent TRO(Jae Yoo vs Steve Noh). I believe He stepped down out of his consciousness.
But he DOESN'T LIVE WITH ME nor HE MET ME BEFORE ! ! He filed a false document and police statements, to make perfect. my House Manager herself filed a perjury TRO. Judge knew about this family's perjury. TRO BOTH GOT DENIED !! whether LAPD's statements were in it or not.
LAPD Olympic div and Wilshire Div have been removing me out of my room, by using 'Perjury TRO' on multiple times, since of 2006 when I filed the first complaint against LAPD( Officer Kim who allegedly connected to Korean Mafia Team)
LAPD chief ridiculed LAC DA on the same investigation ! He had to retire ~~ !!(Nobody offered a Job and he did not finish his elected term ?? = He was forced to step down !)
LA times reports: The chief grew teary-eyed as he talked about his decision to retire, drawing a pat on the back from Garcetti. The timing was right for many reasons, Beck said. He felt the right city leaders were in place to choose from a “great generation of leaders.” And, he said, he would be able to spend more time with his family, particularly his young grandsons.
(Fact Check: at young 65y old, charlie beck would give up LAPD chief job to spend more time with Grand sons !!?? Liar!)
In my opinion, he got forced out(nobody is missing him) with PENSION TO COLLECT ! (aka RETIREMENT)
FBI-LA OFFICE HAS MANY OF MY TESTIMONIES ! and Senator Feinstein weighed in with FBI Congregational Representative !!
In Contrast, LAC DA Just Integrity Unit fired Sgt Dolan & Sgt Arnold(Reputable Sgt/watch-commander Sgt Craig Brown) and more High Ranks for serious corruption,including to 'fabricate TRO' for my House Manager's Son to put me on TRO. But Jae Yoo vs Steve Noh(denied based on "jae yoo doesn't live here and I never met him before). Jae Yoo's mother filed a perjury TRO on me before and also got denied, but I put her on my TRO( she is a manager of House)
Integrity Guy, Sgt Craig Brown visited my home, unannounced and gave me a sympathy hugs and encouraged me to stay strong( HE KNEW LAPD OLYMPIC DIV'S HIGH RANKS MIGHT START ANOTHER CORRUPTIONS ON ME, BECAUSE MY WEBSITE(FuckLAPD.com) contained my Polygraph which was too embarassing ~ ! He got tangled in Sgt Dolan and another Sgt's fraudulent TRO(Jae Yoo vs Steve Noh). I believe He stepped down out of his consciousness.
But he DOESN'T LIVE WITH ME nor HE MET ME BEFORE ! ! He filed a false document and police statements, to make perfect. my House Manager herself filed a perjury TRO. Judge knew about this family's perjury. TRO BOTH GOT DENIED !! whether LAPD's statements were in it or not.
LAPD Olympic div and Wilshire Div have been removing me out of my room, by using 'Perjury TRO' on multiple times, since of 2006 when I filed the first complaint against LAPD( Officer Kim who allegedly connected to Korean Mafia Team)
LAPD chief ridiculed LAC DA on the same investigation ! He had to retire ~~ !!(Nobody offered a Job and he did not finish his elected term ?? = He was forced to step down !)
LA times reports: The chief grew teary-eyed as he talked about his decision to retire, drawing a pat on the back from Garcetti. The timing was right for many reasons, Beck said. He felt the right city leaders were in place to choose from a “great generation of leaders.” And, he said, he would be able to spend more time with his family, particularly his young grandsons.
(Fact Check: at young 65y old, charlie beck would give up LAPD chief job to spend more time with Grand sons !!?? Liar!)
In my opinion, he got forced out(nobody is missing him) with PENSION TO COLLECT ! (aka RETIREMENT)
FBI-LA OFFICE HAS MANY OF MY TESTIMONIES ! and Senator Feinstein weighed in with FBI Congregational Representative !!
BLM Los Angeles has created a petition that needs your signature. It calls for charges to be brought against the officers who have killed over 300 community members during the term of Attorney General Jackie Lacey. Thus far not a single officer has been charged in any of those murders. Please sign and share this petition and bring the officers to justice.(oct 2017)
BLM also demanded Mayor to fire Charlie Beck !
1.Fire Charlie Beck for leading the most murderous law enforcement unit in the nation; 2. Move all Los Angeles Police Commission Meetings out of LAPD headquarters and to the evenings so that they can be accessible to the community; 3. Establish a reparations fund to support those who are brutalized and abused by police and the families of those who have been killed by police; 4. Appoint real community representatives to key boards and commissions; 5. Hold quarterly meetings in the Black community, with an agenda that the community develops and a format that the community defines.
BLM also demanded Mayor to fire Charlie Beck !
1.Fire Charlie Beck for leading the most murderous law enforcement unit in the nation; 2. Move all Los Angeles Police Commission Meetings out of LAPD headquarters and to the evenings so that they can be accessible to the community; 3. Establish a reparations fund to support those who are brutalized and abused by police and the families of those who have been killed by police; 4. Appoint real community representatives to key boards and commissions; 5. Hold quarterly meetings in the Black community, with an agenda that the community develops and a format that the community defines.
then Police Commission president got my message via his LAPD Commission Office and his Law office, TOOK NO ACTION, instead He placed a Restraint Order on one of "Black Lives Matter' group member !
AND Matt Johnson is a black boy ! and he is into "hollywood entertaintment", not in criminal justice etc.
AND Matt Johnson is a black boy ! and he is into "hollywood entertaintment", not in criminal justice etc.
Recently I spoke with a civilian member of Police Commission(Debra Greene 213-996-1228). She is another JOKE !
Even at this office, LAPD were constantly lying to cover-up LAPD's misconducts !!
Police Commission's president,steve sorotoff(?) never liked Charlie Beck, from the beginning ~ !
Even at this office, LAPD were constantly lying to cover-up LAPD's misconducts !!
Police Commission's president,steve sorotoff(?) never liked Charlie Beck, from the beginning ~ !
LAPD Police Commission has been issuing " pre-printed Investigative Result" Letter.
All letters sent were SAME('pre-printed') do not have Accused LAPD, why was accused,never call the accusing citizens for further info.
LAPD CHIEF WAS NOTORIOUS for PROTECTING 'Criminal LAPD'.
All letters sent were SAME('pre-printed') do not have Accused LAPD, why was accused,never call the accusing citizens for further info.
LAPD CHIEF WAS NOTORIOUS for PROTECTING 'Criminal LAPD'.
Fire Commission Meeting dates
|
Fire Chief gets grilled by Fire Commission(NBC Los Angeles)
|
Killing of Nipsey Hussle tied to personal dispute; video of shooting emerges
As Los Angeles police searched for the killer of Nipsey Hussle, Chief Michel Moore said Tuesday that security videos and witnesses have identified Eric Holder as the suspected shooter.
The chief said the 29-year-old suspect got into a verbal altercation with Hussle on Sunday afternoon. “Mr. Holder walked up on multiple occasions and engaged in conversations” with the rapper, Moore said. “He came back armed with a handgun” and opened fire, the chief said.
Moore said investigators believe the shooting to be the result of a "personal matter between the two of them," but would not elaborate.
Moore and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti both acknowledged a recent uptick in violence, particularly in South Los Angeles, and noted that Hussle’s legacy was one of peace.
”Nipsey Hussle represents the enormity of the lives we have lost,” Moore said.
Moore said no one should shelter Holder or the female driver of the getaway car in which he allegedly fled. Moore urged the gunman to surrender.
Graphic surveillance camera video shows a gunman walking up to Hussle and two other men standing in front of the shop the rapper owned in a Slauson Avenue strip mall. The gunman then opens fire and Hussle falls to the ground as the other two men run from the gunfire.
“Nipsey Hussle was an artist who touched our city and lives far beyond the City of Angels, throughout the country and the world,” Garcetti said.
The mayor said that the worst way to answer the killing was more violence and he “hopes the community comes together” to achieve the goals the rapper had set in recent years. “This is about young people of color being able to have opportunities in their lives,” he said.
Hussle, he said, “was a tireless advocate for the young people of this city and of this world to lift them up with the possibility of not being imprisoned by where you come from or past mistakes but the possibility of what comes in the future.”
The L.A. County coroner’s office said Monday that Hussle died of a gunshot wound to the head.
Holder was last seen in a white, four-door 2016 Chevy Cruze, with the license plate number 7RJD742.
Police released Holder’s name Monday night, when a stampede at a memorial vigil for Hussle led to several injuries.
Moore said investigators believe the shooting to be the result of a "personal matter between the two of them," but would not elaborate.
Moore and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti both acknowledged a recent uptick in violence, particularly in South Los Angeles, and noted that Hussle’s legacy was one of peace.
”Nipsey Hussle represents the enormity of the lives we have lost,” Moore said.
Moore said no one should shelter Holder or the female driver of the getaway car in which he allegedly fled. Moore urged the gunman to surrender.
Graphic surveillance camera video shows a gunman walking up to Hussle and two other men standing in front of the shop the rapper owned in a Slauson Avenue strip mall. The gunman then opens fire and Hussle falls to the ground as the other two men run from the gunfire.
“Nipsey Hussle was an artist who touched our city and lives far beyond the City of Angels, throughout the country and the world,” Garcetti said.
The mayor said that the worst way to answer the killing was more violence and he “hopes the community comes together” to achieve the goals the rapper had set in recent years. “This is about young people of color being able to have opportunities in their lives,” he said.
Hussle, he said, “was a tireless advocate for the young people of this city and of this world to lift them up with the possibility of not being imprisoned by where you come from or past mistakes but the possibility of what comes in the future.”
The L.A. County coroner’s office said Monday that Hussle died of a gunshot wound to the head.
Holder was last seen in a white, four-door 2016 Chevy Cruze, with the license plate number 7RJD742.
Police released Holder’s name Monday night, when a stampede at a memorial vigil for Hussle led to several injuries.
The chief said the 29-year-old suspect got into a verbal altercation with Hussle on Sunday afternoon. “Mr. Holder walked up on multiple occasions and engaged in conversations” with the rapper, Moore said. “He came back armed with a handgun” and opened fire, the chief said.
Moore said investigators believe the shooting to be the result of a "personal matter between the two of them," but would not elaborate.
Moore and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti both acknowledged a recent uptick in violence, particularly in South Los Angeles, and noted that Hussle’s legacy was one of peace.
”Nipsey Hussle represents the enormity of the lives we have lost,” Moore said.
Moore said no one should shelter Holder or the female driver of the getaway car in which he allegedly fled. Moore urged the gunman to surrender.
Graphic surveillance camera video shows a gunman walking up to Hussle and two other men standing in front of the shop the rapper owned in a Slauson Avenue strip mall. The gunman then opens fire and Hussle falls to the ground as the other two men run from the gunfire.
“Nipsey Hussle was an artist who touched our city and lives far beyond the City of Angels, throughout the country and the world,” Garcetti said.
The mayor said that the worst way to answer the killing was more violence and he “hopes the community comes together” to achieve the goals the rapper had set in recent years. “This is about young people of color being able to have opportunities in their lives,” he said.
Hussle, he said, “was a tireless advocate for the young people of this city and of this world to lift them up with the possibility of not being imprisoned by where you come from or past mistakes but the possibility of what comes in the future.”
The L.A. County coroner’s office said Monday that Hussle died of a gunshot wound to the head.
Holder was last seen in a white, four-door 2016 Chevy Cruze, with the license plate number 7RJD742.
Police released Holder’s name Monday night, when a stampede at a memorial vigil for Hussle led to several injuries.
Moore said investigators believe the shooting to be the result of a "personal matter between the two of them," but would not elaborate.
Moore and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti both acknowledged a recent uptick in violence, particularly in South Los Angeles, and noted that Hussle’s legacy was one of peace.
”Nipsey Hussle represents the enormity of the lives we have lost,” Moore said.
Moore said no one should shelter Holder or the female driver of the getaway car in which he allegedly fled. Moore urged the gunman to surrender.
Graphic surveillance camera video shows a gunman walking up to Hussle and two other men standing in front of the shop the rapper owned in a Slauson Avenue strip mall. The gunman then opens fire and Hussle falls to the ground as the other two men run from the gunfire.
“Nipsey Hussle was an artist who touched our city and lives far beyond the City of Angels, throughout the country and the world,” Garcetti said.
The mayor said that the worst way to answer the killing was more violence and he “hopes the community comes together” to achieve the goals the rapper had set in recent years. “This is about young people of color being able to have opportunities in their lives,” he said.
Hussle, he said, “was a tireless advocate for the young people of this city and of this world to lift them up with the possibility of not being imprisoned by where you come from or past mistakes but the possibility of what comes in the future.”
The L.A. County coroner’s office said Monday that Hussle died of a gunshot wound to the head.
Holder was last seen in a white, four-door 2016 Chevy Cruze, with the license plate number 7RJD742.
Police released Holder’s name Monday night, when a stampede at a memorial vigil for Hussle led to several injuries.
Has the LAPD Really Gotten Better Since the '90s?
https://www.complex.com/life/2016/06/lapd-since-nineties
Somehow, against all odds, FX miniseries The People v. O.J. Simpson didn’t sate America’s thirst for the Juice. Against even greater odds, the latest injection of Simpson into the zeitgeist has been phenomenal. ESPN’s mini docu-series O.J. Simpson: Made in America chronicles the former athlete from his college ball days to his current imprisonment, and all that messy business in between.
One crucial element of Simpson’s story was the infamous low-speed white Bronco chase, in which the LAPD tailed Simpson from Orange County to his Brentwood home—the pursuit broadcast in real-time on every major network in the country. Though this chase would become the foundation of a now-beloved Los Angeles tradition of stopping whatever you’re doing to turn on the TV any time a police chase happens, it was much more dire for the citizens and department at the time. This was the third time in as many years that the eyes of the nation were focused on the LAPD. With this historical moment fresh in our minds, now is as a good a time as any to conduct a review of the LAPD's track record, spanning from the department's drama, brutality, and corruption of the early '90s to today. In the past couple of years, the public spotlight on police brutality and behavior, nationwide, has intensified. This scrutiny begs the question: Has the LAPD really gotten better since the '90s? Or do they remain, like many other departments across the United States, yet another broken institution?
Only a few years prior to Simpson’s 1994 chase, the Rodney King incident had dragged the reputation of the department through the mud and into the national spotlight. After a bystander video surfaced of officers beating King with batons, mayor Tom Bradley founded the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (also known as the Christopher Commission) to audit the department. Despite the commission finding a lack of accountability from commanding officers for excessive force used by their reports, the officers seen beating King on tape were acquitted in 1992 by a predominantly white jury, sparking city-wide riots that resulted in more than a billion dollars in property damage, and further straining relationships between the LAPD and Angelenos.
The department squandered what little of the public's trust it had when officers planted a gun on a suspect in 1996 after shooting him in the back, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. When one of the officers confessed, years later, that he and his partner had lied in their testimonies, the paralyzed man was released from prison, awarded $15,000,000 of taxpayer money, and a web of LAPD corruption years in the making began to unravel.
What would come to be know as the Rampart scandal—named for the law enforcement division where it transpired—involved the two gun-planting officers above, but would ultimately find 70 officers indicted on charges ranging from unprovoked shootings to drug dealing to bank robbery. With noble beginnings as an anti-gang endeavor, the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) Unit—formed in 1979—soon devolved into the very sort of gang it was meant to eradicate. But this gang had the funds, arsenal, and protection of the LAPD on its side. The unit was dissolved in 2000.
WHEN ONE OF THE OFFICERS CONFESSED, YEARS LATER, THAT HE AND HIS PARTNER HAD LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONIES, THE PARALYZED MAN WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON, AWARDED $15,000,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY, AND A WEB OF LAPD CORRUPTION YEARS IN THE MAKING BEGAN TO UNRAVEL.
Trials over the scandal stretched into the new millennium—and though many officers involved were brought to justice—rapes and murders attributed to the unit remain unanswered for. Hell, some conspiracy theories tie the murder of Notorious B.I.G. to the scandal. Heads rolled amongst the LAPD brass in the wake of the exposure—most notably the ousting of Chief Bernard Parks, who was replaced by NYC’s Bill Bratton.
This is the point in the LAPD’s history where things ostensibly take a turn for the better. Bratton, a no-nonsense chief who subscribed to the broken window theory of policing, cracked down hard on corruption within the department and ushered in sweeping reforms that lowered instances of violent crime, and raised the department’s favorability percentages in minority communities. But as the Nation points out in its 2013 dissection of Bratton’s L.A. tenure, the above statistics were mostly the result of a racist and draconian shift than an idyllic one. Unconstitutional “stop and frisks” (which Bratton keeps alive in New York today) were practiced across the department, instances of non-lethal force climbed (specifically in black and Latino communities), and, to cap it all off, Bratton seemed to be jet-setting out of the city constantly.
The Bratton era ended in 2009 with only a few unsavory incidents, and they paled in comparison to the scandals of ‘90s. L.A. was, by most accounts, a safer place for the average citizen. Concurrently, with the internet and cameras an increasingly integral part of officer and civilian interactions, corruption had fewer places to hide. But then a 2013 incident put a magnifying glass back on the LAPD and brought into question all the supposed progress Bratton and recent generations of LAPD officers had made.
Officer Christopher Dorner was let go for what the department deemed “false statements” against his training officer, who he’d attempted to turn in for excessive force. Dorner responded by releasing a manifesto against the department and killing two people in what was the start of a revenge killing spree.
The LAPD was apoplectic and started a state-wide manhunt for Dorner that even stretched into Mexico. In their frenzy to kill the man, spooked officers opened fire on a truck with two innocent women inside, neither of whom matched Dorner’s suspect description of black and male.
After 12 days of searching, a final standoff between police and Dorner took place in a mountain cabin in Big Bear Lake, Calif. The ensuing shootout resulted in the cabin catching fire due to pyrotechnic tear gas canisters. Naturally, the “take no prisoners” conduct and conclusion of the whole affair led conspiracy theorists to believe that the LAPD was not looking to take Dorner in alive, lest he talk to the media and expose corruption.
So, while they’re not the Wild West of the ‘40s or the corrupt, violent gangs of the ‘90s, how much better has the LAPD actually become at doing their job with both efficacy and integrity? That’s hard for a white male like me, residing well above I-10, to qualify.
Today, the LAPD is still battling demons, though these seem to come more in the form of "lone wolf" bad cops than systemic malfeasance. There is still some hemming and hawing over the issuing of department-wide mandatory body cams, which seem an inevitability for departments around the country at this point. The LAPD is, as far as one can tell, striving for accountability.
As union leader and police veteran Craig Lilly noted in a 2015 press conference, "We're still just one crisis away from people saying, 'See? There's the old LAPD again.'"
One crucial element of Simpson’s story was the infamous low-speed white Bronco chase, in which the LAPD tailed Simpson from Orange County to his Brentwood home—the pursuit broadcast in real-time on every major network in the country. Though this chase would become the foundation of a now-beloved Los Angeles tradition of stopping whatever you’re doing to turn on the TV any time a police chase happens, it was much more dire for the citizens and department at the time. This was the third time in as many years that the eyes of the nation were focused on the LAPD. With this historical moment fresh in our minds, now is as a good a time as any to conduct a review of the LAPD's track record, spanning from the department's drama, brutality, and corruption of the early '90s to today. In the past couple of years, the public spotlight on police brutality and behavior, nationwide, has intensified. This scrutiny begs the question: Has the LAPD really gotten better since the '90s? Or do they remain, like many other departments across the United States, yet another broken institution?
Only a few years prior to Simpson’s 1994 chase, the Rodney King incident had dragged the reputation of the department through the mud and into the national spotlight. After a bystander video surfaced of officers beating King with batons, mayor Tom Bradley founded the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (also known as the Christopher Commission) to audit the department. Despite the commission finding a lack of accountability from commanding officers for excessive force used by their reports, the officers seen beating King on tape were acquitted in 1992 by a predominantly white jury, sparking city-wide riots that resulted in more than a billion dollars in property damage, and further straining relationships between the LAPD and Angelenos.
The department squandered what little of the public's trust it had when officers planted a gun on a suspect in 1996 after shooting him in the back, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. When one of the officers confessed, years later, that he and his partner had lied in their testimonies, the paralyzed man was released from prison, awarded $15,000,000 of taxpayer money, and a web of LAPD corruption years in the making began to unravel.
What would come to be know as the Rampart scandal—named for the law enforcement division where it transpired—involved the two gun-planting officers above, but would ultimately find 70 officers indicted on charges ranging from unprovoked shootings to drug dealing to bank robbery. With noble beginnings as an anti-gang endeavor, the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) Unit—formed in 1979—soon devolved into the very sort of gang it was meant to eradicate. But this gang had the funds, arsenal, and protection of the LAPD on its side. The unit was dissolved in 2000.
WHEN ONE OF THE OFFICERS CONFESSED, YEARS LATER, THAT HE AND HIS PARTNER HAD LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONIES, THE PARALYZED MAN WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON, AWARDED $15,000,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY, AND A WEB OF LAPD CORRUPTION YEARS IN THE MAKING BEGAN TO UNRAVEL.
Trials over the scandal stretched into the new millennium—and though many officers involved were brought to justice—rapes and murders attributed to the unit remain unanswered for. Hell, some conspiracy theories tie the murder of Notorious B.I.G. to the scandal. Heads rolled amongst the LAPD brass in the wake of the exposure—most notably the ousting of Chief Bernard Parks, who was replaced by NYC’s Bill Bratton.
This is the point in the LAPD’s history where things ostensibly take a turn for the better. Bratton, a no-nonsense chief who subscribed to the broken window theory of policing, cracked down hard on corruption within the department and ushered in sweeping reforms that lowered instances of violent crime, and raised the department’s favorability percentages in minority communities. But as the Nation points out in its 2013 dissection of Bratton’s L.A. tenure, the above statistics were mostly the result of a racist and draconian shift than an idyllic one. Unconstitutional “stop and frisks” (which Bratton keeps alive in New York today) were practiced across the department, instances of non-lethal force climbed (specifically in black and Latino communities), and, to cap it all off, Bratton seemed to be jet-setting out of the city constantly.
The Bratton era ended in 2009 with only a few unsavory incidents, and they paled in comparison to the scandals of ‘90s. L.A. was, by most accounts, a safer place for the average citizen. Concurrently, with the internet and cameras an increasingly integral part of officer and civilian interactions, corruption had fewer places to hide. But then a 2013 incident put a magnifying glass back on the LAPD and brought into question all the supposed progress Bratton and recent generations of LAPD officers had made.
Officer Christopher Dorner was let go for what the department deemed “false statements” against his training officer, who he’d attempted to turn in for excessive force. Dorner responded by releasing a manifesto against the department and killing two people in what was the start of a revenge killing spree.
The LAPD was apoplectic and started a state-wide manhunt for Dorner that even stretched into Mexico. In their frenzy to kill the man, spooked officers opened fire on a truck with two innocent women inside, neither of whom matched Dorner’s suspect description of black and male.
After 12 days of searching, a final standoff between police and Dorner took place in a mountain cabin in Big Bear Lake, Calif. The ensuing shootout resulted in the cabin catching fire due to pyrotechnic tear gas canisters. Naturally, the “take no prisoners” conduct and conclusion of the whole affair led conspiracy theorists to believe that the LAPD was not looking to take Dorner in alive, lest he talk to the media and expose corruption.
