Los Angeles, California
October 6, 2018
(Today's Date)
October 6, 2018****
August 25, 2016
(Original Date)
*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after publishing of the original blog)
****Denotes date of FINAL Original publication of this blog. Any publication of the blog after this date will ONLY be a RE-PUBLICATION. There will be no other original information placed in this blog. Refer to Gregorian-Cowan #3 for original follow-up to any information or subject of this blog.
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States), *and is dedicated in part to the efforts of Colin Kaepernick on behalf of Black males and other minorities. Mr. Kaepernick is an officer in spirit of the WRD. I also dedicate this blog in part to the organization Black Lives Matter, for its (their) efforts on behalf of Black people and other minorities. Black Lives Matter are also officers in spirit of the WRD.
This week, Monday, I filed a federal criminal civil rights Complaint against Gregorian and Cowan and several other individuals surrounding the conservatorship matter.
The title of this blog is, briefly, Gregorian-Cowan v. Baca-Tanaka; and this is so because as with Gregorian-Cowan v. Sen. Wright and Clmn. Alarcon, this blog will showcase and follow the difference in treatment, if there is a difference, between the Justice Department's treatment of Gregorian and Cowan(and other judges in my Complaint, as to "high level officials"), who are white, and *former L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and *former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka who are minorities, or at least are of minority heritage.
Tanaka was tried and convicted of multiple offenses which evolved from criminal statutory constitutional violations, or put another way, the violation of federal statutory and constitutional violations under color of law. He was sentenced to five years in prison.
Baca originally entered into a plea deal, pleading guilty to a charge of lying (or making a false statement) to a federal officer. But after the judge in the case expressed dissatisfaction with the plea "deal" of only 6 months imprisonment(and a refusal to except the deal), and expressed an expectation that he would issue a longer sentence, Baca has decided to take his chances with a trial, *so that he might demonstrate his innocence as to the charges. *With Baca's expression of his intention to go to trial, the government has now piled on other charges (on a 74-year old man with Alzheimer's disease)(which is the government's right of course--as long as it would do the same for a white official with the same status and/or condition).
*And, likely, two of the reasons why the government has decided to pile on the charges against Baca are (1) retaliation (because he has decided to go to trial instead of taking a plea) and (2) because of U.S. District Court judge Percy Anderson, and his expressed dismay with Baca's alleged actions. The government is now confident that if Baca is convicted at trial, he will receive an extended or long sentence. More on this infra.
The primary claim in the Gregorian-Cowan *case (and I use Gregorian-Cowan for familiarity, not because I put Gregorian, an attorney, in the class of a "high level official", but the other named judges in the case would be included in the "high level official" category and is compared with Baca and Tanaka--they will all be named in the near future, but two of the names are Laurie D. Zelon and Stephen M. Lowry) is the same as that of the Baca-Tanaka cases, that is, violating or depriving individuals of constitutional rights under color of law. And other counts or charges evolved from the "color of law" charges. And, like the Baca-Tanaka cases, where there were other "lower level" individuals charged and convicted of the "color of law" and other crimes, there are also lower level individuals involved in the Gregorian-Cowan cases.
There are two differences between the cases that are of no moment in the law : the victims in the Baca-Tanaka were *(minority, *I presume)inmates, and the main victim in this case (Gregorian-Cowan) is a minority professional (a lesser victim is a minority elderly, 94-year old, mother). The second difference is one case involved physicality or *physical abuse *(to inmates) and the other one did not *(but did involve "verbal abuse"). *Neither difference makes any difference in the law.
More later.
UPDATE--August 28, 2016
The civil rights statute covers both physical and non-physical acts, that is, blue collar crime or white collar crime. All that is required is a deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. It is understood that the deprivation of some constitutional rights will not involve physicality, yet may be much more serious than a physical act, e.g., a serious battery (or brutality) versus taking property (such as a home). *One may soon recover from the brutal act, but he or she may never recover from the loss of a home, i.e., he may never be able to afford another house or able to obtain another one from any other source.
It has now been about a week and I have not heard anything from the FBI in terms of an investigation of my Complaint. And, at this point, there's been time enough and sufficient evidence to take action on some of the individuals, including an arrest, because the main or most significance evidence against some of the individuals are court transcripts or other records, and that fact will not change with more time for an investigation. And, if the government has taken any action, it has a duty to me as a victim to inform me of the action, for I have vested interests in any and all available remedies based on the defendants' convictions.
But, here, let me get back to Baca's case and the government's decision to pile on charges against Baca after he refused to accept a plea to making a false statement to a federal investigator, after judge Anderson indicated that he would not accept the government recommended sentence of 6 months in prison. As I indicated above, I believe one of the reasons that the government decided to pile on the charges against Baca was because of the attitude or view of judge Anderson regarding Baca's conduct and an appropriate sentence. And, my question is : If judge Anderson is so disturbed about Baca's conduct, including him (Baca) making a false statement, why wouldn't he naturally be just as disturbed over the conduct of the defendants in my Complaint? ANS: He would be.
That brings me to a focal point of this blog : If the government choses not to prosecute the individuals in my Complaint, it will be because of selective prosecution *or enforcement (which involves and includes discrimination--and in this case, it will be racial discrimination)(the same as was the case with the L.A. District Attorney's Office in prosecuting Sen. Wright and Clmn. Alarcon and not prosecuting Gregorian and Cowan). *The government's action will provide the individuals with two types or layers of protection : (1) it will provide the individuals with protection from any prosecution at all--which will protect them from any penalties based on prosecutions and convictions; and (2) it will protect the individuals from the wrath of judge Percy Anderson, for it is very likely that judge Anderson would get this case because it is a "same or similar" case to Baca's and Tanaka's.
More next time.
UPDATE--September 1, 2016
And, if judge Anderson has a particular dislike for public officials that lie or make false statements, as some federal judges do, he would likely be highly disturbed at the individuals in my Complaint, most of whom have lied or made false statements.
Although it appears to be a coincidence, but, it just so happens that now that former Sheriff Baca has decided to go to trial, he has another defense that he did not have and could not have had at the time he coped a plea : selective prosecution and/or enforcement. He did not have the defense and could not have had it because I had not filed my Complaint at that time and provided the government with a situation or circumstance and opportunity to provide similar, like, or equal treatment to a case and individuals with the same or similar claims as that of the Baca-Tanaka case. But, its up to Mr. Baca to assert the defense, a pretrial defense, i.e., a motion to dismiss his case based on the government's selective prosecution and/or enforcement (of the statute) of him. By submitting the motion and requesting a hearing, he would force the government to show or demonstrate why they are prosecuting him, but are not prosecuting similar, *white, individuals charged with the same or similar offenses.
But, I believe Paul Tanaka could also assert the defense on appeal, but, even if the Ninth Circuit doesn't allow him to, he should assert it nevertheless, so that its preserved for a possible habeas corpus defense.
In any event, I'm hopeful that Mr. Baca maintains his competence to testify at trial, proceed to file a motion for selective prosecution and/or enforcement and request a hearing. I would be a key witness for the defense.
So : MR. BACA, MAINTAIN YOUR COMPETENCE TO TESTIFY, AND, ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND OTHER MINORITY MALES, ESPECIALLY, BUT MINORITIES IN GENERAL, *I URGE YOU TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION AND/OR ENFORCEMENT AND REQUEST A HEARING. THIS WILL PRESENT YOU WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OR ASSIST OTHER AND/OR FUTURE MINORITY MALES IN RECEIVING FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT IN THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE PROCESSES.
In the meantime, I have also forwarded a letter to the Inspector General's Office in Washington, D.C., complaining about the FBI's failure to contact me regarding my Complaint. The Inspector General (of the U.S. Justice Department) is already supposed to be investigating a matter in Los Angeles regarding the FBI (a shooting in Compton, according to the L.A. Times), so it can just include this matter in its investigation as well.
More next time.
UPDATE--September 10, 2016
Since the government has had sufficient time to investigate or at least began its investigation, I will submit the name of the other remaining judge, Carol Najera, of the Superior Court of California, Compton Courthouse. Again, I will soon publish the entire Complaint, and you will be informed of all the defendants, and the alleged charges against them.
I will publish this blog weekly, until Baca's trial, as a means of urging Sheriff Baca to file a motion to dismiss against the government, on behalf of myself, a black male, and other minority males especially, and minorities in general. The government should be made to explain its racial discrimination in carrying out its executive duties.
UPDATE--September 15, 2016
* I DELETE THE PREVIOUS INFO ADDED HERE
UPDATE--September 21, 2016
First things first. The question posed in the title of this blog is: Will the federal justice department be any different or will it exercise the same type of racial discrimination or racism exercised by the L.A. District Attorney's Office Against Black (particularly Black males) and other minority citizens and/or officials ? ANSWER : NO, the Justice Department is no different, and YES, it has exercised the same type of racial discrimination or racism exercised by the L.A. District Attorney's office against Black citizens, particularly Black males, and other minority citizens and/or officials.
I deleted some information above regarding ineffective assistance of counsel because I hadn't taken into consideration that Baca had been re-charged with new charges after he declined the plea offer and withdrew his guilty plea. But, after becoming aware of what I believe are two of the new charges, e.g., conspiracy (to obstruct justice) and obstruction of justice (according to news reports), unless Mr. Baca himself specifically directs otherwise, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel, upon becoming aware of the similar facts and/or charges in my Complaint (and there are the same or similar charges in my Complaint--even with the new charges*--judge Cowan can easily be charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice, in addition to the conspiracy charge that I charged him with committing as part of my Complaint, e.g.,"I believe that he(Gregorian) conspired with judge David J. Cowan of the Superior Court of California,. . . in depriving me of my constitutional rights under color of law"), not to file a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution/enforcement on Baca's behalf, especially in view of the government's decision to add more charges beyond the false statement charge.
Under the circumstances, and in my opinion, Baca's lawyers have a professional responsibility to assert any and all colorable or meritorious defenses that Baca has available to him in defense of the charges against him, and the selective prosecution/enforcement defense is at least colorable or meritorious under the circumstances and facts of Baca's case and my Complaint. However, similar to the decision to take the stand (and testify in one's own behalf) or not take the stand, it is a decision that, upon being fully informed, falls, uniquely (under the circumstances of the defense), to Mr. Baca. But, counsel clearly has a duty to fully inform Mr. Baca of the defense, and its ramifications (upon review of my Complaint), even if counsel would not ordinarily rely upon or set forth the defense him or her self. The defense is Mr. Baca's.
So, I continue to URGE Mr. Baca to raise the defense : MR. BACA, PLEASE RAISE THE SELECTIVE PROSECUTION/ENFORCEMENT DEFENSE, FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF OTHERS, AND TO PRESERVE THE MATTER FOR POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY.
UPDATE--September 22, 2016
It has come to my attention, through my own reflection, that the mental competence or mental capacity of Mr. Baca to stand trial and/or whether or not Mr. Baca stands trial or not (depending on his mental status) is irrelevant to his filing a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution/enforcement. The two matters are independent of one another. That is, regardless of Mr. Baca's capacity to stand trial, he can and should file a motion to dismiss for the selective prosecution.
So while I have drawn a connection between Mr. Baca's mental status and his ability to file the motion to dismiss, i.e., requesting that he "maintain his competence to testify", I should not have done so. Because regardless of whether Mr. Baca maintains his competence to testify at trial or even actually go to trial, he can and should file the motion to dismiss. Therefore, there is no apparent conflict between Baca's counsel making an issue of his competence to testify at trial (either before or during trial) and Baca's moving to dismiss his case based on selective prosecution. He can and should do both. But, ordinarily, his motion to dismiss must be done pre-trial. And, if his motion is granted, there would be no need for a trial or an issue of competency to testify to be addressed at or before trial.
And, if the motion is denied, he would have preserved the matter for appeal should he go to trial, not prevail, and is convicted.
Furthermore, a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution would place the factual and legal matters and similarities or differences between the Baca-Tanaka cases and my case (or Complaint) before judge Anderson and test his objectivity and/or fairness. So, if Baca or his counsel have any concerns regarding judge Anderson's fairness or objectivity, the motion to dismiss and the components of the motion's processing should help illuminate those concerns, one way or the other.
So, I continue to "urge" Mr. Baca to file a motion to dismiss for selective prosecution.
UPDATE--September 26, 2016
Or, Mr. Baca might want to request that a different or independent judge be assigned to rule on the motion to dismiss, and if that request is denied, that issue would also be preserved for appeal. But, it appears that judge Anderson would want to agree to another judge ruling on the motion to dismiss to *preserve his integrity and to provide an appearance of objectivity or fairness, since it would appear that he would have an interest in denying the motion to dismiss.
So, MR. BACA, I URGE YOU TO : FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON SELECTIVE PROSECUTION/ENFORCEMENT.
I expect to publish my Complaint this week.
UPDATE--September 30, 2016
Today, the Complaint.
Below is the criminal/civil rights Complaint that I filed against Armen D. Gregorian, David J. Cowan and various other individuals on August 22, 2016, minus the exhibits which were attached, and submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Attorney's Office via walk-in (personal service) and mail. The questions posed, Question #1 and Question #2, in Part 2 of this Complaint (the actual Complaint Report), are those produced by and included in the Complaint Report form supplied by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles for use by citizens reporting federal crimes, i.e., the Complaint or my Complaint. Therefore, my Complaint responds to the questions posed in the U.S. Attorney's Office's Complaint Report form. Part 1 (not a part of the actual Complaint form) is simply my introductory message addressed to the FBI. The Complaint :
August 22, 2016
(written in original) COMPLAINT REPORT
PART #1
(Introduction)
TO: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
FROM: Laurack D. Bray, Complainant
RE: Federal Criminal/Civil Rights Complaint
This Complaint is being submitted or filed against the identified individuals, and it arises from a conservatorship proceeding/hearing that took place in June, 2015 in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, and continued through subsequent proceedings in the California Court of Appeals, Second District and the Superior Court’s Compton Courthouse that extended to June 24, 2016.
However, this Complaint should not be reviewed in a vacuum or in isolation. Rather, it should be reviewed within the following contexts:
1. A current class action civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in Los Angeles, alleging “that court-appointed attorneys routinely violate the Americans with Disabilities Act during limited-conservatorship proceedings.” L.A. Times, “Disability complaint targets Superior Court,” June 27, 2015. “The court-appointed attorneys represent the conservatees during the process.” Id. “The court also places a conflict of interests on these attorneys, the Complaint alleges.” Id. “The court requires attorneys to advocate for the client while assisting the court in resolving the matter, violating the client’s rights to due process, the complaint alleges.” Id.
Finally, “Thomas F. Coleman, an attorney and Executive director of the Disability and Guardianship Project who filed the complaint, called on federal authorities to investigate and force court officials to ‘clean up their act.’ ” Id. “Last month, federal authorities announced they were investigating the allegations.” Id.
This criminal complaint is directed towards that aspect of the aforementioned civil rights complaint that deals with a “conflict of interest” being placed on court-appointed attorneys, that is, “The court requires attorneys to advocate for the client while assisting the court in resolving the matter, violating the client’s right to due process.” Emphasis added. More specifically, this criminal complaint is directed to the relationship between the court-appointed attorneys and the court (in conservatorship cases), and how that relationship evolved into criminal and constitutional violations in my case.
2. The status of the accused should also be considered in reviewing this Complaint. The primary defendants are an attorney, judges, a commissioner, and an investigator. One judge is an appellate judge of the California Court of Appeal. The point of this disclosure is that these individuals, in my opinion, because of their status and relationship to the justice system, should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen because their conduct relates specifically to the justice system and process. And that higher standard causes their misconduct to be more significant.
3. The FBI should also consider the more particular and specific status of the primary defendants or accused in this matter. That is, they are all “officers of the court”, not ordinary or regular citizens. An “officer of the court” is “(A)ny person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty. . . .” Legal-Dictionary.The Free Dictionary.com. Emphasis added.
4. The Department of Justice has just recently prosecuted several high profile or high level officials from the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, such as Sheriff Lee Baca and Undersheriff Paul Tanaka for civil rights or civil rights related violations, and that should also be considered.
5. Most of the individuals charged in this Complaint are charged with lying or making false statements. Sheriff Lee Baca was convicted of making a false statement to federal officials.
To federal judges and federal courts, lying or making false statements is a big thing. “Federal Judge Beth Labson Freeman of San Jose last week found that Merck & Co. lied to a business partner and to the court itself. Freeman threw out a patent infringement (decision) Merck had won against Gilead Sciences, and overturned a $200-million jury award.” “Judge Finds drug firm lied”, (L.A. Times)(omitted from original Complaint) June 12, 2016. “She described the company’s behavior as ‘systematic and outrageous deception in conjunction with unethical business practices and litigation misconduct.’ That conduct included lying to Phamasset. . . and lying under oath at deposition and trial.’ ” Id. (emphasis added). “What irked the judge even more, she ruled, is that Durette lied. In a deposition, he repeatedly denied having been on call. He recanted at trial only after he was confronted with notes taken by a Pharmasset employee during the call, proving that he had participated. At that point, he pleaded a faulty memory.
So lying or making false statements are a big thing to federal judges and federal courts, even if they may not be to state officials or judges; and the FBI should consider this in evaluating this Complaint.
6. False Evidence –The following concepts are taken from a criminal case, but the use of false evidence in a civil case can be no less significant (as is the due process right to a fair trial in both civil and criminal cases). The case is the U.S. Supreme Court case of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) :
1. “It is established that a conviction (or judgment) obtained through use of false evidence known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
2. “The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.”
3. “A lie is a lie, no matter what its subject, and if it is in any way relevant to the case, the district attorney (or an attorney) has the responsibility and duty to correct what he knows to be false and elicit the truth. . . . That the district attorney’s (or an attorney’s) silence was not the result of guile or a desire to prejudice, matters little, for its impact was the same, preventing, as it did, a trial (or a hearing) that could in any real sense be termed fair.”
COMPLAINT REPORT
PART #2
Laurack D. Bray
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA 90061
(805) 901-2693
Lawyer
Method of Responding : I will generally respond to this report by addressing questions #1 and #2 (of the Complaint Report form) and responding to them regarding each specifically-named individual. That is, I will name or identify the individual or individuals, and thereafter, address questions #1 and #2 (for each individual named).
1. Name of individual that I believe committed a federal crime : Armen Gregorian, attorney.
Question #1. What federal crime do you believe has been committed? (Hereinafter “Question #1”).
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242. I believe attorney Armen Gregorian committed the crime of willfully depriving or causing me to be deprived of a fair and impartial process in arriving at a conservatorship decision and of the conservatorship appointment itself or a conservatorship judgment (so that I could take charge of my mother’s affairs) in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Case No. BP159733; in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and/or he deprived me of those rights “secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.”, and under the color of California or other law, by submitting false evidence in a prepared report for the specific purpose of causing me to be denied a conservatorship judgment in my favor (and I was denied the appointment or judgment); and I believe that he conspired with judge David J. Cowan of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in depriving me of my constitutional rights under color of law.
And, Gregorian’s efforts in causing me to be deprived of a due process fair and honest judgment was successful because the trial judge, in fact, relied on the false statement and/or false evidence in reaching his conservatorship decision . That is, I was denied the conservatorship, based, at least in part, on the false evidence or false statement submitted by Gregorian. And, Gregorian inserted the false statement into his report specifically to accomplish the goal of my being denied the conservatorship, and he was successful.
I believe Gregorian and judge Cowan worked together in denying my conservatorship, and Gregorian really wasn’t representing the best interest of my mother, the conservatee (although he did present at least one of her wishes, overall, he did not represent her best interest in terms of what was “best” for her) . The relationship between Gregorian and Cowan is what caused Cowan not to correct or discipline Gregorian and to rely on Gregorian’s false evidence to support his (Cowan’s) conservatorship decision.
Question #2. Explain in detail what you know about the crime, including when and where it occurred, what you have heard and observed and when you heard and observed it, what others have told you (include their names) and what other evidence may exist. (Hereinafter “Question #2”).
ANS. : I know that Gregorian submitted a Probate Volunteer Panel (“PVP”) Report containing a false statement and/or false evidence to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, in the case of the Conservatorship of Helen H. Davis, BP159733, see Exhibit #1 (Page (and title page) from Gregorian’s PVP Report showing false statement). I know the proof of the false statement came from myself, through my testimony, under oath, at the June 4, 2015 hearing on the conservatorship matter, see Exhibit #2 (Cowan Reporter’s Transcript #1, June 4, 2015 (“CRT1”), p. 2, line 25 to p. 3, line 5, where I stated that the statement was “absolutely false”, and I know that my testimony was corroborated by my sister and now conservator Dianne Jackson, who was present and testified at the June 4th, 2015 hearing that “His attempt to take her to the bank was intervened by the Carson Police Department who told him he could not take her out of the facility. . . . He couldn’t take her to the bank.” Exhibit #2 )(CRT1), at p. 3, lines 13-28. And, “He came. He tried to take her out, but the police stopped it. That’s the only thing that happened.” Id. As a matter of fact, I was attempting to take my mother to the bank, so that she could put me on her account, so that I could continue paying her bills, not to withdraw money. In any event, the statement is false because it states that I completed the act of taking my mother to the bank “to withdraw money”, and whatever the reason I attempted to take my mother to the bank, the act was never “completed”. That’s why the statement is false.
I know that when I confronted Gregorian and Cowan in court, at the hearing, about the false statement, initially, that they both remained silent for a period of time, before Cowan asked a question about my mother, the conservatee. When I confronted them a second time, see Exh. #2 (CRT1), at p. 4, line 19, where, “Judge, let’s not get away from this point about the false statement because I think it was a (sic) egregious statement, and I think that I am going to take action. . . .”), still nothing was done by Gregorian or Cowan. Cowan never asked Gregorian about the statement.
I know that Gregorian never voluntarily withdrew the statement, and I know that Cowan never made Gregorian withdraw the statement, and that Cowan did not disregard the statement. In fact, Cowan chose to believe the statement, notwithstanding the evidence dictating otherwise; and he relied on the false statement in reaching his conservatorship decision, see Exhibit #3 (Cowan Reporter’s Transcript #2, June 12, 2015 (“CRT2”), p. 46, lines 12-18, where “There’s compelling evidence that it would not be in the proposed conservatee’s best interest for Mr. Bray to be her conservator . . . . That is not in Ms. Davis’s interest, including taking money out of her account” (emphasis added); that is, he denied me the conservatorship “with prejudice”, and he deprived me of the conservatorship and a conservatorship judgment based, at least in part, on the false statement, which was a denial of both procedural and substantive due process and my due process rights.
I know that Gregorian was a court-appointed attorney, assigned, upon information and belief, by Cowan. Cowan never criticized Gregorian during the hearing, where criticism would appear to be dictated, e.g., regarding the false statement, and see below or next.
I know that Gregorian made another false statement during the hearing, which I objected to and to which Cowan overruled my objection. See Exh. #3 (CRT2), at p. 43, lines 21-27.
