May 29, 2023
(Today’s Date)
March 18, 2019
(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)
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States).
*Brief explanation regarding the title of the Blog: The blog is entitled a case of retaliation and vindictive prosecution because I believe that the primary purpose in the City filing a criminal complaint against me under the circumstances of the matters involved was because I have filed multiple criminal complaints against various public officials in L.A. City and County, and the criminal complaint filed against me by the City (which is a relative of the County, and the federal government for that matter) is simply in retaliation for me filing my complaints. Further, the portion of the title dealing with racial animus is based on my belief that the Complaint is based, at least in part, on the fact that I am a Black male who brought criminal complaints against mostly white officials, and on the fact that I am a Black male (as opposed to a Black female) residing in Los Angeles City and County.
On February 27th, 2019, I was arraigned on a MISDEMEANOR charge of violating a restraining order (secured by my sister) by the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles. I pleaded NOT GUILTY, requested a jury trial, was released on my own personal recognizance, and was placed under a protective order (for my sister). The original permanent restraining order should not have been granted in the first place, for lack of sufficient facts and circumstances warranting a restraining order. But, nevertheless , it was. But, the City's attempt at prosecuting me for violating that restraining order or any other restraining order related thereto, e.g., renewal of the restraining order, is nothing more than retaliation for my filing criminal complaints against various public officials, including County officials, whom the City is a relative of. The Complaint is also vindictive, for the same reason. The main restraining order in question is already being appealed civilly, so there was no need for the City to charge me criminally before a decision was reached in the civil matter (unless the city knows something that I don't know). Also, there's a strategic reason why the government decided to charge me with a misdemeanor rather than a felony. It knows and I know. I'll discuss it with you at a later time.
This blog will follow my prosecution by the City for criminal violation of the restraining order. For all readers who do not know, I am a Black male federal *civil rights attorney residing in the city and county of Los Angeles, California.
The next scheduled proceeding is pretrial, where one of the matters to be addressed will be my motion to proceed pro se, or self representation. Currently, I am represented by the Public Defender's Office.
UPDATE--March 21, 2019
The pretrial hearing was convened. I was allowed to proceed pro se, but the judge denied the motion for appointment of advisory counsel or co-counsel, and advised that the denial was without prejudice to move again later. So, the public defender was released from representation, after I was informed-advised concerning the pitfalls of proceeding pro se by the judge. I informed the judge that I would be filing at least one motion prior to trial, or pretrial. So the judge set at a date for the hearing of the motion(s). The next hearing is scheduled for : April 16, 2019, 8:30 a.m., courtroom 52 at the criminal court building on Temple Street in L.A. , CA. My P.D., prior to her release, requested any outstanding discovery from the government. Finally, the judge,Francis Bennett, presided over the matters. It's too early for me to make a fair assessment of judge Bennett's fairness. Nothing during the proceedings provided me with any indication of his fairness, one way or the other.
More next time.
UPDATE--May 19, 2019
At the last hearing, April 16, 2019, there were two of my motions before the court, a motion to suppress (based on the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments) and a motion to dismiss based on , among other things, lack of probable cause to prosecute me. Although the motion to suppress called for an evidentiary showing, there was no evidence submitted at the hearing. So I told the judge that at the next hearing I wanted evidence to be produced.
The judge denied the motion to suppress, without providing reasons that I understood, and without prejudice to amending it. The judge had offered some information from a jury instruction manual that he had, and as it turned out, some of the notes to the jury instruction provided valuable information, including a new theory for my motion to suppress. The hearing ended with the judge suggesting that I amend the motion to suppress and he also directed that the parties submit a memorandum on the legality of modification of a restraining order (I had earlier stated that the Commissioner did not have authority to modify the restraining order without a motion from the non-restrained party or my sister, Dianne Jackson. The government also turned over a DVD disc of a police body cam, when the police went to my mother's house in responding to a 911 call by my sister. Initially, the government had refused to provide me with one. Also, the judge allowed the government to file a motion for a protective order, and have it heard and decided without my having had an opportunity to respond in writing, even though the government had had an opportunity to file it earlier. I moved to strike the motion as being untimely, and without my having a meaningful opportunity to respond. The judge denied my motion, and subsequently granted the government's motion. So, there is a protective order in place for the information on the body cam video. *I think the protective order is illegal and unconstitutional.
THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO MY MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MOTION TO DISMISS
The next hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2019. At this hearing, when the judge called up my case, he said that he would be unable to get to it, so he re-scheduled the hearing for another day, May 24th, 2019. In the meantime, before dispersing, I reminded the judge that he had ordered both parties to file a memorandum regarding modifying a restraining order by the May 15th hearing, but the government had not done so. Nor had the government provided a response to either of my motions. Therefore, I argued that because of the government's action or non-action in not producing responses to my motions or the memorandum as ordered that the court should decide the motions on my papers alone. The judge, Bennett, said that he would note my objections. In essence, giving the City Attorney's Office (CAO) ANOTHER opportunity to respond to my motions and to submit a memorandum.
Also, at the May 15th hearing, or appearance, I submitted an "amended" motion to suppress, whereby I added an alternative claim of a collateral attack on the constitutionality of the amended restraining order issued by Comm. A. Veronica Sauceda. And, it is this alternative charge which REQUIRES dismissal of the Complaint. And, this alternative charge arises from the information from the jury instruction law which was referred by judge Bennett himself. See, infra.
THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW
Unless the City Attorney's Office can come up with a memorandum of LAW which states that a judge can modify a restraining order without a stipulation between the parties or a motion from one of the parties to a restraining order, the criminal complaint must be dismissed, as a matter of law, based on an illegal order being utilized to prosecute me.
And, it is judge Bennett's referral which provided me with the law that dictates dismissal of the Complaint. That law states that use of an illegal or unconstitutional restraining order is a defense to a charge of violation of a restraining order. And, the restraining order in my case is both illegal and unconstitutional.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 24th, 2019, at 8:30 am , Department (courtroom) #52.
Let's see if the L.A. Times cover it.