So, while they’re not the Wild West of the ‘40s or the corrupt, violent gangs of the ‘90s, how much better has the LAPD actually become at doing their job with both efficacy and integrity? That’s hard for a white male like me, residing well above I-10, to qualify.
Today, the LAPD is still battling demons, though these seem to come more in the form of "lone wolf" bad cops than systemic malfeasance. There is still some hemming and hawing over the issuing of department-wide mandatory body cams, which seem an inevitability for departments around the country at this point. The LAPD is, as far as one can tell, striving for accountability.
As union leader and police veteran Craig Lilly noted in a 2015 press conference, "We're still just one crisis away from people saying, 'See? There's the old LAPD again.'"
Deputy reinstated by Sheriff Villanueva admitted to having tattoo linked to secret society
Investigators reviewing the case of Caren Carl Mandoyan, the Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy fired for misconduct only to be reinstated recently by Sheriff Alex Villanueva, learned that he was a member of a secret society of deputies known as the Reapers, according to documents reviewed by The Times.
A woman who accused Mandoyan of abuse told investigators she saw the group’s tattoo on Mandoyan’s inner left ankle: a Grim Reaper holding a scythe next to the name of his Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station, branded with the number 98.
inRead invented by Teads
ADVERTISEMENTShe said he warned her that because of his membership with the Reapers, he had influential friends who could ruin careers in the department.
Mandoyan has become the focus of an intense legal battle between the county Board of Supervisors and Villanueva, who recently reinstated Mandoyan two years after the deputy was fired in connection with the woman’s claims of domestic abuse, stalking and harassment.
PAID CONTENTWhat Is This?
Why Ford Recommends Motorcraft CoolantTo keep up with rapidly advancing engine technology, Motorcraft® has a new addition to its line of coolants.
SEE MOREBy Ford Motor Company
The details are included in thousands of pages of documents from Mandoyan’s case obtained by The Times under a landmark police transparency law. The records include videos that showed Mandoyan attempting to break into the woman’s home, which on Thursday sparked outrage from Los Angeles County supervisors who said the sheriff should rescind the decision.
The files do not indicate that Mandoyan’s admission about the tattoo factored into his firing.
Mandoyan’s attorney, Greg Smith, said any claims his client was involved in violence are “absolute rubbish” and that the deputy hasn’t been a member of the Reapers for years. Smith has also said his client did not abuse the woman, a former deputy with whom Mandoyan was previously in a romantic relationship.
The new details of Mandoyan’s Reaper tattoo have merged two of the Sheriff’s Department’s most heated controversies: Watchdogs and members of the county’s governing board have lambasted Villanueva over reinstating Mandoyan while heightening calls to root out the agency’s subculture of tattooed deputy cliques that have long been accused of severe hazing, fights and violence against the communities they serve.
Mandoyan admitted to having a Reaper tattoo associated with the South L.A. station, according to his July 14, 2016, internal affairs interview contained in 2,000 pages of documents that were released Wednesday by the county Civil Service Commission.
The revelation comes days after Villanueva was grilled by members of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission over his handling of members of tattooed deputy groups who engage in misconduct.
Villanueva told commissioners on Tuesday that he replaced the captain of the East Los Angeles station and transferred several others in response to an off-duty fight that broke out involving members of the Banditos deputy clique in September.
Earlier this month, several deputies filed a claim against the county tied to that incident, alleging harassment and beatings by some of the Banditos.
Villanueva and his newly appointed undersheriff, Tim Murakami, also said Tuesday that department officials are actively discouraging new deputies from getting station-related tattoos because of their negative associations over the years. A Times review found more than $7 million in county payouts over the last decade in lawsuits claiming excessive force by deputies known to have matching tattoos as well as to settle a case alleging harassment by an inked deputy gang.
But some watchdogs say news of Mandoyan’s association with the Reapers deepens their concerns about the department’s attitude toward secret societies and its commitment to investigating them.
“I am troubled by the fact that Mandoyan identified the fact that he has a Reaper tattoo on his ankle and seemed to make light of the fact that it is merely a station tattoo for South L.A.,” said Lael Rubin, a member of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission who is part of the group’s ad hoc committee on secretive cliques.
“We all know historically, the Reapers were and are part of a subset of secret groups that have created havoc among themselves and out in the community, though that’s not to indict all of them,” said Rubin, a former prosecutor. She said the idea of Mandoyan’s tattoo “raises the specter of what his behavior was like.”
Several members of deputy cliques have said they promote morale, not violence, and that some rogue officers have maligned the purpose of the groups.
Sean Kennedy, a Loyola Law School professor and member of the oversight commission, said Mandoyan’s reported comments that being a Reaper made him influential suggest a link between deputy gang tattoos and threats of violence or other inappropriate conduct.
“How does a skull dressed as the Grim Reaper reflect high morale or pride in one’s work? The tattoos are menacing for a reason. They are meant to intimidate everybody outside the deputy gang,” Kennedy said.
The Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the offices of inspector general and county counsel, has been in the process of putting together a study of deputy cliques for two years. The review has still not begun because the county has not yet hired an independent contractor to conduct the probe, Elizabeth Miller of the county counsel’s office said at the oversight commission meeting Tuesday.
But when commissioners pressed Villanueva about whether he is investigating tattoos and clique affiliation among members of his own command staff, he said it would be “entirely inappropriate” to do so because it’s a private matter.
“I am wholly confident that anyone who’s in my staff right now, whether they have the tattoo or not, has not done anything to indicate there’s any type of behavior associated with it that would be detrimental to the organization or the community,” Villanueva said.
The Sheriff’s Department did not directly respond to questions about Mandoyan’s clique affiliation Thursday. A statement sent by department spokeswoman Nicole Nishida said that the Mandoyan matter will be decided in court and that the sheriff is focused on running the agency and promoting public safety.
In an application for a temporary restraining order and in statements she made to law enforcement officials, Mandoyan’s ex-girlfriend said he grabbed her by the back of her neck and squeezed it for as long as 30 seconds. She tried to hide from Mandoyan in her bathroom but he kicked in the door and broke it, she claimed.
Videos released Wednesday show Mandoyan using a metal tool to try to pry open the woman’s sliding glass door. In another instance, he is seen opening her bathroom window from the outside. The Sheriff’s Department determined Mandoyan repeatedly lied to internal affairs investigators by claiming he never tried to break into the woman’s home — statements that were contradicted by the video footage.
“I was saddened to see the video, which was a disturbing representation of what domestic violence survivors experience,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “In order to build trust with those who have lived through domestic violence, it is my hope that the sheriff reconsiders his decision to reinstate the deputy in question.”
Smith, Mandoyan’s attorney, said the pair lived together and that his client’s behavior on the patio was to get the woman’s attention because she locked him out of the apartment.
Mandoyan’s case has become a major issue for Villanueva since The Times revealed that the sheriff reinstated the deputy shortly after taking office. The move set off an unprecedented legal battle between the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors, which went to court to try to stop Villanueva from reinstating Mandoyan.
Mandoyan served as a volunteer on Villanueva’s election campaign, though the sheriff denies engaging in a quid pro quo with the deputy.
A woman who accused Mandoyan of abuse told investigators she saw the group’s tattoo on Mandoyan’s inner left ankle: a Grim Reaper holding a scythe next to the name of his Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station, branded with the number 98.
inRead invented by Teads
ADVERTISEMENTShe said he warned her that because of his membership with the Reapers, he had influential friends who could ruin careers in the department.
Mandoyan has become the focus of an intense legal battle between the county Board of Supervisors and Villanueva, who recently reinstated Mandoyan two years after the deputy was fired in connection with the woman’s claims of domestic abuse, stalking and harassment.
PAID CONTENTWhat Is This?
Why Ford Recommends Motorcraft CoolantTo keep up with rapidly advancing engine technology, Motorcraft® has a new addition to its line of coolants.
SEE MOREBy Ford Motor Company
The details are included in thousands of pages of documents from Mandoyan’s case obtained by The Times under a landmark police transparency law. The records include videos that showed Mandoyan attempting to break into the woman’s home, which on Thursday sparked outrage from Los Angeles County supervisors who said the sheriff should rescind the decision.
The files do not indicate that Mandoyan’s admission about the tattoo factored into his firing.
Mandoyan’s attorney, Greg Smith, said any claims his client was involved in violence are “absolute rubbish” and that the deputy hasn’t been a member of the Reapers for years. Smith has also said his client did not abuse the woman, a former deputy with whom Mandoyan was previously in a romantic relationship.
The new details of Mandoyan’s Reaper tattoo have merged two of the Sheriff’s Department’s most heated controversies: Watchdogs and members of the county’s governing board have lambasted Villanueva over reinstating Mandoyan while heightening calls to root out the agency’s subculture of tattooed deputy cliques that have long been accused of severe hazing, fights and violence against the communities they serve.
Mandoyan admitted to having a Reaper tattoo associated with the South L.A. station, according to his July 14, 2016, internal affairs interview contained in 2,000 pages of documents that were released Wednesday by the county Civil Service Commission.
The revelation comes days after Villanueva was grilled by members of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission over his handling of members of tattooed deputy groups who engage in misconduct.
Villanueva told commissioners on Tuesday that he replaced the captain of the East Los Angeles station and transferred several others in response to an off-duty fight that broke out involving members of the Banditos deputy clique in September.
Earlier this month, several deputies filed a claim against the county tied to that incident, alleging harassment and beatings by some of the Banditos.
Villanueva and his newly appointed undersheriff, Tim Murakami, also said Tuesday that department officials are actively discouraging new deputies from getting station-related tattoos because of their negative associations over the years. A Times review found more than $7 million in county payouts over the last decade in lawsuits claiming excessive force by deputies known to have matching tattoos as well as to settle a case alleging harassment by an inked deputy gang.
But some watchdogs say news of Mandoyan’s association with the Reapers deepens their concerns about the department’s attitude toward secret societies and its commitment to investigating them.
“I am troubled by the fact that Mandoyan identified the fact that he has a Reaper tattoo on his ankle and seemed to make light of the fact that it is merely a station tattoo for South L.A.,” said Lael Rubin, a member of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission who is part of the group’s ad hoc committee on secretive cliques.
“We all know historically, the Reapers were and are part of a subset of secret groups that have created havoc among themselves and out in the community, though that’s not to indict all of them,” said Rubin, a former prosecutor. She said the idea of Mandoyan’s tattoo “raises the specter of what his behavior was like.”
Several members of deputy cliques have said they promote morale, not violence, and that some rogue officers have maligned the purpose of the groups.
Sean Kennedy, a Loyola Law School professor and member of the oversight commission, said Mandoyan’s reported comments that being a Reaper made him influential suggest a link between deputy gang tattoos and threats of violence or other inappropriate conduct.
“How does a skull dressed as the Grim Reaper reflect high morale or pride in one’s work? The tattoos are menacing for a reason. They are meant to intimidate everybody outside the deputy gang,” Kennedy said.
The Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the offices of inspector general and county counsel, has been in the process of putting together a study of deputy cliques for two years. The review has still not begun because the county has not yet hired an independent contractor to conduct the probe, Elizabeth Miller of the county counsel’s office said at the oversight commission meeting Tuesday.
But when commissioners pressed Villanueva about whether he is investigating tattoos and clique affiliation among members of his own command staff, he said it would be “entirely inappropriate” to do so because it’s a private matter.
“I am wholly confident that anyone who’s in my staff right now, whether they have the tattoo or not, has not done anything to indicate there’s any type of behavior associated with it that would be detrimental to the organization or the community,” Villanueva said.
The Sheriff’s Department did not directly respond to questions about Mandoyan’s clique affiliation Thursday. A statement sent by department spokeswoman Nicole Nishida said that the Mandoyan matter will be decided in court and that the sheriff is focused on running the agency and promoting public safety.
In an application for a temporary restraining order and in statements she made to law enforcement officials, Mandoyan’s ex-girlfriend said he grabbed her by the back of her neck and squeezed it for as long as 30 seconds. She tried to hide from Mandoyan in her bathroom but he kicked in the door and broke it, she claimed.
Videos released Wednesday show Mandoyan using a metal tool to try to pry open the woman’s sliding glass door. In another instance, he is seen opening her bathroom window from the outside. The Sheriff’s Department determined Mandoyan repeatedly lied to internal affairs investigators by claiming he never tried to break into the woman’s home — statements that were contradicted by the video footage.
“I was saddened to see the video, which was a disturbing representation of what domestic violence survivors experience,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “In order to build trust with those who have lived through domestic violence, it is my hope that the sheriff reconsiders his decision to reinstate the deputy in question.”
Smith, Mandoyan’s attorney, said the pair lived together and that his client’s behavior on the patio was to get the woman’s attention because she locked him out of the apartment.
Mandoyan’s case has become a major issue for Villanueva since The Times revealed that the sheriff reinstated the deputy shortly after taking office. The move set off an unprecedented legal battle between the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors, which went to court to try to stop Villanueva from reinstating Mandoyan.
Mandoyan served as a volunteer on Villanueva’s election campaign, though the sheriff denies engaging in a quid pro quo with the deputy.
Ohio police chief fatally overdosed on drugs taken from evidence room, investigators say
An Ohio police chief died from an accidental fentanyl overdose after the drugs were removed from his department’s evidence room, officials said Wednesday.
Kirkersville Police Chief James Hughes Jr. was found unresponsive in his home May 25 and pronounced dead shortly after, the Newark Advocate reported. An autopsy revealed he died from “acute intoxication by fentanyl.”
Reynoldsburg Police Department Lt. Ron Wright, whose department is still investigating, told the newspaper that packaging was discovered “that indicated that he was taking controlled substances from” the evidence room.
According to the coroner’s office, a plastic sandwich bag found where Hughes died tested positive for cocaine. A syringe was also determined to be positive for fentanyl, the Newark Advocate reported.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-police-chief-fatally-overdosed-on-drugs-taken-from-evidence-room-investigators-say
Kirkersville Police Chief James Hughes Jr. was found unresponsive in his home May 25 and pronounced dead shortly after, the Newark Advocate reported. An autopsy revealed he died from “acute intoxication by fentanyl.”
Reynoldsburg Police Department Lt. Ron Wright, whose department is still investigating, told the newspaper that packaging was discovered “that indicated that he was taking controlled substances from” the evidence room.
According to the coroner’s office, a plastic sandwich bag found where Hughes died tested positive for cocaine. A syringe was also determined to be positive for fentanyl, the Newark Advocate reported.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-police-chief-fatally-overdosed-on-drugs-taken-from-evidence-room-investigators-say
Every year June, LA County Grand Jury releases its Results.
We will see how many LAPD/LAFD/Public Defendant Atty/DA/LAC DA employees might be indicted in 2019.
We will see how many LAPD/LAFD/Public Defendant Atty/DA/LAC DA employees might be indicted in 2019.
Office of Inspector General got to know some details of how corrupted Olympic Station,
Inspector General stepped down ! Bushman is one in charge of my complaints !
Inspector General stepped down ! Bushman is one in charge of my complaints !
BY ACCIDENT, AFTER I GOT RELEASED FROM IMMIGRATION CAMP, I FOUND A KOREAN BOARDING HOUSE AT 227 S. WESTERN AVE...without any thinking Olympic Station might go after me again.
However, I got physical assault again by my House Manager's husband while I was taking pics around the kitchen area, TO DEFEND THEIR EVICTION ATTEMPT.
SO I CALLED 911, LAPD ABRAHAM SHOWED UP and he did not recognize who I WAS... On another phone call, Sgt michael Rubin showed up and recognized WHO I WAS. from there, I HAD BEEN CONSTANTLY ARRESTED WHEN I CALLED 911 DUE TO ON-GOING ASSAULTS/CRIMES CAUSED BY HOUSE MANAGER'S HUSBAND who was a korean gang member. per Officer Abraham, his supervisor knows this house address and previous complaints, THEREFORE HE RECOMMENDED I SHOULD FILE A RESTRAINT ORDER.
On very next date, House Manager( female, in early 60's, no english speaker) FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER by lying and bring 3 perjury witnesses into the court room. But the subpoenaed witness by me won't show up citing HE'D RATHER GO TO JAIL THAN TESTIFYING AGAINST A HOUSE MANAGER... he said he knows what he would suffer if he did.
From there, over 2.5yrs, no matter how many times I called 911, THE ARRIVING LAPD(ONLY SGT & WATCH-COMMANDER) WILL NOT PROSECUTE MY HOUSE MANAGER(YOUNG SOON YOO). I FILED MORE THAN 100 COMPLAINTS VIA 911 call center or Central Div of LAPD, LAPD internal affair etc
However, I got physical assault again by my House Manager's husband while I was taking pics around the kitchen area, TO DEFEND THEIR EVICTION ATTEMPT.
SO I CALLED 911, LAPD ABRAHAM SHOWED UP and he did not recognize who I WAS... On another phone call, Sgt michael Rubin showed up and recognized WHO I WAS. from there, I HAD BEEN CONSTANTLY ARRESTED WHEN I CALLED 911 DUE TO ON-GOING ASSAULTS/CRIMES CAUSED BY HOUSE MANAGER'S HUSBAND who was a korean gang member. per Officer Abraham, his supervisor knows this house address and previous complaints, THEREFORE HE RECOMMENDED I SHOULD FILE A RESTRAINT ORDER.
On very next date, House Manager( female, in early 60's, no english speaker) FILED A RESTRAINT ORDER by lying and bring 3 perjury witnesses into the court room. But the subpoenaed witness by me won't show up citing HE'D RATHER GO TO JAIL THAN TESTIFYING AGAINST A HOUSE MANAGER... he said he knows what he would suffer if he did.
From there, over 2.5yrs, no matter how many times I called 911, THE ARRIVING LAPD(ONLY SGT & WATCH-COMMANDER) WILL NOT PROSECUTE MY HOUSE MANAGER(YOUNG SOON YOO). I FILED MORE THAN 100 COMPLAINTS VIA 911 call center or Central Div of LAPD, LAPD internal affair etc
while I was living at 227 s western ave,los angeles.... Sgt fox kicked /broke my door so many times, to arrest and to jail, whatever he did to me was 100% illegal police activities,even including 'fabricating my med condition with Emerg Physician(Dr.Ngo) at Good Samaritan Hospital and Physical Assaults just for fun in his patrol van,spent 1.5hrs with Top-rank LAFD(Jeller?) to discuss how he could jail me to his "HOUSE"(city jail) instead of LAC Jail.
Sgt Fox is the most corrupted psychopath police I ever met ! He had no fear getting caught, often yelled at me citing "I can put you in jail, just like Sgt Clark did"... Always I had LOCKED my door... Someone showed up demanding I shall open my door, when I asked who was there, He answered "Sgt Clark" to bring my horrible jail life and hinting a whole circle of INJUSTICE HE COULD COOK-UP ! He often threatened my Freedom of Speech on my website where there is no his name on it...HE DEMANDED I SHALL SHUT DOWN MY WEBSITE !(FUCKLAPD.COM)
so I took it down and rebuilding again !
Restless Dick Syndrome !
During P/T job as a council, John Duran was spotted hooking up with boys at Grindr inside city hall,and hired and abused etc...
Sick Mother F*cker !! |
John Duran ( criminal defense atty, weho council member) was featured as "Sex Pervert" on LA times.
He took my $5000 over the phone, within 5 min. I NEVER HEARD FROM HIM, NOR HE SHOWED UP AT COURT EVEN ONCE ! His Yelp rating Says Truth !G Gay mayor accused of sexual harassment as #MeToo reckoning comes to West Hollywood(feb2019,la times)For years, John Duran has been a public avatar for West Hollywood's cheekily sexual culture. Now, amid new allegations of sexual harassment, cracks are showing in the city. By HAILEY BRANSON-POTTS ------------- John Duran's Yelp Rating ( over 30y's Criminal Defense Atty):
he has only 3 ratings, but 2 of them are Fee Disputes !! Sick Mother F*cker/Sucker |
WeHo’s Mayor Blames #MeToo for a Rush to Judgment Against HimWeho Mayor responds "I am only one city council who is sexually active."
|
Between Aug 2015 to Feb 2018 at 227 s western ave, I have been a victim of violences/thefts/major crimes which were ASSISTED BY HIGH RANK SGTs at Olympic Div.
I filed more than 50 complaints against these Sgts,but 911 call center is not issuing CF number ! |
West Hollywood Council Members Demand John Duran Step Down as Mayor(Advocate)
Three members of the West Hollywood City Council have asked the city's mayor to step down in the midst of sexual assault allegations that have sparked a public-relations nightmare.
Lindsey Horvath, John D’Amico, and Lauren Meister posted statements on their Facebook accounts Tuesday with the demand to Mayor John Duran, who has been accused by multiple men from the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles of sexual harassment.
The Los Angeles Times published a February 5 report on the allegations, which include claims that the politician made inappropriate remarks and put his hand down two men's waistbands. Following the accusations, Duran admitted no wrongdoing but said he would be leaving his post as the chairman of GMCLA's board.
Many national outlets picked up the story and noted in their reporting how, in 2016, a former aide of Duran's sued the gay politician and the city over a claim of sexual harassment. West Hollywood paid the aide a settlement of $500,000, but neither the city nor Duran admitted wrongdoing.
Robert Oliver, a public safety commissioner in West Hollywood, resigned in response to the new allegations. He demanded Duran's resignation and said he was "astounded" by the silence of his colleagues at a Monday meeting. “I have been honored to serve on this commission with you … but I cannot continue to serve on a commission that stays silent on issues of such importance,” Oliver said, reports Wehoville, a West Hollywood news source.
In his statement, D'Amico underscored how the controversy over Duran has distracted from the important work of the city, from "filling pot holes" to "being a beacon for LGBTQ people everywhere." The Southern California city is a famous queer capital, with 40 percent of residents identifying as members of the LGBTQ community.
"To get our city back on track John Duran needs to step away from being Mayor immediately and consult his conscience about what happens next," D'Aminco urged.
D'Amico claimed the City Council cannot remove Duran. City Council members are elected by West Hollywood residents and rotate the position of mayor among them. In an extreme scenario, the city's voters can move to impeach Duran.
However, D'Amico warned that the council has the power to take a "limited set of actions," including demoting Duran and defunding his travel budget if he does not step down.
Horvath said in her statement that she was "deeply disturbed" by the allegations of sexual misconduct. She also cited "protecting our City" in her argument for Duran's abdication.
"Our City cannot focus on the work of the people when we have to address new and numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including whether our Mayor used his title to solicit sexual favors," Horvath said. "It is not fair to the people of this City to continue seeing ‘West Hollywood’ in the same sentence as these allegations. Our City deserves better."
“I am neither a judge nor jury and believe that all people deserve due process," said Meister, who
joined her colleagues in the call for Duran to step down. “However, as West Hollywood holds itself up as an example for us, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard – one we expect from any public office from City Hall to the White House.
“I believe that Mayor Duran should do what’s best for the City – in this case, it would be to step down from the position of Mayor, and perhaps, step away from the Council position so that he can focus on these issues and the City can focus on moving forward.”