I know that even though Gregorian was supposed to be representing my mother, the conservatee, in actuality, he represented my sister during the hearing. He met with her on at least two separate occasions, on two separate hearing days, and he supported her during the hearing. And, I believe this, in turn, created a disservice to my mother, because Gregorian refused to be critical of my sister’s faults, to the detriment of my mother, the conservatee.
Finally, I observed that the act of submitting a false statement in a report that is submitted to the court is a violation of CA Penal Code, Section 134 , which prohibits and penalizes such conduct or activity, which means it’s a crime, and which helps demonstrate the significance of the false statement being submitted to deprive me of a judgment and appointment in my favor.
2. Name of individual that I believe committed a federal crime : Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County judge David J. Cowan
Question #1. What federal crime do you believe has been committed (hereinafter “Question #1”) ?
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. sec. 241 and 242. I believe the crime of willfully depriving me of a conservatorship judgment and appointment without due process of law, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, at least, and under the color of law, was committed. I believe that part of the Due Process violation by judge Cowan was an exercise of racial and gender bias, see Exhibit #3, et. seq.. The general proof of the bias was the one-sidedness of the conservatorship proceeding. Nearly all, if not all, rulings or decisions Cowan made supported my sister (and now conservator) Dianne Jackson even when it was clear that Jackson was wrong, e.g., in hiding my mother from me. See Exhibit #3(CRT2), p. 35, lines 5-7; and p. 40, line 14-21 (the restraining order judge, upon my request, required Jackson to provide the address where my mother was being cared for). I believe the bias exercised against me by judge Cowan was specifically exercised against me because I am a Black male. Judge Cowan’s bias against me was complete or absolute. There wasn’t just a little bias, or some bias it was total or complete bias, that is, actual bias. Throughout the entire two-day hearing, Jackson could do or say no wrong, and I could do or say nothing right.
One of the most vivid examples of this is when I informed Cowan that Jackson wasn’t paying my mother’s bills on time (after she started paying the bills because I couldn’t). Instead of addressing the issue of Jackson not paying the bills on time, Cowan queried “Why didn’t you just pay it yourself?” For the entire dialogue, see Id., at p. 39, line 6 to p. 40, line 3. He never addressed the issue of Jackson not paying the bills on time.
I believe that I also was denied equal protection of the law in judge Cowan’s decisionmaking.
I believe judge Cowan pre-judged me at the inception of the conservatorship hearing based on the PVP Report of Gregorian, and his impression only became worse when he discovered that I was Black (after seeing me at the hearing)(if he didn’t know before then).
I believe judge Cowan intentionally and willfully relied on the “lie” or false statement in the PVP Report in order to deny me relief and/or deny me a favorable decision or judgment , regardless of the effect that it might have on the welfare of the conservatee, my mother.
I believe that judge Cowan’s reliance on the false evidence in the PVP Report was one of the clearest violations of my Due Process right to a fair and honest decision, and a judgment in my favor.
Question #2.
ANS. : I know that I am a Black male. And, I know that Gregorian and Cowan are white males. I know that when the two-day conservatorship hearing first started, June 4, 2015, I brought the fact of the false statement contained in Gregorian’s PVP Report to the attention of both Gregorian and Cowan, who were both present and in the courtroom at the time . See Exhibit #2 and discussion above. But, no action was taken by Cowan.
I know that even after the cross-petitioner for the conservatorship, Jackson (above), proved that the statement was false by testifying that only an attempt , at most, was made at taking my mother out of the facility, Id., judge Cowan took no action to disregard, extract, or remove the statement from the PVP Report. And, Cowan took no action against Gregorian for submitting the statement.
I observed that even after providing judge Cowan with a second opportunity to extract the false statement from the proceeding, Id., p. 4, lines 19-28, he refused to take any action to remove the statement from the proceeding.
I observed that judge Cowan had accepted the “truth” of the statement at the beginning of the proceeding, i.e., “That’s consistent with what Ms. Davis wants and for other reasons stated in. . . the Reports including that. . . contentions that Mr. Bray has been using money of Ms. Davis that perhaps he should not have been doing. . . .” (Emphasis added). Id. , p. 2, lines 2-6; and he refused to deter from that position through his judgment. See Exh. #3, at 46 (“where (he’s) taking money out of her account”). Consequently, judge Cowan, in essence, adopted and made the false statement himself, in view of the evidence of its falsity.
Further, Cowan made the same or similar false statement, i.e.,that I was stealing from my mother, based on false statements by Gregorian, Jackson, and Gailyn Spence, see infra.
I observed that I provided several and specific reasons why cross-petitioner Jackson should not be the conservator, and Jackson did not provide a single reason why I should not be conservator. Yet, Cowan gave no regard to those reasons, not even on behalf of my mother (conservatee) or her welfare. See Exh. #3, pgs. 13-45. And I had more reasons, which Cowan wouldn’t allow me to give. He actually stated, “I’ve heard enough.”
Finally, I observed judge Cowan intentionally and willfully rely on his bias against me and the previously mentioned false statement to grant a conservatorship judgment to my sister; and to deny my petition for a conservatorship “with prejudice”, without justification.
See also the assertions above regarding Gregorian, which are incorporated by reference here.
I observed that Cowan exercised bias against me throughout the hearing, Cowan did not draw any conclusions that were favorable to me; and this bias contributed to depriving me of a fair and impartial hearing and due process of law.
3. Name of individuals who I believe committed a federal crime : Gailyn Spence, Court Investigator, Superior Court of California, L.A. County and individuals in the Civil Appeals Section of the Superior Court of California, L.A. County.
Question #1.
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242, and sec. 1503. I believe the crime of willfully depriving me of a conservatorship judgment without due process of law, and in violation of the United States Constitution, including the 14th amendment, and the laws of the United States, at least, and under color of law was committed; and the crime of conspiracy to deny me due process of law and to deny me the conservatorship appointment and judgment was committed. And, I believe the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by individuals in the Civil Appeals Section of the Superior Court.
I believe that Gailyn Spence willfully and deliberately made and inserted a false statement in her Probate Investigator’s Petition Report with the intent to influence and have a conservatorship decision be made on behalf of Dianne Jackson and against me. Her efforts were successful and I was denied the conservatorship, with prejudice.
I believe that Spence conspired with Dianne Jackson to provide the false statement that “At Bright Days, he has tried to take her out and to the bank. . . (with the implication that I tried and intended to steal money from my mother), for the specific purpose of having the trial court to consider, receive, and rely upon the false statement to deny me the conservatorship that both Jackson and I were competing for. I never tried to take my mother out of Bright Days care facility, for any reason, so the statement is false.
I believe the trial judge in fact relied upon the statement in conjunction with the false statement submitted by Spence, above, to influence his decision to grant Jackson the conservatorship, and more importantly, to deny me the conservatorship.
I believe that Spence also submitted another false statement, while less significant in comparison with her previously mentioned statement regarding “taking my mother to the bank”, but nonetheless important as a credibility or character impeachment tool, with the more specific purpose of having me be denied the conservatorship in mind. Spence stated “Laurack reported he took his mother shopping. . . and (to) medical appointments.” I did not tell Spence that I take my mother to “medical appointments”. So, the purpose of this false statement was to impeach my character, knowing that Jackson actually takes my mother to medical appointments and can prove it, and I do not take my mother to medical appointments, generally.
I believe that both false statements were inserted into Spence’s investigator’s report for the specific purpose of having me be deprived of a conservatorship appointment, which actually happened.
Finally, I believe that an individual or individuals from the Civil Appeals Section of the Superior Court of California intentionally and purposefully kept Spence’s Investigator’s Reports out of the record transmitted to the California Court of Appeal on two separate occasions, initial and supplemental records, in an attempt to keep the Reports from the Court of Appeal and from review, which was an attempt to deprive me of evidence on appeal and a fair appeal, and due process of law, under color of law; and it is possible that the individuals conspired to do so. And, I believe this conduct was an obstruction of justice.
Question #2.
ANS. : I know that Spence’s Probate Investigator’s Petition Reports, see Exhibits #4 and #5, were part of the conservatorship proceeding in the Superior Court of California, L.A. County, which generally occurred from April to June, 2015. And, the reports, particularly the March, 2015 report (Exh. #4), were relied upon at and during the June, 2015 hearing, esp. June 12, 2015.
I observed that Spence made a false statement in her first report, stating, “At Bright Days, he has tried to take her (my mother) out and to the bank” (with the implication that I was taking her to the bank to withdraw money for me). However, I never made any attempt of any kind to take my mother out of Bright Days. An investigation of Bright Days’ employees, at the time, should assist in proving this.
I observed that Spence made a second false statement in both Reports (with a slight variation between the two, e.g., misspelling my name) stating that “Lorick reported he took his mother. . . to. . . medical appointments.” See Exhs. #4 and #5. But, I did not tell Spence that I took my mother to medical appointments. I am well aware that Jackson takes my mother to medical appointments. And, if I told Spence such a thing, I would be lying, which would support Jackson, see, e.g., Exh. #4, where, “Per Ms. Jackson, he did not take his mother anywhere, including appointments.” But see Exh. #3, at p. 9, where :
THE COURT : Who took your mother to the doctor?
MR. BRAY : My sister took my mother to the doctor.
I observed that Spence’s Reports were made and submitted under the penalty of perjury.
I know that Spence’s Reports were relied upon by the trial judge in making his decision to deny me a conservatorship appointment or judgment. See Exh. #3, p. 22-23, where :
THE COURT : . . . The courtroom assistant has given me the court’s own investigator’s report. It has some fairly disturbing information in this that I think is worth discussing here.
THE COURT : . . . He has tried to take his mother out of the facility and to the bank, but she informed staff that he’s not to take her out of the facility.
NOTE : The word “allegedly” did not precede “he has tried to take his mother out of the facility and to the bank. . . .” That was the result of court reporter editing. The court reporter supplied that word or term.
I observed that Spence and Jackson both made the same false statement, that is, “At Bright Days, he has tried to take her out and to the bank. . . ” to deprive me of my constitutional right to a fair and honest hearing and appeal, and a substantive due process right to a conservatorship appointment or judgment.
I observed that during the previously-mentioned conservatorship proceedings, including the appeal, both Spence and Jackson made the same false statement regarding Bright Days care facility. Spence made the statement through reports during trial court hearing proceedings, see supra, and Jackson made the statement in her appellate brief before the Second District Court of Appeal. See Exhibit #6 (page 7-8 from Jackson’s Appellate Brief), where “Statement of Fact: Yes, Bray tried to take Davis out of two board and care facilities (Vergie’s Manor and Bright Days care Center)” and, at p. 8, “Statement of Fact: The Torrance police came to the Bright Days Care Center on March 22, 2015. The police interviewed Davis (my mother, the conservatee) and reported to the board and care staff that Bray had called into the station and ask for police intervention to remove Davis from the board and care facility.” Again, I never made any attempt to remove or take my mother (Davis) out of Bright Days Care Center for any reason. And, similarly, I did not call or contact the Torrance Police Department for any reason.
I did make an attempt to take my mother from Vergie’s Manor, and I contacted the Sheriff in Carson, CA for assistance, but, not for Bright Days.
I observed that Spence received her information about Bright Days from her interview with Jackson prior to Spence’s first investigator report.
Finally, after I filed my notice of appeal in the Civil Appeal Section, and designated the documents I wanted included in the record on appeal, including Spence’s investigator reports, see Exh. #7 (Designation of Record, including attached page), Spence’s reports were not included in the original record (i.e., Clerk’s Transcript). So, I filed a “Letter of Omission” with the Civil Appeals Section, whereby I identified multiple documents which had been omitted from the Clerk’s Transcript. See Exh. #8 (Letter of Omission). But, again, after the “Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript”, see Exh. #9 (Supp. Clerk Transcript)(title page and index pages only), was produced, Spence’s Investigator’s Reports (2) still weren’t included in the record (or clerk’s transcript). So, I had to attach the Reports myself to my appellate brief, see Exh. #10 (page of table of contents, appellate brief), whereby I noted that I thought (and still believe) that the omission was intentional.
And, judge Laurie D. Zelon (of the 2nd District Court of Appeal) relied on the Civil Appeals Office’s misconduct to state, in her written decision, “Neither report is contained in the record” (implying that I had not designated it). See Exh. #11( 2nd Dist. Court of Appeal appellate decision), p.2. See infra. Nevertheless, she still relied on that report (that I submitted in my brief) to make an adverse ruling against me. “Bray also fails to acknowledge the court’s reference to the investigator’s report indicating that Bray had attempted to cash checks he had signed on his mother’s account; Bray did not object to the court’s consideration of this report.” Id. At 4. Of course I didn’t object, I’m the one who made the reports available to the court.
4. Name of individual that I believe committed a federal crime : Judge Laurie D. Zelon, CA, Second District Court of Appeal.
Question #1.
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. sec. 242. I believe the crime of willfully depriving me of my constitutional rights, including substantive due process or a conservatorship appointment or judgment, under color of California law, was committed.
I believe judge Zelon’s exercise of bias, in favor of Respondent Dianne Jackson, and against me, was a major source of the denial of due process.
I believe the crime of willfully depriving me of a fair and impartial appeal and of due process of law, under the color of California law was committed.
I believe judge Zelon’s deprivation of my substantive due process right to a conservatorship judgment or appointment was willful , and that part of that willfulness was shown by the bias demonstrated against me, and judge Zelon’s false statement regarding the testimonial facts.
I believe that the primary purpose for judge Zelon’s decision was to help attorney Gregorian and judge Cowan avoid or escape guilt (of the crime of making a false statement, submitting a false statement to the court, or aiding and abetting the submission of a false statement to the court by attorney Gregorian) or liability, rather than to provide me with a fair and impartial appeal.
Question #2.
ANS. : I know that the written opinion of judge Zelon was completely one-sided, favoring Jackson. Zelon only pointed out what she perceived as deficiencies by me, but none by Jackson. In fact, she ignored any deficiencies by Jackson. See Exh. #11, et. seq.. Zelon’s bias against me mirrored the trial judge’s (Cowan) bias against me, and favoring Jackson. There was nothing fair and impartial about Zelon’s written decision about the underlying conservatorship case.
Finally, I observed that Zelon made a material false statement in her decision that directly and specifically denied me due process of law, under color of law. That statement was(is): “(T)here was testimony , apparently believed by the court, that Bray had not been involved in assisting his mother. . . .” (Emphasis added). See Id., at p. 6. The statement is false because the testimony (of both Jackson and myself—the only testimony, under oath, below) in fact revealed that I had been involved in assisting my mother. See Exhibit #3 (CRT2), at p. 3 :
MR. BRAY : . . . . I’ve spent more time with my mother ever since I moved back in with my mother in 2003.
At p. 4 :
THE COURT : Who lived with her (my mother) at home?
MS. JACKSON : My brother lived in front, and I lived in back. We both lived on the premises.
THE COURT : . . . What do you have to say about what your brother said, that he is more involved in looking after her when she was still living with both of you?
MS. JACKSON : We both were involved.
At p. 5 (continuation of Jackson testimony):
MS. JACKSON : . . . So I participated in buying food. My brother participated in buying food. He would sometimes go buy Tylenol.
I observed that when Zelon stated that there was “testimony” that revealed certain things, that it presumes that she had read the testimony and knows what the testimony said. Therefore, she knew her false statement was “false”, and willfully made it.
I observed that the above false statement made by Zelon was a part of the public record and was issued for public examination, and is relied upon by the public as to the true facts of the case. Therefore, the statement is also a fraud upon the public. The public doesn’t, ordinarily (although it can), read the testimony, so it must rely on the court to inform it of the true facts of the testimony.
I also know that the above false statement by Zelon is also a source of the bias exercised against me by judge Zelon.
5. Name of individual that I believe committed a federal crime : Judge Carol A. Najera, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (Compton Courthouse)
Question #1. What crime do you believe has been committed?
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242. I believe the crime of willfully depriving me of my constitutional rights under color of law was committed. I believe that I was willfully denied a fair process in the evaluation of my request for a temporary restraining order and, more importantly at the time, a stay of Dianne Jackson’s TRO and move-out order.
I believe that I was willfully deprived of my 14th amendment Due Process right to possession of property by being made to move out of my home (and being deprived of that same home for approximately 3 weeks) based on a false statement made by judge Najera regarding the facts that were presented in my petition for a restraining order and request for a stay of my sister’s restraining order (contained therein).
I believe that I was willfully subjected to the deprivation of my right secured and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States not to be deprived of my home or property for approximately three weeks without due process of law by a person acting under color of the laws of the State of California, and I was deprived of due process by judge Najera disregarding the evidence that I submitted which should have required that I, at least, be granted a stay of the move-out order until a hearing on the restraining order motion. I believe the judge gave no regard to my constitutional rights in making her decision to require a move-out order, thereby depriving me of due process.
I believe judge Najera’s actions in depriving me of my due process rights were willful because she denied having the very facts before her that would have required her to grant me relief.
I believe the fact that judge Najera decided both Jackson’s petition (decided first and granted) and my petition (thereafter), denied me due process based on a conflict of interest. I should have been assigned a different and independent judge. The two petitions were decided within days of each other, which, in essence, converted Jackson’s petition from an ex parte petition to a two-party petition, which, at minimum, required a hearing before issuing a move-out order. The denial of an independent judge also shows that judge Najera’s denial of due process was willful and deliberate, because she knew that she had just recently granted Jackson’s TRO against me, and my request for a TRO was against Jackson.
Question #2.
ANS. : The crime took place between June 1, 2016 when petitioner Dianne Jackson requested, and was granted, a temporary restraining order against me and June 3, 2016, when I applied for a restraining order against Jackson for harassment and requested a stay of the move-out order contained in Jackson’s granted restraining order.
I know that judge Najera granted Jackson a move-out order that required me to “immediately” move-out and not return to my home and residence, Exhibit #12 (Jackson’s Temporary Restraining Order, pgs. 1-2, here p.2 of 6).
I know that on June 3, 2016, I filed a petition for a restraining order against Jackson, and the petition was denied. See Exhibit #13 (DV-109, Bray’s Petition for Temporary Restraining Order) (selected pages, 3 of 3, here, p. 1 of 3).
I know that in denying my petition, judge Najera gave as her reasons : (“1) The facts as stated in form DV-100 (see infra) do not show reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. (Citations omitted)”; and “(2) The facts do not describe in sufficient detail the most recent incidents of abuse, such as what happened, the dates, who did what to whom, or any injuries or history of abuse .” Id.
I know that judge Najera’s reasons were false. See Exhibit 13A (DV-100, Bray’s Petition for Temporary Domestic Restraining order, selected pages, 1& 4-5 of 5 and 5 of 5 Attachment to #26 “Describe Abuse” (the pages describing the abuse), and DV-101, one page). My petition, in fact, “show reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse”, i.e., “June 3, 2016, Sheriff serving a restraining order. The person abused me through harassment by seeking and obtaining a restraining order with a move-out provision, knowing that I only have this one residence only to live in while we await a hearing.” “(T)his current restraining order by my sister is neither warranted or called for because I have not done anything to be restrained for.” (From attachment).
And, my petition, does, in fact , “describe in sufficient detail the most recent incidents of abuse, such as what happened, the dates, who did what to whom, or any injuries or history of abuse”, that is, “(M)y sister has falsely accused me just recently, May 31, 2016, in order to try and get the police to arrive faster. I was having locks put on my room doors, and she called the police to try and prevent me from doing so. The police wasn’t arriving fast enough, so she called back and told the dispatcher that I “pushed” her out of (the) door, hoping that this false statement would get the police to our home faster. The police finally arrived (and I don’t believe any faster) and, told her that I could put locks on my bedroom doors, even with her conservatorship in regards to my mother (who is now in a nursing facility). So, she tell lies to get her way. And, she has told a lie to obtain the “move-out” order. . . . The ‘move-out’ order, instituted without a hearing is specifically for the purpose of harassing me. . . . I am a lawyer, and my room is also used for my business files. . . . So, it would be very damaging to me to “move-out” without a hearing to determine if I should do so. I have current important work to do where I need my room.” Id. And, finally, I also cited the previous TRO that she obtained (which was dissolved at the hearing without me saying anything) .
So, judge Najera provided false reasons, i.e., false evidence, for denying my petition for a restraining order and a stay of Jackson’s restraining order (see Id, p. 5 of 5, where, “so, I request the court to order that the ‘move-out’ portion of my sister’s temporary restraining order be ‘stayed’ or restrained until the hearing on the restraining order.”
I know that all of the information previously mentioned was contained in my petition for a restraining order and for a stay. And, judge Najera knew about this information when she denied the petition for a stay, in particular. And, because of this, I know that judge Najera’s decision to deny my request for a restraining order and stay was willful and deliberate.
And, I know that judge Najera did not provide any other reason for denying my petition than the reasons in nos. “(1)” and “(2)” of my (Bray’s) Petition, see Exhibit #13. An opportunity to provide another reason was left blank in no. “(3)”.
I know that judge Najera decided both my petition and Jackson’s petition for a restraining order, which presented a “conflict of interest”, and which means that my petition should have been decided by an independent judge after Najera had already decided and granted Jackson’s petition.
Finally, I know that judge Najera is an “officer of the court”. And, I know that her false reasons were false evidence, used to deny me relief. And, her false reasons or false evidence help demonstrate that her deprivation of my constitutional due process rights, procedural and substantive, was willful.
6. Name of individuals that I believe committed a federal crime : Stephen M. Lowry, Commissioner, Superior Court of California, L.A. County (Compton Court), and court reporter Suzanne Wood (Compton Court).
Question #1.
ANS. : 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242, and sec. 1503. I believe that Commissioner Lowry, acting under color of California law, willfully deprived me of my constitutional rights, both procedural and substantive due process, at least, secured or protected by the laws of the United States, and based on my race or color and gender, i.e., black male.
I believe Lowry willfully deprived me of my constitutional rights, under color of law, by exercising racial and gender bias and discrimination, and depriving me of a fair and impartial hearing and decision.
I believed Lowry willfully deprived me of my constitutional rights by discriminating against me based on my race or color, and that some evidence of the discrimination was name-calling, threats, and prejudging my case against me, i.e., prejudice, from the inception of the hearing, throughout, and to the end of the hearing; and making a false statement in open court regarding the evidence.
I believe Lowry willfully deprived me of my constitutional rights, under color of law, by limiting me to three minutes to make one point and limiting me to one sentence per point regarding another issue; and while not requiring the same of Jackson.
I believe that Lowry willfully deprived me of my constitutional due process rights under color of law by denying me a fair and impartial hearing by an impartial judicial officer.
I believe that Lowry willfully deprived me of my constitutional rights, including at least my right to liberty, and my right not to be harassed while exercising that liberty, under color of law, by disregarding my petition or the contents of that petition (or the specific reasons) outlining the harassment, and denying me a restraining order, which was warranted under the facts and circumstances.