UPDATE--May 28, 2019
The May 24th hearing was convened as scheduled, but again, there was no real hearing on the merits of the motions. Once again, judge Bennett found another reason not to rule on the pending motions. This time, he claims that he wanted to know for himself the status of a civil appeal that is pending regarding the restraining order which is the subject of both matters, civil and criminal. However, I told him the status, and, additionally, he could find out the status by pulling the record of the appeal. And, I question whether it would be appropriate for him to reach outside the record of the criminal case to DECIDE the criminal case. And, after he asked me the status of the civil case, and I told him, he apparently didn't believe me, and insisted that he needed to know for himself. Anyway, there was no ruling on the two pending motions, to suppress and to dismiss (although the motion to dismiss included as a basis, sec. 1385, which allows the court to dismiss a case on his own motion). Therefore, judge Bennett set the matter over for trial. But, because of Superior Court procedure, the motion to suppress must be decided before trial, and on the same day of the scheduled trial. So that if the motion is denied, the trial process will begin immediately thereafter. So, the motion is set to be heard on June 5th, in Courtroom #56. Further, Bennett assigned a stand-by counsel, without a request from me, I made it clear that I was not requesting a stand-by counsel, so that taxpayers could save their money (and I made this point at an earlier proceeding where Bennett sought to appoint a stand-by counsel in view of my not desiring one).
Now, since it appears I am finished with Bennett, I have enough information and/or experience to make an adequate assessment of whether he is a fair judge or not. Judge Bennett is NOT a fair judge. Why? :
1. Right to Counsel
The Sixth amendment guarantees a defendant a right to "assistance of counsel" in a criminal case. I decided to proceed pro se, so I waived the first layer legal "right" to appointment of counsel for all purposes. However, notwithstanding waiver of the legal right to counsel, the law provides a pro se defendant with a DISCRETIONARY right to counsel per discretion of the court.
I requested this discretionary right to counsel from judge Bennett. There are various types of discretionary counsel that can be appointed by a judge, e.g., co-counsel, advisory counsel, and stand-by counsel. Of the three types, the only ones that could provide me with "assistance", per the Constitution, were co-counsel and advisory counsel. And, the one that was "useless" and could not provide me with any "assistance" was(is) stand-by counsel. This is so because stand-by counsel does ONLY just that, stand-by in case a defendant wants to discontinue proceeding pro se and have the stand-by counsel step in and conduct trial proceedings for the pro se person . I requested co-counsel or advisory counsel, counsel that could actually "assist" me with the case. Judge Bennett denied appointment of either one. But, he was willing to appoint stand-by counsel; the counsel that would be absolutely useless to me because I made it clear to the judge that I would not be relinquishing my pro se role. So, he calls in a stand-by counsel and had to turn him away, because I told the judge it would be a waste of taxpayers money to have him make appearances.
So, the BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Judge Bennett had the choice to appoint counsel that could actually assist me or appoint counsel that was useless and could not assist me. He chose the latter. Advisory counsel is nothing more than stand-by counsel who can also provide information and advice.
2. Government Protective Order
The government filed a written motion, based on cited cases, and had Bennett hear, decide, and grant the motion the same day that I received the motion (the day of the hearing on all motions) from the City Attorney's Office. The motion was a motion for a protective order for a body cam CD that the City Attorney had to turn over to me in discovery. I moved to strike the motion based on it being untimely and the fact that I did not have an opportunity to respond to the motion in writing (with legal cases or other law). Bennett denied the motion, and thereafter, granted the government's motion (even though the government had had time to file the motion in a timely manner, giving me time to oppose the motion in writing.
I believe the protective order is both illegal and unconstitutional. I agreed to sign it because I would not have had the CD available for the hearing without doing so, which hearing did not properly take place anyway.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Judge Bennett heard , decided, and granted a motion that was physically served on me the same day (in court at the hearing) that he granted the motion.
3. Ordered Memorandum
Bennett ordered or directed the parties to submit a memorandum on the legality of the modification of a restraining order (which, if this matter goes to trial, I will submit as evidence of the illegality of the restraining order used to prosecute me with). The memorandum was ordered or directed to be produced by both parties by the May 15th hearing date. I produced the memorandum as ordered or directed. The City Attorney did not. The judge did not criticize or comment on the government's failure to produce the document in any way. I pointed this out to the judge near the end of what was supposed to be a hearing on a motion to suppress and motion to dismiss the case. The judge purportedly denied the motion to suppress, and never reached the motion to dismiss. So, in essence, the government was granted additional time to file the memorandum. Also, although I didn't formally move, I stated that the court should decide the motions based on my papers alone, since the City Attorney provided no opposition to my motions, nor provided a memorandum that would dispute mine, which pointed to the illegality of the restraining order. I can't recall Bennett's response, but, it certainly was not an agreement to do so.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Even though the City Attorney violated the judge's order or directive to produce a memorandum, the judge took no action against him. Even though the City Attorney filed no written oppositions to my motions, the judge took no action in view of this. And, he could have. He could have made a ruling on the motion to dismiss (on the merits) based on my papers alone. From my understanding now of court procedure, Bennett couldn't rule on the motion to suppress anyway. It had to be ruled on at the time set for the trial date.
4. The May 24th Hearing Regarding the Motions and Memorandum
At the May 24th hearing, on my AMENDED motion to suppress (where I added a collateral attack on the constitutionality of the "Amended" restraining order used to prosecute me with) and the motion to dismiss, as I alluded to earlier in this blog, judge Bennett refused to rule on either motion, relying on the civil appeal of the restraining order as his basis for not ruling.
Further, the City Attorney again failed to produce the memorandum and failed to oppose my motions. Again, Bennett said nothing about it. So, after TWO opportunities to do so, the government failed to oppose my motions or produce the memorandum, yet, Bennett refused to discipline or sanction the government in any way for its misconduct, i.e., not producing the memorandum as ordered.
I objected to Bennett not ruling on the motions, especially, the motion to dismiss, which he clearly could have ruled on. Also, Bennett inquired of the City Attorney of any "offer" that was on the table, and the deputy City Attorney recounted some offerings. I didn't really pay attention because as I told the judge immediately thereafter, there would be NO DEAL (because I'm INNOCENT).
Finally, Bennett, again, appointed a stand-by counsel, without a request for one from me. It clearly is not for my protection or to protect my rights, or to assist in my defense, because if it was, he would have appointed an advisory counsel, at least. So, for the second time, judge Bennett had the choice of appointing a counsel who could truly assist me and one who would be useless to me. He, again, chose the counsel who would be useless to me.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and the unfairness) : Judge Bennett had a duty to rule on the motion to dismiss at least, and he didn't. I believe the civil appeal excuse was simply a subterfuge for not ruling. I believe the failure to rule on the motion to dismiss was also a violation of my due process rights, whether the ruling would have resulted in dismissal or not. But, clearly, if it would have resulted in dismissal, and I believe it would have, it would be a due process violation because the dismissal would preclude the need for a jury trial. And, this would be especially important for a pro se litigant who would be faced with the awkwardness of examining himself, as well as other irregularities.