John Heilman was the lone council member to remain silent on Duran. However, unlike his colleagues, Heilman is not seeking reelection in March, notes Wehoville.
Lindsey Horvath, John D’Amico, and Lauren Meister posted statements on their Facebook accounts Tuesday with the demand to Mayor John Duran, who has been accused by multiple men from the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles of sexual harassment.
The Los Angeles Times published a February 5 report on the allegations, which include claims that the politician made inappropriate remarks and put his hand down two men's waistbands. Following the accusations, Duran admitted no wrongdoing but said he would be leaving his post as the chairman of GMCLA's board.
Many national outlets picked up the story and noted in their reporting how, in 2016, a former aide of Duran's sued the gay politician and the city over a claim of sexual harassment. West Hollywood paid the aide a settlement of $500,000, but neither the city nor Duran admitted wrongdoing.
Robert Oliver, a public safety commissioner in West Hollywood, resigned in response to the new allegations. He demanded Duran's resignation and said he was "astounded" by the silence of his colleagues at a Monday meeting. “I have been honored to serve on this commission with you … but I cannot continue to serve on a commission that stays silent on issues of such importance,” Oliver said, reports Wehoville, a West Hollywood news source.
In his statement, D'Amico underscored how the controversy over Duran has distracted from the important work of the city, from "filling pot holes" to "being a beacon for LGBTQ people everywhere." The Southern California city is a famous queer capital, with 40 percent of residents identifying as members of the LGBTQ community.
"To get our city back on track John Duran needs to step away from being Mayor immediately and consult his conscience about what happens next," D'Aminco urged.
D'Amico claimed the City Council cannot remove Duran. City Council members are elected by West Hollywood residents and rotate the position of mayor among them. In an extreme scenario, the city's voters can move to impeach Duran.
However, D'Amico warned that the council has the power to take a "limited set of actions," including demoting Duran and defunding his travel budget if he does not step down.
Horvath said in her statement that she was "deeply disturbed" by the allegations of sexual misconduct. She also cited "protecting our City" in her argument for Duran's abdication.
"Our City cannot focus on the work of the people when we have to address new and numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, including whether our Mayor used his title to solicit sexual favors," Horvath said. "It is not fair to the people of this City to continue seeing ‘West Hollywood’ in the same sentence as these allegations. Our City deserves better."
“I am neither a judge nor jury and believe that all people deserve due process," said Meister, who
joined her colleagues in the call for Duran to step down. “However, as West Hollywood holds itself up as an example for us, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard – one we expect from any public office from City Hall to the White House.
“I believe that Mayor Duran should do what’s best for the City – in this case, it would be to step down from the position of Mayor, and perhaps, step away from the Council position so that he can focus on these issues and the City can focus on moving forward.”
John Heilman was the lone council member to remain silent on Duran. However, unlike his colleagues, Heilman is not seeking reelection in March, notes Wehoville.
Pressure is mounting for West Hollywood Mayor John Duran to resign amid allegations that he sexually harassed fellow members of the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles.
On Wednesday, West Hollywood City Council members Lindsey Horvath, Lauren Meister, and John D’Amico posted statements on Facebook lamenting how the scandal is impacting the city and urging Duran to step down.
“West Hollywood as a city is suffering as a result of the numerous and repeated allegations against Mayor Duran,” Meister wrote. “I believe that Mayor Duran should do what’s best for the City—in this case, it would be to step down from the position of Mayor, and perhaps, step away from the Council position so that he can focus on these issues and the City can focus on moving forward.”
On Wednesday, Duran told the Los Angeles Times that he believes he is being targeted unfairly by council members, and that the public should wait for the facts before making a judgement.
“I think, unfortunately, one of the problems with the #MeToo movement is that any accusation against somebody is treated as truth without any investigation,” he told the Times. “I think every accusation of sexual misconduct has to be taken seriously to protect victims. But once the accusation is made, there has to be an investigation to determine what the truth is.”
Duran, who has served as mayor of the city since 2018, has been accused by multiple current and former chorus members of groping and sexually inappropriate comments. Jason Tong told the Times that he left the choir after Duran slipped his hand inside Tong’s underwear in a changing room before a performance. Another chorus member, Brian Phillip Nichoalds, said Duran slipped his hand under his waistband and made “sexually charged comments” to him. He also alleges that no action was taken by chorus leadership after he’d reported the incident.
In the interview with the Times, Duran denied any misconduct. “I haven’t done anything wrong. I’m not going to resign,” he said. “They’re going to have to wait for the investigation to occur and reasonable minds to go through the accusations and draw conclusions.”
But the city’s political apparatus appears to be angling for a quicker resolution. On Monday, Robert Oliver, vice chairman of the city’s Public Safety Commission, resigned in protest after other commissioners failed to condemn Duran. “I’d like to know why the rest of the commission would stay silent when we have the second, third and fourth allegation against the mayor of our city,” Oliver said at a public meeting.
Duran was previously the subject of a 2016 sexual harassment lawsuit by his former City Hall deputy, Ian Owens. The suit, which was settled for $500,000, alleged that Duran made sexually inappropriate comments to his deputy, who he had initially met on Grindr. Owens claims Duran told him, “I would bottom for you any day,” and that he was tasked with updating Duran’s address book with men he had slept with, noting each man’s penis size and sexual skills. At the time of the lawsuit, Duran was also reprimanded by fellow Councilman D’Amico for cruising Grindr during public meetings.
After the first of two black men died at prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck’s home, activists claimed that Duran—who spent more than a decade as Buck’s attorney—dissuaded sex workers from testifying to investigators about the donor’s conduct, according to the Times.
Duran denied these claims in an interview with
On Wednesday, West Hollywood City Council members Lindsey Horvath, Lauren Meister, and John D’Amico posted statements on Facebook lamenting how the scandal is impacting the city and urging Duran to step down.
“West Hollywood as a city is suffering as a result of the numerous and repeated allegations against Mayor Duran,” Meister wrote. “I believe that Mayor Duran should do what’s best for the City—in this case, it would be to step down from the position of Mayor, and perhaps, step away from the Council position so that he can focus on these issues and the City can focus on moving forward.”
On Wednesday, Duran told the Los Angeles Times that he believes he is being targeted unfairly by council members, and that the public should wait for the facts before making a judgement.
“I think, unfortunately, one of the problems with the #MeToo movement is that any accusation against somebody is treated as truth without any investigation,” he told the Times. “I think every accusation of sexual misconduct has to be taken seriously to protect victims. But once the accusation is made, there has to be an investigation to determine what the truth is.”
Duran, who has served as mayor of the city since 2018, has been accused by multiple current and former chorus members of groping and sexually inappropriate comments. Jason Tong told the Times that he left the choir after Duran slipped his hand inside Tong’s underwear in a changing room before a performance. Another chorus member, Brian Phillip Nichoalds, said Duran slipped his hand under his waistband and made “sexually charged comments” to him. He also alleges that no action was taken by chorus leadership after he’d reported the incident.
In the interview with the Times, Duran denied any misconduct. “I haven’t done anything wrong. I’m not going to resign,” he said. “They’re going to have to wait for the investigation to occur and reasonable minds to go through the accusations and draw conclusions.”
But the city’s political apparatus appears to be angling for a quicker resolution. On Monday, Robert Oliver, vice chairman of the city’s Public Safety Commission, resigned in protest after other commissioners failed to condemn Duran. “I’d like to know why the rest of the commission would stay silent when we have the second, third and fourth allegation against the mayor of our city,” Oliver said at a public meeting.
Duran was previously the subject of a 2016 sexual harassment lawsuit by his former City Hall deputy, Ian Owens. The suit, which was settled for $500,000, alleged that Duran made sexually inappropriate comments to his deputy, who he had initially met on Grindr. Owens claims Duran told him, “I would bottom for you any day,” and that he was tasked with updating Duran’s address book with men he had slept with, noting each man’s penis size and sexual skills. At the time of the lawsuit, Duran was also reprimanded by fellow Councilman D’Amico for cruising Grindr during public meetings.
After the first of two black men died at prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck’s home, activists claimed that Duran—who spent more than a decade as Buck’s attorney—dissuaded sex workers from testifying to investigators about the donor’s conduct, according to the Times.
Duran denied these claims in an interview with
my hired attorney,John Duran, sent an inappropriate email to my adversity atty(ginsburg) citing "Mr.Noh doesn't need Duran's criminal defense ", BECAUSE I WAS MENTALLY ILL. NO WORK DONE, NO SHOW AT COURT HEARING, NO REFUND !($5k swallowed over the phone within 10 mins). I got fucked by Dick(LAPD)!..
still 'sore' after 5years later , Officer Coco is a black Dick(=Main Course) and officer Oh is a korean dickie("small but Spicy & Nasty" = kimchi Dick)(= pepper-spray dessert).....
911 call center's ALL SUPERVISORS AND WATCH-COMMANDERS GOT TO KNOW
OLYMPIC DIV OF LAPD is 100% Corrupted.
911 CALL CENTER WATCH-COMMANDER, MS MILLER, RECOGNIZED ME (AFTER 4 YRS LATER) SINCE WHEN I WAS LIVING AT 1716 ARLINGTON AVE, LAPD WAS DISPATCHED TO MY CALL, BUT THEY SMILED AWAY BACK AND FORTH... HUGGING THE CRIME-OFFENDERS IN FRONT OF ME. And More 911 Supervisors had to fight with Olympic Div's watchcommander(supervisor Reeves, Miller, +) over 18 hours marathon re: whether Olympic div should or should not send a police to my complaint ???(that was dec 2013)
OLYMPIC DIV OF LAPD is 100% Corrupted.
911 CALL CENTER WATCH-COMMANDER, MS MILLER, RECOGNIZED ME (AFTER 4 YRS LATER) SINCE WHEN I WAS LIVING AT 1716 ARLINGTON AVE, LAPD WAS DISPATCHED TO MY CALL, BUT THEY SMILED AWAY BACK AND FORTH... HUGGING THE CRIME-OFFENDERS IN FRONT OF ME. And More 911 Supervisors had to fight with Olympic Div's watchcommander(supervisor Reeves, Miller, +) over 18 hours marathon re: whether Olympic div should or should not send a police to my complaint ???(that was dec 2013)
169 Harvard ave: Elder Abuse TRO's fraud & Sgt Fox.(I had been asking for "elder abuse case of mine when i was at 227 s western ave, so many times. they did not do, this time, he revenged the same by fabricating). Sgt v martinez fabricates the scene
I moved from 227 s western ave(I stayed from July 2015-feb2018) to 169 Harvard, and Olympic Div's Watch Commander(Sgt Rubin (who threatened me to jail me if I put his name on my website) chased me to find what location I moved to and Another Sgt V.Martinez(is known as "pathological liar") FABRICATED A STORY! Within 3 weeks, I got evicted with no belongings ~ !
b)No use as evidence(penal code 632):this is a single family home, installed many CCTV to monitor tenants' activities. IT is illegal to have CCTV( at SGT's home),and the recorded words were mine but I WAS TALKING MYSELF TO VENT IT OUT !!( I am mentally ill) . Police can commit a crime (they know how v well) and get away with it, all the times !)
Let's say you use an electronic device to eavesdrop on someone in order to get evidence that you can use against them in a civil lawsuit (like a business contract dispute or a divorce). This may seem like a very reasonable way of fighting for your side in the court case. Unfortunately, though, not only might you face criminal charges for the eavesdropping...but any evidence you obtain that way will NOT be allowed in the court proceeding.18
Susan Kim vs Steve Noh( Susan Kim is a mother of Sgt Kim)
(Elder Abuse TRO case)
--> Process Servant forcefully opened my room door, to throw some paperworks into my room, in the middle of night....I heard someone calling my name more than 10 times...I never open my door since LAPD constantly visited my room at 227 s western ave. BUT SGT FOX ALWAYS KICKED MY DOOR AND BROKE TO OPEN , TO ARREST AND JAIL.. I lost everything and every properties ! AND my roommate got jailed under Felony same time !!
just like 2008 Wrongful Jailing by LAPD Officer Medina at 167 Oxford(?) ave, LA..(right before this arrest, Olympic Div's Ashpaugh(now he became Sgt) and more officers invaded my room without any warrants( I even called FBI and assigned with Mr Peterson, pasadena location) which led me to Homeless life in seattle etc and I appeared on Settle Times as Honorable Homeless ! Now came up with Revolutionary Idea of www.HomelessID.com
**my roommate(Andrew Kang) was simultaneouly jailed under Felony.
Susan Kim was aware that House Inspector will visit soon,and had to come up with a strategy to remove ALL of Tenants( 1-2 tenants were cooperating to move to another location ,temporarily WHILE HOUSE INSPECTION WAS ON THE WAY), Landlord clearly told me he ADDED rooms illegally ! And there are 2 roommates he did not like much accusing one roommate(CPA) was using too much electricity in his room,and he also accused 2nd roommate of 'hiring atty'. None of these 'troublesome' roommates met me. We did not meet nor discussed in conspiracy against landlord,nor against Housing.
Of course, I allege, City Building and Safety Inspector found "NO VIOLATION". that seems to have been influenced by LAPD sgt KIM(?).
35y+ veteran LAPD Detective contacted LAFD Professional Standard's captain Knighten, only in vain !! Captain Knighten will NOT return Mandated Calls from Detective LAPD's office !
Captain Knighten has been very evasive and obstructive on Justice.
But announced I was INNOCENT, AND CRIME EVIDENCES WERE 'PHOTO-SHOPPED'
Captain Knighten has been very evasive and obstructive on Justice.
But announced I was INNOCENT, AND CRIME EVIDENCES WERE 'PHOTO-SHOPPED'
https://www.lafd.org/about/professional-standards
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
Print
Your Los Angeles Fire Department seeks to serve the residents of Los Angeles with courage, integrity and pride. As with any organization utilizing thousands of employees, it is prudent that we take measures to ensure the mission of the department meets your fundamantal requirements and expectations. As such, we have developed and manage a Professional Standards Division.
If you would like to commend a member of the department for a job well done, please download and complete this form: LAFD Commendation Form
If you have a complaint or concern about the conduct or service rendered by a member of the department, kindly download and complete this form:
LAFD COMPLAINT FORM.PDF LAFD Complaint Form.pdf
You may also contact:
Los Angeles Fire Department
Professional Standards Division
201 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Professional Standards Division Contact:
213.202.3190 [ Direct Line ]
213.202.3198 [ Direct FAX ]
Your Los Angeles Fire Department seeks to serve the residents of Los Angeles with courage, integrity and pride. As with any organization utilizing thousands of employees, it is prudent that we take measures to ensure the mission of the department meets your fundamantal requirements and expectations. As such, we have developed and manage a Professional Standards Division.
If you would like to commend a member of the department for a job well done, please download and complete this form: LAFD Commendation Form
If you have a complaint or concern about the conduct or service rendered by a member of the department, kindly download and complete this form:
LAFD COMPLAINT FORM.PDF LAFD Complaint Form.pdf
You may also contact:
Los Angeles Fire Department
Professional Standards Division
201 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Professional Standards Division Contact:
213.202.3190 [ Direct Line ]
213.202.3198 [ Direct FAX ]
LAFD professional standard hired an attorney(=aka City Hall Damage Control Team(aka Circus Clown Lawyer), since my damage lawsuit will bankrupt LA CITY HALL ! (Jan 25,2019)!! that means they made huge corruption mistakes,not alone,but possibly with LAPD highest ranks and orchestrated how to deceive any public or attorneys or news media's Inquiry. Captain Knighten was asked to call DA after he discovered I was innocent,but he won't answer my call nor do his job.
I moved to a new room which is located within BOS Hilda Solis !
Ms Solis used to work for Civil Rights Office before !!!
Board of Supervisor, Hilda Solis, Caseworker contacted a newly hired Public Defender Head Deputy(Rose Bakeno? 213-974-2979). AND caused my old PD(Robin Ginsburg) to call me on Dec 11,2018 to exonerate me !
attention: Elenor(?)(case manager) re: my wrongful jailing(BA420787)InboxxSteve Noh <[email protected]>12:26 AM (29 minutes ago)
to firstdistrict, info, sroth, Robin, jburghardt, Roger, Kenneth, emshin, KTLA, maya.lau, southla, lafdrequest, Korean
Dear Elenor(her sister name is elizabeth,she said)
I spoke with you around 1 week ago re: wrongful jailing and New Confession from the Accuser(+LAFD) citing HE FABRICATED CRIME STORY AND used "Photo-shopped" pictures, to have prosecuted me.
THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPT INTERNAL AFFAIR after a diligent investigation done.
Now I am facing deportation and FEDERAL AUTHORITY (DHS) knows whether expungement is getting done and when done. Removing the history of conviction will not STOP MY DEPORTATION.
That doesn't serve Justice At All ~ !
I MUST BE EXONERATED AND LAFD MUST BE PROSECUTED ~ !
That is only way for me to defend DEPORTATION AND APPLY FOR U-VISA.
The problem here is gov agencies (LAC DA ROBERT WALLACE HAS 'photo-shopped' pictures because he won't submit to my public defender(robin ginsburg) for 1 year, and NEVER SUBMITTED eventually...I allege he knew Crime Story/Evidence was false !
my complaints: [email protected] (barbara garcia)
1. LAC DA robert wallace(now in charge by Sandy Roth) REFUSED TO PROSECUTE 'LYING LAFD', all she had to do was: either to call LAFD internal affair or she can hire Photo-Shop Expert and test on Crime Evidences(wounded face picture), she can find that out within 5 mins.
2.I went to Hollywood LAPD Detective(35+y experience) who called LAFD Internal Affair and they won't cooperate with Detective ! After its captain Knighten told me the above fact and he told to my public defender.
So, LAPD can not proceed to Arrest the lying Accuser(LAFD) because LAFD internal affair won't cooperate and Hollywood Detective is chickening out ! LAPD WILL NOT TAKE MY POLICE REPORT !
It is Sand Roth(lac da)'s Ultimate Responsibility without cooperation from LAFD internal affair captain Knighten who feels so shameful by putting 'older Medical Doctor/Email Inventor serving cal governor: www.permaID.com) in jail.
My public defender's office declared Conflict of Interest, won't help to EXONERATE ME,BUT WILLING TO HELP WITH EXPONGEMENT !
and won't ask Alternate Public Defender to file Withdraw of my plea bargain, or Re-Trial, or file Habea etc..
I am Now at my 60y age with multiple semi-terminal illnesses and mental illness, I LIVED AS A SLAVE IN LAC JAIL because I was only one thin logical Asian.
I also contacted LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to report ! They will not prosecute either. Head Deputy (James Garrison) got terminated on my case.
Then only options I can guess are:
1) LAC DA Sandy Roth must grab my file(BA420787) and test Photo-shopped pictures AND Prosecute him, AND assist me to get U-Visa
2)or Public Defender Office can force Alternate Public Defender to kick in , to file Withdrawal of Plea Bargain, under NEW DISCOVERY.
I am cc'ing this email to ALL INVOLVED
thank you
Dr. Hee Young "Steve" Noh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Solis used to work for Civil Rights Office before !!!
Board of Supervisor, Hilda Solis, Caseworker contacted a newly hired Public Defender Head Deputy(Rose Bakeno? 213-974-2979). AND caused my old PD(Robin Ginsburg) to call me on Dec 11,2018 to exonerate me !
attention: Elenor(?)(case manager) re: my wrongful jailing(BA420787)InboxxSteve Noh <[email protected]>12:26 AM (29 minutes ago)
to firstdistrict, info, sroth, Robin, jburghardt, Roger, Kenneth, emshin, KTLA, maya.lau, southla, lafdrequest, Korean
Dear Elenor(her sister name is elizabeth,she said)
I spoke with you around 1 week ago re: wrongful jailing and New Confession from the Accuser(+LAFD) citing HE FABRICATED CRIME STORY AND used "Photo-shopped" pictures, to have prosecuted me.
THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPT INTERNAL AFFAIR after a diligent investigation done.
Now I am facing deportation and FEDERAL AUTHORITY (DHS) knows whether expungement is getting done and when done. Removing the history of conviction will not STOP MY DEPORTATION.
That doesn't serve Justice At All ~ !
I MUST BE EXONERATED AND LAFD MUST BE PROSECUTED ~ !
That is only way for me to defend DEPORTATION AND APPLY FOR U-VISA.
The problem here is gov agencies (LAC DA ROBERT WALLACE HAS 'photo-shopped' pictures because he won't submit to my public defender(robin ginsburg) for 1 year, and NEVER SUBMITTED eventually...I allege he knew Crime Story/Evidence was false !
my complaints: [email protected] (barbara garcia)
1. LAC DA robert wallace(now in charge by Sandy Roth) REFUSED TO PROSECUTE 'LYING LAFD', all she had to do was: either to call LAFD internal affair or she can hire Photo-Shop Expert and test on Crime Evidences(wounded face picture), she can find that out within 5 mins.
2.I went to Hollywood LAPD Detective(35+y experience) who called LAFD Internal Affair and they won't cooperate with Detective ! After its captain Knighten told me the above fact and he told to my public defender.
So, LAPD can not proceed to Arrest the lying Accuser(LAFD) because LAFD internal affair won't cooperate and Hollywood Detective is chickening out ! LAPD WILL NOT TAKE MY POLICE REPORT !
It is Sand Roth(lac da)'s Ultimate Responsibility without cooperation from LAFD internal affair captain Knighten who feels so shameful by putting 'older Medical Doctor/Email Inventor serving cal governor: www.permaID.com) in jail.
My public defender's office declared Conflict of Interest, won't help to EXONERATE ME,BUT WILLING TO HELP WITH EXPONGEMENT !
and won't ask Alternate Public Defender to file Withdraw of my plea bargain, or Re-Trial, or file Habea etc..
I am Now at my 60y age with multiple semi-terminal illnesses and mental illness, I LIVED AS A SLAVE IN LAC JAIL because I was only one thin logical Asian.
I also contacted LAC DA Just Integrity Unit to report ! They will not prosecute either. Head Deputy (James Garrison) got terminated on my case.
Then only options I can guess are:
1) LAC DA Sandy Roth must grab my file(BA420787) and test Photo-shopped pictures AND Prosecute him, AND assist me to get U-Visa
2)or Public Defender Office can force Alternate Public Defender to kick in , to file Withdrawal of Plea Bargain, under NEW DISCOVERY.
I am cc'ing this email to ALL INVOLVED
thank you
Dr. Hee Young "Steve" Noh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Feuer sent "Deputy City Atty" to Fire House ~~ ! LOL it's like hiring Judy Giuliani
Fire Truck is on Fire !