Question #2.
ANS. : I know that on June 24th, 2016, at a restraining order hearing before Commissioner Stephen M. Lowry , that at the inception of the hearing, Comm. Lowry pre-judged my case against me before hearing any of my reasons for requesting a restraining order. See Exhibit #14 ( Lowry’s Reporter’s Transcript of Bray’s June 24, 2016 Restraining Order Hearing)(“LRT”), p. 10, lines 18-26, where :
THE COURT : What have you got to respond?
MR. BRAY : Are you ready for me to respond ?
THE COURT : I’m ready for you to tell me whatever would cause me to believe that you need a restraining order.
MR. BRAY : First of all, again, my motion for the restraining order is for harassment by my sister.
THE COURT : She hasn’t harassed you.
THE TRANSCRIPT
**NOTE : At this point, I must comment about the transcript for this June 24, 2016 hearing by court reporter Suzanne Wood. This transcript was altered : by including passages that were not said at the hearing, by either me or Lowry, and, not including passages that were said, i.e., omitted from the transcript.
To begin with, after completion of the hearing, and upon my decision that I wanted the transcripts of the hearing, I had “unusual” occurrences in securing the transcripts from Wood. First, I tried to make arrangements with Wood to obtain the transcripts during a court break. Wood refused to speak with me herself, but relayed through a court deputy (sheriff) for me to call her. Usually, the court reporter would speak with me herself during a court break. After the deputy gave me Wood’s business card and told me to call Wood, I tried to call her but couldn’t get through. Second, I caught Wood coming out of her courthouse office, at the end of the day, but she wouldn’t make arrangements for the transcripts. Again, she said to call her (after I told her that I had trouble getting through, she told me to try again, after she tried a method and said it worked). So, I called, got through (through a different method than Wood’s), and left information for the transcripts. Third, from this point on, I only communicated with Wood through the court deputy, who relayed messages and money for the transcripts. Usually, I would make arrangements with the court reporter herself. Fourth, on two occasions, Wood was supposed to call me about the transcripts and never did (but, she did call me when the transcripts were ready for pickup). Fifth, when I finally made arrangements to order the transcripts, Wood didn’t tell me that there are two ways of ordering the transcripts, expeditiously or regular, she simply treated it as a regular order (two to three weeks for production—which would give her more time to make changes in the transcript; but expedited action, which costs more, requires production in a week—which means less time to make changes). Usually, a court reporter informs the requestor of both ways when he first requests the transcripts. I received the transcripts in about 2 weeks, after making several trips to the court . Now, continuing with the alterations :
The transcript was basically “cleansed” to some degree to provide a less compelling picture of commissioner Lowry’s animus or animosity or the hostility of the hearing. For example, when Lowry called me a “squatter”, at p. 19, lines 13-15, Lowry used more words in describing the “squatter” title and in calling me a “squatter”. He didn’t simply say “you’re a squatter” in such a formal way. Wood left out the descriptive dialogue supporting the use of the term. And, more importantly, I did not say, “I’m not a squatter, sir”. I didn’t use the term “squatter” at all. I simply replied that it was my mother’s house and that she could do what she wanted with her property, including letting me live there without requiring rent.
Other alterations that I can specifically recall are : (1) , at p. 21, lines 15-19 :
MR. BRAY : I do want this on the record because I’m going to get a transcript of all of this.
THE COURT : Oh, we hope you do.
MR. BRAY : I will.
THE COURT : We hope you take me up.
MR. BRAY: All right.
These are all the court reporter’s words, not mine or Lowry’s. This dialogue simply did not take place. I didn’t mention getting the transcripts during the hearing.
(2), at p. 20, lines 6-10 :
THE COURT : Do you have anything like that from your mother?
MR. BRAY : I didn’t have to get anything. No, I do not have that sir. There
was no need for me to get that, sir.
THE COURT : Now, there is.
After the above line by the commissioner, “Now there is”, is where he made the threat, which is omitted by Wood. Lowry threatened me with an order requiring my mother to sign a letter saying that she permits me to live in her home and “for how long”.
Answer #2 (continued)
ANS. :
Name-calling
I know that at the hearing, Comm. Lowry called me a “squatter”, along with associated descriptive information, see Exh. 14, at p. 19, lines 13-14, and I was highly offended by his use of the term. And, I know that I consider the term only one step below him calling me a “nigger”. Especially, in view of my professional background. I know that the term is usually used derogatorily and is meant to be derogatory. And, it was used derogatorily and meant to be derogatory when said and used by Lowry, and I understood and received it as such, especially where it was used and said in open court with other litigants, attorneys, and office personnel and/or workers present.
Threats
I know that Lowry threatened me on at least two occasions : (1) regarding sanctioning me for interrupting Jackson—which was unwarranted, see Id., at p.23 lines 13-14, where “You do that one more time and I will sanctioned you $250.00, and “I will sanction you so be quiet while she’s talking,” at lines 20-21; and (2) threatening to order me to prepare a letter and have my mother sign it that she voluntarily allows me to live in her home. Again, the court reporter, Suzanne Wood, intentionally omitted this threat or information from the transcript. But, it followed the passage in the transcript beginning at p. 19, line 28 -- p. 20, line 10, which ended with “Now there is” (and he then made the threat, “I’ll order you” or “I can order you to. . . .” And, he didn’t even have jurisdiction to make or carry-out such an order. It would have to come from the conservatorship court or Probate court.
Bias and Discrimination
I know that Lowry exercised racial and gender bias or discrimination throughout the hearing; so if I were to attempt to quote all instances, I would be quoting the entire transcript (which is included—it’s not that long, see Exhibit #14, et.seq.). But, I will give two vivid examples : (1) the issue of “rent-free” living (with my mother). After my sister (Jackson) had argued (in her written response to my petition) that I live with my mother rent-free, and Lowry pointed this out in open court, see Id. P. 6, where, “my brother’s not paying any rent, right? He doesn’t pay any rent; rent-free, he lives there; correct ma’am ?” :
JACKSON : Yes
When I pointed out that my sister also lives at the same house rent-free, see Id., line 20:
MR. BRAY : That’s the same thing for my sister, judge. ;
Lowry moved away from the subject and never returned to it. Moreover, Lowry called me a “squatter” based on this rent-free status, but, he didn’t call Jackson a “squatter” based on the same status.
(2) The issue of evidence to support our (Jackson and mine) respective positions regarding whether I “pushed” Jackson or not. Jackson claimed I pushed her. I claimed I did not :
THE COURT : Have you got a witness from next door who was standing there watching who can testify?
MR. BRAY : I don’t have a witness here. And she doesn’t have a witness that can testify --
THE COURT : I didn’t ask what she has or doesn’t have.
And the bias evolved into discrimination.
False Statement
I know that Lowry made at least one material false statement in open court regarding the evidence. First, he indirectly conceded that he had read my petition by concluding and stating that my sister had not harassed me:
MR. BRAY : First of all, again, my motion for the restraining order is for harassment by my sister
THE COURT: She hasn’t harassed you. Id., at p. 10
Following the indirect concession, Lowry directly admits and concedes that he has read my petition or request for a restraining order, and the reasons for it :
MR. BRAY : Well, judge , you said you read the pleadings before.
THE COURT: I did. There’s nothing there. Id., at p. 11
And see Id., at p. 3, where “I don’t ever come out on the bench without reading the papers; okay? So I know what’s in the papers, and to make sure I know what’s in the papers I make notes like that (indicating) you couldn’t read them but, you know, I can read these hand scratchings. . . .”
Yet, on two occasions, see above, he states “you haven’t told me one instance of harassment” and “there’s nothing there”, in open court to people who have not seen the pleadings and do not know whether I have identified instances of harassment or not. And if they believed Lowry, I had not. But, Lowry’s assertions were false. Clearly, I had asserted at least “one instance of harassment”. In my petition, I indicated that my main reason for the restraining order was “The person abused me through harassment by seeking a restraining order with a ‘move-out’ provision, knowing that I only have this one residence only to live in (and) that I have no other place to live while we await a hearing”. See Exhibit 13A (p. 5 of 5); and see p. 1 of 5, where “My sister has filed this current restraining order for the specific purpose of harassing me, especially with the inclusion of the ‘move-out’ provision.” So, in fact and truth , I had told Lowry of at least one instance of harassment in my restraining order request, which Lowry claimed he had read.
Even if Lowry’s statements went to the merits of my harassment claims, e.g., “there’s nothing there”, the statements are still false, because the claims are clearly meritorious.
And, I know that the above false statement(s) goes directly to the merits of the grant or denial of my request for a restraining order, and it (the false statement) provides proof of the willfulness in Lowry denying my request and in Lowry depriving me of my constitutional right of liberty and not to be harassed.
Moreover, not only does the above reveal that Lowry intentionally made a false statement, but, it also shows that Lowry intentionally disregarded the grounds for my request for a restraining order because he had earlier identified the ground or reason himself , at least in part, see the transcript, Exh. 14, at p. 6, lines 8-13, where, “Your concern is that your sister, the conservator, is trying to get you out of the house, and that she is trying to get a move-out order against you, and you find this to be harassing and stressful that she would want to get you out of the house.”
A PATTERN OF RACIAL AND GENDER BIAS AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
Finally, with Lowry’s exercise of racial and gender bias, and making false statements, a pattern is formed by judges David J. Cowan (of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), Laurie D. Zelon (of the CA Second Circuit Court of Appeal), and Lowry of exercising racial and gender bias, and making false statements during the course of the conservatorship proceedings between Bray and Jackson. With the pattern resulting in the deprivation of my constitutional rights, under color of law. And, in Lowry’s case, it is clear that he recognized that a constitutional liberty issue was at issue. See Id. (transcript), at p. 10, lines 5-10, where :
THE COURT : You did not have a move-out order granted against you apparently, but that was. . . your victory in the matter, and so far you’re still able to reside in the house ; okay? Other than that it looks like she’s narrowed your liberty with regard to the house by a great deal; okay ? (Emphasis added).
End of Complaint
MR. BACA, PLEASE : FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS, REQUEST A HEARING, AND PUT ON WITNESSES;
DO IT FOR YOURSELF, DO IT FOR ME, AND DO IT FOR OTHER BLACK AND LATINO MALES IN
PARTICULAR; BUT, DO IT FOR OTHER MINORITIES, MALE AND FEMALE, IN GENERAL.
UPDATE--October 5, 2016
MR. BACA, IF YOU DON'T FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS, YOU WILL ASSIST THE GOVERNMENT IN PROSECUTING YOU (OR YOURSELF).
You will make it easier for the government to proceed to obtain a conviction and sentence (of at least 5 years, using Paul Tanaka's sentence as a guide) of you.
UPDATE--October 19, 2016
I have now written Mr. Baca a letter (in care of his counsel), requesting that he let me know by Friday, October 21, 2016 whether he intends to file a motion to dismiss or not. Time is of the essence, and I have other matters to consider.
By the way, I've discovered that Baca, through his counsel, have moved the Court for the *disqualification of judge Anderson *and the assignment of a new judge. But, after the motion was assigned to a different judge for decision, judge Otis Wright, the motion was denied. So, Baca is stuck with judge Anderson for now. Mr. Baca has also moved for the recusal of one of the prosecutors, *Brandon Fox, *and that motion is pending. Also, there are still pending motions or actions regarding Baca's competency to be resolved. The pending motions are scheduled to be heard on October 31, 2016.
Why aren't we receiving this information from the L.A. Times ?
More next time.
UPDATE--October 29, 2016
Baca has not responded to my letter, in any way. Therefore, I conclude that he is not going to file a motion to dismiss. Further, if he intended to file a motion to dismiss, he likely was required to file the motion prior to the October 31, 2016 hearing date.
Next week, an important action.
UPDATE--November 5, 2016
Judge Anderson has now denied Baca's motion to recuse prosecutor Fox from the case. His decision regarding the competency matters apparently is under seal. Also, he has denied Baca's motion for a change of venue. This should have been expected; and, in view of and because of the trial of Paul Tanaka taking place in the County, it was almost frivolous for Baca to bring a change of venue motion before judge Anderson.
Above I cited an "important action". Well, that important action is now pending before judge Anderson. "HOW" it is pending is another matter. I will discuss the action and its "pending" status later, while making a comparison of the civil Clerk's Office and the criminal Clerk's Office.
More later.
UPDATE--November 9, 2016
Back to the "important action" pending before judge Anderson. Last Friday, I went to the USDC, LA, to file a Motion to intervene in the Baca case, for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss Baca's indictment for selective prosecution/enforcement, and for selective non-prosecution/enforcement. I went to the criminal Clerk's office ("CRO") to file the motion. However, instead of filing the motion, as it should have, the CRO marked the motion "received", but "not filed". The essential requirements for the motion were met, therefore, the motion should have been filed. The CRO was derelict in its responsibility to file the motion, and instead, shifted the responsibility, its responsibility, to judge Anderson, with its final reason for refusing to file the motion being that there was no hearing date assigned; even after I informed the clerks that judge Anderson's motions calendar had to be closed because Baca's trial was scheduled for December 6, 2016 (moreover, the last scheduled hearing prior to the December 6th trial date was the October 31, 2016 hearing). But, the CRO responded that this was why it wouldn't file the motion because judge Anderson would have to decide whether I would get a hearing and/or what date. But that was of little relevance regarding the CRO filing the motion. The motion was required to be filed, regardless of whether I received a hearing or not, and not assigning a hearing date only goes to the question of obtaining a hearing or not. So, the motion should have been filed by the CRO, and I should be able to say that I filed a motion on Friday; instead, I can only say that the matter is "pending", which it is. But, the motion must be filed, and I must get a ruling on the motion. This brings me to the comparison between the civil Clerk's office ("CVO") and the CRO.
The motion was submitted "pro se", that is, I filed the motion myself, and not through an attorney. And, I believe this impacted the CRO's conduct and decision in not filing the motion. Now, for the comparison between the CVO and the CRO. I am confident that if I had filed this motion in the CVO instead of the CRO, the motion would have been filed. One major reason is that before attempting to file the motion, I had inquired at the CVO about the assignment of a hearing date and time, and the clerk at the CVO (having been informed that I would be filing the motion pro se) said, "don't worry about that, we will take care of that for you." I believe, if necessary, the clerk at the CVO would have contacted the judge's clerk to determine the appropriate action.
I believe the difference between the CVO and the CRO, when it comes to pro se litigants, is that the CVO strive to assure that pro se litigants get their matters filed and have their day in court, even if it means having their (i.e., clerks) actions questioned. On the other hand, the CRO, strive to find reasons why the litigants matters should not be filed, in an effort to cover their own backs (side). An example of my reasons for my belief is the following: when I first presented the motion to the CRO, I had to make various "corrections" with the binding and copies, so I had to leave and return. After I made these corrections, the clerks then said that I couldn't file it because I wasn't "a party" to the litigation. Well, of course I'm not a party to the litigation. That's why I'm moving to intervene. I believe the CRO conceded that this wasn't a valid reason for refusing to file the motion, so its final reason was the lack of a hearing date.
So, the final analysis is that I believe the difference between the CVO and CRO is its attitude in dealing with pro se litigants. I believe the CVO's attitude is positive and respectful, and in keeping with constitutional principles and rights; and its conduct and behavior should be applauded, and I do so applaud it. While the CRO's attitude is negative, at least to some extent. Moreover, I believe its conduct could be perceived to be discriminatory, and in my case, since I am Black, I do not know whether part of that discrimination was because I'm Black, in addition to being pro se.
Finally, the failure of the clerk's office to file a motion that should be filed affects a litigant's constitutional rights, especially due process, because there are ramifications evolving from an un-filed motion compared to a filed motion, which may be consequential.
More later.
UPDATE--November 23, 2016
New turn of events. Now, judge Anderson has refused to file the motions, relying on at least one of the reasons set forth by the CRO clerk, e.g., not a party to the action. However, as I said for the clerk's refusal, the motions must be filed. It was a ministerial duty, for both the clerk and judge Anderson to file the motions. Judge Anderson, in his Order not filing the motion cited basically three reasons : (1)there was no notice of motion, (2) or alternatively, the notice of motion was incorrect, and (3) that I am "not a party to the case". All three reasons are invalid for different reasons. The first reason is facially false because there is clearly a "notice of motion" on the face of the motion itself. The second reason is simply vague, and too vague to ascertain its meaning. And, the final reason is absurd, because necessarily I am not a party, which is why I'm moving to intervene; an unwritten and necessary requirement for one to move to intervene is that he or she not be a party. If I were a party, I wouldn't need to move to intervene.
There appears to be a reluctance on the part of the Court to allow "outsiders" to intervene in criminal cases(in particular), regardless of the circumstances or merit or reasons for intervening. And, I perceive this from the fact that the clerk relied on this reason, and judge Anderson followed. So, was the clerk instructed to refuse to file all intervention motions, based on the non-party status of all potential interveners? If so, did the instruction come from judge Anderson specifically? or, did it come from Central District itself?
NOTE : The docket for this case falsely states that Baca submitted the motions (to intervene and to dismiss), and not me. (Why would Baca file a motion to intervene when he is already a party?)
In any event, in my opinion, it is illegal and unconstitutional for a motion to intervene to be denied or refused to be filed on that basis, before the district court, i.e., "not a party to the case".
Whatever the reasoning behind the Clerk and judge Anderson refusing to file the motions, both motions, the result and effect is that it provides further protection for the Defendants in my Complaint facing the music. And, it appears from the nature of the proceedings, and the individuals involved, that this matter should be viewed by eyes other than California eyes in order to assure a fair and independent assessment of the process. I have some independent eyes in mind.
Nevertheless, I have now filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so that Court must decide on how any future proceedings in the case are to proceed.
*NOTE: Again, the docket falsely states that my Notice of Appeal (filed by me) was filed by Baca. Not only is it false that Baca filed the Notice of Appeal, but it is also a fraud on the public as to the members of the public reading the docket. *This sentence has been deleted. I believe the false statements re: submissions of motions and the filing of the appeal (by Baca instead of me) was based on the clerk's and Court's notion that only a party can participate in the case, rather than an intentional nefarious purpose. Nonetheless, the statements are still false, and do not reflect the truth. *And, its still a fraud on the public. And, the Notice of Appeal entry repeats the false statement that Baca submitted the Motion to Intervene and the Motion to Dismiss, which tend to support judge Anderson's notion that only a party can participate in this case.
More next time.
UPDATE--November 27, 2016
See the new info. added above under "*NOTE".
UPDATE--December 1, 2016
My appeal has now been docketed and I have a number. I'm relieved. I was worried for a minute.
More next time.
UPDATE--December 21, 2016
Baca's trial on the obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruction justice has begun and ended. I missed the opening statements and the remainder of the trial, except part of the closing arguments, Baca's counsel's closing. Baca must still stand trial on the false statement charge, which is pending scheduling. The jury began deliberations.
As of this writing, and to my knowledge (unless a decision was made yesterday), the jury is still deliberating.
Meanwhile, I have filed a motion for summary reversal of judge Anderson's Order refusing to file the motions and to provide me with a hearing on the motions, with the 9th Circuit, demanding my right to a hearing on my motions. That motion is still pending.
Guess what? To my surprise, while attending the closing argument, I discovered that judge Anderson is Black. I didn't know this. I was surprised! But, it doesn't change anything in terms of my proceeding in this matter or in regards to any comments I've made. I just didn't know.
More next time.
UPDATE--December 28, 2016
Last week, Thursday, the jury declared that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on either count, and judge Anderson found that the jury was "hopelessly deadlocked" and that there was a "manifest necessity for a mistrial". Therefore, the judge declared a mistrial. Based on news reports, the jury was hung 11 to 1 for acquittal. Nevertheless, there was a mistrial and the government must decide whether it will try Baca again, for the obstruction of justice charges. Baca still awaits trial on the false statement charges.
Judge Anderson made the jury deliberations interesting, and somewhat suspenseful, because there were multiple sidebar conferences between the judge and the lawyers without the courtroom audience knowing what was going on and without judge Anderson providing any explanation to the audience. Finally, an impatient and concerned reporter stood up and ask judge Anderson what was going on. Initially, Anderson ordered her ejected from the courtroom, but, luckily for the reporter, there was no marshal in the courtroom at the time (he had momentarily stepped out-there were two there a large portion of the time), so she went ahead and asked for an explanation of the multiple sidebars (during deliberations). I must admit, I also was curious as to what was going on. Judge Anderson explained that the sidebars were concerning some sensitive information that the attorneys (both sides) had requested be kept private. Judge Anderson said he had specifically asked the attorneys about making the information public, but that the attorneys requested otherwise. The reporter was satisfied and thanked the judge, and said that she just wanted some type of explanation. I was satisfied with the explanation as well.
The mistrial makes my motions (to intervene and to dismiss for selective prosecution) even more important now. Now, because the government can try Baca again for the obstruction of justice charges and because Baca awaits another trial on the false statement charges, a positive decision on the motion to dismiss (that is, the motion is granted), would prevent the government from both re-trying Baca for the obstruction charges and trying him for the false statement charges.
At the same time, it makes the 9th Circuit's pending decision ever more important as well, both regarding my constitutional rights to a due process hearing and a first amendment right to access to the courts. And, it makes the timeliness of the Court's decision important as well. Because if the decision does not come in time to render a decision on the motions before any actions by the government or a trial on the false statements, those decisions, if unfavorable to Baca, would have to be overturned (unless Baca, unimaginably, decided to accept adverse judgments--he still would have the choice, since its not his motion)(but, I also would have a right to relief, since it is my motion, and the relief I am seeking is different and separate from any relief Baca would receive), the timing of the decision would be completely prejudicial.
Judge Anderson has scheduled a status conference for January 10, 2017; at which time the government should inform the court of its plans regarding a re-trial.
More next time.
UPDATE--January 9, 2017
I'M STILL AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE 9TH CIRCUIT REGARDING MY MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL OF JUDGE ANDERSON'S ORDER
I'm still awaiting a decision regarding my constitutional rights to a hearing and access to the court, and my statutory rights (based on the Crime Victim's Rights Act), such as the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and the right to be treated with fairness. . . .
To place the wait and the motion (for summary disposition) in perspective, in the case of U.S. v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, a 9th Cir. case decided in 1982 where the government moved for summary affirmance of a *conviction in a criminal case, the case was decided in 9 days (or 9 days after submission), which implies expeditious treatment of the motion.. Here, it has been 21 days since the motion for summary reversal was submitted to the Court. *And, coincidentally, the Defendant-Appellant, Hooton, proceeded pro se, and knowing the California prison and jail population as I do, I presume he was Black, or a person of color.
Moreover, neither the government nor Baca responded to the motion, and the time to respond has expired. So what that means is : there is no opposition to the motion from either the government or Baca. And, while that fact alone does not ensure a grant of the motion, it certainly helps it to lean that way.
The status conference is tomorrow.
