CHRISTOPHER DORNER : THE FIRST LEADER OF THE "WAR ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" IN CALIFORNIA

Los Angeles, California

December 20, 2013***
(Current or today's date)

March 15, 2013
(Original date)

**UPDATE (denotes NEW information or material added to the blog)

*(denotes alteration or change to original blog)(except when part of an UPDATE)

***This re-publishing of this blog is submitted as a part of the WRD, and is specifically re-published as a dedication to Nelson "Medeba" Mandela, in recognition of his recent death and in honoring him as a great past world leader of the struggle against racial discrimination in the world.

Anyone who reads or have read a blog of mine knows that if a topic arises, through the news or personal experience, that deals with racial discrimination, I will likely have some comment about it. So, I'm sure it will be no surprise to my readers that I am writing about Christopher Dorner. Recently, according to the L.A. Times, Senator Dianne Feinstein stated that passing a new assault weapons ban is a "life's mission" for her. Well, pursuing the eradication of racial discrimination in California (and the United States) is a "life's mission" for me. Until my last dying breath. That means that I will fight against racial discrimination whenever and however possible.

When Christopher Dorner set out to "clear his name", he declared "war on racial discrimination", because it was racial discrimination that "smeared" his name and ruined his life. "The LAPD'S actions have cost me my law enforcement career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09. They cost me my Naval career which started on 4/02 and ends on 2/13. I had a TS/SCI clearance (Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after my termination with LAPD. This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States. I lost my position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon because of the LAPD. I've lost a relationship with my mother and sister because of the LAPD. I've lost a relationship with close friends because of the LAPD. In essence, I've lost everything because the LAPD took my name and (knew)(sic) I was INNOCENT!!!", from Christopher Dorner's "Manifesto".

And when he declared the "War on Racial Discrimination", he had no other choice. One only needs to review the facts and circumstances of my case and fight against racial discrimination here in California (which now becomes a part of the war on racial discrimination) to see that. And, as Dorner stated in his "Manifesto", "I have exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort." I will get more specific at a later point in this blog as to why Dorner had no choice but to do what he did.

I will continue later.

UPDATE--March 18, 2013

Dorner declared "war" because "War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors. It is characterised by extreme violence, social disruption, human suffering, and economic destruction. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or
intervention." Wikipedia. "The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare". Id.

Dorner stated that "The enemy combatants in LA are not the citizens and suspects, it's the police officers". He stated that there would be "deadly consequences for you and your family". "There will be an element of surprise where you work, live, eat, and sleep. As to other warfare techniques, Dorner stated, "I will utilize ISR at your home, workplace, and all locations in between"(since these are probably tools Dorner learned from either his LAPD training or military training, the law enforcement community are probably aware of what he's speaking about). "I will utilize OSINT to discover your residences, spouses(')(sic) workplaces, and children's schools. IMINT to coordinate and plan attacks on your fixed locations." "HUMINT will be utilized to collect personal schedules of targets." "I will utilize every bit of small arms training, demolition, ordnance, and survival training I've been given."

"The Violence of action will be HIGH." "I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical
warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty." "Your RD's and homes away from work will be my AO and battle space. I will utilize every tool within INT collections that I learned from NMITC in Dam Neck."

So, it is clear that Dorner declared war in his quest to get his name back, and it is equally clear that it was racial discrimination that took away Dorner's name. Simplistically, one needs only to pose the simple question : Would Dorner have been terminated or fired , under the same facts or circumstances, if he was white? The answer is "no". Perhaps a white officer would have been disciplined in some way, e.g., a warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, etc., but, he would not have been fired or terminated. It would not have been considered an option. Dorner was fired because he was a Black male. And, even though Dorner clearly identified his need to clear his name as the focal point of his initiation of war, he clearly alluded to racism as a facet of the war as well. "Terminating officers because they expose a culture of lying, racism(from the academy), and excessive use of force will immediately change." Dorner's Manifesto. Unless otherwise noted, whenever I quote a passage attributed to Dorner, it will be from his Manifesto.

It is important that Dorner declared war, because that places the associated killings in a different light from what they may have been without the declaration of war. That is, during a war, and every war that I know of, some innocent people die. That is always a part of war, and that is the nature of war. Therefore, if Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were innocent people (and I will assume that they were, without actually knowing for sure), their deaths are part of those deaths associated with war. As for the police officers or deputies killed, I will not assume that they were innocent people, for two basic reasons. One, Dorner considered Los Angeles police officers "enemy combatants", that is, "The enemy combatants in LA are not the citizens and suspects, it's the police officers". Second, there are too many racist or prejudiced or bad police officers out there to "assume" that the police officers killed were innocent. I would have to actually "know" that they were innocent. So, if they were good police officers, and therefore, innocent, their deaths occurred as the result of war. If they were bad police officers, they were the targets of war, and got what they deserved. In any event, as Dorner stated, "For you officers who do the job in the name of JUSTICE, those of you who lost honest officers to this event, look at the name of those on the BOR and the investigating officers from PSB and Evans and ask them, how come you couldn't tell the truth? Why did you terminate an honest officer and cover for a dishonest officer who victimized a mentally ill citizen(?)"