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS ____ DELIA IBARRA PRESIDENT ANDREW GLAZIER VICE PRESIDENT JIMMY H. HARA, M.D. REBECCA NINBURG JIMMIE WOODS-GRAY ____ LETICIA GOMEZ EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ____ RALPH M. TERRAZAS FIRE CHIEF ____ 200 NORTH MAIN STREET ROOM 1800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 978-3800 FAX: (213) 978-3815 http://www.lafd.org February 6, 2019 Hee Young Noh [email protected] Dear Hee Young Noh: The Los Angeles Fire Department’s Professional Standards Division has received your complaint. Per the legal advice of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, please direct all future contact/correspondence to Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan at [email protected] The Fire Department maintains a zero tolerance policy towards retaliation. If you should experience any unusual incidents, which you believe to be related to your filing a complaint, please immediately contact the Professional Standards Division at (213) 202-3190 or complete and submit the Complaint Record Form located at www.LAFD.org and fax it to (213) 202-3198. Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. The LAFD takes pride in providing the most professional and complete emergency service to citizens such as you. It is our goal to treat every customer in every circumstance with respect and courtesy. Sincerely, RALPH M. TERRAZAS Fire Chief Stephen L. Gutierrez, Assistant Chief Professional Standards Division |
https://www.lafd.org/sites/default/files/LAFD%20Complaint%20Form.pdf
Los Angeles Fire Department Complaint Record Form Submitting a Complaint The Los Angeles Fire Department considers all complaints important. Complaints are documented on the "Complaint Record Form" and forwarded to the LAFD Professional Standards Division for review and follow-up action. All complaints are handled in an impartial manner in compliance with federal, state and local news and departmental policy. The Reporting Party information provides an opportunity for the department to follow-up to verify information or ask additional questions should the original submission lack enough specifics. Once you have completed the form, please print and either fax or mail it to: Los Angeles Fire Department Professional Standards Division 200 N. Main Street, Room 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4110 Fax: 213-978-3004 Please complete as much information as you can |
Top lawyer in L.A. city attorney’s office quits amid questions about outside income
City Atty. Mike Feuer, whose office is already engaged in a high-profile legal fight stemming from the DWP billing fiasco, has been hit by the resignation of Assistant City Atty. Thomas Peters, who was overseeing that litigation.
A top lawyer in Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer’s office who was helping oversee litigation regarding the 2013 Department of Water and Power billing debacle has resigned, the office said.
Chief Assistant City Atty. Thomas Peters stepped down Friday after The Times questioned Feuer’s office about outside income that Peters reported.
In city disclosure forms reviewed by The Times, Peters reported in 2017 that he received more than $100,000 in referral income from the law office of Anthony M. DeMarco. He also reported receiving two separate payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 from two law firms — Anthony M. DeMarco and Panish, Shea and Boyle — for referral fees in 2018. The city attorney’s office handled several lawsuits filed against the city by Panish, Shea and Boyle in recent years.
Referral fees are common in the legal world. Attorneys receive the fees for passing on a case to another attorney. Depending on how long a case is in court, the referring lawyer may be paid years after making the referral.
The city attorney’s office said Feuer was not aware of Peters’ referral fees.
“When [The Times] raised these issues ... I brought them to Mr. Feuer’s attention who had not been previously apprised of them,” spokesman Rob Wilcox said in a statement to The Times. “Mr. Peters has resigned. This is now a personnel matter and I cannot discuss it further.”
Peters didn’t respond to an email and could not be reached by phone. It appears the referral fees are not connected to the city’s lawsuit over the DWP billing issues.
Peters’ departure marks another tumultuous episode for Feuer’s office, which is engaged in a high-profile legal fight stemming from the DWP billing fiasco, in which hundreds of thousands of customers were overcharged.
Peters, chief of the civil litigation branch in Feuer’s office, was an attorney on the city’s ongoing lawsuit against consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which the city blames for causing the billing errors. PricewaterhouseCoopers alleges Feuer’s office took part in a collusive scheme to quickly settle a lawsuit brought by ratepayers against the city over the billing errors, which Feuer’s office denies.
A former plaintiffs' trial attorney, Peters joined Feuer’s office in 2014 and handled the bulk of the claims or lawsuits filed against or brought by the city, according to the city attorney’s office’s website. He earned a city salary of $258,460, according to the city’s personnel department.
An attorney for Panish, Shea and Boyle declined to comment about the fees paid to Peters, citing a possible conflict of client-attorney privilege.
Panish, Shea and Boyle has sued the city on behalf of plaintiffs several times in recent years. In some cases, Peters’ name appeared on court documents defending the city in those lawsuits and on city documents related to the cases.
The Times couldn’t determine what role, if any, he played in those lawsuits. DeMarco told The Times that the fees he paid Peters are from cases dating back several years, before Peters started working for the city attorney’s office. He also said his firm hasn’t had any recent cases involving the city. Wilcox said the city attorney’s office has no internal policy related specifically to the acceptance of referral fees. Lawyers at City Hall often recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest or if there is the appearance of one. Several years ago, Feuer removed himself from a lawsuit involving the city’s collection of hotel taxes because he once worked for a law firm that represented a defendant in the case. The city attorney also walled himself off from a DWP public records lawsuit, which was filed to prevent the names and addresses of people who benefited from a turf removal rebate program from being released to the San Diego-Union Tribune, a sister publication of the Los Angeles Times. Feuer obtained a rebate through the program, his office said at the time.
Peters is the third attorney to depart the city’s case against PricewaterhouseCoopers. Earlier this month, Paul Paradis, an outside attorney hired by Feuer’s office, left the case and lost his city contracts amid revelations that he represented the plaintiff who later filed a class-action lawsuit against the city over the billing errors. Paul Kiesel, another outside attorney hired by the city, also left.
Feuer’s office has launched an ethics investigation into issues surrounding the settlement of that case and two no-bid contracts Paradis received from the DWP totaling $36 million.
The DWP's billing meltdown occurred in 2013 as the agency launched a replacement for its antiquated billing system. Antwon Jones, a Van Nuys resident who received a $1,374 electric bill from the utility, was the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the city.
A settlement with Jones was announced a few months later. Around the time Jones filed his lawsuit, the city sued PricewaterhouseCoopers, accusing the consulting firm of misrepresenting its ability to implement the billing system.
PricewaterhouseCoopers lawyers now allege that city attorneys took part in a scheme that allowed the city to hand pick the plaintiff and his lawyer and clear the way for a settlement that was reached without a full public airing of the issues.
At the hearing this month, a judge asked Jones’ attorney, Jack Landskroner, if any referral fees had been paid to Paradis. Landskroner deferred to his lawyer, Mark Drooks, who cited his client's 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination and declined to answer the judge's question.At the heart of the conflict of interest allegation is a complaint drafted in January 2015 in Jones vs. PricewaterhouseCoopers identifying Paradis and Kiesel as Jones’ attorneys. (Kiesel denies he was ever retained as Jones’ attorney.)Peters testified in a deposition in September that, while he was weighing the city’s legal options in the billing fiasco, he instructed Paradis to draft the complaint. Peters acknowledged that the draft was circulated among DWP officials and city attorneys, but said “it was never intended to be filed” in court.
“I directed it be created … as a thought experiment,” Peters testified.
Times staff writer Kim Christensen contributed to this report.
Chief Assistant City Atty. Thomas Peters stepped down Friday after The Times questioned Feuer’s office about outside income that Peters reported.
In city disclosure forms reviewed by The Times, Peters reported in 2017 that he received more than $100,000 in referral income from the law office of Anthony M. DeMarco. He also reported receiving two separate payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 from two law firms — Anthony M. DeMarco and Panish, Shea and Boyle — for referral fees in 2018. The city attorney’s office handled several lawsuits filed against the city by Panish, Shea and Boyle in recent years.
Referral fees are common in the legal world. Attorneys receive the fees for passing on a case to another attorney. Depending on how long a case is in court, the referring lawyer may be paid years after making the referral.
The city attorney’s office said Feuer was not aware of Peters’ referral fees.
“When [The Times] raised these issues ... I brought them to Mr. Feuer’s attention who had not been previously apprised of them,” spokesman Rob Wilcox said in a statement to The Times. “Mr. Peters has resigned. This is now a personnel matter and I cannot discuss it further.”
Peters didn’t respond to an email and could not be reached by phone. It appears the referral fees are not connected to the city’s lawsuit over the DWP billing issues.
Peters’ departure marks another tumultuous episode for Feuer’s office, which is engaged in a high-profile legal fight stemming from the DWP billing fiasco, in which hundreds of thousands of customers were overcharged.
Peters, chief of the civil litigation branch in Feuer’s office, was an attorney on the city’s ongoing lawsuit against consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which the city blames for causing the billing errors. PricewaterhouseCoopers alleges Feuer’s office took part in a collusive scheme to quickly settle a lawsuit brought by ratepayers against the city over the billing errors, which Feuer’s office denies.
A former plaintiffs' trial attorney, Peters joined Feuer’s office in 2014 and handled the bulk of the claims or lawsuits filed against or brought by the city, according to the city attorney’s office’s website. He earned a city salary of $258,460, according to the city’s personnel department.
An attorney for Panish, Shea and Boyle declined to comment about the fees paid to Peters, citing a possible conflict of client-attorney privilege.
Panish, Shea and Boyle has sued the city on behalf of plaintiffs several times in recent years. In some cases, Peters’ name appeared on court documents defending the city in those lawsuits and on city documents related to the cases.
The Times couldn’t determine what role, if any, he played in those lawsuits. DeMarco told The Times that the fees he paid Peters are from cases dating back several years, before Peters started working for the city attorney’s office. He also said his firm hasn’t had any recent cases involving the city. Wilcox said the city attorney’s office has no internal policy related specifically to the acceptance of referral fees. Lawyers at City Hall often recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest or if there is the appearance of one. Several years ago, Feuer removed himself from a lawsuit involving the city’s collection of hotel taxes because he once worked for a law firm that represented a defendant in the case. The city attorney also walled himself off from a DWP public records lawsuit, which was filed to prevent the names and addresses of people who benefited from a turf removal rebate program from being released to the San Diego-Union Tribune, a sister publication of the Los Angeles Times. Feuer obtained a rebate through the program, his office said at the time.
Peters is the third attorney to depart the city’s case against PricewaterhouseCoopers. Earlier this month, Paul Paradis, an outside attorney hired by Feuer’s office, left the case and lost his city contracts amid revelations that he represented the plaintiff who later filed a class-action lawsuit against the city over the billing errors. Paul Kiesel, another outside attorney hired by the city, also left.
Feuer’s office has launched an ethics investigation into issues surrounding the settlement of that case and two no-bid contracts Paradis received from the DWP totaling $36 million.
The DWP's billing meltdown occurred in 2013 as the agency launched a replacement for its antiquated billing system. Antwon Jones, a Van Nuys resident who received a $1,374 electric bill from the utility, was the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the city.
A settlement with Jones was announced a few months later. Around the time Jones filed his lawsuit, the city sued PricewaterhouseCoopers, accusing the consulting firm of misrepresenting its ability to implement the billing system.
PricewaterhouseCoopers lawyers now allege that city attorneys took part in a scheme that allowed the city to hand pick the plaintiff and his lawyer and clear the way for a settlement that was reached without a full public airing of the issues.
At the hearing this month, a judge asked Jones’ attorney, Jack Landskroner, if any referral fees had been paid to Paradis. Landskroner deferred to his lawyer, Mark Drooks, who cited his client's 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination and declined to answer the judge's question.At the heart of the conflict of interest allegation is a complaint drafted in January 2015 in Jones vs. PricewaterhouseCoopers identifying Paradis and Kiesel as Jones’ attorneys. (Kiesel denies he was ever retained as Jones’ attorney.)Peters testified in a deposition in September that, while he was weighing the city’s legal options in the billing fiasco, he instructed Paradis to draft the complaint. Peters acknowledged that the draft was circulated among DWP officials and city attorneys, but said “it was never intended to be filed” in court.
“I directed it be created … as a thought experiment,” Peters testified.
Times staff writer Kim Christensen contributed to this report.
Hello, Mr. Noh.
The answers to your questions are as follows:
1. LAFD Professional Standards Division has already taken note of your complaints agains LAFD sworn personnel. Actions taken as a result of personnel complaints are not available to the public and related documents are protected from disclosure under the California Constitution and California law as personnel records. Therefore, you will not be able to receive any further information regarding the results of your complaints or any investigation into them. Persistent inquiries will not change the law.
2. LAFD is not authorited to hire "photo-shop" experts or any other type of experts to examine criminal evidence. Experts, if needed in a criminal matter, are hired by the prosecuting agency. Other non-prosecutorial witnesses or entities involved, including the LAFD, do not have access to criminal evidence and are not authorized to gain access to such criminal evidence. The answer to your question is, therefore, no. The LAFD has no legal ability to do that.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
The answers to your questions are as follows:
1. LAFD Professional Standards Division has already taken note of your complaints agains LAFD sworn personnel. Actions taken as a result of personnel complaints are not available to the public and related documents are protected from disclosure under the California Constitution and California law as personnel records. Therefore, you will not be able to receive any further information regarding the results of your complaints or any investigation into them. Persistent inquiries will not change the law.
2. LAFD is not authorited to hire "photo-shop" experts or any other type of experts to examine criminal evidence. Experts, if needed in a criminal matter, are hired by the prosecuting agency. Other non-prosecutorial witnesses or entities involved, including the LAFD, do not have access to criminal evidence and are not authorized to gain access to such criminal evidence. The answer to your question is, therefore, no. The LAFD has no legal ability to do that.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
Mr. Noh -
The Fire Department is my client. They have been specifically instructed NOT to speak to you further about any subject.
You are not legally entitled to know the reasons for my instruction to my client, as those are attorney-client privileged communications.
However, you are hereby informed, again, that the Los Angeles Fire Department is legally unable to assist you with your case.
Similarly, you are informed, again, that Professional Standards Division investigative reports, if any, cannot legally be shared with you.
Persistent inquires will not change these facts.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Managing Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
The Fire Department is my client. They have been specifically instructed NOT to speak to you further about any subject.
You are not legally entitled to know the reasons for my instruction to my client, as those are attorney-client privileged communications.
However, you are hereby informed, again, that the Los Angeles Fire Department is legally unable to assist you with your case.
Similarly, you are informed, again, that Professional Standards Division investigative reports, if any, cannot legally be shared with you.
Persistent inquires will not change these facts.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Managing Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
my response: Mr.Trump's office attorney testified against Mr Trump,because there is no 'client-atty' privilege.
you are a public atty and serving gov,and getting paid out of my tax money !
I don't know why I can not ask more detail why I had to spend 1.5y in jail ,since LAFD captain Knighten took 2 seconds to take my complaint and on very next day, he declared I was innocent(sept 2014,called from jail) which is tape recorded. He even said he got his supervisor's permission to tell me I was innocent. But I also asked him to call DA about it,but never done.I took a polygraph in this matter, I passed, NOW captain Knighten has a new boss...now I am told I was guilty...AND they hired High Rank city atty to block me!
LAFD pro standard outgoing message says I can ADD a new info and i have a right
Steve Noh <[email protected]>Mar 20, 2019, 5:23 AM (2 days ago)
to Vivienne, LAFDfirecommission, bgarcia, Debby, Daniel, 25439, HEE, Roger, 26590, RAUL, 32866, emshin, henry, Jose, margaret.stewart, Nikki
to ask my case # and name of investigator.
furthermore, you wished me not to contact lafd pro standards, promising you would take over their jobs.
I have email sent to you re: filing more info on the existing case and i have multiple new complaints.
over last several attempts, you ignored and DISRESPECTED ME.
THEREFORE, I SHALL CONTACT LAFD PRO STANDARD OFFICE OR YOU WHOEVER CAN DO THE JOB..
LA CITY HALL DOESN'T RUN BY YOUR OWN EGO RULES.
NOT TO MENTION(I dont know what you instructed Fire Commission who was friendly to me,now they won't return my calls re: when/where commission meetings might be ,sometimes, they cancel.
and
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
I SHALL REPORT TO FBI, CALBAR.CA.GOV, AND LAC GRAND JURY,AND LA MAYOR OFFICE RE: YOUR DESPICABLE ACTIONS IF ANY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
YOU CAN ONLY ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE(NOT WITNESS TEMPERING, THREATENING A WITNESS,AND FALSIFICATION OF CITY HALL POLICY, LAWYER'S ETHIC RULES ETC
YOU WERE VERY INTERESTED IN 'TRAPPING ME' BY ASKING FRIVOLOUS QUESTIONS ONLY, NOT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
1. you asked what is case #?
2.how much bribery was it?
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FINDING MY MERIT AND JUSTICE, OR CITY OF LOS ANGELES' TAXPAYERS' INTEREST.
YES, YOU WERE SETTING UP A BOOBY TRAP WHEN NOT WARRANTED.
YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR ASSISTANT NOT TO ACCOMMODATE MY CALLS WHEN MANDATED.
LAFD pro standard outgoing message says I can ADD a new info and i have a right
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
I SHALL REPORT TO FBI, CALBAR.CA.GOV, AND LAC GRAND JURY,AND LA MAYOR OFFICE RE: YOUR DESPICABLE ACTIONS IF ANY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
YOU CAN ONLY ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE(NOT WITNESS TEMPERING, THREATENING A WITNESS,AND FALSIFICATION OF CITY HALL POLICY, LAWYER'S ETHIC RULES ETC
YES, YOU WERE SETTING UP A BOOBY TRAP WHEN NOT WARRANTED.
YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR ASSISTANT NOT TO ACCOMMODATE MY CALLS WHEN MANDATED
to Vivienne, LAFDfirecommission, bgarcia, Debby, Daniel, 25439, HEE, Roger, 26590, RAUL, 32866, emshin, henry, Jose, margaret.stewart, Nikki
to ask my case # and name of investigator.
furthermore, you wished me not to contact lafd pro standards, promising you would take over their jobs.
I have email sent to you re: filing more info on the existing case and i have multiple new complaints.
over last several attempts, you ignored and DISRESPECTED ME.
THEREFORE, I SHALL CONTACT LAFD PRO STANDARD OFFICE OR YOU WHOEVER CAN DO THE JOB..
LA CITY HALL DOESN'T RUN BY YOUR OWN EGO RULES.
NOT TO MENTION(I don't know what you instructed Fire Commission who was friendly to me,now they won't return my calls re: when/where commission meetings might be ,sometimes, they cancel.
and
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
you are a public atty and serving gov,and getting paid out of my tax money !
I don't know why I can not ask more detail why I had to spend 1.5y in jail ,since LAFD captain Knighten took 2 seconds to take my complaint and on very next day, he declared I was innocent(sept 2014,called from jail) which is tape recorded. He even said he got his supervisor's permission to tell me I was innocent. But I also asked him to call DA about it,but never done.I took a polygraph in this matter, I passed, NOW captain Knighten has a new boss...now I am told I was guilty...AND they hired High Rank city atty to block me!
LAFD pro standard outgoing message says I can ADD a new info and i have a right
Steve Noh <[email protected]>Mar 20, 2019, 5:23 AM (2 days ago)
to Vivienne, LAFDfirecommission, bgarcia, Debby, Daniel, 25439, HEE, Roger, 26590, RAUL, 32866, emshin, henry, Jose, margaret.stewart, Nikki
to ask my case # and name of investigator.
furthermore, you wished me not to contact lafd pro standards, promising you would take over their jobs.
I have email sent to you re: filing more info on the existing case and i have multiple new complaints.
over last several attempts, you ignored and DISRESPECTED ME.
THEREFORE, I SHALL CONTACT LAFD PRO STANDARD OFFICE OR YOU WHOEVER CAN DO THE JOB..
LA CITY HALL DOESN'T RUN BY YOUR OWN EGO RULES.
NOT TO MENTION(I dont know what you instructed Fire Commission who was friendly to me,now they won't return my calls re: when/where commission meetings might be ,sometimes, they cancel.
and
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
I SHALL REPORT TO FBI, CALBAR.CA.GOV, AND LAC GRAND JURY,AND LA MAYOR OFFICE RE: YOUR DESPICABLE ACTIONS IF ANY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
YOU CAN ONLY ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE(NOT WITNESS TEMPERING, THREATENING A WITNESS,AND FALSIFICATION OF CITY HALL POLICY, LAWYER'S ETHIC RULES ETC
YOU WERE VERY INTERESTED IN 'TRAPPING ME' BY ASKING FRIVOLOUS QUESTIONS ONLY, NOT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
1. you asked what is case #?
2.how much bribery was it?
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FINDING MY MERIT AND JUSTICE, OR CITY OF LOS ANGELES' TAXPAYERS' INTEREST.
YES, YOU WERE SETTING UP A BOOBY TRAP WHEN NOT WARRANTED.
YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR ASSISTANT NOT TO ACCOMMODATE MY CALLS WHEN MANDATED.
LAFD pro standard outgoing message says I can ADD a new info and i have a right
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
I SHALL REPORT TO FBI, CALBAR.CA.GOV, AND LAC GRAND JURY,AND LA MAYOR OFFICE RE: YOUR DESPICABLE ACTIONS IF ANY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
YOU CAN ONLY ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE(NOT WITNESS TEMPERING, THREATENING A WITNESS,AND FALSIFICATION OF CITY HALL POLICY, LAWYER'S ETHIC RULES ETC
YES, YOU WERE SETTING UP A BOOBY TRAP WHEN NOT WARRANTED.
YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR ASSISTANT NOT TO ACCOMMODATE MY CALLS WHEN MANDATED
to Vivienne, LAFDfirecommission, bgarcia, Debby, Daniel, 25439, HEE, Roger, 26590, RAUL, 32866, emshin, henry, Jose, margaret.stewart, Nikki
to ask my case # and name of investigator.
furthermore, you wished me not to contact lafd pro standards, promising you would take over their jobs.
I have email sent to you re: filing more info on the existing case and i have multiple new complaints.
over last several attempts, you ignored and DISRESPECTED ME.
THEREFORE, I SHALL CONTACT LAFD PRO STANDARD OFFICE OR YOU WHOEVER CAN DO THE JOB..
LA CITY HALL DOESN'T RUN BY YOUR OWN EGO RULES.
NOT TO MENTION(I don't know what you instructed Fire Commission who was friendly to me,now they won't return my calls re: when/where commission meetings might be ,sometimes, they cancel.
and
Controller office all of sudden cut off my issues during ongoing investigation.
I allege that is your action!
FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU TRIED TO TRAP ME, YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. I HAVE A PHOTOGRAPHIC MEMORY.
AGAIN, YOU ARE NOT A PRIVATE ATTY, THEREFORE, IT IS CONSTRUED YOU DO NOT HAVE ' CLIENT-ATTY' PRIVILEGE, LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTY WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST MR TRUMP.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nadler-executive-privilege-can-t-be-used-hide-wrongdoing-mueller-n986696
Nadler: Executive privilege can't be used to 'hide wrongdoing' in Mueller report. The House Judiciary chairman warned the White House that information underlying the Mueller report can't be withheld.
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Sunday warned President Donald Trump against attempting to assert executive privilege to block the release of portions of the Mueller report.Appearing on "Meet the Press" two days after special counsel Robert Mueller turned in his final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the Justice Department, Nadler argued that the White House won't be able to hide behind the power of the presidency if there are damaging findings in the report.
"It's critical that everything in that report and the underlying evidence be public, be open to the American people," said Nadler, D-N.Y. "That transparency is key. America needs answers as to what's been going on.
"As we learned from the Nixon tapes case, executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrongdoing."
A battle over executive privilege, the right presidents often claim to shield certain information, could be the next flashpoint in the battle surrounding the Mueller .......
Nadler: 'We have to see all the evidence'MARCH 24, 201902:19
March 24, 2019, 6:51 AM PDT
By Ben Kamisar
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Sunday warned President Donald Trump against attempting to assert executive privilege to block the release of portions of the Mueller report.