UPDATE--January 12, 2017
BACA WILL BE RE-TRIED *. This time, the government will combine the obstruction of justice Counts with the false statement Counts. The prosecutor informed the judge that, even though combining the Counts would allow the entire case to be susceptible to the defense's expected defense based on Baca's Alzheimer's disease, he would be combining all Counts for the next trial.
Baca, through his lawyer, appeared to object to the combined trial, asserting that *the government had moved to have the trials severed. But Anderson said that it was he, Anderson, who initially suggested that the trials should be severed, not the government. In any event, Anderson approved the government's position to combined the next trial with all Counts. Opening statements for the trial are to begin on February 21, 2017.
Also, the government will file a motion objecting to a pin that Baca wears on his coat or jacket in Court, asserting that it is a form of testifying.
So, now, Baca must face the music again. And, again, it appears that Baca will not assert the claim or defense of selective prosecution.
At this point, I have neither sympathy nor respect for Baca or his lawyer, for Baca's refusal to assert his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law. As I stated with the case of Senator Roderick Wright, who also had the claim or defense (and I believe it is a defense) available to him, too many people have lost their lives or suffered other injury to secure the right to equal protection of the law, for Baca not to assert the right when it is available to him. Not only for himself, but on behalf of others. If Baca had asserted the claim, it would have been much easier to put the matter before the Court, because he had a clear right to present the claim. My right to assert the claim, as is made clear by my need to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, was not as clear (because I'm not a party to the case), rather, I've had to overcome unwarranted and unconstitutional obstacles in order to assert my right to file the motions and assert the claim. But, I clearly have a right to assert the claim. The Constitution gives me that right.
Now that the government has decided to re-try Baca, it causes my motion and appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit to be even more important. Now, a positive decision on the motion to dismiss, that is, a grant of the motion, would affect the state of a re-trial of Baca's case, that is, it would cancel the re-trial, unless Baca somehow would want to proceed with the re-trial, notwithstanding a dismissal of his indictment. He still would have that choice, since its not his motion.
So, I CONTINUE TO AWAIT THE DECISION OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
UPDATE--February 2, 2017
I'm still waiting on the 9th Circuit's decision.
UPDATE--February 16, 2017
I still await the 9th Circuit's decision. However, it seems clear that I will not receive a pre-trial hearing of my motions. Therefore, it is also clear that my constitutional rights have been denied.
In the meantime, there was a hearing on Monday whereby the Court, judge Anderson, heard arguments regarding the lapel pin, supra, that Baca wears on his coat or jacket. The judge sided with the government and declared that Baca cannot wear the pin to court. I believe the government's action in bringing this motion regarding the pin is nothing more than an aggravation of Baca. The pin is so small that it can hardly be seen. Moreover, even if it could be seen, no one other than sheriff department personnel would know what it means or stands for. I hadn't even noticed the pin before the matter was presented to the court; and I don't believe *a jury *would either. Therefore, it certainly couldn't represent any kind of "testimony" (if anything it likely was looked upon as ordinary jewelry, such as a tie clip). Anderson should have denied the government's motion. And I believe that it displayed a form of bias against Baca for the judge not to deny the government's motion. Again, I believe the government's main (if not the sole) intention of the motion was to aggravate Baca and his lawyer, and Anderson should have perceived this. The government also attached the same argument regarding some cuff links that Baca wears, which clearly is jewelry, yet, I believe Anderson's order will include the cuff links as well.
Baca, through counsel, also raised a double jeopardy argument related to Anderson declaring a mistrial. This, under the circumstances (i.e., a deadlocked jury), was a frivolous argument. And, of course, Anderson, as he should have, denied this motion.
Also pending before the Court is the government's motion to preclude Baca from presenting expert testimony from a psychiatrist regarding Baca's mental health, which likely will reflect on Baca's noted early stages of Alzheimer's disease, which the defense likely will argue played a part in the false statement accusations by the government.
Jury selection is slated to begin on February 22, 2017. Originally, opening statements were to begin on February 21st. So there has been a slight adjustment in the schedule.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 4, 2017
This is a catch-up update. Baca's second trial has now begun. But I must back-track a little to provide a more beneficial update. On February 23, 2017, Baca's trial had began with jury selection, and jury selection continued with individual questioning of jurors based on a questionnaire previously handed out by the Court. The questioning proved to be quite interesting (and unexpected for me because I had come prepared to listen to opening statements shortly--I had expected this stage of jury selection would be over). The jurors disclosed their previous confrontations with law enforcement and family members who were incarcerated, and their own periods of incarcerations. One interesting revelation was a juror who described an encounter with police when he was in high school. He described a situation where he and other football players were forced to get out of a vehicle by police, and made to lie on the ground and spread eagle for no apparent reason. He said all of the players had their uniforms on so it seems apparent that they had come from football practice or a game. They were later released. It reminded me of the situation with professional basketball players in Santa Barbara, CA some years ago; I believe the players were Harlem Globetrotters. It was the same type of situation and circumstance, i.e., being forced out of the car and ordered to lay on the ground and spread eagle.
Moving on, one white juror complained to Anderson that some jurors were getting antsy regarding the wait for the process to take place. He was somewhat rude and disrespectful to Anderson, in that a couple of times he attempted to leave his seat without being excused by Anderson as Anderson was questioning him or talking to him (he was being spoken to individually out of the presence of the other jurors). Later, the prosecutor and defense counsel briefly spoke (between themselves), and later in open court (with the prosecutor speaking initially) regarding excusing the juror. Defense counsel said that he had to speak with Baca first, and after speaking with Baca, agreed with the government to move that the juror be excused.
At the end of the day, 5:00 p.m., the judge and the attorneys had selected about 40 jurors to be seated tomorrow, a diverse group before preemptories.
February 24, 2017, 8:30 a.m.
Jury selection continued. After the first 12 jurors were placed in the jury box,the jurors were asked some personal questions, e.g., single-married, children, work, etc.. This was different for me. In my experience, usually when jurors are placed in the box, all questions would have already been asked. Interestingly, Baca's counsel excused two Black women and a Black man.
The final jury was composed of 1 Black man, 1 Black woman, 2 Hispanic women, 3 white men, 1 white elderly woman, 3 Hispanic men, and 1 Asian man (Note: there may be a variation depending on whether a Hispanic person considers him or herself to be white or Hispanic).
The Government's Opening Statement
The government stressed obstruction of justice in 3 ways: conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and false statements. It stressed that there were two men in charge : Paul Tanaka and Lee Baca, stressing that "Baca hand-picked Paul Tanaka", *it was a father-son relationship, with Baca finding that Tanaka had a unique talent. It stressed that Baca authorized and condoned behavior. Tanaka said "Fuck the FBI". And, Baca and Tanaka met. Tanaka was briefed re: the FBI investigation. Counsel stated that Baca ordered criminal investigation of the FBI, and Ass't Sheriff Rambo warned Baca that what he was doing was obstruction of justice.
The Defense's Opening Statement
Baca did not condone or approve the smuggling of the cellphone to jail inmate (Anthony Brown). This case is not about civil rights violations (although it did occur). Baca is 74 years old and served the Sheriff Dept. for 48 years. Baca was in charge of the largest jail system in the country. Although Baca worked 11-12 hour days, 6 days a week, the government only covers a certain period of time for its charges, 6 weeks (August -September, 2014) and the charges for the false statement counts can be reduced to 45 seconds.
**The government objects to Baca's counsel talking about Baca's accomplishments. Anderson sustained the objection.
Deputies didn't inform Baca that they were committing civil rights crimes. FBI agent, Lea Marx (Tanner) was inexperienced, in jails, civil rights, undercover matters, etc., e.g., she picked Anthony Brown (out of about 25 inmates she could have chosen.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 6, 2017
Defense's Opening Statement (continued)
Anthony Brown had a history of armed bank robberies. FBI wasn't informing Baca about the cellphones in the jail. Tanaka did not share the same loyalty to Baca as Baca had shown to him. Tanaka had separate agenda, and his agenda was not consistent with Baca's agenda. Tanaka was channeling flow of information to Baca. Tanaka's agenda was "fuck the FBI".
Baca was not involved with complying with a federal writ and several other matters, because Baca was out of the country most of the time. Baca was open and transparent. Baca agreed to sit for a voluntary interview with the FBI. Government does not allege that 99% of the answers that Baca gave were false. 4 false answers to 4 questions during the interview. Baca did not have a motivation to lie. He was 71 yrs. old.
**Anderson interjects into defense counsel's opening and says that this is not a closing statement, this is an opening statement. But, there was no objection from the prosecutor.
**After the jury had been dismissed for a break, Anderson expresses anger at another point made by defense counsel during his opening, and says he doesn't want to hear anything about a certain subject or testimony from a certain witness again!!; and he (Anderson) made these statements as he was leaving the bench for the break, not allowing defense counsel to respond. But counsel was allowed to respond after the break, and before the jury was called in. I believe Anderson's reaction had to do with a previous motion in limine (where the court likely ruled that certain information could not be discussed) which had been granted by Anderson pre-trial.
The Government's Case in Chief
A female prosecutor conducted the examination of the first witness: Kevin Brown (deputy sheriff and Baca's driver). He made and received cellphone calls for Baca and Tanaka. He testified that he over-heard conversation between Tanaka and Baca whereby they agreed to have a meeting. He also overheard conversation between head of FBI and Baca.
March 2, 2017--8:00 a.m.
First Witness: Cecil Rambo (Ass't Sheriff at the time of the incidents in question)
Rambo testified that he and Tanaka was chosen and retained by Baca. Baca was a mentor to Tanaka. Once cellphone was linked to FBI, Baca became very concerned. He told Baca "don't fuck with the feds". He told Baca that any possession of cellphone might be interpreted as interference or obstruction of justice. (**In a tape played with Baca speaking, Baca denies that Rambo made such a statement--saying his assistants would not speak that way.) He worked with and became friends with Tanaka. Baca directly supervised Tanaka.
**Anderson asked two questions of witness: Has witness ever known of sheriff becoming involved with cellphone, and has witness ever heard of undersheriff becoming involved with cellphone? Rambo answered "no" to both questions.
Witness #2 : P. Acadamia (?) (deputy sheriff at the time)
Worked at center where inmates are released. Deputies came to center seeking the release of Anthony Brown (inmate with cellphone). Acadamia said he needed a court order to release inmate, and a court order was not presented to him. He was pressured to release Brown without court order. He was given a direct order from higher-ups to release prisoner. So, he released the inmate.
Cross-exam
He had no contact re: incident with Baca.
Prior to witness #3, gov't plays portions of a deposition with Baca testifying. Baca testifies that Tanaka had "unique" talent of doing "exactly what I wanted".
Witness #3: William Carey (retired captain)
He knew that Anthony Brown was connected to the FBI. Baca indicated that the phone was going to stay with the Sheriff and wasn't going anywhere. Meeting with Baca and others, anger directed towards the FBI. Baca ordered ICTB to shield Anthony Brown from access from FBI.
There was order not for anyone to see or talk to Brown. He told Baca that his order had been violated (by the FBI) or by someone allowing FBI to see Anthony Brown.
Play Baca interview
Where Baca states that he was not aware of any order to keep FBI away from Anthony Brown.
Witness says statement by Baca is not accurate. Witness says Baca didn't tell him that it was wrong to keep FBI from Anthony Brown. Witness says that he and Thompson informed Baca of FBI being kicked out of meeting with Brown. There was a direct order from Sheriff that no one was to see Brown. Witness didn't hide anything from Baca. Baca voiced his displeasure with FBI talking to A. Brown. Baca said he believed FBI committed a crime. Baca indicated that it was his jail.
This was the last witness I recall and this was the last day I attended the Baca re-trial (3/2/17) thusfar.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 10, 2017
Yesterday, Thursday, both the government and defense rested. And, closing statements will be held on Monday. Baca only put on one witness before he rested. I will provide a few more details regarding the witnesses' testimony (before the parties rested) later.
THE APPEAL
I still await the 9th Circuit's decision. NOTE: Since the 9th Circuit had issued a briefing schedule (and opportunity for the parties to brief the issues and motions raised in the district court prior to my motion for summary reversal), when the government did not oppose my motion for summary reversal, it surrendered its right to briefing, and agreed to have the matter decided on the motions.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 11, 2017
BACA TRIAL (continued)(prior to resting)
Government Witness #1 : Terry Tampubolon (Supervisor of Special Agents- FBI)
A tape is played : Witness' supervisor says on tape that Baca knows of attempted arrest of FBI agent Marx. "There's going to be a warrant for arrest"; "the Sheriff knows"; "yes, the Sheriff knows". "You're going to have to talk to the undersheriff".
Witness #2: Andre Birotte, Jr. (former U.S. Atty, Central Dist. of CA)
He did not tell Baca of the investigation of contraband in the jails. He discovered that contraband had been discovered in the jail.
He learned that Sheriff was going to arrest FBI agent (Lea Marx). He says he spoke with Baca on the phone, and said, "is this what we're doing Lee ?" And Baca said, "no, no, no".
Tape is played with Baca saying that he doesn't know anything about it (either the arrest or cellphone in the jail--I'm unsure at this point what he was referring to).
Witness says that THE FBI did not commit a crime.
GOVERNMENT RESTS
DEFENSE CASE-IN-CHIEF
Witness: Michael Gennaco
Interestingly, one of the main points about this witness was the number of objections made by the government, which were sustained by Anderson. I counted about 30 during defense's direct and about 5 during re-direct. As a lawyer, I questioned one of the objections sustained, which had to do with calling for a hearsay response. The question did not call for a hearsay response. It could have been answered without repeating what anybody said. But, Hochman didn't challenge the ruling. But, also, I have no opinion on the other 29 rulings, which covered asked and answered, relevance, vague, foundation, and leading.
Anderson did sustain a few of defense counsel's objections also during the govt's cross examination, but only a few.
I don't believe this witness was a big help for the defense.
Again, BOTH GOVERNMENT AND DEFENSE HAS RESTED.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 16, 2017
THE BACA RE-TRIAL : THE VERDICT
Surprise ! Surprise! BACA IS FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS : OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
I predicted this when asked by a citizen at the courthouse. And, I mostly based my prediction on the basis of Anderson's rulings regarding the re-trial. Basically, however, the government had solid evidence of Baca making false statements, and once the jury decided that he should be convicted of making false statements, it made it easier for them to convict him of the other charges. That is, if he clearly did this, he probably did this also, even if the evidence isn't as strong as the first claim.
I will have more on the Baca case later, when I backtrack to the closing statements.
But for now : I STILL AWAIT THE 9TH CIRCUIT'S DECISION ON MY MOTIONS.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 29, 2017
THE APPEAL
The 9th Circuit has now responded. It has denied summary reversal, and instead, ordered briefing. My brief is due May 8, 2017.
I will do a little backtracking regarding Baca's case the next time. But, Baca's sentencing is scheduled for May 15, 2017. Five years? At least.
UPDATE--March 31, 2017
The BACA RE-TRIAL
Closing Arguments
The GOVERNMENT --female prosecutor (Ms. Rhodes)
The initial investigation by the federal gov't was for civil rights violations in the jails
FBI wanted access to informant (Anthony Brown) and cellphone : the obstruction by Baca occurred around these two things. Baca was briefed that Anthony Brown is FBI informant.
Baca knew that Brown was FBI informant and that the FBI was investigating civil rights violations. Ass't Sheriff Rambo and Martinez told Baca to give FBI the cellphone back .
Baca put Tanaka in charge-- to prevent FBI from seeing inmate Brown. Baca did not want a federal investigation. Baca thought that he could bully U.S. Atty Birotte into stopping FBI investigation.
There is both circumstantial and direct evidence of obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.
Baca : "I'm the goddamn sheriff", these are "my goddamn jails". Obstruction charge--tried to obstruct a grand jury investigation. Hiding informant was obstructive act.
Obstruction of justice is both state and federal crime.
Count 3--False statements (based on 4 lies): 1. didn't know that there was a civil rights investigation; 2. Baca not involved in any conversation about keeping FBI and Brown away from each other; 3. Not aware or informed that FBI not allowed to continue interview with A. Brown; and 4. Was not aware that LASD officials were going to approach Special agent Lea Marx
Age is irrelevant.
Not much time needed to tell a lie. "You can lie in one second--it doesn't make it any less than a lie."
END OF GOVERNMENT'S CLOSING ARG.
DEFENSE'S CLOSING
FBI smuggled in cellphone to inmate and did not inform anyone from the sheriff Dept. Baca found out there was narcotics involved.
Baca with sheriff dept. for 45 years, sheriff 12 years. Look through sheriff Baca's eyes. From Baca's eyes, he had to act immediately. Baca was working with U.S. Atty's office re: corruption in jails.
There was no conspiracy or obstruction of justice. One is "presumed innocent until proven guilty in the U.S." Gov't "must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Gov't has the burden of proof and this burden never shifts to the defense.
The number of witnesses does not matter. The gov't brought in evidence of civil rights violations to poison your view of Baca. The mere fact that Baca is at the head of the chain of command does not mean that he was involved in civil rights violations.
Objection/sustained
RE: conspiracy charge--Baca is not a conspirator if he had no knowledge of the conspiracy.
Objection/sustained. Objection/sustained
Baca did not act corruptly. Baca was open and transparent--not secretive.
Baca said that the FBI "broke the law to enforce the law".
Cellphone had evidence of cocaine (use or sale?) Objection/sustained. Sidebar.
"You never heard testimony that Baca gave an order to obstruct investigation".
Undersheriff Tanaka had a different agenda than did Baca. Tanaka ran the investigation (of the inmate and cellphone?) ***SIDEBAR called by Anderson
"Gov't throwing spaghetti against the wall, hoping that something sticks".
Telephone calls between Tanaka and Baca very important. Objection/sustained. Tanaka's loyalties were not to Baca. Tanaka had goal of "Fuck the FBI".
Tom Carey told lies--he lied to two different juries. He told over 30 lies. Objection/sustained
The gov't offered Carey a sweetheart deal. Fine reduced from $1 million dollars to $250,000. Carey has a believability problem.
Grey Thompson --motivation to cover for Tanaka. Objection/sustained. Objection/sustained.
Sexton had mistaken memories or other. Was this a mistaken memory or a lie?
Three different witnesses with 3 different memories: was this mistaken memories or "lies"?
Baca never condoned or authorized misconduct or other conduct directed at FBI. Objection/sustained. No evidence that Baca knew about incident with FBI agent. "More spaghetti on the wall".
No evidence that Baca agreed with keeping A. Brown from FBI. Objection/sustained. ***SIDEBAR called by Anderson.
Baca thought that the FBI agent was only going to be interviewed, not confronted or arrested.
The False Statement charge: The main defect in the false statement charge is materiality.
Baca is 71 years old. Asked a 71 year old man to recall what happen 20 months ago. "Mistaken memory or a lie"? Voluntary interview--for over 4 1/2 hours . Plays tape of Baca interview.
Baca had no motivation to lie. Reasonable doubt--charging someone with lying about 4 questions out of over 400 questions. "There's a lack of evidence".
END OF DEFENSE'S CLOSING
A BREAK (and before jury returns)
Hochman tells Anderson that he has transcript evidence to support his argument that 3 objections should not have been sustained. He says he's 3 for 3 with having the gov't's objections sustained. "How do you get around the impression made with the jury?" Hochman says the transcripts shows that he was right in each of the 3 instances (and that Anderson should have overruled the objections). Anderson says that he will instruct the jury about counsel's closing statements and that further discussion should be done after argument.
GOV'T'S FINAL CLOSING ARG. (Fox argues)
Uses game of chess to illustrate Baca's position (having someone else do the "dirty work"--Baca is the king, the other individuals are merely "pawns". How do you know if someone is lying? You look at the evidence. Objection/no ruling by Anderson--says to jury: "Your recollection controls" (but no ruling). Objection/no ruling by Anderson : "Your recollection controls".
Fox says that Hochman talks about Baca's age, trying to get sympathy from the jury.
"You only need to find Baca guilty of 1 false statement (out of the 4 charged).
Mr. Baca laughed about FBI confrontation. Objection/sustained. Objection/sustained.
D.A. refused to find that FBI had committed a crime.
"Mr. Baca started the conspiracy and ended it."
END OF CLOSING ARGUMENT
Hochman again asserts that he does not believe instructions to the jury will be sufficient to overcome the prejudice done to Baca by the sustained objections.
More later.
UPDATE--May 1, 2017
First, Baca's sentencing has been moved back to May 12, 2017, rather than May 15, 2017, the original date. Second, the government is now claiming to request only two years for Baca, rather than an expected term of around five years as was given to Tanaka, supposedly because of Baca's illness (Alzheimer's disease). The big hearted government!! Please!.
Last night I watched a recap of the 1965 and 1992 Los Angeles' riots. The coverage of the Superior Court judge who sentenced the Korean storekeeper to probation for murdering the Black teenage girl who she accused of stealing orange juice made me think of the judges in this case and the discrimination against me as a Black male. The judge, *Joyce Karlin, said that she knows a criminal when she sees one, and the Korean woman who killed the black teen was no criminal. This judge was not disciplined or removed from the bench by the Superior Court of California. She eventually left on her own. I wonder if she would have felt the same way if it was one of her white children who had been killed the way Latasha Harlins was.
It's similar to the judges in my case with respect to the regard the judges give to the life *or welfare of a Black male in Los Angeles County. None of these judges should be on the bench, based on their record conduct. It should not have awaited a decision by the Justice Department or the Ninth Circuit. The respective California Courts, *Superior and Court of Appeal, should have removed them, upon review of the transcripts. *Coincidentally, the former judge Karlin was from the Compton Courthouse, and guess what?, a judge, Najera, and a commissioner, Lowry, of the Superior Court of California are also from the Compton Courthouse. *But, rarely is the Compton Courthouse mentioned in the various articles printed about Latasha Harlins and the 1992 riots. Usually, the only thing mentioned is the Superior Court of California. *One of the most most glaring aspects and injustices of the judge Karlin sentence is : the jury recommended the maximum sentence for Du, that is, 16 years in prison (and that jury was likely diverse--but, truthfully, I am unaware of the jury makeup). *Judge Karlin is white. Latasha Harlins was Black.
Nevertheless, I await the 9th Circuit's decision in regard to the Baca case.
UPDATE--May 12, 2017
BACA HAS BEEN SENTENCED! 36 MONTHS IN PRISON AND A $7000.00 FINE. HE MUST SURRENDER ON JULY 25, 2017. Anderson tore him apart. "He(Baca) knew what he was doing was wrong". "No one is above the law". Baca's Alzheimer's disease "is not a 'get out of jail' card." The judge said Baca didn't live up to core values. He said Baca was all too happy to let people like Tanaka do his "dirty work for him". While Hochman made his presentation, Anderson interjected, "You are aware that I've sat through this before--several times", intimating that Hochman was wasting his time.
More next time.