5. At the close of the hearing, Bennett cited a case to the deputy city attorney, not to me, in preparation for the upcoming hearing on the motion to suppress. First of all, if it was appropriate to cite any case for the upcoming hearing on the motion to suppress, he had to cite the case to or inform BOTH parties of the case, in order to be fair and impartial. Secondly, Bennett did not do so. Rather, he specifically said the deputy's name and cited the case to her.
CONCLUSION : Judge Bennett is not a fair judge, rather, he is a pro-Government judge. Therefore, he, necessarily, is likely not to be fair and impartial to ordinary, non-governmental citizens, or defense counsel. This opinion or conclusion is based on my case alone. I did not know of judge Bennett before my case.
The next scheduled hearing is the hearing on the motion to suppress, set on the day of trial if the motion is denied : June 5th, 2019, courtroom #56, at 8:30 am.
The motion to suppress should be granted as a matter of law, based on the same case that Bennett referred to the deputy city attorney. I cited this case in my AMENDED motion to suppress, and apparently judge Bennett perceived that the City Attorney (or deputy city attorney) had not read the amended motion (which the city attorney did not respond to), so he felt it was necessary to inform the deputy CA of the case, because it will be controlling, along with another case pulled from the jury instructions that judge Bennett referred BOTH counsel to.
More next time.
UPDATE--June 8, 2019
THE MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Well, the motions were heard before Judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet, a black female judge. Both motions were denied. As it turned out, the emphasis I had placed on the case judge Bennett had referred to the deputy City Attorney, and I had relied on in a memorandum, was not discussed, because judge Guillemet, who I was not familiar with prior to the hearing, side-stepped the issue of the legality of the restraining order (which I brought to her attention after her decision to deny the motions--it may have been off the record). Her decisions denying the motions were generally based on her overall conclusion that my constitutional rights were not violated because I had received fair notice of the RENEWAL of the restraining order "hearing" (not the actual "order"--the hearing), and, relying on an UNTIMELY filed opposition by the city attorney (CA) (it was served on me physically at the hearing, and had been e-mailed the previous day, which I discovered in late evening) because I was aware that a request for an extension of the yardage (from 2 yards to 200 yards) had been requested by the victim, my sister, Dianne Jackson, in her request for renewal application,and therefore, when the Commissioner, A. Veronica Sauceda, increased the yardage at the renewal hearing, I had had notice (and a hearing--the renewal hearing) that the yardage could be increased. If I remember correctly, the judge read from the transcript of the renewal hearing (which had been attached to the CA's untimely opposition)noting judge Sauceda's assertions that she was increasing the yardage to 100 yards. NOTE: For full disclosure, I admit that I did not object to the government's opposition being considered, and I should have (as I did with its belated protective order motion at an earlier proceeding), so the judge was permitted to consider it (although she could have questioned it and asked if I had a problem with it--that also would have been appropriate. But that required a display of impartiality) .
Here are some points I believe were not addressed and should have been (and I will state "I believe" because although I am recalling matters as I remember them, the "true" transcript may differ with my recall) in the court's decision :
1. Although I raised specific grounds for my motions, the court did not address those specific grounds in her decision (although she recounted those grounds prior to her decision).
2. Although I specifically raised the issue of the constitutionality of the restraining order used to prosecute me with, as I recall, the judge did not provide an answer to this question : whether the final restraining order was constitutional or not ? This is what the referred case from judge Bennett was all about. Judge Guillemet did not answer that question in her decision.
3. I took the witness stand and testified at the hearing, under oath, and stated that I did not receive the order and was not aware of the order used to prosecute me. But, notwithstanding this testimony, the judge did not address it in her decision to deny the motions. That testimony went SPECIFICALLY to my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process of law, that is, NOTICE AND A HEARING regarding the Order used to prosecute me.
NOTE: The government waived its right to cross-examine me at the hearing. How often does the government waive the right to cross-examine a defendant in criminal trial proceedings?
Another matter to be noted is that the judge cleared her calendar before hearing my case, therefore, my case was heard before an empty courtroom. The same thing happened at judge Bennett's last hearing. I interpret the action, even if done for legitimate reasons, e.g., providing sufficient time for a hearing, as a denial of a public hearing.
Also, judge, like judge Bennett, raised the issue of a plea offer, and once again, I said there would be no deal (because I'm INNOCENT). Judge Guillemet added the gamble of going to trial. And, I insisted that I'm going to trial, because I'm innocent of the charge. And, at this time, the government has enough evidence to KNOW that I'm innocent.
Finally, near the end of the hearing, the government submitted a trial brief in anticipation of trial, and contained in that brief is a request for the court to "exclude the Defendant from mentioning or arguing that the restraining order was invalid or unconstitutional as it would be prejudicial to the people's case. . . ." This is basically asking the court to eliminate an element of what the people must prove to find me guilty. It's ridiculous! But, it's basically throwing out a bone to a judge, hopefully an unscrupulous one, hoping that he or she will bite.
Now, the trial is scheduled to begin on June 11, 2019. It must first go to courtroom #56 to be assigned to a court.
At this point, I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial. Why? Because this case should have been dismissed by both judges Bennett and Guillemet, but it wasn't.
I'll provide the actual courtroom and judge when it is assigned.
UPDATE--June 16, 2019
I now have EVEN LESS CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial. Judge Guillemet was assigned to my case and immediately thereafter, I submitted a form 170 to disqualify her from hearing my case on the basis of BIAS. My understanding was that a party had an automatic right to a first disqualification, but, I am not a California lawyer. Anyway, judge Guillemet denied my request or right and presided over the trial. At that point, I knew that I wouldn't receive a fair trial, and I didn't. I will research the 170 request later to get a better understanding of the right and requirements, but, the bottomline is once I was assigned Guillemet as my judge, I KNEW I would not receive a fair trial. And, I DIDN'T.
BREAKING NEWS : This was the most OUTRAGEOUS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL jury trial I've ever experienced as a lawyer or as a citizen observing jury trials in my 30 years of practice as a lawyer.
For example, I moved for judgment of acquittal after the government's case-in-chief. That motion is required to be heard in open court in the absence of the jury. Over my objection, judge Guillemet heard and decided the motion during a bench conference she called.
I won't go into detail at this time regarding other matters. But, detail will come.
But, I want to make clear, my charge of outrageous and unconstitutional actions are only assigned to the court and court actors, NOT the jury. But, court rulings can effect the jury's decision. Whether they will or not, we'll see. If I'm found guilty, they did.
The jury has begun deliberations.
Whatever the outcome, I will be contacting my federal senator, Kamala Harris. And, remember, she is a former prosecutor. So, she knows what takes place in a criminal jury trial, and she knows what actions are or can be unconstitutional or outright illegal.