Appearing on "Meet the Press" two days after special counsel Robert Mueller turned in his final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the Justice Department, Nadler argued that the White House won't be able to hide behind the power of the presidency if there are damaging findings in the report.
"It's critical that everything in that report and the underlying evidence be public, be open to the American people," said Nadler, D-N.Y. "That transparency is key. America needs answers as to what's been going on.
"As we learned from the Nixon tapes case, executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrongdoing."
A battle over executive privilege, the right presidents often claim to shield certain information, could be the next flashpoint in the battle surrounding the Mueller probe.
All eyes are now on Attorney General William Barr, who is tasked with analyzing the report and deciding what portions of it can be shared with Congress and ultimately the public. He's expected to deliver those characterizations as soon as Sunday.
Democrats have made clear that they want the entire report, as well as the underlying documents that support it, to be made public.
And while he's been critical of the special counsel's probe and Mueller's entire team for months, Trump said last week he wants the report to be made public.
But executive privilege has been a major source of contention between the White House and Congress in past administrations. So it's possible that the Trump administration could try to block the release of some portion of the report.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., agreed with the broad call for transparency on Sunday.
He argued that while some intelligence information would obviously need to be redacted, his message to Trump is to "lean toward transparency" in order to to help the country move forward after the report's release. And he added that transparency would also help the public understand the legal rationale for starting the investigation in the first place.
"Let's put all of that out there as well so we can pass judgment about how the investigation was conducted, or at least a predicate for the investigation was conducted during the Obama years," Rubio said on "Meet the Press."
POLITICSMeet Mueller's team: The best prosecutors in the business or 'angry Democrats'?
POLITICSDemocrats express caution on Mueller report as they ramp up own probes
Much of Mueller's work has already played out somewhat in the public sphere, with the investigation triggering the indictments of 34 people, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort; former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn; former lawyer Michael Cohen; as well as a handful of Russians Mueller says interfered with the 2016 election.
Nadler pointed to the information contained in those indictments to argue Mueller had already found evidence of wrongdoing by Trump allies during his investigation.
"We know that he fired the FBI director for not giving him the personal loyalty that he demanded and for not dropping those investigations," he said.
"We know that many of the president's closest associates, his national security adviser, campaign manager, et cetera, have been convicted of various crimes. And we know that he's waged a relentless two-year campaign to attack law enforcement institutions."
Democrats are also warning that the report is just one piece of the oversight over Trump, whose administration, campaign and business dealings are still being investigated by Congressional committees.
Nader's Judiciary Committee is in the midst of a broad investigation into obstruction of justice, public corruption and abuse of power, for which he subpoenaed 81 individuals and entities related to Trump.
There are active investigations in the House Oversight Committee, as well as in the House and Senate Intelligence Committee and in state attorneys general offices.
Another question facing Democrats is whether they should call Mueller or Barr to testify about the report. Nadler said Sunday that he doesn't believe it would be necessary to call Mueller to testify as long as his report was straightforward.
"He gave us a report, he speaks through that report. If that report answers all our questions, there will be no need to call him," Nadler said.
"If that report is not public, if large parts of it are not made public, or if it leaves a lot of questions, then we have a necessity to call him."
Nadler: Executive privilege can't be used to 'hide wrongdoing' in Mueller report. The House Judiciary chairman warned the White House that information underlying the Mueller report can't be withheld.
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Sunday warned President Donald Trump against attempting to assert executive privilege to block the release of portions of the Mueller report.Appearing on "Meet the Press" two days after special counsel Robert Mueller turned in his final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the Justice Department, Nadler argued that the White House won't be able to hide behind the power of the presidency if there are damaging findings in the report.
"It's critical that everything in that report and the underlying evidence be public, be open to the American people," said Nadler, D-N.Y. "That transparency is key. America needs answers as to what's been going on.
"As we learned from the Nixon tapes case, executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrongdoing."
A battle over executive privilege, the right presidents often claim to shield certain information, could be the next flashpoint in the battle surrounding the Mueller .......
Nadler: 'We have to see all the evidence'MARCH 24, 201902:19
March 24, 2019, 6:51 AM PDT
By Ben Kamisar
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Sunday warned President Donald Trump against attempting to assert executive privilege to block the release of portions of the Mueller report.
Appearing on "Meet the Press" two days after special counsel Robert Mueller turned in his final report on Russian interference in the 2016 election to the Justice Department, Nadler argued that the White House won't be able to hide behind the power of the presidency if there are damaging findings in the report.
"It's critical that everything in that report and the underlying evidence be public, be open to the American people," said Nadler, D-N.Y. "That transparency is key. America needs answers as to what's been going on.
"As we learned from the Nixon tapes case, executive privilege cannot be used to hide wrongdoing."
A battle over executive privilege, the right presidents often claim to shield certain information, could be the next flashpoint in the battle surrounding the Mueller probe.
All eyes are now on Attorney General William Barr, who is tasked with analyzing the report and deciding what portions of it can be shared with Congress and ultimately the public. He's expected to deliver those characterizations as soon as Sunday.
Democrats have made clear that they want the entire report, as well as the underlying documents that support it, to be made public.
And while he's been critical of the special counsel's probe and Mueller's entire team for months, Trump said last week he wants the report to be made public.
But executive privilege has been a major source of contention between the White House and Congress in past administrations. So it's possible that the Trump administration could try to block the release of some portion of the report.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., agreed with the broad call for transparency on Sunday.
He argued that while some intelligence information would obviously need to be redacted, his message to Trump is to "lean toward transparency" in order to to help the country move forward after the report's release. And he added that transparency would also help the public understand the legal rationale for starting the investigation in the first place.
"Let's put all of that out there as well so we can pass judgment about how the investigation was conducted, or at least a predicate for the investigation was conducted during the Obama years," Rubio said on "Meet the Press."
POLITICSMeet Mueller's team: The best prosecutors in the business or 'angry Democrats'?
POLITICSDemocrats express caution on Mueller report as they ramp up own probes
Much of Mueller's work has already played out somewhat in the public sphere, with the investigation triggering the indictments of 34 people, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort; former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn; former lawyer Michael Cohen; as well as a handful of Russians Mueller says interfered with the 2016 election.
Nadler pointed to the information contained in those indictments to argue Mueller had already found evidence of wrongdoing by Trump allies during his investigation.
"We know that he fired the FBI director for not giving him the personal loyalty that he demanded and for not dropping those investigations," he said.
"We know that many of the president's closest associates, his national security adviser, campaign manager, et cetera, have been convicted of various crimes. And we know that he's waged a relentless two-year campaign to attack law enforcement institutions."
Democrats are also warning that the report is just one piece of the oversight over Trump, whose administration, campaign and business dealings are still being investigated by Congressional committees.
Nader's Judiciary Committee is in the midst of a broad investigation into obstruction of justice, public corruption and abuse of power, for which he subpoenaed 81 individuals and entities related to Trump.
There are active investigations in the House Oversight Committee, as well as in the House and Senate Intelligence Committee and in state attorneys general offices.
Another question facing Democrats is whether they should call Mueller or Barr to testify about the report. Nadler said Sunday that he doesn't believe it would be necessary to call Mueller to testify as long as his report was straightforward.
"He gave us a report, he speaks through that report. If that report answers all our questions, there will be no need to call him," Nadler said.
"If that report is not public, if large parts of it are not made public, or if it leaves a lot of questions, then we have a necessity to call him."
LA City Hall becomes Trumpish !
|
Vivienne SwaniganMon, Feb 25, 5:31 PM (15 hours ago) Mr. Noh: The Fire Department is not authorized to re-open your 2014 complaint, presuming your 2014 email qualifies as a complaint. As I previously notified you, the Fire Department also will not be investigating your case in your attempt to appeal your criminal conviction, nor can it assess any evidence in the matter. The Fire Department is also not legally authorized, by City Charter or otherwise, to conduct any type of investigation on your behalf. Vivienne A. Swanigan Managing Assistant City Attorney Labor Relations Division 213-978-7182 *my response: THERE WAS NOT ANY COMPLAINT FILED VIA EMAIL RE: EVAN SWANTON IN 2014 ! I WAS IN JAIL ! Captain K took 2 second to take my complaint ! |
Vivienne Swanigan1:52 PM (5 minutes ago)
to me
I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday, February 28 and March 1, 2019, returning on Monday, March 4, 2019.
If your email is regarding an urgent new matter, please contact Assistant Supervising DCA Jennifer Gregg. If your email is regarding an ongoing matter I am currently handling, or a new matter that specifically requires my attention, I will be available to assist you upon my return on Monday.
If you are emailing regarding a new workplace violence prevention (WV) matter, please contact WV Lead DCA Hugo Rossitter, or support staff at 213-978-7140 for referral to a WV attorney.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Managing Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
213-978-7182
to me
I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday, February 28 and March 1, 2019, returning on Monday, March 4, 2019.
If your email is regarding an urgent new matter, please contact Assistant Supervising DCA Jennifer Gregg. If your email is regarding an ongoing matter I am currently handling, or a new matter that specifically requires my attention, I will be available to assist you upon my return on Monday.
If you are emailing regarding a new workplace violence prevention (WV) matter, please contact WV Lead DCA Hugo Rossitter, or support staff at 213-978-7140 for referral to a WV attorney.
Vivienne A. Swanigan
Managing Assistant City Attorney
Labor Relations Division
213-978-7182
in addition, LAFD Professional Standard had refused to cooperate with Upper-handed LAPD veteran Detective from Hollywood Div. Now they had to hire "Damage-Control" high rank city attorney, just block me from getting an answer :LAFD'S FINAL ANSWER re: my accusation of LAFD employee's perjury which put me in jail ,now facing deportation. There have been 2 versions of investigative results so far:
Captain Knighten said I was innocent !
Chief says ( after steady-fast refusal to speak with Hollywood Detective) says the opposite.
they are just so embarrased how corrupted they are,now had to hire High Rank City Atty, just to deal with me. I have been always courteous when I contacted them.
https://emsa.ca.gov/enforcement/
Welcome to the Enforcement Unit :
Per California Health and Safety Code, the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) is responsible for conducting investigations on individuals who have applied for or currently have a paramedic license within the State of California. California Health and Safety Code Section 1798.200 grants EMSA the authority to conduct investigations into a paramedic’s on-duty and off-duty activities. This includes granting or denying a license based upon criminal activity. EMSA’s Enforcement Unit is responsible for investigating complaints against licensed paramedics and unlicensed personnel for violating the California Health and Safety Code, Division 2.5, Emergency Medical Services.
*Contact the Enforcement Unit
Emergency Medical Services Authority
Attn: Enforcement Unit
10901 Gold Center Drive, Suite 400
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Phone: (916) 322-4336
Fax: (916) 445-0300
**Online Complaint Form:
https://emsa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2017/07/ParamedicInvestigationRequest04082011.pdf
why you can simply finish up my case 1-2-3 !Steve Noh11:50 PM (0 minutes ago)
Hi Detective K 1. you read my jail report ( or police report), and you smelled 'fishy' 2. you have called Top City Official in Investigation Unit(LAFD professional standard),but they failed to return Detective's call = more 'fishy' 3.now it is your turn to Speak/Subpoena/Arrest The Lying LAFD(evan swanton and philip campenella) AND CONFIRM their confessed Perjury. 4.or you can subpoena ' photo-shopped' Crime Evidences( wounded face picture ) from DA office(Sandi Roth 213 -974-3887) (her supervisor Head Deputy) is greg jennings 213-974-5069) & test at your office. Within 10 min, you will get its Result. DONE ! How easy is IT???? then, YOU WILL BE READY FOR MY PRESSING A CHARGE ON LAFD ! |
Los Angeles City Hall Pay-to-Play Unveiled in the Crossroads Skyscraper Development
The Los Angeles City Council “PLUM” Committee on Jan. 15 approved the hotly disputed triple-skyscraper, Crossroads, which will generate 142,300 vehicle miles per day and raze a vibrant historic Latino community in Hollywood, replacing it with 35-story towers, rooftop pools, massive super-graphics and 22 liquor licenses. Sparking criticisms of pay-to-play, Crossroads developers Harridge and Mort La Kretz held at least five secret backroom meetings with City Council member Mitch O’Farrell or his staff, even as O’Farrell took campaign donations from them.
Coalition to Preserve LA first unveiled the secret meetings months ago, and is republishing the timeline below in light of the FBI corruption probe sweeping through Los Angeles City Hall.
O’Farrell insists the greenhouse-gas spewing Crossroads mega-project is a great idea and even “sustainable.” It’s also a favorite of Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has been showered with campaign donations from Crossroads developers Harridge and La Kretz.
In late 2018, the project sailed through Garcetti’s political appointees on the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, two of whom, in racially tinged comments, dismissed the tight-knit renter community that will be destroyed by the skyscrapers as “not worth preserving” and “dormant, and it doesn’t need to be.”
Then last week, the City Council’s PLUM Committee approved the three skyscrapers with minimal environmental review. PLUM refused to hear testimony from 50 to 60 people signed up to speak, and Los Angeles City Council member Gil Cedillo taunted the few members of the public who had been allowed to speak against Crossroads.
This, in the same week that national headlines broke regarding the widening FBI corruption probe into Huizar, revealing that it also includes Los Angeles City Council member Curren Price, Garcetti’s former deputy mayor Ray Chan, a top Garcetti public works board appointee who resigned Friday, and City Council President Herb Wesson’s top aide. These revelations were unveiled by George Washington University national security expert Seamus Hughes on Twitter.
The FBI probe is widely believed to be focused on possible land-use corruption and pay-to-play among City Councilmembers and aides, and Garcetti aides and appointees.
Below is a pay-to-play timeline from 2013 through 2016, created by Coalition to Preserve LA during a four-month investigation into the secret, non-transparent, backroom meetings between City Council member Mitch O’Farrell, his aides, and Crossroads developers Harridge and La Kretz, during the same period that Harridge and La Kretz were showering Mitch O’Farrell, Mayor Garcetti, and several other City Council members with campaign donations.
Curbed LA: “As these preliminary renderings show, the Crossroads complex—which is both a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument and on the National Register of Historic Places—will be completely “restored to its glory,” says Glenn Gritzner, a rep for developer Harridge Development Group. (Crossroads owner Mort La Kretz will continue to control the land the project sits on.) …
“In addition to the reintroduction of retail at the Crossroads, the project will create eight new mixed-use buildings rising on parts of the two blocks between the complex and Highland Avenue to the west, and the block immediately to the north of the complex on Selma: a 308-room, 31-story hotel, a 32-story apartment tower, and a 30-story condo tower with 950 units total (including 70 units of designated affordable housing), 95,000 square feet of office space, and a total of 185,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses (including the 60,000 square feet at Crossroads). The shorter buildings range from two to six stories tall. (Curbed Los Angeles, May 29, 2015)
Coalition to Preserve LA first unveiled the secret meetings months ago, and is republishing the timeline below in light of the FBI corruption probe sweeping through Los Angeles City Hall.
O’Farrell insists the greenhouse-gas spewing Crossroads mega-project is a great idea and even “sustainable.” It’s also a favorite of Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has been showered with campaign donations from Crossroads developers Harridge and La Kretz.
In late 2018, the project sailed through Garcetti’s political appointees on the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, two of whom, in racially tinged comments, dismissed the tight-knit renter community that will be destroyed by the skyscrapers as “not worth preserving” and “dormant, and it doesn’t need to be.”
Then last week, the City Council’s PLUM Committee approved the three skyscrapers with minimal environmental review. PLUM refused to hear testimony from 50 to 60 people signed up to speak, and Los Angeles City Council member Gil Cedillo taunted the few members of the public who had been allowed to speak against Crossroads.
This, in the same week that national headlines broke regarding the widening FBI corruption probe into Huizar, revealing that it also includes Los Angeles City Council member Curren Price, Garcetti’s former deputy mayor Ray Chan, a top Garcetti public works board appointee who resigned Friday, and City Council President Herb Wesson’s top aide. These revelations were unveiled by George Washington University national security expert Seamus Hughes on Twitter.
The FBI probe is widely believed to be focused on possible land-use corruption and pay-to-play among City Councilmembers and aides, and Garcetti aides and appointees.
Below is a pay-to-play timeline from 2013 through 2016, created by Coalition to Preserve LA during a four-month investigation into the secret, non-transparent, backroom meetings between City Council member Mitch O’Farrell, his aides, and Crossroads developers Harridge and La Kretz, during the same period that Harridge and La Kretz were showering Mitch O’Farrell, Mayor Garcetti, and several other City Council members with campaign donations.
Curbed LA: “As these preliminary renderings show, the Crossroads complex—which is both a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument and on the National Register of Historic Places—will be completely “restored to its glory,” says Glenn Gritzner, a rep for developer Harridge Development Group. (Crossroads owner Mort La Kretz will continue to control the land the project sits on.) …
“In addition to the reintroduction of retail at the Crossroads, the project will create eight new mixed-use buildings rising on parts of the two blocks between the complex and Highland Avenue to the west, and the block immediately to the north of the complex on Selma: a 308-room, 31-story hotel, a 32-story apartment tower, and a 30-story condo tower with 950 units total (including 70 units of designated affordable housing), 95,000 square feet of office space, and a total of 185,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses (including the 60,000 square feet at Crossroads). The shorter buildings range from two to six stories tall. (Curbed Los Angeles, May 29, 2015)
Los Angeles City Hall Corruption Alert: Garcetti Appointee Joel Jacinto Resigns
http://www.2preservela.org/los-angeles-city-hall-fbi-corruption-probe-joel-jacinto-resigns/
Joel Jacinto, a member of the powerful Los Angeles Board of Public Works, which oversees major infrastructure and environmental decisions for Mayor Eric Garcetti, abruptly resigned Friday January 18 amidst a growing corruption probe by the FBI of possible bribery, kickbacks and extortion by City Council members and top aides to Garcetti involved in land development in Los Angeles.
“We have been urging Mayor Garcetti since 2016 to address what we believe is a tainted, pay-to-play culture within the City Council and among the mayor’s appointees,” said Coalition to Preserve LA Executive Director Jill Stewart. “We warned him that the vote-selling that scandalized Los Angeles City Hall in 1966 was going to raise its ugly head again.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Jacinto was in regular contact with former Deputy Mayor Ray Chan, another Garcetti appointee who attended closed-door meetings with real estate developers. The pugnacious Chan has publicly stated that in Los Angeles “the developer is our customer.”
Jacinto and his wife Ave Jacinto are among 13 city officials and mayoral appointees named in an FBI warrant that was revealed on Twitter last Saturday by Georgetown University researcher Seamus Hughes.
The corruption probe has left the City Council’s powerful land-use committee, known as “PLUM,” in disarray, with its chairman Jose Huizar stripped of his powers in November after an FBI raid on his home.
Yet another seat was empty at the Tuesday Jan. 15, 2019 PLUM meeting when Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price, also named in the FBI warrant, failed to appear.
At the Tuesday meeting, members of PLUM bristled at extensive criticism lobbed at them. Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo accused community groups and non-profits of creating a “Day of the Locust” atmosphere of “hysteria” in reaction to the FBI probe.
PLUM approved the disputed three-tower skyscraper “Crossroads,” which will generate 1423,00 vehicle miles per day and raze a vibrant historic Latino community in Hollywood, replacing it with rooftop pools, 35-story buildings, massive supergraphics and 22 liquor licenses.
Hollywood City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who has taken money from developers, Harridge and Mort La Kretz, insists the mega-development is a great idea and even “sustainable.”
The project was first approved by Mayor Garcetti’s political appointees on the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, who in racially tinged comments late last year dismissed the tight-knit community that will be destroyed by the skyscrapers as “not worth preserving” and even “dormant.”
Since the revelations by Georgetown professor Seamus Hughes and the Los Angeles Times of a widening FBI investigation, Mayor Garcetti has been insisting during media interviews that he has “no tolerance” for corruption.
Jill Stewart, of Coalition to Preserve LA, says Garcetti instead needs to “crack down on the river of developer money and lobbying wining and dining flowing to City Hall figures who help developers break the rules — and perhaps break the law.”
Although the California State legislature has seen wave upon wave of elected leaders sent to prison for corruption, 1966 was the last time a sitting Los Angeles City Council member went to prison — for selling his vote to developers.
source: http://www.2preservela.org/los-angeles-city-hall-fbi-corruption-probe-joel-jacinto-resigns/
“We have been urging Mayor Garcetti since 2016 to address what we believe is a tainted, pay-to-play culture within the City Council and among the mayor’s appointees,” said Coalition to Preserve LA Executive Director Jill Stewart. “We warned him that the vote-selling that scandalized Los Angeles City Hall in 1966 was going to raise its ugly head again.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Jacinto was in regular contact with former Deputy Mayor Ray Chan, another Garcetti appointee who attended closed-door meetings with real estate developers. The pugnacious Chan has publicly stated that in Los Angeles “the developer is our customer.”
Jacinto and his wife Ave Jacinto are among 13 city officials and mayoral appointees named in an FBI warrant that was revealed on Twitter last Saturday by Georgetown University researcher Seamus Hughes.
The corruption probe has left the City Council’s powerful land-use committee, known as “PLUM,” in disarray, with its chairman Jose Huizar stripped of his powers in November after an FBI raid on his home.
Yet another seat was empty at the Tuesday Jan. 15, 2019 PLUM meeting when Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price, also named in the FBI warrant, failed to appear.
At the Tuesday meeting, members of PLUM bristled at extensive criticism lobbed at them. Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo accused community groups and non-profits of creating a “Day of the Locust” atmosphere of “hysteria” in reaction to the FBI probe.
PLUM approved the disputed three-tower skyscraper “Crossroads,” which will generate 1423,00 vehicle miles per day and raze a vibrant historic Latino community in Hollywood, replacing it with rooftop pools, 35-story buildings, massive supergraphics and 22 liquor licenses.
Hollywood City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who has taken money from developers, Harridge and Mort La Kretz, insists the mega-development is a great idea and even “sustainable.”
The project was first approved by Mayor Garcetti’s political appointees on the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, who in racially tinged comments late last year dismissed the tight-knit community that will be destroyed by the skyscrapers as “not worth preserving” and even “dormant.”
Since the revelations by Georgetown professor Seamus Hughes and the Los Angeles Times of a widening FBI investigation, Mayor Garcetti has been insisting during media interviews that he has “no tolerance” for corruption.
Jill Stewart, of Coalition to Preserve LA, says Garcetti instead needs to “crack down on the river of developer money and lobbying wining and dining flowing to City Hall figures who help developers break the rules — and perhaps break the law.”
Although the California State legislature has seen wave upon wave of elected leaders sent to prison for corruption, 1966 was the last time a sitting Los Angeles City Council member went to prison — for selling his vote to developers.
source: http://www.2preservela.org/los-angeles-city-hall-fbi-corruption-probe-joel-jacinto-resigns/
LA County Settlement Major Step in Ending the Jail-to-Homelessness Cycle
December 7, 2018
After three years of legal negotiations, we have reached a groundbreaking settlement with the County of Los Angeles to provide bolstered mental health support to people incarcerated in the L.A. County jail system. These policy reforms will help to break the jail-to-Skid Row cycle and will reduce homelessness.