UPDATE--May 15, 2017
See new passages above under the May 1, 2017 Update regarding the 1992 Rodney King riots.
Also, my BRIEF has now been filed in the 9th Circuit. And, I must now turn my attention to the civil side of things. One aspect of that will involve a reopening of a prior case against some of the same defendants.
UPDATE--June 26, 2017
THE APPEAL
The government has now, rather than filing a brief, filed a motion to dismiss, in an attempt to avoid addressing the selective prosecution claim. I await the Court's decision.
UPDATE--July 23, 2017
THE APPEAL
The 9th Circuit has now granted the government's motion, and has dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I have filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Court's legal reason for dismissing the appeal was :"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another" (citing a Supreme Court case). On the face of it, that would mean a woman, a private citizen, who is raped while walking down a street, would have no "judicially cognizable interest" in the prosecution or non-prosecution of the man who raped her. Makes sense? Now, I await the 9th Circuit's decision once more (on the petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc).
BACA'S CASE
Judge Anderson has now denied Baca bail pending appeal of his conviction, as he did with Paul Tanaka. Baca was supposed to report this week for incarceration. However, Baca is appealing Anderson's bail decision to the 9th Circuit. That action may or may not prevent his reporting for prison. If he gets a stay pending appeal, he might delay reporting. We'll see.
MY DISCOVERY ABOUT THE SUPERIOR COURT SYSTEM
I've discovered that there are bench trials conducted without a court reporter or an electronic device(i.e., tape present or in the courtroom). I will go in to more detail at a later time. But, right now, in furtherance of a court policy, I will not.
UPDATE--July 29, 2017
GUESS WHAT? BACKUP! The example I used above in the July 23, 2017 Update regarding the private citizen woman being raped, has just happened. It happened here in real life in Southern California, but the rape, or sexual assault, wasn't complete, the woman fought the man off. The woman was jogging down the street or pathway in Whittier Narrows Recreation Center, and there was an attempted sexual assault or rape. The man ran off after the woman successfully resisted. So, does that mean the woman has no "judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution" of the man who attempted to rape her, because she is a "private citizen"? And, would she have more "judicially cognizable interest" if the rape would have been completed, rather than just attempted? Interesting !!
UPDATE--September 14, 2017
I'm back! Certainly not under the circumstances I would like, but, nevertheless I'm here.
Three points to make, with the last point being the most important and most impactful on my life at this time.
Point #1 : The Ninth Circuit remanded Baca's bail case back to Anderson, and Anderson denied bail again. Baca will likely appeal again.
Point #2 : The Ninth Circuit has converted my Petition for en banc review into a motion for reconsideration, and that motion is pending.
Point #3: My sister, Dianne Jackson, has now continued on her path of abusing the unlawful conservatorship that she has been awarded to get her way, while being aided by the Superior Court of California, with its continued racial and gender discrimination against me as a Black male. This time, she has proceeded to initiate and conduct an unlawful detainer action(U.D.), without authority and without providing proper notice. But, with the Superior Court on her side, she didn't need to prove or provide either. We (Jackson and I) went through several judges before and after an unconstitutional judgment in her favor was imposed. But, after I presented California law on both her authority to bring the U.D. , as well as the proper notice that was required to be given to proceed with the U.D., none of the judges required her to produce evidence or law supporting her authority to bring the UD action. At one point, having the law with me, I offered to present or read the law to her(the judge), but to no avail. And this was supposed to be a "court of law". In fact, you could nearly count the words altogether or total in all the proceedings and not reach 20 that Jackson have spoken. Usually, the judges spoke for her, and usually it was to tell me why I was denied relief. At one point during the so-called bench "trial" (which contained no components of a real trial, i.e., opening and closing statements, presenting evidence under oath, cross examination, etc.) which was conducted without a court reporter or tape of the proceedings, and therefore, no record of the proceedings, Jackson was attempting to offer some photographs as evidence, and the "trial" judge, Joseph Kalin, told her she didn't have to do that (indicating that she was going to prevail anyway, without the photographs). So, a judgment was rendered in Jackson's favor. I moved, orally, for a stay and a hearing on the stay motion, but Kalin didn't indicate a grant or denial of the stay, he simply muttered or mumbled to the effect that he couldn't do
it. So, I moved another judge for a stay, and she said that I had to get the stay from Kalin.
In the meantime, Jackson obtained a writ of possession, for the entire premises, even though, she had only sought possession of the "living room" area of the home (my mother's home, where we both reside--I took care of my 95 year-old mother for at least 10 years prior to her fall, which disabled her and caused her to be placed in facilities--Jackson couldn't take care of her because she was never home, spending most of her time with a boyfriend when she wasn't working). And, apparently after presenting the writ to the Sheriff of L.A. County, the sheriff began initiating enforcement proceedings, i.e., issuing a notice to vacate and a lockout, and recently notifying Jackson (apparently after a follow-up request by her) that I was to vacate the premises and that I had two weeks to recover my possessions or they would be considered abandon.
So, I next went to federal court, filed a civil rights lawsuit, and sought an ex parte temporary restraining order. The district court (United States District Court for the Central District of California)(Cormac J. Carney)on his own motion (i.e.,not by another party's motion) denied the TRO and dismissed the case without the summonses being issued or served, which is a violation of Ninth Circuit law (when based on a failure to state a claim, which this action was based on).
Next, I filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit, which included an appeal of the denied ex parte TRO. However, prior to this, I filed an "emergency motion" for injunctive relief and/ or a stay in the Court under the appeal in the Baca case. This brings this process to a critical juncture.
I originally began trying to file the "emergency motion" by filing the motion at the Pasadena branch of the Ninth Circuit (at about August 28, 2017 or a day before or after), which the previous edition of the FRAP and 9th Circuit's rules permitted. But, after going through multiple back and forth sessions by phone between a supervisor at the Pasadena Branch and a supervisor in the emergency motions Section of the 9th Cir., it was finally decided that I couldn't file an emergency motion at Pasadena, rather I had to file the motion directly with San Francisco. The supervisor indicated that the Rule allowing an emergency motion to be filed a branch was deleted from the new Rules. I had relied on an old edition of the Rules.
So next I filed the emergency motion through overnight mail with the San Francisco Branch of the Ninth Circuit. According to and based on the U.S. Postal Service's tracking system, which I will rely on, the "emergency motion" was delivered to the Ninth Circuit's Seventh Street address (specifically for overnight mailings) on September 1, 2017 at 11:27 a.m.(the Court's clerks has said that they received the motion on September 5, 2017, again, I will rely on the Postal Service's tracking system, I have found it to be correct in the past). It is now September 14, 2017, and I still have not received a response to my "emergency" motion. That is exactly two weeks or 14 days that the motion has been pending. There remains one week or until September 21, 2017 that I must remove my belongings or consider them abandon. I am already considered evicted; although I do not, and will not consider myself evicted until I receive responses to my motions. I have consistently called to check on the status of the motion. All I get is: it's pending. The last clerk I spoke with informed me that just because a movant considers a motion to be an emergency, doesn't mean that the Court considers it an emergency. Apparently, the Court doesn't consider my motion an emergency. I suppose when I am homeless and have lost my property and legal files (I am a lawyer), it will be considered an emergency.
At the same time that the emergency motion is before the court, it also has the ex parte motion for a TRO before it. Still, no response as to that motion either. Again, "it's still pending". So, why no responses to critical motions? I have several theories, but I won't announce them at this time. You can probably surmise what one of them is. The Court has issued a show cause Order regarding my appeal, and I have responded to that motion as well, and the Court has received that response as well, which supports a grant of an ex parte TRO.
Finally, since I have not received a response to critical motions, I have filed a Petition for En Banc review. But it's not for what you might think, i.e., a mandamus matter requiring the applicable judges to respond to my motions. It's more of a declaratory judgment type matter, but I am nevertheless seeking a type of relief. That's between me and the Ninth Circuit at this time.
Now, for the record and for my readers, and the en banc court : I HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR INITIAL EN BANC REVIEW REGARDING QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE NON-RESPONSE TO MY PENDING MOTIONS. THE PETITION WAS MAILED VIA EXPRESS MAIL ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2017, AND IS SUPPOSED TO ARRIVE AT THE SEVENTH STREET ADDRESS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AT OR BEFORE 3:00 p.m. ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2017.
UPDATE--September 30, 2017
A BLACK MAN AND THE SO-CALLED JUSTICE SYSTEM
As the eviction processes proceed, there are currently five matters that are PENDING : (1)An EMERGENCY motion for a STAY (so much for the "emergency"); (2)an EX PARTE motion for a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (so much for the "ex parte" restraining order and its urgency) ;
(3) a "converted" motion for reconsideration (en banc?); (4)a show cause Order, with response; and (5) a claim of denial of equal protection of the law by me, a Black American male, against the emergency motions section of the court and the motions panel associated therewith, as compared to immigrant deportees and deportations : that is, deportation *or "removal" is simply "eviction" by another name.
And, while these matters are all PENDING, GUESS WHAT MY STATE OF AFFAIRS ARE ?
Nonetheless, I CONTINUE TO SEEK RELIEF REGARDING ALL MOTIONS OR MATTERS, EVEN IF THE RELIEF MUST BE RETROACTIVE, PLACING ME IN THE SAME SITUATION I WOULD HAVE BEEN POST-U.D. JUDGMENT, AND UNDOING ANYTHING OCCURRING THEREAFTER THAT WOULD PLACE ME IN A DIFFERENT OR WORSE POSITION.
More next time.
UPDATE--November 3, 2017
First, for all who do not know it, Baca has received bail pending his appeal. That is, contrary to judge Anderson's findings and rulings, Baca remains free pending his appeal. I wonder what Paul Tanaka thinks about that. He tried, but was rejected. The Court found something about Baca's case that they didn't find about Tanaka's case. It had to do with Anderson not letting Baca's doctor or expert witness testify, and the Court finding that Baca would likely succeed on appeal with that abuse of discretion matter. Could the Court have found an error for Tanaka? Who knows? The fact is, it didn't. Also, remember, Baca refused to make a selective prosecution claim, implicating others. Any connection? You be the judge.
Second, MY CASE.
Everything is still pending. Keep in mind, that de facto, I have been denied two emergency motions/petitions without decision, and more important, WITHOUT relief.
READERS: If any of you ever decide to travel through downtown Los Angeles, and skid row in particular, if you begin to ponder and wonder how some of the homeless ended up on skid row, especially the Black males, you may rightfully assume that at least one or more of them got there as a result of a case like this one.
More next time.
UPDATE--November 4, 2017
And, in this case, my eviction was secured or procured by means of illegal, and/or unconstitutional, and/or racist conduct by public officials in the Superior Court of California, L.A. County court system. It was willful, deliberate, and calculated.
My eviction could not have occurred without violating my constitutional rights and without violating the federal criminal law. So, you know what that means. Number #2.
More next time.
UPDATE--November 15, 2017
And now, we have a new administration, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While I did not support either, it is what it is, and they are who they are, President and Attorney General. But, I didn't support George W. Bush either. However, Bush's FBI was good for me as a Black man in Los Angeles County. They respected my Complaint (filed some years ago)and not only investigated the Complaint, but also took action against several individuals named in the Complaint. They acted based on their own authority, independent of the U.S. Attorney's Office's authority. Although they did not go as far as they should have, they did act on the Complaint, and expeditiously. They made one state judge step down from the bench the same day I filed the Complaint *(and another one about a week later). Bush's FBI is probably the only law enforcement agency as a unit that I gave praise to, and that I have ever given praise to. I have thanked and given praise to certain LAPD officers, individually, and I can remember one cop, who happened to be Black, in particular (when I had to deal with another problem with my sister), and certain Sheriff deputies, but, as a unit or agency, Bush's FBI is the only law enforcement entity that I have ever given praise to. They knew that I was a Black male, bringing charges against mostly white officials, including judges, state and federal, yet, they acted on my Complaint, diligently.
Although the years have past, I continue to thank them now. They weren't perfect, absolutely not. I'm sure other people, and I believe myself included *(I know myself included, because I filed a civil action against the Department of Justice, which included an action against the FBI, which likely included actions by the Bush's FBI, e.g., illegal surveillance--and I will be moving to re-open that case soon), may have had some problems with them, but as a Black man in Los Angeles County at that time, they warranted some gratitude.
So, as to the Trump Administration, we'll see what happens.
*NOTE--see * info. added above
More next time.
UPDATE--December 4, 2017
Notwithstanding the pending Petition for Initial En Banc(full court) review, a three-judge panel has now issued an Order affirming the district court court's dismissal of the case in one appeal (Bray v. Superior Court, et al). I've now submitted a Petition for Re-hearing En Banc (full court) of the panel's latest order or decision. So, now, I am awaiting a decision regarding two petitions for full court review of several matters.
More next time.
UPDATE--January 9, 2018
The emergency petitions are STILL PENDING. One has been pending since September, 2017. So much for homelessness being treated as an emergency. And, it's the same thing for the treatment of the homeless problem in general, by all the governments: city, county, state, and federal. This case is indicative of the general view of the homeless problem, especially in Los Angeles city and County, where the homeless problem continues to increase, not decrease. These governments and courts don't give a damn about the homeless, especially the Black male homeless. While I commend the L.A. Times for the steady flow of articles on the homeless problem, these various governments have no intention of solving the homeless problem and this case is clearly indicative of that fact. *And, this case is also indicative of how California and its government and courts, all of them, view the homeless and the homeless as deserving "emergency" treatment, which, in turn, demonstrates why the homeless do not receive "emergency" treatment.
Not only is this homeless matter not being treated as an emergency, but, the question of why it's not being treated as an emergency, is also not being answered. And, where is the NAACP? This is the very type of matter that they should be addressing and involved with. Instead, it is addressing a matter dealing with the national anthem. PLEASE ! *Does this case help answer the question of whether the NAACP continue to be relevant, or at least as relevant as it once were? And, where is the white-oriented ACLU? It had no problem representing an immigrant woman on the East coast who wanted an abortion, rather than possibly having the baby (if the matter wasn't treated as an "emergency"), and putting it up for adoption. *So, in essence, the emergency was to kill a fetus before it became a baby (which probably could have and would have been adopted, either in this country or the immigrant's country of origin if she would be deported--and, let's be clear, I am pro-choice; I believe in and support a woman's right to an abortion if she chooses to have one). But here, I'm delving into what the federal courts consider an "emergency" and why? That case was treated as an emergency by an en banc (or full) court in a circuit that is considered to be "conservative". The D.C. Circuit, with an en banc court, decided the abortion matter within days (which included one day responsive pleadings)(the Court ordered the government to allow the woman to obtain an abortion). But, here, on the West coast, where we are supposed to have the most "liberal" circuit in the country, i.e., the Ninth Circuit, where the number of homeless people on the streets of skid row and other places in Los Angeles have increased (and most of them are Black and/or Black males), we can't get the courts (state or federal) to treat homelessness as an "emergency", and we can't get an answer as to why it isn't treated as an emergency. * And, here, unlike the D.C. Circuit's emergency, this emergency (deciding whether a Black male in Los Angeles County has and keeps his home or is evicted and made homeless) is not to kill a person or fetus, but, rather, to possibly save a person's life, where that person could end up homeless on skid row, remain there for years, and possibly die there.
*Let me say this : When it comes to so-called "liberalism", California (and its government and courts, all of them, state and federal) might be liberal when it comes to white people; and it might be liberal when it comes to immigrants; but when it comes to Black people, and particularly Black males, *California just ain't that liberal. And, *this shouldn't be surprising, when it (California) has been found to have the most hate groups in the nation. And, most of the hate is directed at Black people. So, why do you think some of that hate hasn't infiltrated the governments and courts?
Back to the ACLU, so why haven't the ACLU intervened in this case? I can't believe that it doesn't know. *I believe it does. But, even if it argues that it's not aware, it clearly is aware of the homeless problem in Los Angeles, and I know of no instance where it has taken a position that the homeless situation in Los Angeles is an "emergency".
More later.
UPDATE--January 10, 2018
See above at * .
To continue from above, I know many of you will say : You can't equate or compare an immigrant woman wanting an abortion to a Black male wanting a decision as to whether he is being legally or lawfully evicted or not (or put another way, whether or not he will have a home or maintain his home or be homeless (and maybe end up on skid row)? I believe that they both are emergencies, especially for Black males in Los Angeles County.
But, if you say that you can't compare the above, how about this comparison : The Ninth Circuit says that the circumstance of an immigrant, who is not a citizen of this country, who has committed a crime in this country, and who is about to be evicted (the 9th Circuit prefers "deported" or "removed") from this country, presents an "emergency" situation. And, this emergency situation for the foreign immigrant requires the Court to invoke an "automatic stay" of eviction proceedings while the immigrant challenges his eviction. On the other hand, the circumstance of a Black American male, who is a citizen of this country, who has not committed a crime in this country, *who is a Vietnam War Era veteran, and who is about to be evicted from his home (without prospects of another home) is not an "emergency"; and this Black male does not deserve or require an "automatic stay" of his eviction. And, this is so in view of the fact that many black males who end up on skid row and homeless remain there for years, and many die there. That is, the initial decision as to whether a Black male remains in his home or is evicted and is homeless, for some, is the difference between life and death (on skid row). That is, for many Black males, in particular, and others, the initial decision in determining whether the person is rightfully or wrongfully being evicted from his home could be the difference between life and death, particularly for a Black male in Los Angeles County, where the number of homeless has increased within the last two years, which means the number of people (all homeless people) who will likely die on skid row increased as well.
So, does the above comparison suggest that there might be some discrimination against Black males when it comes to treating their cases as emergencies, as compared to immigrants and others? I think so.
More next time.
UPDATE--January 11, 2018
Two days ago, City Attorney Mike Feuer wrote an article for the L.A. Times, "We need a homelessness czar", January 9, 2018, whereby he advocates for a "homelessness czar" to try and get at the homeless problem. While I commend Feuer for his suggestion, and hope it's not more window dressing, I believe a better idea would be a Committee or Commission which would include a "czar" or Committee Chairman. But, the Committee itself would be composed of a high level individual from all entities that are needed or necessary to end homelessness in California, and particularly L.A. County (where most of the homeless in California reside). That is, an official from L.A. City, L.A. County, the State of California, and the federal government--with the ability to make spending decisions on behalf of the entity he or she represents; a developer and/or construction expert, a member of the L.A. skid row community (well-respected and/or admired for his work on behalf of the community); a social worker (especially with expertise in working with the homeless community); a psychologist and/or mental health worker (again with experience and expertise in working with the homeless); two private citizens, one a professional and one lay person; an attorney with expertise in both state and federal law, who can provide advice and expertise as to what can be done legally in reaching the goals of the Committee; and finally, a lay member of the L.A. skid row community who has lived on skid row for several years, preferably 10 or more years. This would be the core of the Committee.
Moreover, the Committee would need to be two-thirds minority or persons of color *(with at least one person of color from each of the major minority groups, i.e., Black, Latino, Asian, and Indian), and the Chairman would need to be a person of color, *preferably a Black male, with experience working with people of color, and preferably (but not required) with experience working with some segment of the homeless community, *e.g., former *Speaker of the House and mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown *(mostly for his leadership abilities). And, the Committee should include both male and female representatives, therefore, in selecting the individuals for the Committee, the person or group doing the selecting must be cognizant of the male-female ratio of committee members. *It's not necessary that it be a 1 to 1 ratio or equal numbers of both, but each group should be well represented.
Finally, the Committee, once formed, must set 5 goals, with the fifth goal being the final goal of *eliminating the homeless problem or bringing a significant end to homelessness in California. That is, the previous four goals would have done a gradual chipping away of the homeless population, and the fifth goal would be the final and ending step. And, of course the goals would be realistic goals, goals that could be reached prior to the fifth and final goal. The fifth and final goal would be to end homelessness *or eliminate the major homeless problem in California within three years from the beginning of the Committee's final formation and initiation of action or work on the goals that are set.
More later.
UPDATE--January 23, 2018 (in continued celebration of MLK's Day)(Happy Birthday, Martin, and THANKS! for everything.)
Two things to cover today, hopefully : (1) the APPEAL and (2)my sister's default in the Superior Court of California, L.A. County.
First, the Appeal. As you know, I've been awaiting a decision by the 9th Cir. regarding several matters. See 9/30/2017 update, supra. One matter was the issue regarding the selective prosecution claim I made or attempted to make in the district court, which charged that the U.S. Attorney, LA, selectively prosecuted Lee Baca, while not prosecuting the individuals I charged in a federal criminal Complaint; and the other matter was the emergency motion for a stay or injunctive relief regarding my eviction. Well, the "liberal" 9th Circuit, through the panel of ALEX KOZINSKI, ALFRED T. GOODWIN, and MARSHA S. BERZON (who made the initial ruling, on appeal, that the court lacked jurisdiction, because I lacked standing), has now issued a three-paragraph Order (not a *written and analyzed" decision) which states, in pertinent part, "Appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied and his motion for reconsideration en banc (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied on behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. R.27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11.", and "Appellant erroneously filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief in this case. That motion was addressed in Appeal No. 17-56315. Accordingly, the emergency motion (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied as moot."
Without undertaking a full evaluation of the Order, which I might do later--but not at this time, I will point out a few things at the outset of the Order:
READERS, HEAR THIS : I DID NOT SUBMIT OR FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (I would not have done so because it would have been futile to do so, as you can see) and I DID NOT SUBMIT OR FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC (I wasn't even aware of this motion, although I paused at its mention). So, whosever motions these were, they weren't mine. So, it has to be the Court's. And, the average citizen reading the Order would assume that I filed the motions. I didn't.
What I did file was a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and I haven't received a response from the full court in terms of a vote or a decision not to call for a vote.
As for the emergency motion for a stay or injunctive relief, the motion(s) were filed in both appeals, and if the matter was treated as an emergency as it should have been, would it really matter under which appeal it had been brought? The bottomline is: I did not receive a hearing or a decision on the merits of an emergency motion, and the result of the non-ruling was my eviction. Would that disturb the Constitution and due process?
Also, there is no response to my claim of denial of equal protection of the law by the KOZINSKI panel. I continue to charge that the panel denied me equal protection of the law when compared to immigrant deportees. And, since the charge is against the panel, how can the same panel rule on the charge?
More on the selective prosecution defendants at a later time.
Finally, to add insult to injury, the Court issued its Order only three days after MLK's birthday and the celebration of his birthday and holiday. *CORRECTION : The Order was filed the day after MLK'S birthday, January 16, 2018. I received the Order on January 18, 2018.
Second, my sister's default and the Clerk's Office. Pursuant to my attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order (to prevent my eviction), I filed *(and had to file) a civil Complaint against my sister for abuse of process. She defaulted (or failed to timely respond to my complaint). I have filed now three requests for entries of default, but the Clerk has thusfar refused to enter a default, relying on various reasons (none of which is sustainable). So, my last request is directed to the Court. One reason the Clerk offered was that my sister submitted a belated answer to my Complaint, but, that answer was subsequently "voided" because of the lack of payment of fees (the court denied a fee waiver request by my sister). Still, the Clerk refused to enter a default. So, I filed a third request for entry of default (supported by a request for a default judgment), this time addressed to the Court.