Dorner is a leader, and the first leader, of the War on Racial Discrimination because he possessed the necessary qualities : (1) strength, (2)courage, (3) integrity, (4)character, (5)honesty, (6) no fear of death, and, most important of all, (7) be "ready to die".

Until next time.

UPDATE--March 19, 2013

Before I discuss the leadership qualities, I want to go back and discuss the methods of warfare for the WRD.

METHODS OF WARFARE FOR THE WAR ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Of course, the method of operation of Christopher Dorner will, necessarily, be one of the methods used in the war. But, as with Chris Dorner, it will be a method of last resort. But, there's no doubt that the method will ultimately have to be used again because the white majority generally sleeps on the other methods; again, review my case after the racially-motivated closure of my law office. It requires the Dorner method to wake them up, and clearly, Dorner woke them up.

But, among the other non-Dorner methods that will be used are : (1) verbal-oral confrontation with the source of the discrimination; (2)organization of other related persons who have been discrimnated against at the same job or facility; (3) public announcements of the discrimination through unions or other organizations representing minorities and/or others; (4) news or press conferences identifying the source of the discrimination; (5)contacting news organizations and attempting to have a case heard; (6) blogs or other internet means to spread the word and inform the public, local, national, and international; (7) utilizing the internal processes or systems set up to address discrimination, that is, those fighting the war will utilize the processess, rather than accept the discrimination and "go along to get along" because of their fear of retaliation or their fear of their supervisors; (8) file lawsuits surrounding the discrimination; (9) protests and/or demonstrations (sustained protests and/or demonstrations--temporary protests does no good); (10) utilize whatever civil rights resources that are available, e.g., lawyers, civil rights groups, etc. ( I realize for black people in Los Angeles that will be an enormous task or challenge, because basically,there are none); (11) challenge racial discrimination in the judicial processes by judges and judicial personnel, including filing criminal complaints where it is determined that judges or other judicial personnel have violated the criminal law; (12) unions advocating on behalf of their members who have been racially discriminated against--black and other minority union members must demand advocacy, not just supporting legal fees; and (13) seek assistance from your political representatives regarding legislation that will address the racial discrimination in California. These are just some of the non-Dorner (non-lethal) methods that can be or will be used in the War on Racial Discrimination in California. I'm sure there will be others.

I am not very hopeful that the non-Dorner methods will cause a mass reaction towards the eradication of racial discrimination in California, but maybe, just maybe, as we wage our war against racial discrimination, they will cause some black person (and I'm concentrtating on black people because as always in this country, we remain the number #1 target of racial discrimination) to receive a proper remedy or relief in his or her discrimination case, even if that remedy is provided in an indirect manner, i.e., providing relief but claiming there is no evidence of racial discrimination. I do know one case of this type (thanks to the L.A. Times), and it is clear that the black person in that case benefited from the "Dorner-effect" and the "War on Racial Discrimination". I'll discuss that case in a separate blog and here at a later time.

Next time, I'll discuss why Christopher Dorner was a leader, the first leader in the WRD, and why, presently anyway, I can only be an Officer.


UPDATE--March 23, 2013

As alluded to above, Christohper Dorner was a leader, and the first leader of the WRD, not because he killed some people (because that, alone, would not cause him to be a leader), but, because he exhibited the necessary qualitites to be a leader, that is : (1) Strength--throughout his childhood and professional career, Dorner showed that he was a strong individual who always stood up for himself when it came to episodes of racial discrimination or bigotry, e.g., "I was the only black kid in each of my elementary school classes from first grade to seventh grade; in junior high and any instances where I was disciplined for fighting was in response to fellow strudents provoking common childhood schoolyard fights, or calling me a nigger or other derogatory racial names. I grew up in neighborhoods where blacks make up less than 1%. My first recollection of racism was in the first grade at Norwalk Christian elementary school in Norwalk, CA. A fellow student . . . called me a nigger on the playground. My response was swift and non-lethal. I struck him fast and hard with a punch an(d) kick. He cried and reported it to a teacher." Many kids at that age would have done nothing, accepted the abuse, and maybe told their parents at home later that day (some would not have even done that).