The County of Los Angeles will adopt a robust policy to assist people with mental disabilities in transitioning from jail to the community and to aid them in accessing essential services. The new approach was the result of a settlement agreement with a group of disabled and homeless former inmates of Los Angeles County jails represented by Public Counsel and Munger, Tolles & Olson.
Under this settlement, Los Angeles County will adopt an approach to its treatment of persons with mental disabilities that promises to make important steps in reducing recidivism. By engaging in a proactive release planning process that addresses the housing, medical care, employment, benefits, and social needs of individuals with mental illness and by promoting relationships with community-based providers, the settlement provisions will make it easier for individuals with mental illness to reenter civil society and reduce the likelihood of homelessness and recidivism.
“The new policy will give individuals with mental disabilities essential support that will help them reenter society and access the services that they need. Los Angeles County is taking important and progressive steps toward ensuring that mentally disabled people are not released from jail onto our streets. This is a critical advance in the battle against the cycle of homelessness and incarceration in Los Angeles.” - Alisa Hartz of Public Counsel. “
Read the Press Release HERE
http://www.publiccounsel.org/stories?id=0266
After three years of legal negotiations, we have reached a groundbreaking settlement with the County of Los Angeles to provide bolstered mental health support to people incarcerated in the L.A. County jail system. These policy reforms will help to break the jail-to-Skid Row cycle and will reduce homelessness.
The County of Los Angeles will adopt a robust policy to assist people with mental disabilities in transitioning from jail to the community and to aid them in accessing essential services. The new approach was the result of a settlement agreement with a group of disabled and homeless former inmates of Los Angeles County jails represented by Public Counsel and Munger, Tolles & Olson.
Under this settlement, Los Angeles County will adopt an approach to its treatment of persons with mental disabilities that promises to make important steps in reducing recidivism. By engaging in a proactive release planning process that addresses the housing, medical care, employment, benefits, and social needs of individuals with mental illness and by promoting relationships with community-based providers, the settlement provisions will make it easier for individuals with mental illness to reenter civil society and reduce the likelihood of homelessness and recidivism.
“The new policy will give individuals with mental disabilities essential support that will help them reenter society and access the services that they need. Los Angeles County is taking important and progressive steps toward ensuring that mentally disabled people are not released from jail onto our streets. This is a critical advance in the battle against the cycle of homelessness and incarceration in Los Angeles.” - Alisa Hartz of Public Counsel. “
Read the Press Release HERE
http://www.publiccounsel.org/stories?id=0266
- 1.call detective K to pursue his investigation
- 2.call LAFD Professional Standard to re-investigate my complaint
- 3.call LAPD Internal Affair and Office of Inspector General re:my complaint
- 4.LAC DA Jackie Lacey to tak an action
- 5.Call Emerg Med Services Complaint with cal state: 916-322-4336 to investigate
Dec 21,2018: I filed 3rd police report re: Officer Coco fabriacated a crime story(BA420787),taken by Sgt Zavala(#31088) at LAPD intl aff office.
How does a city effectively discipline its police?
Los Angeles, home to one of the largest police forces in the nation, has struggled with this question for decades, and has yet to settle on an answer that regularly ensures that officers who commit serious misconduct receive serious discipline.
The Los Angeles Police Department gained notoriety for scandals that, at their core, were caused by its failure to properly discipline officers and take allegations of misconduct seriously. Perhaps its most significant scandal was the beating of Rodney King by three LAPD officers on March 3, 1991.
Before the infamous amateur video of the police beating of Rodney King surfaced, two separate witnesses contacted the LAPD and attempted to report the incident and file a complaint. The Department rebuffed both of their efforts. When news stations broadcast the video to the public, even then-president George Bush described the officers' conduct as "sickening."
The public outcry over the officers' conduct led then-L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley to create the Independent Commission (aka the "Christopher Commission") to investigate excessive force within the LAPD. The Christopher Commission identified a number of causes for the pervasive use of excessive force within the Department, but the linchpin of this unchecked violence was its ineffective disciplinary process. And central to that disciplinary process was the Board of Rights — the disciplinary appeals board for the LAPD that has the ultimate say in officer discipline.
The disciplinary process for LAPD officers is long and complex, but for the most serious misconduct, the process ends with the Board of Rights. Any discipline starts with a complaint filed against an officer — either by the public or another LAPD employee — for violating LAPD policy. Internal affairs and the officer's supervisor investigate complaints. If the officer used deadly force, the Inspector General's Office and the LAPD Police Commission will also weigh in on whether it believes the officer's conduct violated Department police. If anyone during the review process determines that the facts don't support the allegation, or that the conduct only deserves a very minor penalty, the process stops. But when the internal process determines that the officer did violate policy and that he or she deserves a significant penalty, the case is referred up to the chief of police.
If the chief reviews the investigative file and agrees that the officer is not only guilty but deserves a lengthy suspension, demotion, or to be fired, the officer gets to challenge this penalty with the Board of Rights — a three-person panel that currently includes 2 officers and 1 civilian. The Board of Rights is not bound to the Department's factual findings or disciplinary recommendations. Instead, the three members independently determine whether an LAPD officer should receive the chief's recommended punishment, or any punishment at all. The Board of Rights therefore has tremendous power in determining whether LAPD officers ultimately are held accountable for wrongdoing.
This report re-examines the analyses presented in these prior reports and draws connections across the data spanning almost thirty years. This report also supplements these previous analyses by providing context available from public discourse around the Board of Rights — including City Council actions — and with publicly-available disciplinary data. It concludes by highlighting recommendations that have gone unheeded, and, with input from community partners, supplements with additional recommendations directly in response to these identified needs.
In March 2017, Los Angeles voters approved Charter Amendment C, which mandated that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the existing Board of Rights system to give officers the option of an all-civilian review. The City Council also created an Ad Hoc Committee on Policing, purportedly tasked with providing a public process for investigating the failings of the current system and improving LAPD discipline. While the City Council is free at any time to make changes to the Board of Rights or other elements of the LAPD disciplinary system, it is explicitly tasked with doing so right now.
This report and the series of recommendations it proposes, should inform the City Council's next steps towards meaningfully improving LAPD discipline.
As one of the post-Rampart reports, commissioned by the LAPD officers' union and authored by Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky recognized, "[t]here never will be public confidence in the Police Department until there are major reforms in the disciplinary system. Officer confidence in the system is equally important. There thus must be major reforms of every aspect of the disciplinary system to provide a fair and just system of receiving, investigating, and adjudicating complaints against officers." If the LAPD disciplinary system remains dependent on the Board of Rights to impose serious discipline, finally adopting these needed changes is a crucial part of this reformation process.
READ THE FULL REPORT: "TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY: OVERCOMING LAPD’S FLAWED DISCIPLINARY PROCESS"
----------------------------
Los Angeles, home to one of the largest police forces in the nation, has struggled with this question for decades, and has yet to settle on an answer that regularly ensures that officers who commit serious misconduct receive serious discipline.
The Los Angeles Police Department gained notoriety for scandals that, at their core, were caused by its failure to properly discipline officers and take allegations of misconduct seriously. Perhaps its most significant scandal was the beating of Rodney King by three LAPD officers on March 3, 1991.
Before the infamous amateur video of the police beating of Rodney King surfaced, two separate witnesses contacted the LAPD and attempted to report the incident and file a complaint. The Department rebuffed both of their efforts. When news stations broadcast the video to the public, even then-president George Bush described the officers' conduct as "sickening."
The public outcry over the officers' conduct led then-L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley to create the Independent Commission (aka the "Christopher Commission") to investigate excessive force within the LAPD. The Christopher Commission identified a number of causes for the pervasive use of excessive force within the Department, but the linchpin of this unchecked violence was its ineffective disciplinary process. And central to that disciplinary process was the Board of Rights — the disciplinary appeals board for the LAPD that has the ultimate say in officer discipline.
The disciplinary process for LAPD officers is long and complex, but for the most serious misconduct, the process ends with the Board of Rights. Any discipline starts with a complaint filed against an officer — either by the public or another LAPD employee — for violating LAPD policy. Internal affairs and the officer's supervisor investigate complaints. If the officer used deadly force, the Inspector General's Office and the LAPD Police Commission will also weigh in on whether it believes the officer's conduct violated Department police. If anyone during the review process determines that the facts don't support the allegation, or that the conduct only deserves a very minor penalty, the process stops. But when the internal process determines that the officer did violate policy and that he or she deserves a significant penalty, the case is referred up to the chief of police.
If the chief reviews the investigative file and agrees that the officer is not only guilty but deserves a lengthy suspension, demotion, or to be fired, the officer gets to challenge this penalty with the Board of Rights — a three-person panel that currently includes 2 officers and 1 civilian. The Board of Rights is not bound to the Department's factual findings or disciplinary recommendations. Instead, the three members independently determine whether an LAPD officer should receive the chief's recommended punishment, or any punishment at all. The Board of Rights therefore has tremendous power in determining whether LAPD officers ultimately are held accountable for wrongdoing.
This report re-examines the analyses presented in these prior reports and draws connections across the data spanning almost thirty years. This report also supplements these previous analyses by providing context available from public discourse around the Board of Rights — including City Council actions — and with publicly-available disciplinary data. It concludes by highlighting recommendations that have gone unheeded, and, with input from community partners, supplements with additional recommendations directly in response to these identified needs.
In March 2017, Los Angeles voters approved Charter Amendment C, which mandated that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the existing Board of Rights system to give officers the option of an all-civilian review. The City Council also created an Ad Hoc Committee on Policing, purportedly tasked with providing a public process for investigating the failings of the current system and improving LAPD discipline. While the City Council is free at any time to make changes to the Board of Rights or other elements of the LAPD disciplinary system, it is explicitly tasked with doing so right now.
This report and the series of recommendations it proposes, should inform the City Council's next steps towards meaningfully improving LAPD discipline.
As one of the post-Rampart reports, commissioned by the LAPD officers' union and authored by Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky recognized, "[t]here never will be public confidence in the Police Department until there are major reforms in the disciplinary system. Officer confidence in the system is equally important. There thus must be major reforms of every aspect of the disciplinary system to provide a fair and just system of receiving, investigating, and adjudicating complaints against officers." If the LAPD disciplinary system remains dependent on the Board of Rights to impose serious discipline, finally adopting these needed changes is a crucial part of this reformation process.
READ THE FULL REPORT: "TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY: OVERCOMING LAPD’S FLAWED DISCIPLINARY PROCESS"
----------------------------
New report examines the city’s inability to hold officers accountable for misconductLOS ANGELES — The ACLU of Southern California, Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, and Community Coalition call on the Los Angeles City Council to make meaningful reforms to the Los Angeles Police Department’s disciplinary process of officers who have committed serious misconduct, in a report published today.
The report, "Towards Accountability: Overcoming LAPD’s Flawed Disciplinary Process," synthesizes decades of public criticism and commission findings over the LAPD's disciplinary process, including reports issued in the wake of high-profile LAPD scandals that identify the "Board of Rights" as a root cause of rampant misconduct within the department. The Board of Rights is the LAPD disciplinary board that determines whether officers who commit serious misconduct remain on the force or receive significant discipline.
The groups' recommendations include:
In March 2017, Los Angeles voters approved Charter Amendment C, which mandated that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the existing Board of Rights system to give officers the option of an all-civilian review. The City Council also created an Ad Hoc Committee on Policing, purportedly tasked with providing a public process for investigating the failings of the current system and improving LAPD discipline.
"Rather than coming to the community, the City Council has asked the L.A. Police Commission to draft recommendations on police disciplinary process," said Melina Abdullah with Black Lives Matter-LA. "We say, 'no more.' No more giveaways to police unions, no more targeting of Black, Brown and poor communities by police. No more cover-ups by these interlocking systems of oppression. We need a community process with real civilians and real power to hold police accountable."
While the City Council is free at any time to make changes to the Board of Rights or other elements of the LAPD disciplinary system, it is explicitly tasked with doing so right now. The report and the series of recommendations it proposes should inform the City Council’s next steps towards meaningfully improving LAPD discipline.
Read the report.
The report, "Towards Accountability: Overcoming LAPD’s Flawed Disciplinary Process," synthesizes decades of public criticism and commission findings over the LAPD's disciplinary process, including reports issued in the wake of high-profile LAPD scandals that identify the "Board of Rights" as a root cause of rampant misconduct within the department. The Board of Rights is the LAPD disciplinary board that determines whether officers who commit serious misconduct remain on the force or receive significant discipline.
The groups' recommendations include:
- Real civilians. The civilians on the Board of Rights must represent the diversity of Los Angeles and be selected through an open and transparent process within City Council. This includes making sure that people with past arrests are not excluded, and adhere to the common-sense understanding that “civilians” do not include retired police officers.
- Real oversight. Board of Rights outcomes and voting patterns should be reported regularly and hearings audited, so that the public knows what is happening behind closed doors. All disciplinary records that are public under the 2018 Right to Know Act (SB 1421) should be posted by the department.
- Real advocacy. Trained attorneys should defend the department’s recommended discipline instead of using LAPD officers with no legal training to go up against seasoned defense attorneys.
- Real accountability. Standardize penalties and ensure violations against the public like excessive force or filing false police reports result in more significant penalties than they do currently.
- Real training. All Board of Rights panelists should have an accurate and unbiased understanding of issues the board routinely considers, such as excessive force and domestic violence, and training should include community-based experts.
In March 2017, Los Angeles voters approved Charter Amendment C, which mandated that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the existing Board of Rights system to give officers the option of an all-civilian review. The City Council also created an Ad Hoc Committee on Policing, purportedly tasked with providing a public process for investigating the failings of the current system and improving LAPD discipline.
"Rather than coming to the community, the City Council has asked the L.A. Police Commission to draft recommendations on police disciplinary process," said Melina Abdullah with Black Lives Matter-LA. "We say, 'no more.' No more giveaways to police unions, no more targeting of Black, Brown and poor communities by police. No more cover-ups by these interlocking systems of oppression. We need a community process with real civilians and real power to hold police accountable."
While the City Council is free at any time to make changes to the Board of Rights or other elements of the LAPD disciplinary system, it is explicitly tasked with doing so right now. The report and the series of recommendations it proposes should inform the City Council’s next steps towards meaningfully improving LAPD discipline.
Read the report.
THE LAPD'S BOARD OF RIGHTS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BODY YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF(Nov 2018, ACLU-SC.org)
Much too often, when officers in the Los Angeles Police Department break the rules, their disciplinary process fails to hold them accountable. Now is a moment for serious reform to the way the police department disciplines its officers. The L.A. City Council is preparing to vote on changes to the Board of Rights — the disciplinary appeal board that has the ultimate say in whether officers accused of serious misconduct are punished. The outcome will determine whether the board will be an effective tool to hold offices accountable for their misconduct, or yet another way for officers to escape responsibility for wrongdoing. That's why it's so troubling that the City Council is pushing forward with major changes to the Board of Rights without public input or even taking the time to learn what an effective disciplinary process looks like.
Last year, the Police Protective League, the special interest group that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, spent more than a million dollars pushing through Charter Amendment C — which changed the makeup of the Board of Rights in the L.A. City Charter. Now, the City Council needs to pass a law to implement the new charter changes, and decide who should be allowed to sit on the Board of Rights — and who is on the board determines whether officers escape punishment or are held accountable.
Councilmembers promised to hold a series of public hearings so that they could understand how the LAPD's current disciplinary system fails to hold officers accountable, and to develop real solutions before making changes to the Board of Rights. Instead, after inaction for more than a year and a half, they are now pushing forward with recommendations without understanding the problem and are considering changes that will likely mean that even more officers who break the law, lie, or kill civilians will escape punishment and remain patrolling our communities.
The L.A. City Council may not have done its homework, but we have. The ACLU of Southern California, in conjunction with Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles and the Community Coalition, has reviewed nearly three decades of research explaining how the LAPD disciplinary process has failed, along with recommended changes proposed by commissions, experts, and oversight bodies. Recently, we issued a 42-page report distilling those findings and recommendations.
The Board of Rights is one of the biggest hurdles to meaningfully disciplining LAPD officers for wrongdoing, deterring future officer misconduct, and removing bad officers from our streets. The City Council needs to take seriously its responsibility to change this system and invest in a system that will help, rather than hinder, those goals.
What is the Board of Rights?The Board of Rights is a three-person panel made up of two high-ranking LAPD officers and one civilian that determines whether LAPD officers accused of serious wrongdoing remain on the force or receive significant penalties.
The disciplinary process for LAPD officers starts with a complaint for violating LAPD policy. LAPD conducts an internal review, and, if it finds that an officer did violate that policy and deserves a significant penalty, the case is referred up to the chief of police. If the chief reviews the investigation and agrees that the officer is not only guilty but deserves a lengthy suspension, demotion, or termination, the chief can't actually demote, suspend, or fire that officer. Instead, the officer gets to challenge his or her discipline to the Board of Rights, which decides whether the officer should receive the chief's recommended punishment — or any punishment at all. The Board of Rights therefore has tremendous power in determining whether LAPD officers are held accountable for wrongdoing.
What disciplinary changes are the City Council considering?The City Council is considering changing how civilians who serve on the Board of Rights are selected. This is a big deal for two reasons: First, the requirements for civilians to serve on the Board of Rights and the secretive way in which they are selected by the Police Commission have resulted in a pool of civilians who, according to the city's own analysis, are even more likely than LAPD management to vote to reduce or eliminate punishment. Civilians were added to the Board of Rights to try to eliminate bias in favor of officers, but the selection process was manipulated and the chosen civilians ended up being a thumb on the scale in favor of accused officers.
Second, as a result of voters adopting Charter Amendment C in March 2017, LAPD officers will soon get the option to select a Board of Rights panel made up of three civilians, which means the civilian panelists will have full control over the officers' punishment. How civilians are defined and selected will therefore have a huge impact on whether the Board of Rights will hold officers accountable or routinely let them off without serious punishment even for the most serious misconduct.
What is wrong with the Board of Rights?Our report highlights six main problems with the Board of Rights that commissions, politicians, oversight agencies, the public, former police chiefs, and officers themselves have consistently cited over the past 30 years.
Last year, the Police Protective League, the special interest group that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, spent more than a million dollars pushing through Charter Amendment C — which changed the makeup of the Board of Rights in the L.A. City Charter. Now, the City Council needs to pass a law to implement the new charter changes, and decide who should be allowed to sit on the Board of Rights — and who is on the board determines whether officers escape punishment or are held accountable.
Councilmembers promised to hold a series of public hearings so that they could understand how the LAPD's current disciplinary system fails to hold officers accountable, and to develop real solutions before making changes to the Board of Rights. Instead, after inaction for more than a year and a half, they are now pushing forward with recommendations without understanding the problem and are considering changes that will likely mean that even more officers who break the law, lie, or kill civilians will escape punishment and remain patrolling our communities.
The L.A. City Council may not have done its homework, but we have. The ACLU of Southern California, in conjunction with Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles and the Community Coalition, has reviewed nearly three decades of research explaining how the LAPD disciplinary process has failed, along with recommended changes proposed by commissions, experts, and oversight bodies. Recently, we issued a 42-page report distilling those findings and recommendations.
The Board of Rights is one of the biggest hurdles to meaningfully disciplining LAPD officers for wrongdoing, deterring future officer misconduct, and removing bad officers from our streets. The City Council needs to take seriously its responsibility to change this system and invest in a system that will help, rather than hinder, those goals.
What is the Board of Rights?The Board of Rights is a three-person panel made up of two high-ranking LAPD officers and one civilian that determines whether LAPD officers accused of serious wrongdoing remain on the force or receive significant penalties.
The disciplinary process for LAPD officers starts with a complaint for violating LAPD policy. LAPD conducts an internal review, and, if it finds that an officer did violate that policy and deserves a significant penalty, the case is referred up to the chief of police. If the chief reviews the investigation and agrees that the officer is not only guilty but deserves a lengthy suspension, demotion, or termination, the chief can't actually demote, suspend, or fire that officer. Instead, the officer gets to challenge his or her discipline to the Board of Rights, which decides whether the officer should receive the chief's recommended punishment — or any punishment at all. The Board of Rights therefore has tremendous power in determining whether LAPD officers are held accountable for wrongdoing.
What disciplinary changes are the City Council considering?The City Council is considering changing how civilians who serve on the Board of Rights are selected. This is a big deal for two reasons: First, the requirements for civilians to serve on the Board of Rights and the secretive way in which they are selected by the Police Commission have resulted in a pool of civilians who, according to the city's own analysis, are even more likely than LAPD management to vote to reduce or eliminate punishment. Civilians were added to the Board of Rights to try to eliminate bias in favor of officers, but the selection process was manipulated and the chosen civilians ended up being a thumb on the scale in favor of accused officers.
Second, as a result of voters adopting Charter Amendment C in March 2017, LAPD officers will soon get the option to select a Board of Rights panel made up of three civilians, which means the civilian panelists will have full control over the officers' punishment. How civilians are defined and selected will therefore have a huge impact on whether the Board of Rights will hold officers accountable or routinely let them off without serious punishment even for the most serious misconduct.
What is wrong with the Board of Rights?Our report highlights six main problems with the Board of Rights that commissions, politicians, oversight agencies, the public, former police chiefs, and officers themselves have consistently cited over the past 30 years.
- The Board of Rights undermines LAPD discipline through excessive leniency. All of the flaws observed in Board of Rights proceedings — including structural limitations, procedural errors, and inconsistencies between the evidence and the board's decisions — uniformly decrease the likelihood that officers who commit serious misconduct receive serious discipline.
- Officers perceive the Board of Rights as biased. The Board of Rights tends to reject the chief's recommended punishment in around 50% of the cases it hears, yet officers still complain that they feel the board's panels are unwilling to objectively consider the evidence and act contrary to the chief's wishes.
- The Board of Rights imposes inconsistent discipline. There are significant and unexplained disparities in outcomes involving similar misconduct, as well as a tendency to treat misconduct against the public less severely than violations of administrative rules.
- Board of Rights proceedings and outcomes lack transparency. In large part due to restrictive state laws that prohibit disclosure of officer disciplinary records, the public has no access to Board of Rights hearings or outcomes, which fosters distrust by the public as well as among officers.
- The department's defense of its disciplinary decisions before the Board of Rights is inadequate. The department relies on police officers to defend the chief's recommended discipline in Board of Rights hearings, but those officers are pitted against seasoned defense attorneys — often provided to the accused officer for free by the Police Protective League — and their lack of legal knowledge and experience often contributes to the high rate of reversal.
- Board of Rights panels have insufficient training. Although the only civilians who can serve on Board of Rights panels are those with significant experience in mediation, arbitration or similar work, research has observed many procedural errors, such as imposing an unnecessarily high burden of proof or reaching not guilty verdicts that rely on facts that are directly contradicted by the evidence.
- Real civilians. Make sure that civilians on the Board of Rights represent the diverse people and experiences that make up the City of Los Angeles, selected through an open and transparent process within the City Council. This includes making sure that people with past arrests are not excluded, and adhere to the common-sense understanding that “civilians” do not include current and former police officers.
- Real oversight. Board of Rights outcomes and voting patterns should be reported regularly, and hearings audited and reported on, so that the public knows what is happening behind closed doors.