The third request for entry of default, along with the default judgment request, was addressed to the Court. But, guess what? Although that request was filed or "received" by the court on January 5, 2018, as of January 16, 2018, it still wasn't on the court docket. The Default Section clerk said that they were backed-up and hadn't got to it yet. At the time, a scheduled hearing on a motion brought by my sister was pending (a motion for security costs, designating me a vexatious litigant--trying to avoid her default and a default judgment)(she apparently was assisted by some legal agency, which I will name later, and the agency (or lawyer) apparently advised her (or did so itself) to include a copy of my blog in her papers--apparently, as a means of influencing the court, since my blog covers charges of racial discrimination). *The hearing was scheduled for January 18, 2018. So, the trial judge, Judge Gregory Alarcon, would not have seen the January 5, *2018 filing on the docket (and known that it was part of the record) at the time of the hearing. But, fortunately, the hearing was continued to February 2, 2018, and the judge will know about the filings before then. I believe both matters should be decided by the judge at the hearing. We'll see.
*The agency assisting my sister is the Western Law Connection Corporation.
More next time.
UPDATE--February 12, 2018
The February 2, 2018 hearing was held. Judge Alarcon denied the vexatious litigant motion, as he should have (it was a frivolous motion at the outset--and I argued so in my opposition), on the ground that the cases cited by the Defendant (to show a pattern of conduct) were too old. *I also raised this ground in my opposition to the motion.
This was the first semblance of fairness that I've received since my sister initiated the unlawful detainer proceedings.
Nonetheless, the Court did not entertain or address the default proceedings. I think it was prejudicial not to do so because of delay, especially since I'm seeking injunctive relief. But, again, I cannot place the entire blame on the court, because it was the clerks that refused to place the matter on the docket (although the matter still could have been addressed by the Court, had the Court chose to address it). So, now, I've had to file a separate motion to strike my sister's (illegal) Answer and enter a default and default judgment.
My sister clearly defaulted, the clerks clearly erred (and some of it was "intentional" error) in not entering a default, and a default judgment should be entered against her.
Moreover, I also charged the clerks with violating my constitutional rights, both due process and equal protection of the law, with respect to their conduct in handling the entry of default(separate from the docketing matter). The hearing is scheduled for March 15, 2018, 8:30 a.m.
*The constitutional claims (due process and equal protection) basically centers on "notice". When the Clerk's Office perceived a defect in my entry of default, it apparently provided my sister with notice of the defect and an opportunity to defeat the default by filing an answer by a certain date (and she filed an answer on that date). On the other hand, when my sister's answer was "voided" (because of a denied fee waiver request), I was NOT provided notice of the voided answer and an opportunity to provide a THIRD request for entry of default, if necessary (which it wasn't--although I did file a third request), before she submitted a legitimate Answer. But, as it turns out, a default should have been entered, with or without the constitutional violation, and the clerk erred in not entering one.
THE U.D. APPEAL
Now, months after I noticed an appeal of the unlawful detainer judgment, the appeals section has now, after discontinuing the process, decided to continue the appellate process and order briefing (after finally producing a record transcript).
I consider my appeal being denied. But, I will submit a brief, to deny the court administration an excuse or defense to my constitutional charges that will be brought later.
More later.
UPDATE--February 26, 2018
See * in above 2/12/2018 update.
UPDATE--March 1, 2018
THE HOMELESS
Apparently, I was half wrong and half right when I stated above, at UPDATE--January 9, 2018, that "These governments and courts don't give a damn about the homeless, especially the Black male homeless". The California "governments and courts" do give a damn about the "white" homeless (here, I was wrong), but, they don't give a damn about the Black male homeless (here, I was right).
According to a L.A. Times article, there was a "LANDMARK" effort to give a damn about white Orange County homeless, see "A 'landmark" effort led to cleanup of O.C. camps", February 28, 2018 : "(A) massive push, spanning six days, to relocate more than 700 people to motels and shelters across Orange County. 'This was a landmark process with so many different groups combining forces', said Brooke Weitzman, an attorney who sued Orange County on behalf of seven homeless people. . . ." " 'This is the first time that I know of that with the support of the court--and the supervision of the court--we were able to move those who needed moving and ensure that everyone is treated with dignity', she said". This article is so important and demonstrative, I must continue, verbatim :
"We anticipate that the court will stay involved," Weitzman added, "as we all continue to help residents so they can get services. . . . For a significant number of people, we hope this is what will CHANGE THEIR LIVES." (Emphasis added). People who had been staying AS LONG AS 10 YEARS along the river were linked to recuperative care facilities, treatment centers and other services offered through the county, such as mental health and medical care, said Andrew Do, chairman of the Orange County Board of supervisors.
"The Orange County Health Care Agency's staff worked tirelessly around the clock to ensure that every individual received comprehensive case management services, and their placement was made based on their unique situations," Do said in a statement. "I'm extremely proud of the great work done by county staff. . . . This is a momentous occasion for the county of Orange and will UNDOUBTEDLY SHAPE HOW WE ADDRESS ISSUES OF HOMELESSNESS MOVING FORWARD." (Emphasis added).
Still, relocating residents is just the first phase of a PLAN to find longer-term temporary housing. (Emphasis added).
End of quoted passage from the L.A. Times article.
So why haven't this type of cooperative effort among the California governments and courts of Los Angeles County been implemented on behalf of Black males (the majority as a single group of L.A. city and/or county homeless)and other minorities? Why haven't this type of swift action, i.e., "six days to relocate more than 700 people to motels and shelters, been taken on behalf of Black males in L.A. city and county?
Why haven't a federal judge, i.e., like U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, "toured" the skid row community or "site" and "demanded that government and social services staff work with residents in a 'humane way'"? And, while an independent lawsuit brought on behalf of the homeless would be useful, e.g., by the irrelevant NAACP, that's no excuse. I brought a federal district court lawsuit against the Superior Court of California, and, in doing so, directly addressed the homeless issue in respect to an *(my) eviction, and in fact, brought a motion for a TRO, which specifically addressed the homeless issue. But, nothing was done. In fact the district court judge, Cormac Carney (whom I will address more specifically at a later time), rather than address the homeless issue, dismissed the case (and that dismissal is pending appeal). And, while I brought the case as a pro se litigant (because of no help or assistance from any so-called pro bono attorneys or Black attorneys in L.A.), and pro se litigants are usually treated differently *(even though the courts will not admit it), that is no excuse. If the federal district court wanted to address the homeless problem in Los Angeles city and County, as was done in Orange County (where the homeless are white), it could have done so, with my case. But, my case is still pending with the Ninth Circuit, so there is still some hope. Not much, but, a little.
But, I haven't heard anything about a Ninth Circuit judge "touring" skid row before *the Court makes its decision. So, that dilutes my hope.
Finally, is the difference in treatment between the Orange County white homeless and the Los Angeles County Black male and other minority homeless a matter or issue of race or color? Sadly, I believe it is. It must be. There simply is no other reasonable explanation for the disparate treatment of Black males, in particular, and other minorities, and other non-minorities *or whites (who are swept up with the discrimination against Black males) in L.A. County, *in comparison to the treatment of the Orange County homeless, especially after the good hearts of the L.A. County citizenry to vote to allocate millions *or billions of dollars toward the eradication of homelessness in L.A. County. There simply is no other *outstanding excuse or reason but racial discrimination or racism.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 3, 2018
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY : OUTRAGEOUS -- *JOSHUA TREE
Based on news reports, a San Bernardino couple, Mona Kirk, 51, and Daniel Panico, 73, who happens to be white, were arrested (based on "suspicion of willful child cruelty) and subsequently charged with "three counts each of felony child abuse." Based on the facts taken from the news account, the arrest and prosecution of the couple is nothing more than a "criminalization of poverty", and from the facts derived from the news account, the arrest and prosecution is "outrageous". Rather than arresting and prosecuting the couple, San Bernardino County ("SBC") should have investigated, gathered the facts, and attempted to aid the family in the best and fastest way possible, if in fact, it believed the children were "suffering" in some way. And, here are several of the facts that made the criminalization outrageous (again, taken from news reports of interviews with friends and/or neighbors, here, the L.A. Times, "Joshua Tree pair defended", March 3, 2018): (1)The SBC spokesperson for the Sheriff's Department stated that the parents "have a responsibility to provide the basic necessities for their children to grow up *and be healthy and safe". The evidence showed that the children were receiving at least the "basics" *to be healthy and safe. Fact #1: There was no evidence that the children were malnourished or physically abused or *otherwise harmed or without a home--sometimes a house is not a "home", or otherwise neglected or, most importantly, for this arrest, "abandoned". With just a brief investigation before the arrest, the government would have discovered, Fact #2: The children "were very well taken care of". Fact #3: The children "were very much loved". Fact #4: "The three children were members" of a local scouting group, and "attended weekly meetings, went camping and made crafts together." "On Christmas, the children marched in an annual parade with matching red sweaters and Santa hats." This was enough information to demonstrate that the children were being provided "the basics".
But, here is what got under my skin (in addition to the parents being arrested), and caused me to write this addition to my blog, and why, most importantly, this criminalization is "outrageous" : "(T)he County's Children and Family services agency took custody of the children" and (Judge) "Swift also ordered the couple not to communicate with their children". How is that helping the children, under the facts that I have identified above? They are being separated from parents who, from all indications, love them. And, in essence, the CHILDREN are also being JAILED without bond. It is jail because they are being involuntarily placed in confinement against their will, *and away from their parents (whom, most likely, they want to be with), without sufficient justification or purpose, *under the facts of THIS CASE. And, more than likely, from the same above facts offered, they are experiencing at least displeasure or a loss of enjoyment of life (especially the youngest) in being away from their parents under these circumstances. These children should not have been taken from their parents, and especially, should not have been ordered to not communicate with their parents. What purpose is that serving for the *psychological well-being of the children, under the facts identified above? Under other facts, such as evidence of physical brutality or neglect or abandonment, maybe, but not under these facts. The children should be appointed an attorney, and that attorney should appeal to the Court of appeal for a writ of mandate seeking reversal of the judge's order and *the action of Children and Family Services agency *in separating the family. I think it is simply outrageous and harmful to the children to separate the children from their parents under these circumstances. *In my opinion, under the circumstances of THIS CASE, the arrest of the parents should have been conducted out of the presence of the children, and the arrest (if an arrest was going to be made--and I don't believe one should have been made) should have been treated like a "citation", for purposes of the arrest process and separation of the family, that is, you are under arrest and are required to appear for a hearing at a later date, with no separation of the family at this time (until the next hearing when more facts may be revealed to demonstrate a need for the separation of parents from children and denial of communication between parents and children). And, parents are advised, like jurors in a jury trial, not to discuss the nature or circumstances of the arrest with the children pending the next hearing. Otherwise, the family is broken up and the parents are treated like criminals to their children before there is sufficient or "probable cause" evidence produced to arrest them. Here, on the FACE of it, there was not probable cause evidence for an arrest.
More next time on the criminalization of poverty.
UPDATE--March 4, 2018
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY IN THE SBC CASE -- *JOSHUA TREE
I believe the arrest of the parents in the above case was simply a criminalization of poverty. As was stated in the Times article referred to above, "Friends of the family say their (the parents) situation is not at all one of criminal abuse, but of extreme poverty". The parents were arrested (and are being prosecuted) because their living condition was an "eyesore" to law enforcement, with the appearance of a "homeless encampment". And the children are simply being used as bait to catch the big fish (the parents). Law enforcement realizes that, on the face of it, the eyesore itself is not a crime, and that at most, the parents could only be charged with some misdemeanor associated with the eyesore. But, nonetheless, it believed that the parents should be prosecuted in some serious way for producing and maintaining the eyesore. Thus, the children.
The government likely believes that the "People" of California will believe that the children should not be living under the conditions that they are living, i.e., in a "shelter" without electricity or a supply of water which comes from the land, or the trailer, which a family neighbor or friend believes the family actually lives in (the friend believes the "shelter" was built by the children--probably, in my view, to play around in or with) .
Basically, the parents were arrested and are being prosecuted because they cannot afford a house. It is likely that they wouldn't consider an apartment since, from the news reports "The family owned the property where they lived, records show." But, again, a house is not always a home. The house that the children are currently living in is likely not a "home" for them. So, now they are both "houseless" and "homeless", because the government has chosen to prosecute their parents for child abuse rather than assist their parents in obtaining a house.
It is clear that the parents provided the children with a "home" and that the children apparently obtained water from some source, even if it wasn't from a land supplied source, i.e., see the factual activities identified above the children were engaged in and the lack of any physical symptoms or other evidence of lack of water. And, the family cannot be said to be homeless in the usual sense, in that they have land, just no house on the land. Therefore, they are "houseless", rather than "homeless", and the government is prosecuting them for being "houseless". And, because, apparently, they cannot afford a house, the government is prosecuting them for being too poor to afford a house. That is, the government is criminalizing poverty, under the guise of child abuse .
This criminalization of poverty for this family is the same criminalization of poverty for certain other "homeless" people that go unnoticed and unchecked, especially, probably for those homeless people with children. Perhaps, this case will cause the governments and courts of Los Angeles County to take particular notice to the homeless situation, and rather than criminalize poverty, search for ways to aid or assist the poor in trying to avoid poverty or getting out of poverty if they've already reached that level, especially when children are involved.
***In fairness to law enforcement and the County officials, and Judge Swift, my opinions in this blog, are based entirely upon the facts from news reports, primarily the L.A. Times article referenced above. So, if the officials have relied on other evidence unknown to me and the general public, perhaps that evidence will surface in future proceedings, and I would develop a different opinion.
UPDATE--March 5, 2018
See *** above in 3/4/2018 UPDATE.
UPDATE--March 12, 2018
THE HOMELESS --L.A. COUNTY
MY IDEAS HAVE TAKEN HOLD--BUT SHORT-CIRCUITING WON'T WORK
On January 11, 2018, in this blog (the 1/11/2018 entry), I suggested the formation of a Committee to tackle the homeless problem, with a goal of eradicating the homeless problem in three years. Incidentally, because of the swiftness of action in the Orange County homeless problem, I am convinced that, with the proper officials and action, that eradication of the major portion of the homeless problem in L.A. County and the State can be accomplished in three years. But, back to my ideas. Anyways, it appears that significant aspects of my ideas from my blog has taken hold, but are not being implemented in a way that is likely to obtain overall success. I am referring to the "new coalition" initiated by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, the "Everyone In" coalition, see "Inviting 'Everyone In' to help homeless", L.A. Times. Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas spoke of a "war" and "army for good, an army that is fighting the injustices of poverty and the indignities of homelessness", like my "war on racial discrimination" (WRD) and identified "officers" of the war (in spirit). And the group's "focusing on goals" and "preventing 30,000 people from sliding into homelessness by July 1, 2022", like my "goals that could be reached prior to the fifth and final goal. The fifth and final goal would be to. . . eliminate the major homeless problem in California within three years (i.e., 2021-22). . . .".
The biggest downfall with this voluntary "coalition" suggestion is accountability *and consequences (for the failure to perform adequately) . The Committee, as I have suggested, must be composed of the essential government officials, especially those responsible for allocating the bond funds, and, while the entire Committee should be held accountable, certain individuals would be particularly held accountable, e.g., those charged with providing the housing and other supportive services, and those charged with allocating the funds, e.g., "Before a proposed building can get funding from the housing department through Proposition HHH, the $1.2-billion bond passed by voters, it must have a "letter of acknowledgement" from the local council member. And if a council member simply withholds that letter, a project can be stopped
in its tracks." "Official letter is key to housing projects", L.A. Times, March 12, 2018. "The requirement gives L.A. lawmakers the power to 'veto' proposals, critics." Id. There must be a member of the Committee who is assigned to meet this obstacle, and that person will be held accountable. So, perhaps that person will be the city official member of the Committee.
The United Way model would be good as a supportive service to the main Committee, but, a structured Committee is needed, and soon.
More later.
UPDATE--March 13, 2018
THE L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/JACKIE LACY/AND CLIFFORD PROCTOR : LACY HAD NO CHOICE
Questions seem to arise as to why L.A. District Attorney Jackie Lacy chose not to bring charges against ex-LAPD officer Clifford Proctor, who is BLACK, after Proctor "shot and killed Brendon Glenn in Venice on May 5, 2015", "Justice in police shootings", L.A. Times, March 11, 2018, even though "the other officer said at the time he had no idea why Proctor pulled the trigger", and even though "The civilian Police Commission found that the shooting violated department policy", and even though "Police Chief Charlie Beck called for his own officer to be criminally charged." The answer is : she had no choice. "The LAPD has led the nation several times in the number of fatal police shootings, many of unarmed victims, but no criminal charges have been filed against an on-duty Los Angeles officer for excessive force since 2000." Id.
And, most of the "on-duty" officers for whom "no criminal charges have been filed against" "since 2000" were WHITE OR NON-BLACK. So, how can Lacy now, when a Black police officer commits the same offense under the same or similar circumstances as previous WHITE OR NON-BLACK officers, bring charges against the Black officer without discriminating against the Black officer or otherwise being unfair? Or, without the perception of accommodating white interests or wishes? The answer is : She could not. Which is why she did not. She had no choice (even if she truly believed that charges should have been brought).
So, in essence, Lacy was right not to bring charges against Proctor. Not because he didn't commit the offense (of using excessive force--and I take no position on it), but because it would be absolutely discriminatory, racially, to do so, based on past practices and actions or non-actions.
THE L.A. TIMES' FALSE FACTS AND/OR REPORTING
Within the same article cited above, the L.A. Times editorial staff falsely stated that "Recall that in the midst of a nationwide outcry over police uses of force, Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby was widely applauded for bringing charges against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray in 2015. Let the jury decide, it was argued. In three cases the jury did -- by acquitting the officers." This last sentence is FALSE. A JURY did not acquit the officers, a JUDGE did. In fact, the officers waived their right to a JURY trial. The only JURY determination was a mistrial (Officer William G. Porter). The three officers found not guilty by Judge Barry Williams were Caesar R. Goodson, Jr., Edward M. Nero, and Lt. Brian W. Rice. The charges were dropped against three other officers. Again, a JURY did NOT acquit these officers.
There is a significant difference between a jury trial (12 people) and a judge trial (one person), and usually, in my opinion, when a police officer waives his or her right to a jury trial and selects instead, a bench trial, he or she believes, for whatever reason, that he or she will fair better with a judge, based on the background and/or ideology and/or other indications of the judge. And, usually, they do.
The L.A. Times should publish a retraction and/or correction of this false reporting.
UPDATE--March 17, 2018
THE HOMELESS--GARDEN GROVE, CA
According to a news report, a family of four, parents and two children, a girl (about 2 years old) and a boy (8 to 9 months old) were found dead in a van in Garden Grove, CA. According to relatives, the family was homeless. The actual cause of death is yet to be determined. The family was said to be living in the parking lot where the van was found, and had been living there "for about a month". Another example of the possible outcomes of homelessness, and why the homeless problem is an "emergency" situation, i.e., to avoid this type of outcome (unless somehow the death was self-inflicted or can be attributed to the hands of another, with nothing to do with homelessness--but, even this may be caused by homelessness if homelessness placed the family in a situation for the actions (both) to take place)).
THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO STRIKE (ANSWER) AND ENTER A DEFAULT
The "hearing" on the motion was held on Friday. The motion was arbitrarily denied, without any regard to my motion or the argument set forth in the motion. The only thing the judge referred to, with his limited words, was the docket, which I specifically contested in my motion, and upon which the Defendant, my sister, specifically relied.
Again, my motion could not have been denied without denying and violating my constitutional rights. So, again, you know what that means. It also means another trip to the Ninth Circuit.
More later.
UPDATE--April 17, 2018
THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRIP--A "SECOND" EMERGENCY MOTION; THIS TIME AS A HOMELESS BLACK MAN OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
I have now filed a second emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit, this time as a homeless Black man of Los Angeles County. The first one was to prevent my eviction or to prevent homelessness (and you know what happened with that one: I have been evicted, AND I STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION). * (CORRECTION : I did receive a response. The motion was "denied as moot". Since the order contained no explanations, but stated that the emergency motion was erroneously filed in the wrong appeal, I confusingly overlooked the notation that the emergency motion is "denied as moot." So, I did receive a response). This one is to eliminate my homelessness by putting me back into my HOME (based primarily on my sister's default in the Superior Court of California and the constitutional violations related thereto).
We'll see what happens with this one. But, even if I don't get relief *(and I hope that I will), it will help establish a Record regarding the treatment of homeless Black males by the State of California should there ever be U.S. Congressional hearings on the state of the homeless population, and especially the Black homeless population, in the State of California. I believe the problem is getting to be so enormous or significant that it is inevitable that it will reach the U.S. Congress, based on HUMAN RIGHTS violations. And, if it doesn't, then the United States will make it clear to the world, that it truly is a racist country, notwithstanding the camouflage of the enormous fame and money it pays to Black entertainers, sports figures or athletes, television or movie stars, or the few professional others. What's happening to the Black homeless of Los Angeles County is simply apartheid and genocide (when the focus is on the number of homeless that die on skid row each year (the latest count: 851)--with most of them being Black).
And what the Congressional hearings should focus on is : why isn't anything more being done to eradicate the homeless problem in Los Angeles County after the caring citizens of the County and the State have went to the polls and voted to give up their hard earned monies to address and eliminate the homeless problem? So, the California governments and courts cannot point the finger at the citizenry and call them racist for not giving up their earnings to eliminate the problem. The citizenry has done its part. So, the racist label must be laid on California's government and court officials, not the public in general. BUT, BUT, the government and court officials represent the State of California, so if the government and court officials are racist or practice racism, THEN, the State of California practices racism, or is racist.
Had the general public voted down, or against, the bond measures, then we could say the People of the State of California were/are racist for not supporting a viable solution for the homeless problem. But, they didn't. They voted for the measures. So, the racist label, and there is one, must be assigned to the officials. So, if the State of California wants to rid itself of the racist label, it must rid itself of the racist officials who are either directly practicing racism or are indirectly supporting it by not taking the proper steps to eradicate the homeless problem, armed with the resources that it has available to it.
The State of California can begin to rid itself of some racist officials by prosecuting some or all of those officials that I will identify in my upcoming federal criminal complaints. Those officials who have demonstrated their disregard for the Constitution, and constitutional principles, and*/or exercised racial discrimination, under color of law.
More later.