Jury deliberations continue on Monday, July 16, at 9:30 am , Courtroom #53.
UPDATE--July 10, 2019
I'm back. Down but not out. I've waited to inform you of the verdict because other matters were involved, such as a writ of mandate to stay sentencing and grant me a judgment of acquittal.
Anyway, I was found guilty by the "jury". But, as I told you previously, if I was found guilty, it was because of the court rulings. In essence, the "jury" was the prosecutor and the judge, who, together, collaborated to produce the verdict. For instance, I moved the judge to appoint co-counsel or advisory counsel. The prosecutor, Susan Kolahi, at the BENCH (another bench conference--denying me a public trial), states that another judge has already denied me appointment of counsel (even though that judge denied the request without prejudice to bringing it again). The judge then says she will take it under advisement. She then comes back and says "I'm denying the motion because another judge has already denied the motion." (if not the exact language, paraphrased).
This verdict was a product of dishonesty, criminality, and racism (which includes gender discrimination). And, keep in mind, this is just one case. Do you really believe I am the only Black man to have experienced this? Not hardly! That's why, at least in part, Black men and other minorities fill California prisons. And, I am a lawyer. Think about what happens to the young Black men who know nothing about the law (even those represented by public defenders). In the meantime though, some of the conduct of the prosecutor and the judge amounts to misconduct, and they will likely have to deal with other agencies regarding the conduct. At least one act of misconduct will be grounds for reversal of the conviction.
But, moving on, at the sentencing, the judge ordered that I attend mental health classes. So, what's the basis for it? If anything, my sister is the one who should be ordered to attend mental health classes, which was supported by her emotional statement at sentencing. But, this order of attending mental health classes directed to me as a Black male is similar to the racism and discrimination exercised against the young Black males in the school systems, where they are placed in special education classes in disproportionate amounts, without valid reasons. So, the judge's order is clearly a case of gender discrimination with a mixture of racial consideration as well, i.e., a Black male, or racism directed against a Black male. And, the judge should be aware of the situations in primary and secondary schools where the discrimination against Black males has been found, and thereafter, incorporate those findings in her decision to order mental health classes to a Black attorney with no history of mental health or emotional problems.
Prior to sentencing, I petitioned the Appellate Division for a writ of mandate to suppress the illegal restraining order and to order a judgment of acquittal, and for a stay sentencing pending a decision. The Appellate Division did not order a stay, clearly, and has yet to decide the petition. So, you see what's happening here. And, the writ decision should have been decided before an appeal. I've now filed a notice of appeal. This is the California justice system for Black males.
More next time.
UPDATE--February 19, 2020
In the meantime, I completed sentencing conditions ordered by the judge, but I'm still awaiting a clarification from the judge herself. The actual completion of the conditions ordered by judge Guillemet was accepted and certified by judge Victoria Wilson, in the absence of judge
Guillemet who is off of the bench presently, for some reason, until March, apparently.
MY APPEAL
First, I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a FAIR appeal. I am a Black male, proceeding pro se, and I've charged the Appellate Division with misconduct regarding prior proceedings before. See, infra. I had NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial, and I didn't receive one; and I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair appeal. And, one reason for my position has already been supported from the outset of the appellate process, i.e., motions. See, infra. The only way that I cannot prevail on appeal is for my appeal to be as unfair as my trial. There are multiple reversible errors.
I've now received a Record on Appeal after months of postponements. Initially, I requested the appointment of counsel, but that request went well beyond the 30 days that were required for the appointment to be made, so I withdrew my request in order to obtain the transcripts of the jury "trial" myself. So, I proceeded as a pro se Defendant, and, after months of postponements, was issued the Record (including Clerk's transcripts) and trial transcripts. I also received the briefing schedule. Thereafter, I moved the Appellate Division for an extension of time to file a brief, production of pre-trial transcripts, which were not included with the trial transcripts (and I thought they would be), and appointment of counsel. In an order acting on the three(3) separate motions, the Appellate Division granted an extension of time until my appellate counsel received the Record and transcripts (and request further time for briefing), DENIED my motion for production of the pre-trial transcripts--even though a California Court Rule REQUIRES the production of transcripts by the court reporter for ALL motions brought by a defendant in a CRIMINAL case (and most of the pre-trial matters surrounded pre-trial motions, e.g., motions to suppress and to dismiss; and granted the appointment of counsel (naming an attorney with a Hollywood office). But, get this : after denying my motion for pre-trial transcripts, without prejudice, the Court then offered that the newly appointed counsel could augment the Record (apparently with pre-trial transcripts or some other matter)(with the Court indirectly suggesting that counsel could request the transcripts, have the request granted, and thereafter, augment the Record with the transcripts). Is that discrimination or what? I think so. But, you be the judge. However, I've charged the Appellate Division with discriminating against me before. At least one basis has been that the Appellate Division refused to follow California Supreme Court precedent in order to deny me relief (regarding an unlawful detainer matter) .
The Appellate Division has now appointed counsel. Let's see what happens.
Keep in mind that one purpose of this blog is to reveal how the criminal "justice" system works for poor, Black male defendants, especially (which is most times) when the case is unreported by the L.A. Times or other media (which is the case for most Black male defendants). If the L.A. Times was really interested in promoting fairness in California's criminal "justice" system, this is the very type of case it would cover and promote to demonstrate the unfairness and/or discrimination in the system, so that the criminal "justice" system, through exposure, might be improved.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 14, 2020
JUDGE VICTORIA B. WILSON : ANOTHER RARE FAIR JUDGE IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT SYSTEM
Before I go forward with information about my appeal, I want to take this time to recognize and applaud the efforts of judge Victoria B. Wilson. My first impression of Judge Wilson is that she is a fair judge. A rare thing in the L.A. Superior Court, from my experiences.
After I completed mental health hours ordered by judge Guillemet , I decided that I wouldn't wait until the scheduled time for me to appear before judge Guillemet to reveal the completion of the mental health hours, rather, I decided that I would go in earlier and get it over with. So, I appeared one day at the courthouse and asked to be put on judge Guillemet's calendar, expecting to see and appear before judge Guillemet. But, surprisingly, judge Guillemet wasn't there, and her cases had been transferred to courtroom #51 , the courtroom of judge Wilson. So, I decided to allow judge Wilson to decide the matter, upon submission of the proof of completion. I'm glad I did. Otherwise, I would not have had the opportunity of appearing before another fair judge in the Superior Court system.
Judge Wilson, in her fairness, offered me a period of extended relief, which I ultimately mistakenly declined, which would have allowed me a greater period of time within which to complete 100 hours of community service (which was ordered by judge Guillemet ). But, what the judge showed me was that she was looking out for me, as a Black male, pro se defendant, more than I was looking out for myself, and that she was looking out for me BETTER than I was looking out for myself.