- Real advocacy. Trained attorneys should defend the Department's recommended discipline instead of using LAPD officers with no legal training to go up against seasoned defense attorneys.
- Real accountability. Standardize penalties and ensure violations against the public like excessive force or filing false police reports result in more significant penalties than they do currently.
- Real training. All Board of Rights panelists should have an accurate and unbiased understanding of issues the board routinely considers, such as excessive force and domestic violence, and training should include community-based experts.
Measure C: "LAPD can not patrol Police !" (council president Herb Wesson)
RESOLUTION Resolution providing that a ballot measure be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Los Angeles. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AS FOLLOWS: Section A. The following amendment to the Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby proposed to be submitted for approval by a majority of the qualified voters of the City of Los Angeles at a Special Election to be called and consolidated with the City’s General Municipal Election on May 16, 2017: CHARTER AMENDMENT Section 1. Subsection (h) of Section 1070 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles is amended to read as follows: (h) Composition of Board of Rights. The Board of Rights shall be composed of two officers of the rank of captain or above and an individual who is not a member of the department (the civilian member), except as provided in the second paragraph of this subsection below. The members selected as prescribed in this section shall constitute the Board for the purpose of hearing and deciding upon the matter for which it was specially drawn. The qualifications of, selection procedures for, and compensation of the civilian members shall be established by ordinance. Upon the filing of the request for a hearing before a Board of Rights, as provided in subsection (f), the accused shall draw four cards from a box containing the names on cards of all officers who are qualified to be members of the Board of Rights (except the names of the accused, accuser, the Chief of Police, any staff or command officer specifically exempted by the Chief of Police in accordance with the provisions of the Board of Rights Manual or successor document, and any other officer who may be prejudiced or disqualified by reason of being a material witness to the facts constituting the charges made, otherwise disqualified for cause as determined by the Chief, or who has a conflict of interest). The accused shall select any two of the four names drawn to be members of the Board of Rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Council may adopt an ordinance providing the accused the option of having the complaint heard and decided by a Board of Rights composed of three individuals who are not members of the department (three civilian members) instead of a Board composed of two officers and one civilian. The qualifications of, selection procedures for, and compensation of the civilian members shall be established by ordinance. If the Council adopts an ordinance providing the option for an all civilian Board of Rights as described in this paragraph: the ordinance shall not apply to any complaint that has been filed by the Chief of Police with the Board of Police 1 Commissioners prior to the effective date of the ordinance; the Council shall not repeal the ordinance for at least two years after it is adopted; and the department shall submit a report to the Council evaluating the effectiveness of the ordinance at the end of the two-year period.
PRACTICE ADVISORY1
October 2016
HOW TO USE NEW CALIFORNIA LAW PENAL CODE §1473.7
TO VACATE LEGALLY INVALID CONVICTIONS
By Rose Cahn2
Criminal and Immigrant Justice Attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Effective January 1, 2017, a new California law will help people erase the catastrophic
consequences (immigration or otherwise) that can attach to even very old convictions. The text of the
new law, California Penal Code §1473.7, is set out in Appendix A.
The new law will permit people no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a
conviction or sentence based on either one of two claims: (1) a prejudicial error damaging the
defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or
potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or (2) newly
discovered evidence of actual innocence.
Many thanks go to Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who championed this bill in the
California legislature. We also express our gratitude for our colleagues at the American Civil Liberties
Union, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California Public Defenders Association, and the
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area who, along with the ILRC, were cosponsors
and drafters of the bill.
The ILRC will host a webinar December 6, 2016, about how to file successful § 1473.7 motions
and other post-conviction relief vehicles in California. To register, go to www.ilrc.org/webinars.
1. Background
Under California law, individuals in either actual or constructive custody may file a petition
challenging the constitutionality of a conviction or sentence by filing a habeas corpus petition. See Pen.
1 The Immigrant Legal Resource Center is a national, nonprofit resource center that provides legal trainings,
educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights. The mission of the ILRC is to work with and
educate immigrants, community organizations, and the legal sector to continue to build a democratic society that
values diversity and the rights of all people. For the latest version of this practice advisory, please visit
www.ilrc.org. For questions regarding the content of this advisory, please contact Rose Cahn at [email protected].
2 Thanks to Kathy Brady, Graciela Martinez, Mike Mehr, Anthony Pullara, and Norton Tooby for helpful review and
comments to this advisory.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 2
-----------------------------------------------
C. §1473. Once a person is no longer in custody (i.e., they are no longer in jail or prison or on probation
or parole), courts no longer have jurisdiction over a habeas petition. 3
For years, people who sought to challenge the legal validity of a conviction but were no longer in
criminal custody turned to the writ of coram nobis. In 2009, however, the California Supreme Court held
that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be raised in coram nobis petitions. People v.
Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (2009).
The lack of a post-custodial vehicle to challenge unlawful convictions effectively shut the
courtroom doors to many people who suffered devastating consequences caused by criminal
convictions.4 If a noncitizen only became aware that the conviction made him or her deportable years
after the completion of custody, there was no way to go back into court to erase the conviction.
Additionally, noncitizens who had entered pleas without counsel had no way to challenge convictions
that carried unforeseen immigration consequences. In fact, if the sole complaining witness recanted
testimony after custody had been served, there was no way for the convicted person—whether citizen
or noncitizen—to present that new evidence in criminal courts.
These holes in California’s criminal procedural landscape had a uniquely devastating impact on
immigrants who suffered unconstitutional convictions. Certain criminal convictions can cause
immigrants to be placed in removal proceedings, be detained for weeks, months, or years in
immigration facilities often located hundreds of miles from home, and be deported and permanently
separated from family and an established life in the United States.
Because of the severity of these immigration penalties, and the fact that they flow directly from
criminal convictions, California courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that criminal defense
counsel have the legal obligation to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a
conviction and to defend against those consequences by plea bargaining for an immigration-safe
criminal disposition.5 Under California law, if the defendant does not understand the immigration
consequences of a conviction, that constitutes good cause to withdraw the plea.6
Many immigrants do not become aware of immigration consequences until immigration
authorities initiate removal proceedings, often years after the person successfully completed probation
or parole, so that criminal “custody” ended. As a result, many families have been torn apart by
deportations based on unconstitutional convictions that could not be challenged in criminal courts
simply because custody or other post-conviction deadlines lapsed before the defendant even knew of
the immigration consequences.
3 See People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal. 4th 330 (party no longer in constructive custody may not file a writ of habeas
corpus); People v. Villa 45 Cal.4th1063 (2009).
4 Penal Code §1473.7 covers many individuals with no applicable remedy after custody has ended; but does not
replace existing special-purpose post-conviction vehicles, including, inter alia, Penal Code §1018 (allowing
defendants to withdraw pleas for “good cause” within six months of judgment); Penal Code §1016.5 (allowing for
vacatur where the court failed to provide the statutory advisement about potential immigration consequences);
Penal Code §1203.43 (vacating for cause controlled substance convictions dismissed pursuant to deferred entry of
judgment); Penal Code §1385 (dismissing criminal actions in the interests of justice); Penal Code §1473.6 (allowing
a post-custodial motion to vacate for victims of the Rampart scandal).
5 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987); People v. Bautista, 8
Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (2004); Cal. Pen. C. §§ 1016.2, 1016.3.
6 People v. Superior Court (Giron), 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-98 (1974).
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 3
--------------------------------------------------
The new law, AB 813, closes this procedural loophole, opens up critical new avenues for relief,
and grants courts jurisdiction to hear specific claims of legal invalidity brought by individuals no longer in
criminal custody. The law joins California with the 44 other states that offer some mechanism for
people to challenge unlawful convictions after custody has ended.
Along with providing help to immigrants who did understand the consequences of a conviction,
Penal Code §1473.7 provides a vehicle to vacate a conviction for any defendant, citizen or noncitizen,
who is no longer in custody and seeks to present new evidence of innocence. New evidence of
innocence could consist of, for example, new scientific results such as DNA testing, the fact that another
person admitted the crime, or facts that call into question the evidence that was used to convict the
person, such as problems at a crime lab or new reason to doubt a key witness’s testimony. This Advisory
will focus on immigration-related claims.
2. New Penal Code §1473.7 Motions
Immigration-related grounds for vacatur
Penal Code §1473.7(a)(1) states the general basis on which a motion to vacate can be made:
The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the
moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept
the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere.
In immigration cases, §1473.7(a)(1) allows motions to be raised alleging at least three distinct
causes of action that may be raised independently or together: (1) defense counsel violated the duty to
investigate and accurately advise the defendant about the specific immigration consequences of a plea;7
(2) defense counsel failed to defend against immigration consequences of a plea by attempting to plea
bargain for an immigration-safe alternative disposition; 8 and (3) the defendant failed to meaningfully
understand the immigration consequences of a conviction.9
When the defendant enters a plea without the assistance of counsel, no claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is possible. The defendant may, however, make a claim under Penal Code
§1473.7(a)(1) that the defendant did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of this
plea.
Prejudice
All of the grounds raised in a §1473.7(a)(1) must be accompanied by proof of prejudice to the
defendant. In related contexts courts have held that prejudice is shown if the defendant establishes it
was reasonably probable he or she would not have pleaded guilty absent the error or that “a decision to
7 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987); In re Resendiz, 25
Cal.4th 230 (2001); Cal. Pen. C. §§ 1016.2, 1016.3.
8 People v. Bautista, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (2004); Cal. Pen. C. §§1016.2, 1016.3.
9 Under this ground, defendants may raise claims of, inter alia, a violation of the right to an interpreter. See also
People v. Superior Court (Giron), 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-98 (1974) (holding that defendant could withdraw plea
because he failed to understand the immigration consequences).
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 4
--------------------------------------------
reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”10 Defendants do not need
to show that they actually could have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial or in plea
negotiations. 11 In most cases, a court or defense counsel advisement of merely potential immigration
consequences does not satisfy defense counsel’s duty, nor does it defeat a claim of prejudice.12
Prejudice is met if defendants establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a reasonable probability
that they would have rejected the existing conviction or sentence to attempt to negotiate an alternative
disposition or to take the case to trial.
Components of a Successful Motion13
The basic components of a successful motion include, but are not limited to:
• Clear statement of the grounds for the motion;
• Corroborating evidence for each of the grounds raised;14
• Proof of prejudice;15
• A declaration signed by an expert in criminal and immigration law identifying alternative
immigration-safe dispositions;16
• A declaration signed by the defendant stating the basis for the motion;17
• Evidence of equities;18
• Motions may contain a proposed order for the judge to sign.
10 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (specifying the two prongs—a violation of duty and a showing
of prejudice—required to vacate a conviction on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counse); Missouri v. Frye,
132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012) (holding that defendants could be prejudiced by counsel’s ineffective assistance in plea
bargaining); People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal. 4th 183, 199 (2000) (holding that defendants must show
prejudice to vacate a conviction based on court’s failure to provide the Pen. C. § 1016.5 mandatory immigration
advisement); In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230, 253-254 (2001) (stating prejudice standard in the context of
affirmative misadvice claims); Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010).
11 See People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (2013).
12 United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781 (9th Cir 2015).
13 A more robust discussion of these components, along with sample motions, is forthcoming and will be collected
on the ILRC’s website and distributed on a 1473.7 listserv. Please contact [email protected] if you are interested in
joining the listserv. For a longer discussion of post-conviction relief motions, please see Kathy Brady and Norton
Tooby, California Criminal Defense of Immigrants (CEB 2016, Chap. 20: Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings).
14 If, for example, the claim is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, corroborating evidence may include a
declaration from trial counsel as to what advice and/or negotiations occurred at the time of the initial plea. A
successful motion should not require a signed declaration from original trial counsel, but such a declaration could
be helpful.
15 To support the claim of prejudice, it is helpful to identify alternative immigration-safe dispositions that would
have provided the same, or greater, sentencing exposure and equivalent other prioriability penalities (e.g.,
registration requirements, strikes, etc.). Given the changing nature of immigration law, it is important to identify
both what would have been an immigration-safe solution at the time of the plea and also what will be an
immigration-safe solution now. See https://www.ilrc.org/chart for an analysis of the immigration consequences of
California convictions and suggested alternatives.
16 See, e.g., People v. Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (2004).
17 To establish a claim of prejudice, defendants must explain that, had they understood the immigration
consequences of the plea, they would have rejected the plea. If true, it is helpful for defendants to state that they
would have been willing to serve additional time in custody if it meant protecting their immigration status.
18 The equitable evidence helps corroborate the prejudice claim that the defendant would have fought to remain in
the United States. Such documentation includes signed declarations by family members, or letters from
employers, family members, neighbors, teachers, religious community members, etc. Pictures may also be
attached as exhibits.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 5
-----------------------------------------
Note that, as a practical matter, a key strategy for bringing successful post-conviction relief motions
is, before filing, to discuss the matter with the District Attorney, to offer an immigration-safe alternative
disposition, and to attempt to persuade the office not to contest the motion. See Repleading.
Timing of the motion
Motions alleging that the defendant did not understand the immigration consequences of a plea
must be filed with “reasonable diligence” after whichever of the following dates is latest: (1) The date
the moving party receives a notice to appear in immigration court or other notice from immigration
authorities that asserts the conviction or sentence as a basis for removal; or (2) The date a removal
order against the moving party, based on the existence of the conviction or sentence, becomes final.
Pen. C. §1473.7(b).19
Immigration attorneys who are representing individuals in removal proceedings should be
aware of the “reasonable diligence” requirement and advise their noncitizen clients to investigate postconviction
relief options in a prompt fashion.
The statute does not require that a notice to appear or removal order has already been filed.
For example, individuals who are interested in applying for a green card, naturalization, or other
immigration benefit who are not currently in removal proceedings but who nevertheless wish to vacate
a damaging conviction can also file a 1473.3 motion.
Individuals who already have final orders of removal—including those who have already been
deported—should also be able to file 1473.7 motions challenging the validity of their convictions.
Procedure: Filing, Hearing, Judicial Decision
Section 1473.7 motions should be filed in the Superior Court in which the challenged conviction
or sentence was entered. Standard practice suggests that motions should be served upon the district
attorney two weeks prior to the hearing on the motion. Consult local rules on this point.
Before filing the motion with the court, but after the motion is prepared, it is advisable to reach
out to the district attorney, explain the grounds for the motion, and suggest alternative immigrationsafe
pleas. See Repleading, below. Some district attorney offices will have an attorney assigned to
consider such cases. If the district attorney office does not have a designated attorney, you may contact
the attorney who prosecuted the case in the first instance.
Unlike habeas petitions, which may be denied without a hearing, all 1473.7 motions are entitled to
hearings before a judge. Penal Code §1473.7(d). In line with the default motion practices of criminal
courts, the moving party shall, with proper notice to the prosecutor, call the clerk of the criminal court
to schedule a hearing date. While courts vary in their calendar scheduling times, typical motions are
heard within 2-4 weeks of filing.
19 If an immigration judge’s order of removal is appealed, it is not considered “final.” The regulatory definition of a
final order provides that, except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decision of the
Immigration Judge becomes final “upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is
taken whichever occurs first.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.39.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 6
---------------------------------------------
Because some movants may be in immigration custody or already removed to their country of
origin, the statute provides that the personal presence of the moving party may be waived provided that
counsel for the moving party is present and the court finds good cause as to why the moving party
cannot be at the hearing. Penal Code §1473.7(d).
The court shall grant the motion if the moving party establishes, by a preponderance of the
evidence (51%) the existence of any of the grounds for relief. Penal Code §1473.7(e)(1). As distinct
from rulings on habeas petitions, the court is required to specify the basis for its conclusion. Penal Code
§1473.7(e)(2). An order granting or denying the motion is appealable. Pen. C. §1473.7(f).
Re-pleading
If the court grants the motion to vacate a conviction or sentence, the court shall allow the
moving party to withdraw the plea. Penal Code §1473.7(e)(3). At that point, the moving party is in the
same position that he or she would have occupied absent the error. Absent an arrangement with the
district attorney to drop the charges, the defendant must still answer for the charges by negotiating an
immigration-safe alternative disposition or taking the case to trial. This illustrates why it is helpful to
identify at the outset an immigration-safe resolution that offers the district attorney the same, or
greater, sentencing exposure as the original conviction. See https://www.ilrc.org/chart for California
offenses, their immigration consequences, and safe alternatives. It is advisable for attorneys who are
not experts in criminal and immigration law to consult with an expert who can help identify alternative
dispositions.
Defendants must be given credit for time served. Though it is very rare that additional jail or
prison time will be imposed, more time may be agreed upon as part of the negotiation process.20
Though the defendant need not be present for the hearing on the motion, the defendant’s
presence is mandatory to enter a subsequent felony plea (though presence can be waived for
misdemeanor pleas). Compare Pen. C. §977(b) with Pen. C. §977(a).
3. Criminal and Immigration Impact of a § 1473.7 Vacation of Judgment
If granted, relief under this motion will vacate a California criminal conviction or sentence as
legally invalid on a ground relating to unknown immigration consequences of the conviction, or on
newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Penal Code §§ 1437.7(a)(1)(immigration grounds),
1437.7(a)(2)(newly discovered evidence).
Criminal Effects
This relief eliminates the existing conviction or sentence, and provides: “If the court grants the
motion to vacate a conviction or sentence obtained through a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the
court shall allow the moving party to withdraw the plea.” Penal Code §§1437.7(e)(3).
If the plea is withdrawn, the conviction ceases to exist for any purposes. It may no longer be a
basis for future sentence enhancements, and the plea withdrawal eliminates any registration
requirements that may have previously attached.
20 The general rule is that a defendant cannot be sentenced to more time after a successful appeal.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 7
-----------------------------------------
Immigration Effects
This motion is only available if based on a ground of legal invalidity. Penal Code §§1437.7(a)(1)
(immigration grounds), 1437.7(a)(2) (newly discovered evidence of innocence). Therefore, relief under
either branch of this statute automatically eliminates the conviction or sentence and its immigration
consequences. Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).
To eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes, the plea must be eliminated for cause,
based on some legal error in the proceedings.21 A court order granting a Penal Code §1473.7 motion
will therefore automatically meet the immigration-court requirement for vacaturs because it will be
based on: (1) a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to enter into a voluntary, knowing, and
intelligent plea deal; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel’s failure to investigate,
accurately advise of, or defend against, the immigration consequences of a conviction; or (3) a claim of
actual innocence.
Nevertheless, moving parties seeking to ensure that the order vacating the conviction will be
given due deference by immigration courts would be wise to ensure that the order vacating the
conviction specifies that the motion is granted because the prior conviction is deemed legally invalid.
The order may spell out the specific grounds of legal invalidity underlying the order, or it may state more
generally that the prior conviction is legally invalid.22
21 See, e.g., Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (concluding that in light of the language and
legislative purpose of the definition of a “conviction” at section 101(a)(48) of the Act, “there is a significant
distinction between convictions vacated on the basis of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying
proceedings and those vacated because of post-conviction events, such as rehabilitation or immigration
hardships”); see also Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2000) (according full faith and credit to a
New York court’s vacation of a conviction on the merits); see also Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006)
(conviction vacated for failure to give legislatively required advisal of immigration consequences is eliminated for
immigration purposes).
22 In deportation proceedings, the government bears the burden to establish that the dismissal is ineffective to
eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 8
--------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A
BILL TEXT
SECTION 1.
Section 1473.7 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
1473.7.
(a) A person no longer imprisoned or restrained may prosecute a motion to vacate a conviction or
sentence for either of the following reasons:
(1) The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving
party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or
potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
(2) Newly discovered evidence of actual innocence exists that requires vacation of the
conviction or sentence as a matter of law or in the interests of justice.
(b) A motion pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be filed with reasonable diligence after
the later of the following:
(1) The date the moving party receives a notice to appear in immigration court or other notice
from immigration authorities that asserts the conviction or sentence as a basis for removal.
(2) The date a removal order against the moving party, based on the existence of the conviction
or sentence, becomes final.
(c) A motion pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) shall be filed without undue delay from the
date the moving party discovered, or could have discovered with the exercise of due diligence, the
evidence that provides a basis for relief under this section.
(d) All motions shall be entitled to a hearing. At the request of the moving party, the court may hold the
hearing without the personal presence of the moving party if counsel for the moving party is present
and the court finds good cause as to why the moving party cannot be present.
(e) When ruling on the motion:
(1) The court shall grant the motion to vacate the conviction or sentence if the moving party
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of any of the grounds for relief
specified in subdivision (a).
(2) In granting or denying the motion, the court shall specify the basis for its conclusion.
(3) If the court grants the motion to vacate a conviction or sentence obtained through a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall allow the moving party to withdraw the plea.
(f) An order granting or denying the motion is appealable under subdivision (b) of Section 1237 as an
order after judgment affecting the substantial rights of a party.
October 2016
HOW TO USE NEW CALIFORNIA LAW PENAL CODE §1473.7
TO VACATE LEGALLY INVALID CONVICTIONS
By Rose Cahn2
Criminal and Immigrant Justice Attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Effective January 1, 2017, a new California law will help people erase the catastrophic
consequences (immigration or otherwise) that can attach to even very old convictions. The text of the
new law, California Penal Code §1473.7, is set out in Appendix A.
The new law will permit people no longer in criminal custody to file a motion to vacate a
conviction or sentence based on either one of two claims: (1) a prejudicial error damaging the
defendant’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or
potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or (2) newly
discovered evidence of actual innocence.
Many thanks go to Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who championed this bill in the
California legislature. We also express our gratitude for our colleagues at the American Civil Liberties
Union, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California Public Defenders Association, and the
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area who, along with the ILRC, were cosponsors
and drafters of the bill.
The ILRC will host a webinar December 6, 2016, about how to file successful § 1473.7 motions
and other post-conviction relief vehicles in California. To register, go to www.ilrc.org/webinars.
1. Background
Under California law, individuals in either actual or constructive custody may file a petition
challenging the constitutionality of a conviction or sentence by filing a habeas corpus petition. See Pen.
1 The Immigrant Legal Resource Center is a national, nonprofit resource center that provides legal trainings,
educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights. The mission of the ILRC is to work with and
educate immigrants, community organizations, and the legal sector to continue to build a democratic society that
values diversity and the rights of all people. For the latest version of this practice advisory, please visit
www.ilrc.org. For questions regarding the content of this advisory, please contact Rose Cahn at [email protected].
2 Thanks to Kathy Brady, Graciela Martinez, Mike Mehr, Anthony Pullara, and Norton Tooby for helpful review and
comments to this advisory.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 2
-----------------------------------------------
C. §1473. Once a person is no longer in custody (i.e., they are no longer in jail or prison or on probation
or parole), courts no longer have jurisdiction over a habeas petition. 3
For years, people who sought to challenge the legal validity of a conviction but were no longer in
criminal custody turned to the writ of coram nobis. In 2009, however, the California Supreme Court held
that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be raised in coram nobis petitions. People v.
Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (2009).
The lack of a post-custodial vehicle to challenge unlawful convictions effectively shut the
courtroom doors to many people who suffered devastating consequences caused by criminal
convictions.4 If a noncitizen only became aware that the conviction made him or her deportable years
after the completion of custody, there was no way to go back into court to erase the conviction.