UPDATE--May 4, 2018
THE HOMELESS -- THE JOSHUA TREE PARENTS
Well, County prosecutors have now dropped the felony charges of child abuse against the Joshua Tree parents, as they should have. I stated earlier that they didn't have probable cause to arrest the parents for child abuse. So, the government did the right thing. But, I believe that the whole case should have been dropped with some guidance for the parents. Now, the parents still aren't reunited with their children, and they should be. The government continues to maintain misdemeanor charges of willful cruelty to a child and failure to address truancy against the parents, but just a fair attorney, not necessarily a good one, should get the parents an acquittal if the matter goes to trial. But, the government probably will try and get the parents to cop a plea, with reunion with the children as bait, to wrap up the case. But, the parents should go to trial, and make the government prove its case. I don't believe the parents are guilty of the offenses, and just a fair lawyer should be able to prove it. *I don't think there's probable cause for the willful cruelty to a child charge either. For the failure to address truancy count, I take no position on that one. That would be fact based and depend on whether the parents knew about any truancy and had been previously warned about it.
More next time.
UPDATE--June 13, 2018
THE SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION
The motion was denied without reason or explanation, simply "denied". It is clear that the intent is to drive me to skid row. But, here's the deal : I may get there, but before I do,
two things are going to happen : (1) federal criminal Complaints will be filed, which will extend from the lowest state official to the highest federal official; and (2) letters to Congress will be submitted, requesting that hearings be held to address the State of the Black male in California. The predominant concern will be the homeless Black male of course (and the homeless in general, not just Black males, will be addressed--but Black males are the largest single group in Los Angeles County, and I believe a major source of the discrimination against the entire group of homeless is directed at Black males, and the impact on the other homeless people is simply collateral damage--I am just as concerned about the other homeless people as I am about the Black males, but I believe Black males are singled out) , but the request will also cover the incarcerated Black male and the killed or murdered Black male, with emphasis on the number of unarmed Black males, particularly the young ones, killed.
There has been another astonishing occurrence in the Superior Court, but I will wait before I inform you. While it is astonishing on one hand, it is business as usual on the other. *This astonishing occurrence will be covered in my criminal Complaints.
I'm still here.
More next time.
UPDATE--July 18, 2018
THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ARE COMPLETED
The criminal Complaints are completed and I expect to file them next week.
Prior to their filing, I will provide reasons why I am hopeful that the Complaints will be acted upon this time.
More next time.
UPDATE--July 26, 2018
THE HOMELESS--THE JOSHUA TREE PARENTS
The government has now dropped the child cruelty charge, so I, apparently, was right again regarding the lack of probable cause for the charge; and now the parents are charged with six misdemeanor counts of child endangerment. I'm not that familiar with the child endangerment statute, so I won't comment on the charge. But, I still believe a fair lawyer should get the parents acquitted of these charges as well. I simply won't comment on probable cause to charge them.
But, perhaps more importantly, the parents have now been reunited with their children, notwithstanding the current charges. It is the right thing to do. As I stated, I thought it was outrageous to separate them in the first place, based on the evidence the government had at the time. As far as the re-uniting of the parents and children are concerned, this was justice.
THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
I am about to file 2 federal criminal-civil rights Complaints (Complaints #1 and #2). But, I am just a Complainant-lawyer, a poor black lawyer. I'm not the FBI or a prosecutor; and I'm sure the Defendants in my Complaints are happy about that fact. Because if I were the FBI and the prosecutor, the Defendants, at their home or place of business (i.e., the state and federal Courts)(or, if allowed to surrender), would be rounded up, read their rights, placed under arrest, placed in handcuffs, and marched off to jail (or transported)(*and made public), the same way Harvey Weinstein was, and the same way the immigrants arrested by ICE are. The Defendants would be treated like any other citizens where probable cause to arrest exists. But, again, I'm not the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney's office, so I, as Complainant, must rely on those two agencies to bring the Defendants to justice. The following are some reasons why I am hopeful that this time, at least some of the Defendants will be prosecuted (and not allowed to just retire or resign or be transferred to another court or station):
1. A different Administration. This is the Trump administration, not the Obama administration. There's a new President; a new Attorney General, a new FBI Director; and a new U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. I believe it might make a difference.
2. This time, the Complaints are VERIFIED, unlike the last and previous Complaints.
3. SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER III
When discussing or giving praise to the FBI during the George W. Bush Era, I usually say the George W. Bush FBI or the Bush FBI, because I didn't realize that Mueller was the FBI Director at the time. I now realize that.
Again, during the Bush years, when Mueller was FBI Director, I filed Complaints similar to the ones I will be filing here, and I believe they were acted upon by the FBI, albeit unofficially
(thus, I believe)(I was not officially contacted). Two Ventura County state judges that Complaints had been filed against, Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer, "retired" immediately upon the filing of the Complaint. Hintz "retired" (and, therefore, was removed from the bench) the same day I filed the Complaint. Klopfer "retired" within a week of the filing of the Complaint. And, there were federal judges that "retired", including former judge Dickran Tevrizian, and other persons, of other positions, that resigned.
So, under Mueller's direction, the FBI showed that it would act upon my civil rights Complaints. However, I realize that Mueller is not the FBI Director now. But, I believe that Mueller has a high degree of integrity, and he garners respect as a prosecutor. And, perhaps, the new FBI Director, Christopher A. Wray, will place credence in Mueller's integrity, and the decision of Mueller's FBI to act upon my Complaints in the past. And, maybe Director Wray will go further, do the right thing, and arrest the individuals where probable cause is found.
Moreover, Mueller may have to get involved because I believe that the justice Dept. may have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with respect to one or more Defendants, which may require it to refer the matters to an independent prosecutor, and since Mueller is already in place, I doubt if the Justice Dept. would want to retain another independent prosecutor. But, I'll have to wait and see. I'll submit a copy of the Complaints to Mueller for his review.
4. PRECEDENT
Again, there is precedent for the FBI, set by Mueller's FBI, taking action against the Defendants in my Complaint. The charges in my current Complaint are similar to the charges in the Bush era Complaint. Only this time, the FBI should go further and take official action and arrest the individuals, so that I, as a victim, can receive justice for the Defendants' actions.
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS
At Attorney General Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearings, there were at least two black men to testify on Sessions behalf. One of them, if I remember correctly, was a lawyer, and he said that he had been treated fairly by Sessions. And, the presentation insinuated that Sessions treated him fairly as a black man. Well, I will appeal to Sessions to treat this Black man fairly. MR. SESSIONS : I request that you PROSECUTE THESE DEFENDANTS WHERE PROBABLE CAUSE IS FOUND.
MR. SESSIONS, You have stated, "THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL HOLD ACCOUNTABLE ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OUR FELLOW AMERICANS". See the L.A. Times, "Ex-officer gets 20 years in killing", December 8, 2017. Let's see if you hold these Defendants (in my Complaints) accountable. Action speaks louder than words.
MR. SESSIONS, you also stated, "(T)HOSE WHO LIE OR COMMIT FRAUD WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW." L.A. Times, "Asylum cases deeply split immigration court system", May 8, 2018. I have identified public officials in my Complaints who have lied Mr. Sessions. They should be "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".
I will send a copy of the Complaints to Mr. Sessions.
6. CALIFORNIA'S "SANCTUARY STATE" STATUS WILL BE AT ISSUE IN THE COMPLAINTS
7. THE "NEW" U.S. ATTORNEY FOR LOS ANGELES, NICOLA T. HANNA
The new U.S. Attorney for L.A., NICOLA T. HANNA has declared : "WE WILL TAKE ANY AND ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON WHO LIVES IN THE UNITED STATES". See the L.A. Times, "Three admit firebomb attack on black families", April 6, 2018. Well, Mr. Hanna, I'm hopeful that I will receive that protection.
8. ZERO TOLERANCE
Attorney General Sessions has implemented a "zero tolerance" policy for immigrants crossing the border illegally and is said to have stated, "there is no escaping the fact that immigrants crossing the border without documentation are criminals and should be treated as such." The Wave, "Downtown protest targets Trump's immigration policies", July 5, 2018. Basically, the Attorney General has announced a zero tolerance "policy" "for immigration violations". L.A. Times, "Vague plans for immigrant families", July 19, 2018. It is "The administration's insistence on trying to prosecute everyone crossing the border illegally, including asylum seekers who do not enter at the proper points." L.A. Times, "Trump backs down, halts policy that splits families", June 21, 2018.
Well MR. SESSIONS, I am requesting that you exercise and implement a "ZERO TOLERANCE" POLICY for PUBLIC OFFICIALS violating the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of CITIZENS', AND ESPECIALLY HERE, BLACK MALE CITIZENS', UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
This especially should be the case because public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So, to be more specific, I am REQUESTING THAT YOU IMPLEMENT A "ZERO TOLERANCE" POLICY AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS, IN MY COMPLAINTS, FOR SUBJECTING ME TO THE DEPRIVATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
9. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
From Harry Litman, who teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego, and is a former U.S. Attorney and deputy assistant attorney general : "(N)o person is above the law. Not the president and not his personal lawyer."
From a judge (who "rejected Trump's request to dismiss the (defamation) suit in March"): "No one is above the law."
From White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders : "No one is above the law"
(L.A. Times, "Trump's unpardonable hubris", June 5, 2018)
From Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee :
"Nobody is above the law. Not this President. Not any president."
(L.A. Times, "Giuliani plays up pardon power", June 4, 2018)
The ONLY WAY that NONE of these Defendants are arrested and prosecuted is for THE FBI AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE to find that ALL of the Defendants in my Complaints are ABOVE THE LAW.
10. THIS TIME, IT WILL BE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHICH MUST INTERPRET THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND APPLY THAT INTERPRETATION TO THE JUDICIAL DEFENDANTS TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE; USUALLY, IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
The Justice Department must interpret the Constitution, apply it to certain judicial Defendants, and determine in at least one instance whether I was denied equal protection of the law by those Defendants. Usually, it's the judiciary that interprets the Constitution to determine if law enforcement officials have violated the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
The Complaints will be filed on Monday.
The last time I attempted to file Complaints with the FBI at the Wilshire Boulevard Office (during the Obama Administration), I was told, at the office in person, that I had to MAIL the complaint to the Office. I still do not understand the sense or reasoning behind that "policy". I hope the policy has changed.
More next time.
UPDATE--August 1, 2018
THE COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED (BY MAIL) -- I'VE DONE MY PART (WHICH IS ALL THAT I CAN DO)
I filed the Complaints by mail on Monday. I attempted to file them at the offices of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney but was unsuccessful. In any event, the form that I utilized for filing the Complaint, which is the official form produced by the U.S. Attorney's Office, actually DIRECTS you to mail the Complaint to the U.S. Attorney's office. So, filing by mail was the proper and official way of filing the Complaints anyway. I simply attempted to file the Complaints at the respective offices for assurance.
At the FBI Office, after finally getting through to an individual (who I presume was an FBI agent) after going through a telephone wait outside the FBI office of the Federal Building (you can't just walk in--you must make a telephone call outside the office and ask to be allowed in--usually by appointment), he didn't allow me to file the Complaint at the office. He asked a few questions, and after discovering that I was a lawyer (and black--from my voice), he asked for info about my bar and bar no. and took a break (likely for confirmation), and came back. After not convincing me that my complaint was civil rather than criminal, rudely cut me off and ended the call.
At the U.S. Attorney's Office, I was simply told that my papers were too many to accept at the Office. The receptionist called it a "stack". I asked for a supervisor, so I could get an explanation of why I could mail the documents, the "stack, to the same address that I was at, but I could not just submit them there. I was never provided a supervisor. And, I was finally told that I could submit a one-page sheet of paper, the actual form, and try and condense a 68-page Complaint within that one-page form. I declined. It was the same as not allowing me to submit the actual Complaint. As I requested to see a supervisor, there were several people who got involved, none of whom would provide their names, but, I never got to speak with a supervisor. So, I just mailed the Complaints in, which is expected anyway.
As always, I will publish the Complaints in their entirety within a week. Complaint #2 has previously been published, but I will re-publish it as well. The Complaint*(#1) was 68 pages *(excluding Exhibits, which were at least 60 pages long as well) long, so I will probably start a new blog to publish it.
More next time.
UPDATE--August 3, 2018
GET THIS : A U.S. Attorney in West Virginia, Mike Stuart, has sought and obtained indictments of at least 2 state Supreme Court Justices for FEDERAL fraud related charges for using a state-owned vehicle for personal use and using tax payer money to pay for the gas, plus other charges. One judge, Menis E. Ketchum II, has pled guilty to a federal charge, and another, Allen Loughry, has pled not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial this month.
Briefly, what this means for my case (and the case of Black males in Los Angeles County who have gone through the Superior Court of California court system, especially dealing with evictions)is this :
1. There is no Justice Department policy of not prosecuting STATE JUDGES (and allowing them to retire or resign instead when criminal conduct has been found).
2. There is no Justice Department policy of not prosecuting WHITE state judges when they have committed federal criminal conduct.
3. If the state judges in my Complaint are not prosecuted for violating my civil and constitutional rights, it is because this U.S. Attorney, Nicola T. Hanna, is making a personal decision not to prosecute them (even if that personal decision is purportedly based on the law). There is clearly probable cause to seek the indictment of the all the Defendants in my Complaint, including the state court judges.
4. Clearly, state court judges are not above the law, and can be and should be prosecuted when they have committed federal crimes.
And, the crimes committed by the state judges in West Virginia are just "money" crimes. They are not crimes committed in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and they are not crimes involving a citizen's fundamental rights, and the deprivation of those rights by state court judges, which rights are absolutely more significant than money that merely involve the state treasury.
Thusfar, I haven't heard from the FBI or the U.S. Attorney (and the U.S. Attorney need not rely on the FBI--it can conduct its own investigation).
So, if the Defendants in my Complaints, and especially the state court judges (per the West Virginia prosecutions) are not arrested and indicted, where probable cause has been shown, what's the reason for the failure of the Justice Department, and especially the U.S. Attorney, to prosecute them? Could it be race-related? As you know from the title of this blog, I have already raised the question of the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Los Angeles being racist, or exercising racial discrimination, and thusfar, I see no reason to conclude that it is not, or that anything has changed. But, we will see.
But I think it might be a good question for the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is: Why does a U.S. Attorney in West Virginia seek and obtain indictments against state court judges for violating federal law regarding fraud or money crimes (and related false statement offenses--which arose from an INVESTIGATION first of all), but, a U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, with a larger Black population, refuse to bring indictments against state court judges charged with committing "people or citizen" and constitutional crimes, where there is probable cause to do so?
More next time.
UPDATE--August 8, 2018
It has come to my attention that my U.S. Senator (one of them) is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Therefore, I will write a letter to her directly, as a constituent, requesting that she requests the Senate Judiciary Committee summon Justice Department officials, i.e., the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles, specifically, before the Committee to explain why they have refused to investigate, arrest and seek indictments of the Defendants in my Complaint, especially the state court judges and other state officials, where probable cause has been shown? And, in view of the West Virginia state court judge prosecutions?
I charge that the FBI's and the U.S. Atty's refusal to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Defendants in my Complaint, all of them, is racially-motivated. That is, their decisions have nothing to do with the merits of the Complaint, or DISCRETION, and everything to do with race or color. That is, their decision to not investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Defendants is based on the fact that a Black man is bringing a Complaint against white officials, and because the white officials are charged with violating the constitutional rights of a Black man. In other words, it's racial discrimination.
I believe that I can demonstrate a prima facie case of racial discrimination with respect to the Justice Department not prosecuting my Complaints, especially in view of the West Virginia prosecutions. And, I will assert this in my letter to Senator Feinstein.
I will publish my letter to Senator Feinstein in this blog. Or, it may be in a separate or new blog. I'll let you know.
UPDATE--August 17, 2018
Complaint #1 is published at "Gregorian-Cowan #3" blog (a new blog) and the re-filed Complaint #2 is already published here beginning at the September 30, 2016 UPDATE herein.
UPDATE--September 22, 2018
THE LETTER TO CONGRESS HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND SENT TO CONGRESS. THEREFORE, I'VE KEPT MY WORD AND DONE MY PART REGARDING BOTH THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AND THE LETTER TO CONGRESS!
Mind you the specific letter that I've sent to Congress was not the exact type of letter that I had intended, but it covers the same subject matter and serves the same purpose : addressing the issue of the State of the Black male in California and L.A. County in specific, and addressing the homeless problem, emphasizing the Black male.
The letter was sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein specifically, because she is one of my state's federal senators, along with Kamala Harris, who is the other. The letter was specifically sent to Dianne Feinstein because she is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whom the letter is specifically directed to as well. This letter to Congress is slightly different from the original letter I had intended to write because this letter incorporates the Justice Department's refusal to investigate my federal criminal-civil rights Complaints (Complaints #1 and #2, mentioned above).
The following is the letter that I sent to Senator Feinstein with a copy to Senator Harris.
At the end of the letter I will address how I will deal with a response (or non-response to the letter).
The letter :
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90061
TEL. : (805) 901-2693
September 18, 2018
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE : REFUSAL OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE/PROSECUTE FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST L.A. PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Dear Senator Feinstein:
As noted above, my name is Laurack D. Bray, and I’m writing to you as a Black man and Black lawyer, who is a citizen of Los Angeles City and County, California. I’m also writing to you as a constituent of yours, a Black male veteran constituent in particular. And, I’m writing to you as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I’m writing to request that you request that the Senate Judiciary Committee call upon or make to appear certain members of the Justice Department in Los Angeles to explain why two criminal-civil rights Complaints that I recently filed were neither investigated nor prosecuted by the FBI or the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.
I’m requesting that you and the Senate Judiciary Committee make or require the Justice Department do what I, as a citizen, cannot require it to do : Appear and testify under oath why it (they) refused to investigate and prosecute my Complaints (two Complaints, Complaints #1 and #2). Briefly, on or about July 31, 2018, I filed two federal criminal civil rights Complaints, mostly pursuant to 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242, with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, charging multiple public officials, both state and federal, with civil rights violations. But, both the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in Los Angeles have refused to investigate the Complaints. The FBI with an outright refusal to respond in any way, and the USAO with a letter of refusal.
I charge here that their decisions to refuse to investigate and/or prosecute my Complaints are racially-motivated. I charge here that their decisions had nothing to do with the merits of my Complaints or with any exercise of discretion. Rather, their decisions had everything to do with my race or color and gender. That is, their decisions to refuse to investigate and/or prosecute the officials-Defendants in my Complaints were because I am a Black male (bringing criminal charges against white officials).
Therefore, I charge the Justice Department officials in L.A., or whomever made the final decision to not investigate my Complaints with racial discrimination in not investigating and/or prosecuting my Complaints.
I will here establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and I believe the ultimate claim of racial discrimination will be proven, through circumstantial evidence, by a combination of the prima facie case and the Committee’s disbelief of the reasons set forth by the Justice Department for not investigating and/or prosecuting my Complaints.
Moreover, I hereby complain and charge the specific Justice Department officials making the decisions to not investigate and prosecute my Complaints with obstruction of justice regarding resolution of the underlining individual complaints alleged in the Complaints (#1 and #2) themselves.
And, let’s be clear, Sen. Feinstein, while I brought my Complaints as a single or individual Complainant, in reality, both my Complaints and this letter are truly class action matters, representing the class of Black males in the County of Los Angeles, the class of homeless Black males in L.A. County, the class of homeless Black males on Skid Row in Los Angeles, in particular, and the class of homeless people (of all races and creeds, religion, and other backgrounds, e.g., veterans) in L.A. County, in general.
As I stated to the Justice Department in my Complaints, and equally applicable here, “I believe the entering of the U.D. (unlawful detainer) judgments (in favor of evictions) in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County is systematic ”(emphasis added here)(see Complaint Report, at p. 24 for the further explanation).
As grave as the homeless crisis in the Los Angeles area is, see Complaint Report attached, particularly on Skid Row, the Justice Department chose to ignore the Complaints, and Complaint #1 focused on the eviction process in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (and most of the homeless on Skid Row are there based on evictions)(based on an L.A. Times investigatory article, cited in the Report).
Now, the prima facie case.
I THE PRIMA FACIE CASE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (ADAPTED FROM THE MCDONNELL DOUGLAS/BURDINE MODEL AND REVISED)
A. COMPLAINANT IS A MEMBER OF A MINORITY GROUP OR PROTECTED
CLASS
I am a Black male (race and gender classes).
B. COMPLAINANT FILED THE COMPLAINTS, SEEKING INVESTIGATION
AND/OR PROSECUTION, AND THE COMPLAINTS QUALIFIED FOR
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
I filed two Complaints, #1 and #2, with the FBI and the USAO. See attached hereto. The Complaints alleged and/or charged violations of federal criminal-civil rights-constitutional law arising from and pursuant to federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242. Moreover, the Complaints were supported by probable cause and/or probable cause evidence, sufficient for an arrest, at least, and/ or indictment of most, if not all, of the accuseds/Defendants in the Complaint.
C. THERE WAS AN ADVERSE ACTION TAKEN
Despite the qualified Complaints, supported by probable cause, the
Justice Department refused to investigate the Complaints. Therefore, put another way, the Complaints were not investigated. Instead, they were ignored.
NOTE : I was not required to produce any evidence in order for the duty to investigate by the Justice Department arose or ripened. But, I did (through verified Complaints supported by documentation, e.g., transcripts). All that was required for the duty to investigate was colorable allegations.
D. AFTER REFUSING TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINANT’S COMPLAINTS,
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED TO INVESTIGATE OTHER
COMPLAINTS OR CASES IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA
One example is the case of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, see infra.
Or, alternatively,
E. THE REFUSAL OR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE (OR PROSECUTE) THE
COMPLAINTS OCCURRED “UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GIVE RISE
TO AN INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION” (BURDINE)
CIRCUMSTANCE #1
There were two Complaints filed, #1 and #2. Both Complaints were verified. This was unusual, most Complaints, I believe, are not verified. Further, the Complaints were filed and verified by an attorney, as opposed to an ordinary citizen. This was unusual as well. Most Complaints, I believe, are made by ordinary citizens or referred by local police on behalf of citizens, but, they are not made by private attorneys and they are not verified. In fact, the form issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the reporting of federal crimes by citizens specifically asked, “Have you reported the crime to a private attorney?” Further, since I am a private civil rights attorney, I cited to specific federal criminal statutes that I was bringing the Complaints under or pursuant thereto in the Complaints. And, in some instances in the Complaint Reports, I cited to Ninth Circuit and other case law in support of my claims. This, likely, is also unusual . Yet, there still was not even an investigation.