*(2) Courage--Dorner was courageous, taking action to confront racism and/or bigotry that others might not have, under the same or similar circumstances, e.g., "I was the one who stood up for Abraham Schefres when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning Jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp. . . . I ask that all earnest journalist(s) investigating this story ask Oficr. Abraham Schefres about the incident when Ofcr. Burdios began singing a nazi youth song about burning jewish ghettos"; and "While on a assigned patrol footbeat in Hollywood Division, Officers Hermilio Buridios IV and Marlon Magana (both current LAPD officers) decided that they would voice their personal feelings about the black community. While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard Magana refer to another individual as a nigger. I wasn't sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front. Even with the multiple conversations and ambient noise(,) I heard Officer Magana call an individual a nigger again. Now that I had confirmed it, I told Magana not to use that word again. I explained that it was a well known offensive word that should not be used by anyone. He replied, I'll say it when I want". Officer Burdios, a friend of his, also stated that he would say nigger when he wanted. At that point I jumped over my front passenger seat and two other officers where I placed my hands around Burdios' neck and squeezed. I stated to Burdios, "Don't fucking say that". Again, all quotes by Dorner are from his "Manifesto". Dorner could have chose to remain silent and pretend that he did not hear anything, in order to assure that he complete the academy in good standing, i.e., go along to get along, like some of the other officers, i.e., "The other six officers. . . all stated they heard nothing and saw nothing." "Those of you who 'go along to get along' have no backbone and destroy the foundation of courage. You are the enablers of those who are guilty of misconduct. You are just as guilty as those who break the code of ethics and oath you swore."

(3) Integrity--Dorner displayed integrity in his time with the LAPD. "Even sadder is that during that 22 day suspension Buridios and Magana received is that the LAPPL (Los Angeles Police Protective League) paid the officers their salaries while they were suspended. When I took a two day suspension for an accidental discharge, I took my suspension and never applied for a league salary. It's called integrity."

"Luckily I don't have to live everyday like most of you. Concerned if the misconduct you were a part of is going to be discovered. Looking over your shoulder, scurrying at every phone call from internal affairs or from the Captains office wondering if that is the day PSB comes after you foer the suspects you struck when they were cuffed months/years ago or that $500 you pocketed from the narcotics dealer, or when the other guys on your watch beat a transient nearly to death and you never reported the UOF to the supervisor. No, I don't have that concern, I stood up for what was right but unfortunately have dealt with the reprocussions of doing the right thing and now losing my name and everything I ever stood for."

(4) Character--Even during his warfare, Dorner showed character. After he had gained entrance into a house, Dorner was engaged by a white couple (I believe property owners or at least had an interest in the property). At that point, Dorner had already concluded that he would likely die at the end of his transactions, "I have nothing to lose. My personal casualty means nothing". So, he could have killed them to prevent them from contacting law enforcement and expediting his capture until he had accomplished what he intended to do in carrying out the war. But, Dorner did not harm the couple and told them he only wanted to clear his name. So Dorner did not proceed in a reckless rage in his war, he identified specific targets of the war that he believed contributed to the cause of the war. Moreover, his decision to not harm or kill the white couple also proved that Dorner was not a racist (and did not hate white people) . Had he been one, this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to exercise that racism and get rid of two more white people, knowing that he was probably going to die anyway. Dorner also came across another white man, with a dog, and he didn't harm that man either. He took the man's truck, but he let the man and his dog go (after the man asked that he be allowed to take the dog with him). This was another white man that could now be dead if Dorner was a racist. Further, in deciding to take out family members in his war, Dorner killed two minority members, Monica Quan (Asian) and Keith Lawrence (Black). So, Dorner was not a racist, he did not proceed arbitrarily or recklessly, and he spared innocent "civilian" citizens of the war. "No one grows up and wants to be a cop killer. It was against everything I () ever was. As a young police explorer I found my calling in life. But, As a young police officer I found that the violent suspects on the streets are not the only people you have to watch." Dorner had character.

(5) Honesty--Dorner was a honest person, and that honesty eventually caused him his life. The central theme of his honesty was reporting to LAPD management that another officer kicked an arrested suspect. "In 8/07 I reported an officer (Ofcr. Teresa Evans/now a Sergeant), for kicking a suspect (excessive force) during a Use of Force while I was assigned as a patrol officer at LAPD's Harbor Division. While cuffing the suspect, (Christopher Gettler), Evans kicked the suspect twice in the chest and once in the face. The kick to the face left a visible injury on the left cheek below the eye. Unfortunately, after reporting it to supervisors and investigated by PSB (internal affairs investigator Det. Villanueva/Gallegos), nothing was done. I had broken their supposed "Blue Line". Dorner could have looked the other way, like most other officers would have, based in large part on the "Blue Line", but he didn't. He could have lied in his report of the incident, but he chose to tell the truth. Incidentally, yes, I believe Dorner's version of what happened, especially since he eventually lost his life defending that version, and most especially since law enforcement made sure that he would not be able to defend that version by making sure that he died in the burning house by not making any efforts to put the fire out. The public will never know whether the gunshot to the head is what actually killed him or whether it was the fire? Conceivably, the gunshot wound to the head might only have wounded him, e.g., Gabby Giffford, and he was still alive or living when the fire burned his body to death. We will never know, because law enforcement and the fire department allowed the fire to burn, without any attempts to put it out, to make sure that Dorner was dead. Finally, even though Dorner was Black, he recognized and admitted that some Black police officers exercised racism or racial discrimination against white recruits also. "Those Black officers in supervisory ranks and pay grades who stay in south bureau (even though you live in the valley or OC) for the sole intent of getting retribution towards subordinate caucasians officers for the pain and hostile work environment their elders inflicted on you as probationers (P-1's) and novice P-2's. You are a high value target. You perpetutated the cycle of racism in the department as well. You breed a new generation of bigoted caucasian officer when you belittle them and treat them unfairly." Dorner was honest.