Here's the deal, once judge Wilson had confirmed the completion of the mental health hours, she turned to my community service hours due. She recognized and revealed that judge Guillemet had stayed my completion of the community service hours pending completion of the mental health hours; and pursuant to that revelation, she OFFERED me a year to complete my community service hours. I declined. I told her that as I recalled, judge Guillemet had stayed the completion of the community service hours pending appeal ( and I, in my confused state, believed that somehow that period of time would be longer or unnecessary). I was wrong. Judge Guillemet did not stay completion of the community service hours pending "APPEAL", she only stayed them pending completion of the community service hours, see infra. So, I would live to regret not accepting judge Wilson's offer. But, the important thing is that judge Wilson, in her wisdom and fairness, had viewed the entire scenario and determined that the FAIR thing to do was to give me a year to complete the community service. In that way, that time period would generally cover the time pending appeal as well as the appeal (with a positive outcome, it would preclude a requirement to perform the community service). But, again, I, in my confused state, declined the offer. I believe this is one appearance where assistance of counsel would have caused a different outcome. I really didn't come prepared for judge Wilson's offer (I had come expecting to appear before judge Guillemet) . Effective counsel would have persuaded me to accept the offer. But, THANKS JUDGE WILSON for the FAIRNESS, and for looking out for me (as I believe you would have done for any other defendant in my position). *Thanks for being a fair judge and, NECESSARILY, for being a GOOD judge. One cannot be a good judge without being a fair *one.
JUDGE GUILLEMET'S RULING
With my decline of Judge Wilson's offer of a year to complete the community service, I kept a calendar date with judge Guillemet . I continued my argument to judge Guillemet that I believed that her decision was to stay the completion of the community service hours pending appeal. I was WRONG. I had forgotten that I had the transcript of my oral stay motion in the appellate record supplied by the court (which indicated that the stay was NOT pending appeal), so I requested the court to postpone her decision on performing the community service hours until I could review the transcript. She declined. So, she ordered me to perform the 100 hours of community service hours in 3 months, not a year (as offered by judge Wilson). So, I will have completed the community service even if my conviction is reversed and I am acquitted. Judge Guillemet's decision accentuates judge Wilson's fairness.
More next time.
UPDATE—May 27, 2020
MY APPEAL : APPOINTED COUNSEL
This was short-lived. I discovered that the procedure with appointed counsel is that appointed counsel, usually without consultation with the defendant, peruse the record to determine if there are any appealable issues. And, if he or she finds that there are no appealable issues, he or she can request to withdraw after determining that the appeal lacks merit or is frivolous, and thereafter, the appellate court can also determine whether the appeal is meritorious or frivolous,and , ultimately, could dismiss the appeal, without even conferring with the defendant. A so-called “Anders” appointment of counsel and appeal, from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Anders v. California. However, the defendant, somewhere during the process might get the opportunity to file a pro se brief, if he is persistent.
Once I discovered the destiny of my appeal could and probably would be determined by appellate counsel and the court without my input, I knew I would be proceeding pro se, because I knew that wasn’t going to happen, especially where I conducted my own trial and would be in the best position to offer the initial opinion as to what errors occurred (particularly with me being a lawyer).
Thus, I am proceeding pro se on appeal.
I have now filed my opening brief. The city attorney’s brief is due June 15, 2020.
THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD IN MINNESOTA
There’s nothing more to say. This was second degree murder. Clearly!
More next time.
UPDATE—June 1, 2020
THE GEORGE FLOYD RIOTERS, OR PROTESTERS, ARE RIOTING FOR “ME TOO” : THANKS BROTHERS AND SISTERS
The George Floyd rioters , nationwide, but especially in California and Los Angeles County, are rioting for me too, as a Black male residing in Los Angeles County. The white police or law enforcement officer, Derek Chauvin, represents the white government officials in my case, and in the case of other similarly-situated Black males in the County. While Chauvin’s knee was literally on the neck of Floyd, the government officials’ knees , in my case, have been “figuratively” on my neck. While Chavin’s actions caused Floyd’s death, the ultimate harm (second degree murder), the white officials’ actions in my case caused homelessness, poverty, pain and suffering (emotional), and deprivation of constitutional rights. Other Black males in L.A. County have suffered the same or similar damage or harm. Floyd’s death occurred on the streets of Minnesota; my injuries occurred in the courts of California. Finally, the cause or source of Floyd’s death (or injuries in my case) was racial discrimination or racism. Mine was too. When Chavin kneeled on Floyd’s neck causing Floyd’s death, Chauvin, to my knowledge, didn’t call Floyd a “nigger”. The officials in my case didn’t call me one either. But, in both cases, it wasn’t necessary. Action speaks louder than words.
Thank you my young brothers and sisters. I am an O.G. now, so you must carry the torch. It is you who will change this racist country, one way or the other.
Why Second Degree Murder
There are two things that I observed on the video that causes Floyd’s murder to be second degree murder : (1) As Chauvin was holding his knee on Floyd’s neck, he had his hand in his pocket, very nonchalantly , as if he was taking a smoke break at work. It was a complete disregard for Floyd’s life. (2) At one point, Floyd not only said “I can’t breathe”, but, he said “I can’t breathe, officer”. So, even as he was dying, he continued to show respect for Chauvin, as a police officer, who is supposed to “protect” and serve. But, in view of this, Chauvin continued to leisurely keep his knee on Floyd’s neck, totally disregarding the fact that Floyd was a human being, not an animal, e.g., like a cowboy roping a steer or maybe a pig, or some other animal, begging for his life.
Peaceful Protest Versus Violence
Do you really believe Chauvin would have been fired and, subsequently , arrested and charged with murder (in a span of a few days after the video was exposed) without the violence? I don’t think so. The only one who would have had a ghost of a chance of pulling that off is M.L.K., and as you know, he’s not around anymore.
The Cause Of The Damage And/Or Destruction To Property Or Loss Of Property
While I feel for the businesses which have suffered losses due to the theft of property, ESPECIALLY the small businesses, the businesses need to look to the real cause of the problem, i.e., racism. To simplify the matter , I’ll borrow from negligence law. While the so-called “looters” may be the cause—in-fact, the racism is the proximate cause. That is, but for the discrimination or racism exercised against Floyd, which resulted in his death, the so-called “looters” would not have been there to “loot” in the first place. The racism caused the demonstrations, protests, or riots, which were composed of groups which included the “looters”; and the “looters” thereafter, stole property from the businesses. The bottomline : If Floyd was not racially murdered, there would not have been any protests or riots; and if there weren’t any protests or riots, which drew and were composed of “looters”, there would not have been any theft of property by the “looters”.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 6, 2020
THE RIOTERS/PROTESTERS—-DAY 11 : THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR HAVING MY BACK
I am so proud of all of you. Young and old, black, white, brown, yellow, and red. Change is coming. In fact, there has already been some changes : elimination of the chokehold as a method of apprehending citizens, and requiring observant officers to intervene to prevent harm to a citizen or arrestee in certain jurisdictions.