CIRCUMSTANCE #2
While the Justice Department refused to investigate my Complaints (which presented the scenario of a Black man complaining about actions of white public officials), it (Justice Dept.—U.S. Attorney’s Office ) entertained and “referred” for investigation a matter involving a Black public official, i.e., Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, brought to the Justice Department’s attention by, presumably, a white USC (University of Southern California) official. “USC. . . has asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office to conduct a criminal investigation linked to a recent $100,000 donation from a campaign fund controlled by. . . Mark Ridley-Thomas.” Los Angeles Wave, “U.S. Attorney investigates Ridley-Thomas donation to USC”, August 9, 2018. “A former state legislator and city councilman, Mark Ridley-Thomas is one of the most influential politicians in Los Angeles, and his connections and donor base repeatedly helped his son at the ballot box.” L.A. Times, “Former legislator target of Capitol inquiry”, August 16, 2018. “USC approached the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and told federal prosecutor’s (sic) it had concerns about a recent $100,000 donation from a campaign fund controlled by Mark Ridley-Thomas, The Times reported.” Wave, supra. Finally, “Mack Jenkins, head of the public corruption and civil rights section at the U.S. Attorney’s office, confirmed that a lawyer for USC briefed him on the Ridley-Thomas matter and (he) referred it ‘for criminal investigation’, The Times reported.” Id. This was a briefing by a lawyer (that I presume was a white lawyer) regarding a $100,000 donation to USC made by a Black politician, and it was “referred” for criminal investigation. “A lawyer for Mark Ridley-Thomas told The Times the supervisor was ‘surprised to learn that his donation to USC has become an issue.’ ”. Id.
Again, my Complaints (two—involving multiple white Defendant public officials) , brought by a Black civil rights lawyer, were ignored . They weren’t investigated by either the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the FBI.
CIRCUMSTANCE #3
In the Ninth Circuit case of Lanuza v. Love , NO. 15-35408, August 14, 2018, Wardlaw, J., a government immigration attorney-employee (Jonathan M. Love) submitted false evidence (i.e., a forged document) in the immigration case “in order to deprive Lanuza of his right to apply for lawful permanent residence.” The Ninth Circuit found, “The conduct at issue—the falsification of evidence—has been regularly considered by the courts in actions against prosecutors who commit similar constitutional violations by falsifying evidence and suborning perjury. The Supreme Court has long recognized that ‘the principle that a State may not knowingly use false evidence. . . to obtain a tainted conviction is implicit in any concept of ordered liberty’ and a violation of due process ” (emphasis added).” (Citations omitted).
Most importantly, “Love was ultimately prosecuted and pleaded guilty to deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (sec.) 242, which ICE characterized as a ‘deprivation of constitutional rights’ in a press release. Love was sentenced to a thirty-day term of imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and 100 hours of community service. (Citation omitted). He was barred from practicing law for ten years and was required to pay restitution to Lanuza in the amount of $12,000, a figure the government proposed based on its approximation of the legal fees Lanuza paid related to his removal proceedings as a result of Love’s submission of the forged I-826 form.” Id. (Emphasis added).
Finally, in Lanuza , the Ninth Circuit stated, “The consequences of allowing the submission of false evidence by government attorneys without repercussion extends beyond its effect on Lanuza. The magnitude of its societal injury was addressed in the government’s press release about Love’s conviction: ‘Defendants in immigration court have a “right to proceedings free from false and fabricated evidence knowingly presented against them. When that right is denied, a real harm is inflicted both on society, which loses faith that its government plays fair, and the individual who suffers directly.” ’” Id. (Emphasis added).
In my Complaints, I charged at least 3 Defendants with submitting false evidence, which I concluded resulted in a denial of due process to me. One was Los Angeles attorney Armen Gregorian , a second was Superior Court of California judge David J. Cowan, by way of a conspiracy with Gregorian, and the third was California Second District Court of Appeal judge Laurie Zelon. The specific allegations or charges are set forth in the Complaints themselves, which I will attach here. But, basically, I charged Gregorian with submitting a false statement in order to deprive me of my right to a conservatorship over the person and estate of my mother; and I charged Cowan with conspiring with Gregorian to submit, accept, and rely upon false evidence to deny me the conservatorship (and the conservatorship was in fact denied). I charged Zelon with submitting false evidence in her appellate opinion regarding the same conservatorship, again, in order to deny me the conservatorship (and, again, the conservatorship was denied, through affirmance on appeal) . And, I submitted evidence to support my assertions.
Yet, the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles and the FBI both refused to investigate my Complaints regarding the submission of false evidence, or the other charges in my Complaints. Again, the Complaints were ignored.
NOTE : Even though I have filed and re-filed a criminal Complaint against judge Zelon for submitting false evidence in her appellate decision, the Second District Court of Appeal has now assigned judge Zelon to a new appeal of mine, involving the attempted sale of my mother’s home without her consent. I have filed an objection.
CIRCUMSTANCE #4
In 2007, during the George W. Bush administration, I filed similar civil rights Complaints as the Complaints at issue here, based on 18 U.S.C. secs. 241 and 242, and the FBI, I assert, took action on my Complaints, albeit informally ( or unofficially) . And, as here, I was a Black man and lawyer bringing charges against white officials. Not only did the FBI investigate my complaints, it (FBI)(I assert) caused several Defendants to either retire or resign from office. The most glaring “retirements” were two Ventura County state judges named in the Complaint, Steven Hintz and Barry Klopfer. Hintz retired the same day I filed the Complaint. I filed the Complaint in the morning and Hintz retired by the end of the day. Klopfer retired within a week or so thereafter. Essentially, both were removed from the bench. But, it was informal action and I derived no remedies or benefits as a victim of the criminal conduct. Nevertheless, it was action on my Complaint. Immediate action. This was a time when the FBI had an agent stationed inside the U.S. Attorney’s office, so that when a complaint was filed in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it went straight to the FBI agent, if the FBI was the investigative agency assigned for the particular Complaint.
Yet, here, with this FBI and this U.S. Attorney, no action was taken. Neither an investigation nor a prosecution (or, “retirement”). Indeed, there was no response at all from the FBI to my two Complaints (#1 and #2 filed in July, 2018). The USAO sent a letter indicating no investigation or prosecution.
CIRCUMSTANCE #5
In the state of West Virginia, the Justice Department brought federal indictments against at least two state judges, Allen Loughry and Menis Ketchum, for crimes that, facially, appear to be state money crimes, e.g., fraud or fraudulent use of money or economic services, e.g., the illegal use of a government vehicle and credit card for personal use. Apparently, the West Virginia District Attorney did not find the actions to be crimes (likely finding the actions to be civil matters) and didn’t see fit to prosecute the judges. But the Justice Department decided that the judges should be prosecuted for their actions, so it brought mail and wire fraud actions against the judges. “Loughry is under a 25-count federal indictment accusing him of making false statements and tampering with witnesses. . . . He is also accused of taking a state car to signings he conducted for his book. . . . Federal prosecutors are preparing a case against Loughry to say he violated federal law. The FBI monitored the now-suspended judge after suspicions arose that he was defrauding the state. The alleged fraud included misuse of official cars and credit cards for nonwork business and lying to other judges about the matter, knowingly making false mileage claims when he was using a state car, and the illegal conversion ‘to his own personal use of a valuable and historic desk that belonged to the Supreme Court.’ ” L.A. Times, “West Virginia impeaches its entire Supreme Court”, August 16, 2018. “Justice Menis Ketchum ()resigned last month and admitted to charges of wire fraud.” Id.
But, other than the State of West Virginia, the crimes are victimless crimes.
On the other hand, here, in my case, where the charges are clearly federal crimes involving state judges, with a clear citizen victim (but a Black male victim), the Justice Department refuses to even investigate the Complaint.
Moreover, instead of doing what the Bush Era FBI did in my case, i.e., informal or unofficial “retirements”, rather than prosecutions, the Justice Department went all the way and sought and obtained “indictments” against the judges (for facially state crimes). But, in my case, with clear federal criminal charges, supported by evidence , in addition to a verified Complaint against the state judges , the Justice Department ignored the Complaints.
That is the prima facie case of racial discrimination, which provides an inference of racial discrimination by the Justice Department. Next, the Justice Department must present its legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions to refuse to investigate and/or prosecute my Complaints or the individual Defendants identified in the Complaints.
Here, Senator Feinstein, I request that you request the Senate Judiciary Committee to require the appropriate Justice Department officials, esp. the L.A. USA and the FBI Director, to appear before the Committee and provide their legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for refusing to either investigate and/or prosecute any of the individuals in my Complaints. And, the officials should be required to offer legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for not investigating the Complaints for each individual Defendant in the two Complaints.
Nonetheless, any reasons the Justice Department provides will “lack credibility”. Their responses will either be unbelievable, false, or “unworthy of credence”. Therefore, the Committee will be permitted to infer the ultimate fact of racial discrimination at the hearing. And, I believe that it will. The United States Supreme Court in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , 530 U.S. 133 (2000), citing St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502 (1993), stated, “ ‘The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination.’ ” Id. (Emphasis in original).
“Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.” Id. “In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the (government) is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as ‘affirmative evidence of guilt.’ ” (Citation omitted). Id. “Thus, a plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the (government’s) asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the (government) unlawfully discriminated.” Id.
II OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (AND CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE)
Official Complaint : I HEREBY COMPLAIN AND CHARGE that, in addition to my complaint of racial discrimination lodged against the Justice Department, the Justice Department officials (FBI and U.S. Attorney) obstructed justice by not investigating or prosecuting my two Complaints filed with both the L.A. FBI and USAO. Particularly, under the circumstances of this case, the Justice Department obstructed justice by not at least investigating the Complaints. Briefly, one Complaint, Complaint #1, centered on unconstitutional evictions, and especially the unconstitutional eviction of a Black male (myself). The result of the eviction rendered me homeless. Therefore, when I filed the Complaint with the Justice Department, it was filed as a homeless Black male of Los Angeles County. The main point here is that I argued in my Complaint, at p. 24, that “I believe the entering of U.D. judgments in the Superior Court of Los Angles is “systematic”. (Emphasis added). If that, in fact, is true, it would mean that that circumstance is likely or probably the cause of a substantial portion of the homeless, and especially the homeless Black males, in Los Angeles and on Skid Row.
Therefore, an investigation by the Justice Department, either the FBI or the U.S. Attorney’s Office, could have answered the question regarding a systematic process of evictions, and thereafter, if true, take steps to eradicate the process and eliminate the homelessness evolving from that process.
When the L.A. Justice Department intentionally decided to ignore the Complaints, it also purposely prevented anything from being done about the severe homeless crisis of Los Angeles County, esp. affecting Black males (the majority of the homeless on Skid Row). And, as I stated in my Complaint Report (#1)(at p. 4, quoting from a L.A. Times article), as applied to the Complaint Defendants, and equally applicable here as applied to the Justice Department officials making the decision to not investigate the Complaints, “No matter where you live in L.A. County, from Long Beach to Beverly Hills to Lancaster, you cannot credibly claim today to be unaware of the squalid tent cities, the sprawling encampments, or the despair and misery on display there.” Editorial, “Los Angeles’ Homelessness Crisis is a National Disgrace”, February 25, 2018 (emphasis added). And, Skid Row is not far from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in downtown Los Angeles. “ ‘Skid row is the result of years of neglect and legal decisions (e.g., unconstitutional evictions)’, said City Councilman Jose Huizar.’ ” L.A. Times, “Sites evaluated to house homeless from skid row”, August 1, 2018. There are “2,100 people who live in skid row’s block after block of encampments.” Id. And, “358 homeless people per square mile live in skid row, by far the densest massing in the city. An additional 1,500 homeless people are scattered throughout downtown.” Id. Finally, “ ‘Every day we see more and more people living homeless around City Hall.’ ” City Hall is right across the street from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles. Therefore, the Justice Department officials in Los Angeles, or whomever, who were charged with making the decision to not investigate and/or prosecute the Complaints obstructed justice and should be held accountable for doing so.
Furthermore, because the homeless situation in L.A. County involves mostly minorities, the Justice Department’s obstruction is not just obstruction but a combination of both racism and obstruction. Again, while I brought the Complaints individually, I represented a class of homeless Black males who have undergone or experienced similar circumstances as mine in and with the Los Angeles Superior Court and its unconstitutional eviction processes, especially those living on Skid Row (since a L.A. Times investigative article found that most homeless people living on Skid Row are there because of evictions).
While I am not required to cite to any particular law or statute in making this Complaint against the Justice Department officials, I will do so. But, certainly the Committee may decide upon any other law it assesses as being more appropriate for the obstruction of justice charge. I charge that Justice Department officials violated 18 U.S.C. sec. 1505, which states, in pertinent part, “Whomever corruptly. . . influences, obstructs, or impede or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States (here, the Department of Justice and/or more specifically, the L.A. USAO and the L.A. FBI). . . ---- Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . .”
And, from the Department of Justice website, “Generally, a defendant may be found guilty under section 1505 if the government establishes that : (1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States (here a submitted/filed Complaint requesting investigation/prosecution, and a discussion with an FBI agent and a USAO representative(s) prior to filing the Complaint(s); (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending (here, Justice Department officials, and especially those officials making the decision to not investigate the Complaints knew the request for the investigation/prosecution was pending); and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending (here, the Justice Department officials endeavored to “obstruct” the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending, i.e., 18 USC secs. 241 and 242 or other applicable law). Therefore, the requirements for finding the Justice Department officials guilty of violating sec. 1505 have been met here.
This concludes the letter.
Senator Feinstein, I would appreciate a prompt response as to what action, if any, that you will take regarding this letter and its contents. I certainly believe some type of action should be taken. Thank you very much.
I am attaching a copy of both Complaints, #1 (with Exhibits) and #2 (without).
Sincerely yours,
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Enclosures
cc : Senator Kamala Harris
End of Letter
At this time, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going through confirmation hearings regarding the confirmation of judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, and Senators Feinstein and Harris are both on the Senate Judiciary committee, so out of respect for that process I will not expect to get a through response to my letter until after the confirmation process is completed, UNLESS, the confirmation process goes beyond the November elections. IN THAT CASE, I will expect a response from Senator Feinstein BEFORE the November elections, because depending on her response or non-response, it will likely affect my voting decision.
But, for now, other than a courtesy response, indicating that she has received my letter, I will not expect a thorough response to my letter until after the confirmation process.
UPDATE--September 25, 2018
I haven't received a courtesy letter or any other acknowledgement letter from Senator Feinstein that she has received my letter. But, I faxed the letter, e-mailed her about the letter, and e-mailed Senator Harris the entire letter, so I conclude that she has received the letter.
THE NOMINATION OF EILEEN DECKER TO BE APPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE L.A. POLICE COMMISSION
In short, Eileen Decker SHOULD NOT be appointed a member of the Police Commission. In fact, she should not have been nominated for the position by Mayor Eric Garcetti. This was a bad move and a slap in the face to the Black and minority communities by the mayor. This blog and its title speaks for itself, and it should provide the main reasons why Decker should not be confirmed by the City Council for membership on the Police Commission.
I will write and submit a letter to the City Council accusing Decker of operating a racially discriminatory U.S. Attorney's Office while she was in charge of the office, and more specifically, I will accuse Decker of exercising racial discrimination against me as a Black man and Black Complainant when undertaking or entertaining the submission of my federal criminal Complaint to her office in 2016.
More next time.
**UPDATE--October 6, 2018
I have written and submitted a letter to the City Council regarding Eileen Decker. I hand delivered the letter to each council member individually this week. In the letter I opposed Decker's confirmation and I accused her of exercising racial discrimination against me. I will produce the letter here. But, before I do :
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH LEE BACA ? You don't hear anything from the L.A. Times about him. Well, Baca is still reaping the rewards of his refusal to incriminate his "brothers" (i.e., state/county officials in terms of selective prosecution). He is living at home, and not incarcerated (like Paul Tanaka) AND, we haven't heard anything about his appeal. It's taking a l....ong time for his appeal to be decided. And, we haven't even heard what stage of the proceedings it's at. The last I checked, there wasn't even an oral argument date set.
While on the topic of Baca, here's the letter :
LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
FEDERAL ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 611432
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90061
TEL. : (805) 901-2693
October 1, 2018
TO: Herb Wesson, President, and
Los Angeles City Council Members
FROM: Laurack D. Bray
Citizen of Los Angeles City and County
DATE: October 1, 2018
RE: The Confirmation of Eileen Decker as a
Member of the Los Angeles Police Commission
EILEEN DECKER SHOULD NOT BE APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE POLICE
COMMISSION
My specific reasons for arguing that Ms. Decker should not be confirmed or appointed to the Commission are as follows:
1. FAILURE TO RESOLVE CONSERVATORSHIP PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BY SUPERIOR COURT OFFICIALS
In 2015, a class action civil rights complaint was filed with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, or Justice Department, alleging that “court-appointed attorneys routinely violate the Americans with Disabilities Act during limited-conservatorship proceedings.” L.A. Times, “Disability complaint targets Superior Court,” June 27, 2015. “The court-appointed attorneys represent the conservatees during the process.” Id. “The court also places a conflict of interest on these attorneys, the Complaint alleges.” Id. “The court requires attorneys to advocate for the client while assisting the court in resolving the matter, violating the client’s rights to due process, the complaint alleges.” Id. (emphasis added).
I inquired at the Justice Department at the time to get a clarity and copy of the Complaint, but I was unable to obtain either. All the personnel I spoke with claim to be unaware of the Complaint and I didn’t know the specific name of the case (and I didn’t have the Times article with me). I did not bring this Complaint. “Thomas F. Coleman, an attorney and Executive director of the Disability and Guardianship Project who filed the complaint, called on federal authorities to investigate and force court officials to ‘clean up their act.’ ” Id
Apparently, the matter was not sufficiently resolved to prevent conservatorship officials, including Superior Court judges, from continuing to violate the constitutional rights of parties. See, infra, No. 3.
2. DIVERSITY AND PROPER REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMISSION
Ms. Decker, if appointed, will replace one of two black male commissioners on the Commission at this time. One, Matt Johnson, is leaving the Commission for his own personal reasons, which leaves Dale Bonner, as the other, according to news reports.
That means if Ms. Decker is appointed, the five-member Commission will have 2 minorities, a Black male and a Latino female, Sandra Figueroa-Villa, and three white members (Steve Soboroff and Shane Murphy) , including Decker, if appointed, according to news reports. Which means white membership will be in the majority and will have the last word on final decisions by the Commission.
In an ideal world, this composition (three whites, one black, and one brown) shouldn’t matter. But, as we all know, this is not an ideal world (by no stretch of the imagination) . Far from it. This is Los Angeles, California, where the majority population in the city is minority, with the largest group being Latino or Hispanic. And, the makeup of the Commission, notwithstanding Mr. Johnson’s and Ms. Cynthia McClain-Hill’s (also Black) departure, should remain minority majority as well. Not simply because of the population demographics (which also should be a factor for consideration), but because of the type of matters that will generally come before the Commission for resolution.
Most of the matters that will come before the Commission will involve minorities. And, invariably, those matters will be very serious matters, such as police shootings and killings. And, even though Latinos are the majority population in the city, a significant portion of the police shootings and killings likely, from my knowledge (only), involve black people, and usually Black males. And, because many times, if not most times, black people and white people view things differently when it comes to police shootings and killings of minorities, it is essential that black people or other minority people be in the majority on the Commission to help assure a fair representation of the minority view for what usually are minority committed crimes resulting in minority injuries or deaths.
Eileen Decker’s appointment would not meet the proper representation requirement. It should be a minority, and ideally, it should be another African American male replacing an African American male.
3. DECKER’S SELECTIVE PROSECUTION BEHAVIOR
Ms. Decker successfully prosecuted Leroy “Lee” Baca and Paul Tanaka, both minorities, for federal crimes. And, I do not here question the propriety of her doing so. In fact, apparently, she rightfully did so (based on the convictions). And, I’m sure the affected inmates of the respective jails are grateful for her actions.
However, Ms. Decker, in her prosecution of Lee Baca and Paul Tanaka, both minorities, exercised selective prosecution of minority high level officials, while refusing to prosecute white high level officials for the same or similar crimes or felonies, e.g., conspiracies. At least two of the white officials she refused to prosecute were Superior Court judge David Cowan and Second District Court of Appeal judge Laurie Zelon, both of whom I charged with violating my constitutional rights under color of law by submitting false evidence to deny me relief. Cowan is a judge in the Probate Division, which handles conservatorships. I have already discussed above, in No. 1, the problem some attorneys were having with conservatorship court officials, and, the fact that the problem, apparently, has not been resolved. My Complaint, filed in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, demonstrates that the violation of parties’ constitutional rights by the conservatorship section has not been resolved. And, Decker refused to investigate my Complaint. See, infra.
I won’t attempt to provide specifics here, in this letter, regarding the selective prosecution allegation, but, I certainly can and will if called upon to do so.
Actually, Baca could have proved the selective prosecution in a court of law had he chosen to do so. But, despite my urging him to raise the defense, he refused to do so. But, the city council can require Ms. Decker to show that she did not demonstrate selective prosecution in prosecuting Baca and Tanaka, during the undertaking of the confirmation process. And, I believe it should do so before confirming her for the appointment on the Police Commission.
Because, if she, in fact, engaged in selective prosecution (which is a form of discrimination; in this case, race or racial), I believe that would be grounds for non-selection for the Commissioner position.
4. DECKER’S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION EXERCISED AGAINST ME
I charge (or accuse) Ms. Decker, as U.S. Attorney, of discriminating against me as a Black male in refusing to investigate or prosecute my criminal Complaint or the individuals who I charged with violating my constitutional rights under color of law in the Complaint.
There was probable cause or probable cause evidence sufficient for the arrest
of most, if not all, of the individuals named in the Complaint. Yet, none were arrested.
The Complaint involved a black man charging high level (as opposed to entry level or subordinate level) white public officials with criminal and unconstitutional conduct.
No, Ms. Decker did not state “I’m not investigating your Complaint because you are a black man”. But, a statement of that nature is not necessary to prove that she discriminated against me based on my race or color. That statement would just be direct evidence of the discrimination. I can prove through circumstantial evidence that she did, in fact, discriminate against me.
But, the question for the City Council is : If Ms. Decker exercised racial discrimination against me, should she be confirmed and appointed as a police commissioner?
I believe the issues I have raised in this letter should be addressed before Ms. Decker is appointed (if she is) as police commissioner.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray
As citizen-attorney of Los Angeles
End of Letter
READERS : This will be the END of this blog, except for re-publication. For any other matters evolving from this blog (including a follow-up of the letter to the city council), you must go to Gregorian-Cowan #3. How many of you believe the L.A. Times will publish or report about this letter ?
Thursday, August 25, 2016
ATTY ARMEN D. GREGORIAN AND JUDGE DAVID J. COWAN (AND COMMISSIONER STEPHEN M. LOWRY), et. al. #2 V. *FORMER SHERIFF LEE BACA AND *FORMER UNDERSHERIFF PAUL TANAKA, et.al. : Will the Federal Justice Department be any Different or Will It Exercise the Same Type of Racial Discrimination or Racism Exercised by the L.A. District Attorney's Office Against Black (particularly Black males) and Other Minority Citizens and/or Officials
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)