(6) No fear of death--Dorner was not afraid of dying. "Self Preservation is no longer important to me. I do not fear death as I died long ago on 1/2/09." "I simply don't fear it. I am the walking exigent circumstance you created." "I have nothing to lose. My personal casualty means nothing." "(Y)ou can not prevail against an enemy combatant who has no fear of death. An enemy combatant who embraces death is a lose, lose situation for their enemy combatants."

(7) Ready to die--Finally, and most importantly, Dorner was ready to die. "My personal casualty means nothing." "I have nothing to lose."

So, Christopher Dorner was a leader, a good leader, and the first leader of the War on Racial Discrimination in California.

As mentioned above, I said that I could not be a leader at this time, and that I would explain why. Here's why : I possess all the basic qualities for leadership *identified above, except the last--I am not ready to die, *not at this time anyway; and a major reason, the most important reason, is because I must help care for my 91 year old mother (I am one of two children).

So, I must resign myself to being an Officer at this time, utilizing the non-Dorner techniques of warfare.

Next time, among other things, I will explain more fully why Chris Dorner had no other choice but to do what he did.

UPDATE--April 17, 2013

Before explaining why Chris Dorner had no other choice but to do what he did (like when the U.S. felt it had no other choice but to drop the atomic bomb on Japan), I will state here at least one of the things that I will do as an officer in the war: continue with regular publication of the I.C.R. (Indictable Criminal Roster), which I had discontinued temporarily because as I proceeded in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California with my civil rights case, I didn't want a fair and impartial judge that would preside over my case to feel intimidated or somehow threatened by the roster, or for the roster to in any other way to appear to influence or pressure the judge. Well, as it turned out, any precautions I may have taken in anticipation of a fair and impartial judge presiding over my case were taken in vain, because I didn't receive a fair and impartial judge. And, for a biased, prejudiced, or corrupt judge, which I did receive, the ICR wouldn't make a difference, and didn't make a difference, anyway. So, I am going to begin publishing the ICR on a regular basis again, at least monthly, and sometimes bi-monthly, because regardless of the specific criminal charge or charges that got the individuals on the roster, each said charge had a strain of racial discrimination running through it based on my race or color, i.e., African American or Black, or black-brown in color.

And, from the way things are looking now, there will be new members added in the near future.

The next time I will explain why Dorner had no choice but to do what he did.

UPDATE--May 22, 2013

WHY CHRIS DORNER HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DO WHAT HE DID*

*Except for my argument or reasoning, most of the factual assertions supporting this argument is taken from Chris Dorner's "Manifesto".

First, because Chris Dorner, who was Black, was honest, caring, and courageous, he reported the incident of an officer, Teresa Evans (who was white), kicking a suspect, which Dorner considered using "excessive force". Most other officers would not have reported the incident at all, based on the so-called "Blue Line" (most other officers do not cross the Blue Line to report misconduct committed in the line of duty by other officers), but Dorner did, and rightfully so. Dorner claimed that "While cuffing the suspect, Christopher Gettler, Evans kicked the suspect twice in the chest and once in the face. The kick to the face left a visible injury on the left cheek below the eye."

Second, after reporting the incident to his superiors, and having the superiors or supervisors investigate the matter, "nothing was done" in regards to addressing the misconduct of officer Evans. Instead, Dorner was perceived to have broken the Blue Line, and rather than discipline Evans for her misconduct in kicking the defenseless suspect, the LAPD retaliated against Dorner for crossing the Blue Line and reporting Evans. Part of the retaliation was charging Dorner with lying about the entire incident, and charging that he "made up the report that Evans had kicked the suspect."

Third, based on the LAPD's charge of Dorner lying about the kicking incident and lying on another officer, the LAPD apparently expressed an intention to fire Dorner from the Department. And, the mechanism for Dorner to attempt to keep his job was to go before the Board of Rights (BOR) at a hearing and prove that the accusations against him were untrue, and that in fact, he should not be fired from the Department.