Additionally, noncitizens who had entered pleas without counsel had no way to challenge convictions
that carried unforeseen immigration consequences. In fact, if the sole complaining witness recanted
testimony after custody had been served, there was no way for the convicted person—whether citizen
or noncitizen—to present that new evidence in criminal courts.
These holes in California’s criminal procedural landscape had a uniquely devastating impact on
immigrants who suffered unconstitutional convictions. Certain criminal convictions can cause
immigrants to be placed in removal proceedings, be detained for weeks, months, or years in
immigration facilities often located hundreds of miles from home, and be deported and permanently
separated from family and an established life in the United States.
Because of the severity of these immigration penalties, and the fact that they flow directly from
criminal convictions, California courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that criminal defense
counsel have the legal obligation to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a
conviction and to defend against those consequences by plea bargaining for an immigration-safe
criminal disposition.5 Under California law, if the defendant does not understand the immigration
consequences of a conviction, that constitutes good cause to withdraw the plea.6
Many immigrants do not become aware of immigration consequences until immigration
authorities initiate removal proceedings, often years after the person successfully completed probation
or parole, so that criminal “custody” ended. As a result, many families have been torn apart by
deportations based on unconstitutional convictions that could not be challenged in criminal courts
simply because custody or other post-conviction deadlines lapsed before the defendant even knew of
the immigration consequences.
3 See People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal. 4th 330 (party no longer in constructive custody may not file a writ of habeas
corpus); People v. Villa 45 Cal.4th1063 (2009).
4 Penal Code §1473.7 covers many individuals with no applicable remedy after custody has ended; but does not
replace existing special-purpose post-conviction vehicles, including, inter alia, Penal Code §1018 (allowing
defendants to withdraw pleas for “good cause” within six months of judgment); Penal Code §1016.5 (allowing for
vacatur where the court failed to provide the statutory advisement about potential immigration consequences);
Penal Code §1203.43 (vacating for cause controlled substance convictions dismissed pursuant to deferred entry of
judgment); Penal Code §1385 (dismissing criminal actions in the interests of justice); Penal Code §1473.6 (allowing
a post-custodial motion to vacate for victims of the Rampart scandal).
5 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987); People v. Bautista, 8
Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (2004); Cal. Pen. C. §§ 1016.2, 1016.3.
6 People v. Superior Court (Giron), 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-98 (1974).
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 3
--------------------------------------------------
The new law, AB 813, closes this procedural loophole, opens up critical new avenues for relief,
and grants courts jurisdiction to hear specific claims of legal invalidity brought by individuals no longer in
criminal custody. The law joins California with the 44 other states that offer some mechanism for
people to challenge unlawful convictions after custody has ended.
Along with providing help to immigrants who did understand the consequences of a conviction,
Penal Code §1473.7 provides a vehicle to vacate a conviction for any defendant, citizen or noncitizen,
who is no longer in custody and seeks to present new evidence of innocence. New evidence of
innocence could consist of, for example, new scientific results such as DNA testing, the fact that another
person admitted the crime, or facts that call into question the evidence that was used to convict the
person, such as problems at a crime lab or new reason to doubt a key witness’s testimony. This Advisory
will focus on immigration-related claims.
2. New Penal Code §1473.7 Motions
Immigration-related grounds for vacatur
Penal Code §1473.7(a)(1) states the general basis on which a motion to vacate can be made:
The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the
moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept
the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere.
In immigration cases, §1473.7(a)(1) allows motions to be raised alleging at least three distinct
causes of action that may be raised independently or together: (1) defense counsel violated the duty to
investigate and accurately advise the defendant about the specific immigration consequences of a plea;7
(2) defense counsel failed to defend against immigration consequences of a plea by attempting to plea
bargain for an immigration-safe alternative disposition; 8 and (3) the defendant failed to meaningfully
understand the immigration consequences of a conviction.9
When the defendant enters a plea without the assistance of counsel, no claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel is possible. The defendant may, however, make a claim under Penal Code
§1473.7(a)(1) that the defendant did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of this
plea.
Prejudice
All of the grounds raised in a §1473.7(a)(1) must be accompanied by proof of prejudice to the
defendant. In related contexts courts have held that prejudice is shown if the defendant establishes it
was reasonably probable he or she would not have pleaded guilty absent the error or that “a decision to
7 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987); In re Resendiz, 25
Cal.4th 230 (2001); Cal. Pen. C. §§ 1016.2, 1016.3.
8 People v. Bautista, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 862 (2004); Cal. Pen. C. §§1016.2, 1016.3.
9 Under this ground, defendants may raise claims of, inter alia, a violation of the right to an interpreter. See also
People v. Superior Court (Giron), 11 Cal.3d 793, 797-98 (1974) (holding that defendant could withdraw plea
because he failed to understand the immigration consequences).
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 4
--------------------------------------------
reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.”10 Defendants do not need
to show that they actually could have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial or in plea
negotiations. 11 In most cases, a court or defense counsel advisement of merely potential immigration
consequences does not satisfy defense counsel’s duty, nor does it defeat a claim of prejudice.12
Prejudice is met if defendants establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a reasonable probability
that they would have rejected the existing conviction or sentence to attempt to negotiate an alternative
disposition or to take the case to trial.
Components of a Successful Motion13
The basic components of a successful motion include, but are not limited to:
• Clear statement of the grounds for the motion;
• Corroborating evidence for each of the grounds raised;14
• Proof of prejudice;15
• A declaration signed by an expert in criminal and immigration law identifying alternative
immigration-safe dispositions;16
• A declaration signed by the defendant stating the basis for the motion;17
• Evidence of equities;18
• Motions may contain a proposed order for the judge to sign.
10 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (specifying the two prongs—a violation of duty and a showing
of prejudice—required to vacate a conviction on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counse); Missouri v. Frye,
132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012) (holding that defendants could be prejudiced by counsel’s ineffective assistance in plea
bargaining); People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal. 4th 183, 199 (2000) (holding that defendants must show
prejudice to vacate a conviction based on court’s failure to provide the Pen. C. § 1016.5 mandatory immigration
advisement); In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230, 253-254 (2001) (stating prejudice standard in the context of
affirmative misadvice claims); Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010).
11 See People v. Martinez, 57 Cal.4th 555 (2013).
12 United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781 (9th Cir 2015).
13 A more robust discussion of these components, along with sample motions, is forthcoming and will be collected
on the ILRC’s website and distributed on a 1473.7 listserv. Please contact [email protected] if you are interested in
joining the listserv. For a longer discussion of post-conviction relief motions, please see Kathy Brady and Norton
Tooby, California Criminal Defense of Immigrants (CEB 2016, Chap. 20: Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings).
14 If, for example, the claim is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, corroborating evidence may include a
declaration from trial counsel as to what advice and/or negotiations occurred at the time of the initial plea. A
successful motion should not require a signed declaration from original trial counsel, but such a declaration could
be helpful.
15 To support the claim of prejudice, it is helpful to identify alternative immigration-safe dispositions that would
have provided the same, or greater, sentencing exposure and equivalent other prioriability penalities (e.g.,
registration requirements, strikes, etc.). Given the changing nature of immigration law, it is important to identify
both what would have been an immigration-safe solution at the time of the plea and also what will be an
immigration-safe solution now. See https://www.ilrc.org/chart for an analysis of the immigration consequences of
California convictions and suggested alternatives.
16 See, e.g., People v. Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (2004).
17 To establish a claim of prejudice, defendants must explain that, had they understood the immigration
consequences of the plea, they would have rejected the plea. If true, it is helpful for defendants to state that they
would have been willing to serve additional time in custody if it meant protecting their immigration status.
18 The equitable evidence helps corroborate the prejudice claim that the defendant would have fought to remain in
the United States. Such documentation includes signed declarations by family members, or letters from
employers, family members, neighbors, teachers, religious community members, etc. Pictures may also be
attached as exhibits.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 5
-----------------------------------------
Note that, as a practical matter, a key strategy for bringing successful post-conviction relief motions
is, before filing, to discuss the matter with the District Attorney, to offer an immigration-safe alternative
disposition, and to attempt to persuade the office not to contest the motion. See Repleading.
Timing of the motion
Motions alleging that the defendant did not understand the immigration consequences of a plea
must be filed with “reasonable diligence” after whichever of the following dates is latest: (1) The date
the moving party receives a notice to appear in immigration court or other notice from immigration
authorities that asserts the conviction or sentence as a basis for removal; or (2) The date a removal
order against the moving party, based on the existence of the conviction or sentence, becomes final.
Pen. C. §1473.7(b).19
Immigration attorneys who are representing individuals in removal proceedings should be
aware of the “reasonable diligence” requirement and advise their noncitizen clients to investigate postconviction
relief options in a prompt fashion.
The statute does not require that a notice to appear or removal order has already been filed.
For example, individuals who are interested in applying for a green card, naturalization, or other
immigration benefit who are not currently in removal proceedings but who nevertheless wish to vacate
a damaging conviction can also file a 1473.3 motion.
Individuals who already have final orders of removal—including those who have already been
deported—should also be able to file 1473.7 motions challenging the validity of their convictions.
Procedure: Filing, Hearing, Judicial Decision
Section 1473.7 motions should be filed in the Superior Court in which the challenged conviction
or sentence was entered. Standard practice suggests that motions should be served upon the district
attorney two weeks prior to the hearing on the motion. Consult local rules on this point.
Before filing the motion with the court, but after the motion is prepared, it is advisable to reach
out to the district attorney, explain the grounds for the motion, and suggest alternative immigrationsafe
pleas. See Repleading, below. Some district attorney offices will have an attorney assigned to
consider such cases. If the district attorney office does not have a designated attorney, you may contact
the attorney who prosecuted the case in the first instance.
Unlike habeas petitions, which may be denied without a hearing, all 1473.7 motions are entitled to
hearings before a judge. Penal Code §1473.7(d). In line with the default motion practices of criminal
courts, the moving party shall, with proper notice to the prosecutor, call the clerk of the criminal court
to schedule a hearing date. While courts vary in their calendar scheduling times, typical motions are
heard within 2-4 weeks of filing.
19 If an immigration judge’s order of removal is appealed, it is not considered “final.” The regulatory definition of a
final order provides that, except when certified to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decision of the
Immigration Judge becomes final “upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is
taken whichever occurs first.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.39.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 6
---------------------------------------------
Because some movants may be in immigration custody or already removed to their country of
origin, the statute provides that the personal presence of the moving party may be waived provided that
counsel for the moving party is present and the court finds good cause as to why the moving party
cannot be at the hearing. Penal Code §1473.7(d).
The court shall grant the motion if the moving party establishes, by a preponderance of the
evidence (51%) the existence of any of the grounds for relief. Penal Code §1473.7(e)(1). As distinct
from rulings on habeas petitions, the court is required to specify the basis for its conclusion. Penal Code
§1473.7(e)(2). An order granting or denying the motion is appealable. Pen. C. §1473.7(f).
Re-pleading
If the court grants the motion to vacate a conviction or sentence, the court shall allow the
moving party to withdraw the plea. Penal Code §1473.7(e)(3). At that point, the moving party is in the
same position that he or she would have occupied absent the error. Absent an arrangement with the
district attorney to drop the charges, the defendant must still answer for the charges by negotiating an
immigration-safe alternative disposition or taking the case to trial. This illustrates why it is helpful to
identify at the outset an immigration-safe resolution that offers the district attorney the same, or
greater, sentencing exposure as the original conviction. See https://www.ilrc.org/chart for California
offenses, their immigration consequences, and safe alternatives. It is advisable for attorneys who are
not experts in criminal and immigration law to consult with an expert who can help identify alternative
dispositions.
Defendants must be given credit for time served. Though it is very rare that additional jail or
prison time will be imposed, more time may be agreed upon as part of the negotiation process.20
Though the defendant need not be present for the hearing on the motion, the defendant’s
presence is mandatory to enter a subsequent felony plea (though presence can be waived for
misdemeanor pleas). Compare Pen. C. §977(b) with Pen. C. §977(a).
3. Criminal and Immigration Impact of a § 1473.7 Vacation of Judgment
If granted, relief under this motion will vacate a California criminal conviction or sentence as
legally invalid on a ground relating to unknown immigration consequences of the conviction, or on
newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Penal Code §§ 1437.7(a)(1)(immigration grounds),
1437.7(a)(2)(newly discovered evidence).
Criminal Effects
This relief eliminates the existing conviction or sentence, and provides: “If the court grants the
motion to vacate a conviction or sentence obtained through a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the
court shall allow the moving party to withdraw the plea.” Penal Code §§1437.7(e)(3).
If the plea is withdrawn, the conviction ceases to exist for any purposes. It may no longer be a
basis for future sentence enhancements, and the plea withdrawal eliminates any registration
requirements that may have previously attached.
20 The general rule is that a defendant cannot be sentenced to more time after a successful appeal.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 7
-----------------------------------------
Immigration Effects
This motion is only available if based on a ground of legal invalidity. Penal Code §§1437.7(a)(1)
(immigration grounds), 1437.7(a)(2) (newly discovered evidence of innocence). Therefore, relief under
either branch of this statute automatically eliminates the conviction or sentence and its immigration
consequences. Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003).
To eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes, the plea must be eliminated for cause,
based on some legal error in the proceedings.21 A court order granting a Penal Code §1473.7 motion
will therefore automatically meet the immigration-court requirement for vacaturs because it will be
based on: (1) a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to enter into a voluntary, knowing, and
intelligent plea deal; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel’s failure to investigate,
accurately advise of, or defend against, the immigration consequences of a conviction; or (3) a claim of
actual innocence.
Nevertheless, moving parties seeking to ensure that the order vacating the conviction will be
given due deference by immigration courts would be wise to ensure that the order vacating the
conviction specifies that the motion is granted because the prior conviction is deemed legally invalid.
The order may spell out the specific grounds of legal invalidity underlying the order, or it may state more
generally that the prior conviction is legally invalid.22
21 See, e.g., Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (concluding that in light of the language and
legislative purpose of the definition of a “conviction” at section 101(a)(48) of the Act, “there is a significant
distinction between convictions vacated on the basis of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying
proceedings and those vacated because of post-conviction events, such as rehabilitation or immigration
hardships”); see also Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2000) (according full faith and credit to a
New York court’s vacation of a conviction on the merits); see also Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006)
(conviction vacated for failure to give legislatively required advisal of immigration consequences is eliminated for
immigration purposes).
22 In deportation proceedings, the government bears the burden to establish that the dismissal is ineffective to
eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes.
New Motion to Vacate
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
©2016 Immigrant Legal Resource Center 8
--------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A
BILL TEXT
SECTION 1.
Section 1473.7 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
1473.7.
(a) A person no longer imprisoned or restrained may prosecute a motion to vacate a conviction or
sentence for either of the following reasons:
(1) The conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving
party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or
potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
(2) Newly discovered evidence of actual innocence exists that requires vacation of the
conviction or sentence as a matter of law or in the interests of justice.
(b) A motion pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be filed with reasonable diligence after
the later of the following:
(1) The date the moving party receives a notice to appear in immigration court or other notice
from immigration authorities that asserts the conviction or sentence as a basis for removal.
(2) The date a removal order against the moving party, based on the existence of the conviction
or sentence, becomes final.
(c) A motion pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) shall be filed without undue delay from the
date the moving party discovered, or could have discovered with the exercise of due diligence, the
evidence that provides a basis for relief under this section.
(d) All motions shall be entitled to a hearing. At the request of the moving party, the court may hold the
hearing without the personal presence of the moving party if counsel for the moving party is present
and the court finds good cause as to why the moving party cannot be present.
(e) When ruling on the motion:
(1) The court shall grant the motion to vacate the conviction or sentence if the moving party
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of any of the grounds for relief
specified in subdivision (a).
(2) In granting or denying the motion, the court shall specify the basis for its conclusion.
(3) If the court grants the motion to vacate a conviction or sentence obtained through a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall allow the moving party to withdraw the plea.
(f) An order granting or denying the motion is appealable under subdivision (b) of Section 1237 as an
order after judgment affecting the substantial rights of a party.
Court Rejects Challenge to California Police Transparency Law(feb 2019)
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a sheriff union’s request to block a new state law that provides public access to past police-misconduct and use-of-force records.
The San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies’ union sought an emergency intervention from the California Supreme Court to block the new law before the New Year. In a petition filed Dec. 18, the union said the new law should only apply to records created after Jan. 1, when the law took effect. It argued California law offers heightened privacy protections to police officers. Under Senate Bill 1421, access to internal records on police shootings, use of force by officers, complaints on sexual assault by on-duty officers, and other misconduct are available to the public. The law also applies retroactively to records created before 2019. California-based nonprofit First Amendment Coalition, or FAC, was joined by multiple news organizations in opposition to the union’s request and filed a brief on Dec. 28 to intervene in the case. But they did not get the chance to join, because the state’s high court denied the police union’s challenge to retroactive application of the law on Wednesday morning. FAC Executive Director David Snyder said the denial was a great relief. “The union had sort of a last-ditch effort that would have had significant impact on the entire state,” he said in a phone interview. In its brief, FAC said the public would suffer if law enforcement agencies were able to sidestep application of the new law because records could be destroyed, and state lawmakers said those records on use of force and misconduct should be made available to the public. In a statement, the law firm who filed the challenge on behalf of the union to the state’s law said they expect the matter of officers’ records to be litigated in local courts. “The possibility of multiple lawsuits being filed and litigated in numerous counties throughout the state, and the potential for conflicting decisions at the Superior Court level was the impetus for the action we filed” on behalf of the sheriff’s union, according to the statement. The union said it was disappointed with the court’s denial of their petition, said union president Grant Ward in a statement. They are looking for other legal options to keep officers’ information from being released. SB 1421 creates more transparency in police agencies across California. But one city raised the ire of activists when it said last month that it would shred more than 100 police records dating back to 1991. Inglewood, just outside of Los Angeles, called the destruction of police records a routine purging of “obsolete” materials, according to a Los Angeles Times report. Community activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson told the LA Times that the city’s decision to shred internal police records “continues a pattern of lack of accountability.” |
Did you know you can pick up network TV for free? You just need the right antenna — LiveWave Antenna's indoor antenna. No subscription fee. No installation fee. No satellite dish. Attach the sleek antenna to your wall or hide it under a cabinet or behind a picture — as long as there is a good signal — and enjoy watching leading networks, including 90 of the top 100 programs. All for free! (Yes, it’s legal.) You also get free DVR capability with an on-screen channel guide.
Protesters take to streets of Pittsburgh after policeman acquitted of killing black teen
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47683162#
Protesters took to the streets in Pennsylvania on Saturday after a white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager was acquitted.
Michael Rosfeld, 30, shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose three times in the back as he tried to flee police last June.
He was charged with criminal homicide last year but a jury on Friday fully acquitted him after a four day trial.
Amid the protests on Saturday, shots were reportedly fired at the officers of Mr Rosfeld's lawyer.
Hundreds of demonstrators marched through downtown Pittsburgh and blocked roads. They gathered at an intersection called Freedom Corner and chanted Rose's age. Some held signs that bore the names of other black men who had been killed by police in recent years.
ADVERTISEMENT
Media captionVideo shows Antwon Rose being shot from behind by police in 2018Rose's father, Antwon Rose Sr, addressed the crowds in Pittsburgh and and called for peaceful protest.
"It's very painful to see what happened, to sit there and deal with it," he said. "I just don't want it to happen to our city no more."
He added: "I want peace, period, all the way around ... Just because there was violence doesn't mean that we counter that with violence."
The death of Antwon Rose is one of many high-profile cases of unarmed black men dying at the hands of white US police officers - cases that have ignited protests and civil unrest across the country.
Lee Merritt, who represented the family, said Rose was shot in the back but "did not pose a threat to the officers".
"The verdict today says that that is OK," he said.
The family is now filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against Mr Rosfield, lawyers say.
What happened to Antwon Rose?Officers stopped Rose's car because it matched the description of one sought in connection with a nearby shooting, police said. Rose was a passenger in the vehicle at the time.
Image copyrightANTWON ROSE/FACEBOOK
Image captionAntwon Rose, 17, was fatally shot three times as he fled policeWhen the driver was stopped and ordered out of the car, Rose and a second unidentified passenger ran. Rose was shot several times from behind, in the arm, face and abdomen. He later died from his injuries.
The officers were not wearing body cameras at the time, but a video filmed by a bystander went viral and led to days of protests in Pittsburgh.
According to the criminal complaint, Mr Rosfeld, who had been sworn in for duty just 90 minutes earlier, said he "saw something dark that he perceived as a gun," but witnesses said Rose had nothing in his hands.
Mr Rosfeld later changed his story, according to the detectives' complaint, saying he did not see a gun.
Protesters took to the streets in Pennsylvania on Saturday after a white police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager was acquitted.
Michael Rosfeld, 30, shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose three times in the back as he tried to flee police last June.
He was charged with criminal homicide last year but a jury on Friday fully acquitted him after a four day trial.
Amid the protests on Saturday, shots were reportedly fired at the officers of Mr Rosfeld's lawyer.
Hundreds of demonstrators marched through downtown Pittsburgh and blocked roads. They gathered at an intersection called Freedom Corner and chanted Rose's age. Some held signs that bore the names of other black men who had been killed by police in recent years.
ADVERTISEMENT
Media captionVideo shows Antwon Rose being shot from behind by police in 2018Rose's father, Antwon Rose Sr, addressed the crowds in Pittsburgh and and called for peaceful protest.
"It's very painful to see what happened, to sit there and deal with it," he said. "I just don't want it to happen to our city no more."
He added: "I want peace, period, all the way around ... Just because there was violence doesn't mean that we counter that with violence."
The death of Antwon Rose is one of many high-profile cases of unarmed black men dying at the hands of white US police officers - cases that have ignited protests and civil unrest across the country.
Lee Merritt, who represented the family, said Rose was shot in the back but "did not pose a threat to the officers".
"The verdict today says that that is OK," he said.
The family is now filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against Mr Rosfield, lawyers say.
What happened to Antwon Rose?Officers stopped Rose's car because it matched the description of one sought in connection with a nearby shooting, police said. Rose was a passenger in the vehicle at the time.
Image copyrightANTWON ROSE/FACEBOOK
Image captionAntwon Rose, 17, was fatally shot three times as he fled policeWhen the driver was stopped and ordered out of the car, Rose and a second unidentified passenger ran. Rose was shot several times from behind, in the arm, face and abdomen. He later died from his injuries.
The officers were not wearing body cameras at the time, but a video filmed by a bystander went viral and led to days of protests in Pittsburgh.
According to the criminal complaint, Mr Rosfeld, who had been sworn in for duty just 90 minutes earlier, said he "saw something dark that he perceived as a gun," but witnesses said Rose had nothing in his hands.
Mr Rosfeld later changed his story, according to the detectives' complaint, saying he did not see a gun.
FBI corruption probe goes beyond L.A. Councilman Jose Huizar to include other City Hall figuresA search warrant says federal agents are seeking evidence related to an investigation into an array of possible crimes at Los Angeles City Hall, including bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. No charges have been filed.(LA Times jan13,2019).... AND Eric Garcetti got the lowest turnout on his re-election, now what? USA president 2020??? kidding me !