THE “LOOTERS” : A MATTER OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS
Discounting the few professional thieves , who actually attend a protest for the specific purpose of stealing goods, I believe most of the “looters” are local people who would be considered “have-nots”. Incidentally, I will usually not use the term “looters” without quotes, because I think it’s a term specifically used against or for describing Black people by white people, or others, similar to the word “nigger”. That is, instead of saying the niggers are stealing or looting the stores, white people and others, say the “looters” are taking the goods. Most of the “looters” are usually black. White people feel free to say or use the term “looters” because they can use it without being charged with racism or discrimination . That’s just MY perception of the usage of the word or term and why it will usually be in quotes when I use the term. That is, I perceive the term “looters” to be a negative term, specifically meant to describe Black people participating in the stealing of goods during a riot or protest.
I believe the looting done during a riot or protest is usually committed by students, the unemployed, or individuals making no more than $40,000 a year (usually less). These people I would consider “have-nots”. And what happens is the have-nots see an opportunity during the riot to obtain goods that they ordinarily will not have an opportunity to obtain, so they seize on the opportunity. Some of the thieves take the goods out of anger and frustration, and after destroying the property. That is, since we’ve destroyed the store out of anger, and the store is now open, we may as well take the goods, goods that we ordinarily would never be able to afford otherwise.
On the other hand, the haves has no need to loot, they can afford to buy the goods. How many rich Black folks do you catch looting? How many middle class Black folks do you catch looting? I doubt very few if any. How many rich or middle class Black folks do you see rioting, i .e., with violence or destruction? Very few, if any (usually none). Non-violent protest, yes. But violent or destructive protest, none.
So, when it comes to looting during a riot or protest (usually regarding civil rights), it’s a matter of the difference between the haves and the have-nots.
THE SIGNS OF HOPE
There are probably several other signs of hope that others can identify in an effort to eradicate racism or achieve equal rights, but a few stand out for me : (1) The diversity of the rioting or protest crowd—there are all races and colors, and for the most part, there are more white people than black people. *And , multiple nationalities. It is very similar to Dr. King’s march on Washington in 1963. And, while I cannot detect it by looking at the crowd, I believe there are also LGBTQ people who are part of the crowd. And, there are all ages. And, some women pushing strollers with babies; (2) The protest has now gone on for 11 days. That is absolutely encouraging. So, the People are saying, “we’re serious, this is not some meaningless 1-2 day protest, where the establishment can just return to the status quo and continue the racism and discrimination with no changes; and (3) While I don’t remember the state where it occurred, at one point, two officers were subduing a black man during the protest. The man being subdued had his chess to the ground, with two officers present. One of the officers proceeded to place his knee on the black man’s neck, but, the other officer said, “get your knee off of his neck.” They both were white officers. That’s the officer that should be recognized and put on T.V., to tell why he did what he did, and to be recognized. This officer might have saved the man’s life. Had this officer not been there, another officer might have let the other officer continue to leave his knee on the man’s neck. It was on tape, so this should be used by other police departments to show what should be done by observant officers in a similar situation. And, it could be used by the Floyd prosecutors to show what should have been done by the Floyd’s two other officers besides Chauvin who were helping to hold Floyd down (like the officer in this case). I saw it on the Channel 4 news broadcast, and the station was pointing out some of the positive aspects of the protests.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
The government’s brief was due June 15, 2020, but guess what? It wasn’t filed. They requested and received ANOTHER extension of time, to July 15, 2020. The Court granted the City Attorney another extension without allowing me an opportunity to respond to or oppose the “request”. The request is nothing more than a motion, and I should have been given an opportunity to respond before the Court acted on the motion.
So, I objected to the grant of the motion without an opportunity to respond, charging prejudice and bias. I ordinarily would not have a problem agreeing to an extension of time for a good reason. But, here, all the government set forth is the same reason it gave for the first extension, basically, a busy practice or large caseload, which is not sufficient for a second extension, especially for the government with its vast resources. The extension also denies me the right to speedy appeal.
The main argument in my brief is : a judgment of acquittal.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 20, 2020
THE GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF.
The People’s brief was due July 15, 2020. Today is the 20th. But, no brief.
March 18, 2019
(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)
This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California (and the United States).
*Brief explanation regarding the title of the Blog: The blog is entitled a case of retaliation and vindictive prosecution because I believe that the primary purpose in the City filing a criminal complaint against me under the circumstances of the matters involved was because I have filed multiple criminal complaints against various public officials in L.A. City and County, and the criminal complaint filed against me by the City (which is a relative of the County, and the federal government for that matter) is simply in retaliation for me filing my complaints. Further, the portion of the title dealing with racial animus is based on my belief that the Complaint is based, at least in part, on the fact that I am a Black male who brought criminal complaints against mostly white officials, and on the fact that I am a Black male (as opposed to a Black female) residing in Los Angeles City and County.
On February 27th, 2019, I was arraigned on a MISDEMEANOR charge of violating a restraining order (secured by my sister) by the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles. I pleaded NOT GUILTY, requested a jury trial, was released on my own personal recognizance, and was placed under a protective order (for my sister). The original permanent restraining order should not have been granted in the first place, for lack of sufficient facts and circumstances warranting a restraining order. But, nevertheless , it was. But, the City's attempt at prosecuting me for violating that restraining order or any other restraining order related thereto, e.g., renewal of the restraining order, is nothing more than retaliation for my filing criminal complaints against various public officials, including County officials, whom the City is a relative of. The Complaint is also vindictive, for the same reason. The main restraining order in question is already being appealed civilly, so there was no need for the City to charge me criminally before a decision was reached in the civil matter (unless the city knows something that I don't know). Also, there's a strategic reason why the government decided to charge me with a misdemeanor rather than a felony. It knows and I know. I'll discuss it with you at a later time.
This blog will follow my prosecution by the City for criminal violation of the restraining order. For all readers who do not know, I am a Black male federal *civil rights attorney residing in the city and county of Los Angeles, California.
The next scheduled proceeding is pretrial, where one of the matters to be addressed will be my motion to proceed pro se, or self representation. Currently, I am represented by the Public Defender's Office.