Fourth, during this hearing, Dorner was represented by a LAPD officer appointed by the Department to represent officers in termination matters before the BOR, Randy Quan. Dorner apparently was dissatified with Quan's representation of him at the hearing (it appears Dorner targeted Quan's daughter, Monica, in a retaliatory war killing). The most significant thing about the hearing was that it denied Dorner due process and it discriminated against him racially. The due process violations were at least: (1) disregarding dispositive evidence--Dorner claimed, and I believe him, that "During this BOR hearing a video was played for the BOR panel where Christopher Gettler stated that he was indeed kicked by Officer Evans. . . . In addition to Christopher Gettler stating he was kicked, his father Richard Gettler, also stated that his son had stated that he was kicked by an officer when he was arrested after being released from custody. This was all presented for the department at the BOR hearing." There is absolutely no good or valid reason why this evidence should not have been admitted and relied upon to clear Dorner and deny his firing. Any evidentiary arguments for exclusion that might have been made *at an actual trial, where strict evidentiary rules are applied and enforced, were likely waived at the BOR hearing because the BOR hearing is an administrative hearing, not an actual trial, and the rules of evidence are relaxed, including hearsay evidence. Therefore, the Board had to have ignored or disregarded this evidence in order to sustain the firing of Dorner; further, there appeared to be other evidence, regarding the character of officer Evans, which was not introduced and admitted at the trial, e.g., "Teresa Evans own use of force history during her career on the LAPD. She has admitted that she has lengthy use of force record and has been flagged several times by risk management. . . . She found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. At one point, she even intentionally ripped the flesh off the arm of a woman we had arrested for battery (sprayed her neighbor with a water hose)." "That woman was in her mid-70's, a mother and grandmother, and was angry at her tenants who had failed to pay rent on time." Perhaps, this was part of the problem Dorner had with Quan, Quan's failure to introduce evidence that Dorner felt was important to his case; and (2) there appeared to be a conflict of interest
with some of the Board's panel members that prejudiced Dorner. For example, "the BOR panel made up of Capt. Phil Tingirides, Capt. Justin Eisenberg, and City Attorney Martella had a significant problem from the time the board was assembled. Capt. Phil Tingirides was a personal friend of Teresa Evans from when he was her supervisor at Harbor station. That is a clear conflict of interest and I made my argument for his removal early and was denied. The advocate for the LAPD BOR (likely a member of the panel) was Sgt. Anderson. Anderson also had a conflict of interest as she was Evans friend and former partner from Harbor division where they both worked patrol together. I made my argument for her removal when I discovered her relation to Evans and it was denied." These were at least "colorable" claims of conflict of interest, and the panel members probably were prejudiced against Dorner, especially when viewed from the totality of the prejudice exercised against Dorner regarding the disregard of evidence.

The racial discrimination, in its most basic form, can be stated this way: the panel chose to accept and believe the word of a white woman over that of a black man, notwithstanding the eyewitness testimony and evidence of the victim and his father produced at the hearing. "Evans. . . you lied right to the BOR panel when Randy Quan asked you if you kicked Christopher Gettler. You destroyed my life and name because of your actions". But, the panel believing a white woman over a black man is not unlike that which occurs in American society in general. However, here, Dorner had more than sufficient corroborative evidence supporting his version of the truth, and the panel still chose to believe the white woman. "Terminating me for telling the truth of a caucasian officer kicking a mentally ill man is disgusting."

So, after Dorner turned to the Board of Rights for help in keeping his job, all he received was due process violations and racial discrimination. *Dorner should have prevailed before the Board of Rights, based on his testimony, and the corroborative testimony of Christopher (how ironic, another "Christopher", Dorner and his main witness had the same first name) Gettler and his father, Richard Gettler.

Fifth, during and after the BOR hearing, Dorner tried to garner support from the news media, "(video sent to multiple news agencies)". He got none. Dorner sent out copies of the aforesaid videotape of the victim stating that he had been kicked by an officer to the news media, but apparently the media refused to broadcast it. And, we all know how the news media like and crave videos.

So, Dorner got no help from the news media. *NOTE : But, after Dorner went on his killing spree, he didn't have to contact the news media; the news media likely would have contacted him had he not died or been killed. And, perhaps if the news media had responded to Dorner's pleas before the killings, it would have helped avoid the killings (perhaps if the news media had played and reported the video of Christopher Gettler stating that he had been kicked by an officer, it would have caused the BOR to reconsider its position and decision, and maybe Dorner would not have been fired). So, the news media must accept some responsibility for the killings as well.

More the next time.