UPDATE--March 21, 2019
The pretrial hearing was convened. I was allowed to proceed pro se, but the judge denied the motion for appointment of advisory counsel or co-counsel, and advised that the denial was without prejudice to move again later. So, the public defender was released from representation, after I was informed-advised concerning the pitfalls of proceeding pro se by the judge. I informed the judge that I would be filing at least one motion prior to trial, or pretrial. So the judge set at a date for the hearing of the motion(s). The next hearing is scheduled for : April 16, 2019, 8:30 a.m., courtroom 52 at the criminal court building on Temple Street in L.A. , CA. My P.D., prior to her release, requested any outstanding discovery from the government. Finally, the judge,Francis Bennett, presided over the matters. It's too early for me to make a fair assessment of judge Bennett's fairness. Nothing during the proceedings provided me with any indication of his fairness, one way or the other.
More next time.
UPDATE--May 19, 2019
At the last hearing, April 16, 2019, there were two of my motions before the court, a motion to suppress (based on the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments) and a motion to dismiss based on , among other things, lack of probable cause to prosecute me. Although the motion to suppress called for an evidentiary showing, there was no evidence submitted at the hearing. So I told the judge that at the next hearing I wanted evidence to be produced.
The judge denied the motion to suppress, without providing reasons that I understood, and without prejudice to amending it. The judge had offered some information from a jury instruction manual that he had, and as it turned out, some of the notes to the jury instruction provided valuable information, including a new theory for my motion to suppress. The hearing ended with the judge suggesting that I amend the motion to suppress and he also directed that the parties submit a memorandum on the legality of modification of a restraining order (I had earlier stated that the Commissioner did not have authority to modify the restraining order without a motion from the non-restrained party or my sister, Dianne Jackson. The government also turned over a DVD disc of a police body cam, when the police went to my mother's house in responding to a 911 call by my sister. Initially, the government had refused to provide me with one. Also, the judge allowed the government to file a motion for a protective order, and have it heard and decided without my having had an opportunity to respond in writing, even though the government had had an opportunity to file it earlier. I moved to strike the motion as being untimely, and without my having a meaningful opportunity to respond. The judge denied my motion, and subsequently granted the government's motion. So, there is a protective order in place for the information on the body cam video. *I think the protective order is illegal and unconstitutional.
THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO MY MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MOTION TO DISMISS
The next hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2019. At this hearing, when the judge called up my case, he said that he would be unable to get to it, so he re-scheduled the hearing for another day, May 24th, 2019. In the meantime, before dispersing, I reminded the judge that he had ordered both parties to file a memorandum regarding modifying a restraining order by the May 15th hearing, but the government had not done so. Nor had the government provided a response to either of my motions. Therefore, I argued that because of the government's action or non-action in not producing responses to my motions or the memorandum as ordered that the court should decide the motions on my papers alone. The judge, Bennett, said that he would note my objections. In essence, giving the City Attorney's Office (CAO) ANOTHER opportunity to respond to my motions and to submit a memorandum.
Also, at the May 15th hearing, or appearance, I submitted an "amended" motion to suppress, whereby I added an alternative claim of a collateral attack on the constitutionality of the amended restraining order issued by Comm. A. Veronica Sauceda. And, it is this alternative charge which REQUIRES dismissal of the Complaint. And, this alternative charge arises from the information from the jury instruction law which was referred by judge Bennett himself. See, infra.
THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW
Unless the City Attorney's Office can come up with a memorandum of LAW which states that a judge can modify a restraining order without a stipulation between the parties or a motion from one of the parties to a restraining order, the criminal complaint must be dismissed, as a matter of law, based on an illegal order being utilized to prosecute me.
And, it is judge Bennett's referral which provided me with the law that dictates dismissal of the Complaint. That law states that use of an illegal or unconstitutional restraining order is a defense to a charge of violation of a restraining order. And, the restraining order in my case is both illegal and unconstitutional.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 24th, 2019, at 8:30 am , Department (courtroom) #52.
Let's see if the L.A. Times cover it.
UPDATE--May 28, 2019
The May 24th hearing was convened as scheduled, but again, there was no real hearing on the merits of the motions. Once again, judge Bennett found another reason not to rule on the pending motions. This time, he claims that he wanted to know for himself the status of a civil appeal that is pending regarding the restraining order which is the subject of both matters, civil and criminal. However, I told him the status, and, additionally, he could find out the status by pulling the record of the appeal. And, I question whether it would be appropriate for him to reach outside the record of the criminal case to DECIDE the criminal case. And, after he asked me the status of the civil case, and I told him, he apparently didn't believe me, and insisted that he needed to know for himself. Anyway, there was no ruling on the two pending motions, to suppress and to dismiss (although the motion to dismiss included as a basis, sec. 1385, which allows the court to dismiss a case on his own motion). Therefore, judge Bennett set the matter over for trial. But, because of Superior Court procedure, the motion to suppress must be decided before trial, and on the same day of the scheduled trial. So that if the motion is denied, the trial process will begin immediately thereafter. So, the motion is set to be heard on June 5th, in Courtroom #56. Further, Bennett assigned a stand-by counsel, without a request from me, I made it clear that I was not requesting a stand-by counsel, so that taxpayers could save their money (and I made this point at an earlier proceeding where Bennett sought to appoint a stand-by counsel in view of my not desiring one).
Now, since it appears I am finished with Bennett, I have enough information and/or experience to make an adequate assessment of whether he is a fair judge or not. Judge Bennett is NOT a fair judge. Why? :
1. Right to Counsel
The Sixth amendment guarantees a defendant a right to "assistance of counsel" in a criminal case. I decided to proceed pro se, so I waived the first layer legal "right" to appointment of counsel for all purposes. However, notwithstanding waiver of the legal right to counsel, the law provides a pro se defendant with a DISCRETIONARY right to counsel per discretion of the court.
I requested this discretionary right to counsel from judge Bennett. There are various types of discretionary counsel that can be appointed by a judge, e.g., co-counsel, advisory counsel, and stand-by counsel. Of the three types, the only ones that could provide me with "assistance", per the Constitution, were co-counsel and advisory counsel. And, the one that was "useless" and could not provide me with any "assistance" was(is) stand-by counsel. This is so because stand-by counsel does ONLY just that, stand-by in case a defendant wants to discontinue proceeding pro se and have the stand-by counsel step in and conduct trial proceedings for the pro se person . I requested co-counsel or advisory counsel, counsel that could actually "assist" me with the case. Judge Bennett denied appointment of either one. But, he was willing to appoint stand-by counsel; the counsel that would be absolutely useless to me because I made it clear to the judge that I would not be relinquishing my pro se role. So, he calls in a stand-by counsel and had to turn him away, because I told the judge it would be a waste of taxpayers money to have him make appearances.