**UPDATE--May 24, 2013

Sixth, after not prevailing before the BOR, Dorner appealed to the Superior Court of California, through a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. The Superior Court trial judge, David P. Jaffe, had the same evidence before him as was present at the BOR hearing. That is, Chris Gettler's testimony that he had been kicked several times by an officer; Gettler's father's testimony that Gettler had told him that he (Gettler) had been kicked by an officer; and Dorner's testimony that Evans had kicked Gettler several times and least one time in the head. Further, even though several other witnesses testified at the hearing, there were no other witnesses to the actual kicking but Dorner, Evans, and Gettler (any other witnesses were not present during the time of the kicking, i.e., there were no other officer or civilian that were with the three or saw the three from aprehension through arrest and placement in police vehicle). Moreover, at the Superior Court stage, as was the case at the BOR hearing, "The parties agree that respondents (LAPD) had the burden of proving the charges against appellant." Dorner v. Los Angeles Police Department, et.al., No. B225674, October 3, 2011, unpublished (but cited for this blog). That meant that "the LAPD was required to prove that appellant (Dorner) made a complaint he knew or should have known was false and that he made false statements during the investigation." Id. And, the only pertinent testimony that could support the LAPD's burden was Evan's denial (which was false, based on the testimony of the victim and his father--even without Dorner's testimony). And, this burden proved to be significant in showing why the trial judge could not have denied Dorner's petition, or conversely, had to grant Dorner relief or rule in his favor. That is, in the end, the trial judge "specifically stated that it had independently reviewed the administrative record and, based on that review, it was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler". Id. Therefore, because of the LAPD's burden (to prove that Dorner lied when he said that she did), the trial judge, legally, had to rule in favor of Dorner (because the LAPD could not meet its burden if Jaffe "was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler" or not). So, Jaffe's ruling against Dorner wasn't based on the law, rather, it was based on other things. One of which was bias. Either racial or otherwise.

So, Dorner got fucked again. *(If the language offends some readers, it is not my intent; however, it's the only way to truly portray what I believed happened and how I believe Dorner really felt when he received the Court's decision). He received no relief from the Superior Court, when, by law or legally, he should have. *This was the second time, including the BOR hearing, he was mistreated and/or discriminated against by California's legal or judicial system.
,
More next time.

UPDATE--May 29, 2013

Seventh, Dorner next turned to California's appellate court, the Second District Court of Appeals (Judges Willhite, Manella, and Suzukawa). This Court had the same facts and evidence before it that the trial court had before it. And, it did the same thing that the trial court did, issue a racially biased decision (which is likely part of the reason why it was not published in the official reports--it is an unpublished decision) unsupported by the legal and factual record. The opinion was simply nonsense, and written for the uninformed. So, I won't dignify it by performing a thorough analysis. However, in order to substantiate
my opinion, I will provide an example of how absurd the decision was. First, the Court points out that "The parties agree that respondents (LAPD, et.al) had the burden of proving the charges against appellant(Dorner). . . . Thus, here, the LAPD was required to prove that appellant made a complaint he knew or should have known was false and that he made false statements during the investigation." So, the Court admits that the LAPD had the burden of proving that Dorner had lied about Evans kicking Gettler. Second, the Court states,"the trial court. . . exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence. . . ." Third, it points out that the trial court's independent judgment of the evidence was that he (judge Jaffe) "was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler", which means : maybe she did or maybe she didn't; which means Jaffe's independent view of the evidence was that it was even or 50/50 for Dorner and the LAPD. But,(a big BUT) the LAPD had the burden, which means that the LAPD was required to produce at least 55% of the evidence or more, *supporting their case, than Dorner in order to fire Dorner. And, clearly, it did not meet that burden, otherwise, Jaffe would have been certain, based on the LAPD's evidence, that Evans did not kick Gettler. Therefore, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, based on the evidence and the law, i.e., the burden of proof, had to find that the trial court had erred; which required the Court to reverse the trial court's decision and hold that the LAPD could not fire Dorner, in part because it did not meet its burden of proof. But, it did not. Instead, it, like the trial court, found for the LAPD, on an unlawful basis, i.e., racial bias.

So, why was the decision absurd? Here's why. After the Second Circuit clearly indicated that judge Jaffe was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler, it subsequently states, near the end of its decision, that "Sergeant Evans herself testified that she did not kick Gettler. Her testimony alone would have been sufficient to support the Board's findings." In order for Evans' testimony alone to have been sufficient to support the Board's findings that Dorner had lied or made false statements, it would have required Dorner to not put on a case, i.e., either his own testimony or the testimony of his witnesses, or any other evidence supporting his case. But, he did testify and put on a case. *Thus, it was simply impossible, in view of Dorner's evidence, for Evans' testimony alone to be sufficient to support the Board's findings. So, it *was simply absurd for Willhite to state that Evans testimony alone could have supported the Board's findings (without stating *"in the absence of any other evidence offered by Dorner"--but, the Court's decision did not state this--*rather, I did); especially in view of *and in the context of the trial court's determination that it was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler.

Finally, not only was the above statement evidence that the decision was absurd, it was also evidence that the decision was racially biased. Because that's exactly what judges Wilhite, Manella, and Suzukawa did (which was contrary to the trial court's finding), they found Evans' testimony alone (and Evans is white) sufficient to support the Board's findings (while disregarding and discounting Dorner's testimony--and Dorner is Black), and that was the panel's real reason for denying Dorner relief.

So, Dorner got "raped" again (for my puritanian readers); a "racial raping", against his will, that took his good name. This was the third time he was denied justice and discriminated against by the California legal or justice system. * "I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort." (Dorner Manifesto).

More next time.

UPDATE--June 3, 2013

Eight, Dorner didn't mention whether he had sought assistance from the black civil rights community in Los Angeles, but, it doesn't matter because even if he had done so, he would not have received any help. Because there are no "real" or "authentic" black civil rights leaders in Los Angeles that Dorner could have reached out to. The only civil rights activist that instantly comes to my mind in Los Angeles is Connie Rice . But it seems clear that Dorner would not have received any assistance from her. In a television piece during the Dorner ordeal, Rice claimed that she had witnessed a dramatic change in the LAPD after the consent decree had been implemented, implying that the consent decree was successful. She stated that the overt conduct, e.g., the name-calling and other acts of mistreatment by white officers, had dramatically changed for the better; in other words, implying that the LAPD was much improved and that the consent decree was successful. However, Dorner, in his "manifesto", disagreed. Dorner stated, "Look what you did to Sgt. Gavin (now lieutenant) when he exposed the truth of your lying, racism, and PSB cover-ups to frame and convict an innocent man. You can not police yourselves and the consent decree was unsuccessful. Sgt. Gavin, I met you on the range several times as a recruit and as an officer. You're a good man and I saw it in your eyes an (sic) actions." As between Rice and Dorner, I believe Dorner's version. Dorner worked inside the LAPD. He actually experienced the conduct and behavior of other officers. He was not outside looking in. So, clearly, it does not appear that he would have received any assistance from Rice. She probably would have expressed disbelief in his assertions.

In clarifying my use of the term(s) "real" or "authentic" civil rights leaders, I must first point out that there are no real civil rights leaders in the Los Angeles area. That is, I would define a leader as being pro-active, not re-active, and, to my knowledge, even if I were to classify any civil rights activists as "authentic", they still would not be leaders because I know of no activists in Los Angeles currently who have taken a "pro" active stance on any significant civil rights issues that have arisen. Dorner's case is a good example. I know of no civil rights "leaders" in L.A. who has spoken out about the racial discrimination exercised against Dorner; and, this would have been the perfect opportunity to address the general issue of racial discrimination, and how its implemented, in Los Angeles. But, there has not been a peep out any so-called civil rights leader or activist in L.A., not a peep. I know that there were some ordinary citizens who expressed sentiment for Dorner (and, in fact, made and carried signs that stated although they did not condone what Dorner had done, they understood why he did it), but not a peep from so-called civil rights leaders or activists. Another example would be the Oscar Grant case (the black man that was shot in the back and killed by a white police officer in Oakland, CA--but, the trial of the white officer was held in Los Angeles). There was no pro-active stance taken regarding that killing by any prominent civil rights activists in Los Angeles. So, in my view, there are no civil rights "leaders" in Los Angeles currently. And, in referring to the activists, they are inauthentic because they only address "safe" issues, that is, issues that they believe white people wouldn't mind them protesting about, e.g., an innocent black girl killed by a Hispanic gang member. But, they wouldn't protest about civil rights issues that white people would find offensive, e.g., the Dorner case (because several white law enforcement officials were killed by Dorner).

I can recall when I were pursuing the first of two civil rights actions in the District Court in downtown Los Angeles. I wrote to Connie Rice seeking assistance. She never answered my letter.

So, Dorner didn't receive any help from the civil rights community of Los Angeles in terms of getting his name back.

Ninth, Dorner also did not mention whether he had tried to contact any Black lawyers, especially black civil rights lawyers, but again, even if he had, he probably wouldn't have gotten any help. Since the death of the late, great Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., there haven't been any "real" or "authentic" black lawyers in Los Angeles. What made Johnnie Cochran "real" and "authentic" was that he would take on any meritorious civil rights case, that he chose to accept, regardless of whether the case offended the white majority or not. And, of course, the O.J. Simpson case was the prototype of case that offended the white majority. And, if Dorner had lived and went to trial, his case would have been another example of a case that would have offended the white majority; but, had Johnnie lived, I believe he would have taken it on. But, the remaining "inauthentic" black lawyers in Los Angeles are those black lawyers that are black by race or color and/or pretend to be civil rights lawyers, but pick and choose the type of cases brought by black people that they will prosecute. And, usually, when they do choose to represent a black person it is regarding some "safe" subject matter (even if the subject matter is a civil rights matter, it has to be a "safe" civil rights matter, i.e., that wouldn't offend white people). Again, these inauthentic black lawyers are re-active rather than pro-active, and usually do not say anything or do anything unless required to do so by actual legal actions that they are involved in. For example, the Oscar Grant case. Black criminal defense lawyers in L.A. know the law, or should know the law regarding criminal matters, yet, you did not hear a peep from any black criminal defense lawyers regarding the treatment of Oscar Grant, as a black man who was mistreated and ultimately murdered by a white police officer. At least, I didn't hear anything.

These inauthentic black lawyers are like gophers, they stay underground most of the time, and every now and then, they peep their heads above ground. I'm confident that some of these black lawyers have been discriminated against during their practice, but, you don't hear anything said. It's cowardice and it's shameful.

So, Dorner didn't receive any help from any black lawyers in Los Angeles, to my knowledge (if I'm wrong, the black lawyers that helped, let me know, and I will retract my statement). If Dorner had come to me for assistance, I would have provided whatever assistance I was capable of providing, short of going into California Courts (I'm a federal lawyer, and my federal practice is limited). For instance, I probably could have negotiated with the LAPD on his behalf, pursuant to a reconsideration of the BOR decision(and that I could do as part of my legal *license and my *legal counseling practice) prior to his filing his appeal with the Superior Court. But, my door would have been open to him to counsel him and make any referrals that I believe would be of benefit to him. At minimum, I would have let him know that "I know the feeling" and that he was not alone in his perception that he had been wronged, and that it was race-related.

More next time.

**UPDATE--June 11, 2013

Finally, Dorner didn't indicate whether he had sought assistance from any of California's politicians; but, again, even if he had, he wouldn't have received any. When is the last time you've heard about a Los Angeles' citizen complaining about the LAPD and/or racial discrimination and receiving some direct assistance from a California politician, be it a City Council member, a State Legislator (Assembly or Senate), a U.S. Congressperson, or a U.S. Senator ? And, I have firsthand knowledge and experience as a black man turning to our California U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, regarding racial discrimination and/or related matters directed toward me. I received no assistance. See my blog-letter addresed to Barabara Boxer at my website: laurackdbray.blogspot.com . So, Dorner did not, to my knowledge, receive any assistance from Los Angeles' political community (even after Dorner's death, the political community had no reaction and pursued no recourse--although Capt. Beck, on his own *(well not quite on his own,there were some vocal citizens supporting Dorner that likely persuaded him to conduct an investigation) , decided to initiate an investigation of Dorner's firing--and the politicians' should have conducted an investigation regarding the consent decree and its effectiveness, in view of Dorner's death and his "manifesto").

Consequently, Chris Dorner did what he had to do to try and clear his name . He had no other choice. He received no help or assistance from the above-identified entities. He did all he could do the non-violent way, so he resorted to violence and war. His dilema can best be described in his own words:

"I have exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate Courts. This is my last resort. The LAPD has suppressed the truth and it has now lead to deadly consequences. The LAPD's actions have cost me my Naval career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09. They cost me my Naval career which started on 4/02 and ends on 2/13. I had a TS/SCI clearance (Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after my termination with the LAPD.

This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States. I lost my position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon because of the LAPD. I've lost a relationship with my mother and sister because of the LAPD. I've lost a relationship with close friends because of the LAPD. In essence, I've lost everything because the LAPD took my name and new (sic) I was INNOCENT!!!

Capt. Phil Tingirides, Justin Eisenberg, Martella, Randy Quan, and Sqt. Anderson all new (sic) I was innocent but decided to terminate me so they could continue Ofcr. Teresa Evans career. I know about the meeting between all of you where Evans attorney, Rico, confessed that she kicked Christopher Gettler (excessive force). Your day has come.

I'm not an aspiring rapper, I'm not a gang member, I'm not a dope dealer, I don't have multiple babies momma's. I am an American by choice. I am a son, I am a brother, I am a military service member, I am a man who has lost complete faith in the system, when the system betrayed, slandered, and libeled me.

I lived a good life and though not a religious man (,) I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn't need the US Navy to instill Honor, Courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It's in my DNA.

Luckily I don't have to live everyday like most of you. Concerned if the misconduct you were apart of is going to be discovered. Looking over your shoulder, scurrying at every phone call from internal affairs or from the Captains office wondering if that is the day PSB comes after you for the suspects you struck when they were cuffed months/years ago or that $500 you pocketed from the narcotics dealer, or when the other guys on your watch beat a transient nearly to death and you never reported the UOF to the supervisor.

No, I don't have that concern, I stood up for what was right but unfortunately have dealt with the reprocussions (sic) of doing the right thing and now losing my name and everything I ever stood for. You fuckers knew Evans was guilty of kicking (excessive force) Gettler and you did nothing but get rid of what you saw as the problem, the whistleblower. Gettler himself stated on video tape (provided for the BOR and in transcripts) he was kicked and even his father stated that his son said he was kicked by Evans when he was realesed from custody. The video was played for the entire BOR to hear. You're going to see what a whistleblower can do when you take everything from him especially his NAME!!!" (End of quote).


Dorner had no other choice. But, he succeeded. He got his name back. It is clear: he was honest and told the truth. Theresa Evans kicked Christopher Gettler, like Chris Dorner stated.

Rest in Peace, Chris.


UPDATE--October 4, 2013

Aaron Alexis, deceased, has now joined Chris Dorner as a leader in the WRD in America.

**UPDATE--December 20, 2013

The world has now lost a great civil rights icon with the death of Nelson "Medeba" Mandela. And the WRD has now lost a great symbolic icon for its current battle against racial discrimination in the United States and California. Thank you Madeba for all you have done for the South African people, especially the black South Africans, and for civil rights fighters of the world. May you rest in peace!