So, the BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Judge Bennett had the choice to appoint counsel that could actually assist me or appoint counsel that was useless and could not assist me. He chose the latter. Advisory counsel is nothing more than stand-by counsel who can also provide information and advice.
2. Government Protective Order
The government filed a written motion, based on cited cases, and had Bennett hear, decide, and grant the motion the same day that I received the motion (the day of the hearing on all motions) from the City Attorney's Office. The motion was a motion for a protective order for a body cam CD that the City Attorney had to turn over to me in discovery. I moved to strike the motion based on it being untimely and the fact that I did not have an opportunity to respond to the motion in writing (with legal cases or other law). Bennett denied the motion, and thereafter, granted the government's motion (even though the government had had time to file the motion in a timely manner, giving me time to oppose the motion in writing.
I believe the protective order is both illegal and unconstitutional. I agreed to sign it because I would not have had the CD available for the hearing without doing so, which hearing did not properly take place anyway.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Judge Bennett heard , decided, and granted a motion that was physically served on me the same day (in court at the hearing) that he granted the motion.
3. Ordered Memorandum
Bennett ordered or directed the parties to submit a memorandum on the legality of the modification of a restraining order (which, if this matter goes to trial, I will submit as evidence of the illegality of the restraining order used to prosecute me with). The memorandum was ordered or directed to be produced by both parties by the May 15th hearing date. I produced the memorandum as ordered or directed. The City Attorney did not. The judge did not criticize or comment on the government's failure to produce the document in any way. I pointed this out to the judge near the end of what was supposed to be a hearing on a motion to suppress and motion to dismiss the case. The judge purportedly denied the motion to suppress, and never reached the motion to dismiss. So, in essence, the government was granted additional time to file the memorandum. Also, although I didn't formally move, I stated that the court should decide the motions based on my papers alone, since the City Attorney provided no opposition to my motions, nor provided a memorandum that would dispute mine, which pointed to the illegality of the restraining order. I can't recall Bennett's response, but, it certainly was not an agreement to do so.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and unfairness): Even though the City Attorney violated the judge's order or directive to produce a memorandum, the judge took no action against him. Even though the City Attorney filed no written oppositions to my motions, the judge took no action in view of this. And, he could have. He could have made a ruling on the motion to dismiss (on the merits) based on my papers alone. From my understanding now of court procedure, Bennett couldn't rule on the motion to suppress anyway. It had to be ruled on at the time set for the trial date.
4. The May 24th Hearing Regarding the Motions and Memorandum
At the May 24th hearing, on my AMENDED motion to suppress (where I added a collateral attack on the constitutionality of the "Amended" restraining order used to prosecute me with) and the motion to dismiss, as I alluded to earlier in this blog, judge Bennett refused to rule on either motion, relying on the civil appeal of the restraining order as his basis for not ruling.
Further, the City Attorney again failed to produce the memorandum and failed to oppose my motions. Again, Bennett said nothing about it. So, after TWO opportunities to do so, the government failed to oppose my motions or produce the memorandum, yet, Bennett refused to discipline or sanction the government in any way for its misconduct, i.e., not producing the memorandum as ordered.
I objected to Bennett not ruling on the motions, especially, the motion to dismiss, which he clearly could have ruled on. Also, Bennett inquired of the City Attorney of any "offer" that was on the table, and the deputy City Attorney recounted some offerings. I didn't really pay attention because as I told the judge immediately thereafter, there would be NO DEAL (because I'm INNOCENT).
Finally, Bennett, again, appointed a stand-by counsel, without a request for one from me. It clearly is not for my protection or to protect my rights, or to assist in my defense, because if it was, he would have appointed an advisory counsel, at least. So, for the second time, judge Bennett had the choice of appointing a counsel who could truly assist me and one who would be useless to me. He, again, chose the counsel who would be useless to me.
THE BOTTOMLINE (and the unfairness) : Judge Bennett had a duty to rule on the motion to dismiss at least, and he didn't. I believe the civil appeal excuse was simply a subterfuge for not ruling. I believe the failure to rule on the motion to dismiss was also a violation of my due process rights, whether the ruling would have resulted in dismissal or not. But, clearly, if it would have resulted in dismissal, and I believe it would have, it would be a due process violation because the dismissal would preclude the need for a jury trial. And, this would be especially important for a pro se litigant who would be faced with the awkwardness of examining himself, as well as other irregularities.
5. At the close of the hearing, Bennett cited a case to the deputy city attorney, not to me, in preparation for the upcoming hearing on the motion to suppress. First of all, if it was appropriate to cite any case for the upcoming hearing on the motion to suppress, he had to cite the case to or inform BOTH parties of the case, in order to be fair and impartial. Secondly, Bennett did not do so. Rather, he specifically said the deputy's name and cited the case to her.
CONCLUSION : Judge Bennett is not a fair judge, rather, he is a pro-Government judge. Therefore, he, necessarily, is likely not to be fair and impartial to ordinary, non-governmental citizens, or defense counsel. This opinion or conclusion is based on my case alone. I did not know of judge Bennett before my case.
The next scheduled hearing is the hearing on the motion to suppress, set on the day of trial if the motion is denied : June 5th, 2019, courtroom #56, at 8:30 am.
The motion to suppress should be granted as a matter of law, based on the same case that Bennett referred to the deputy city attorney. I cited this case in my AMENDED motion to suppress, and apparently judge Bennett perceived that the City Attorney (or deputy city attorney) had not read the amended motion (which the city attorney did not respond to), so he felt it was necessary to inform the deputy CA of the case, because it will be controlling, along with another case pulled from the jury instructions that judge Bennett referred BOTH counsel to.
More next time.
UPDATE--June 8, 2019
THE MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Well, the motions were heard before Judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet, a black female judge. Both motions were denied. As it turned out, the emphasis I had placed on the case judge Bennett had referred to the deputy City Attorney, and I had relied on in a memorandum, was not discussed, because judge Guillemet, who I was not familiar with prior to the hearing, side-stepped the issue of the legality of the restraining order (which I brought to her attention after her decision to deny the motions--it may have been off the record). Her decisions denying the motions were generally based on her overall conclusion that my constitutional rights were not violated because I had received fair notice of the RENEWAL of the restraining order "hearing" (not the actual "order"--the hearing), and, relying on an UNTIMELY filed opposition by the city attorney (CA) (it was served on me physically at the hearing, and had been e-mailed the previous day, which I discovered in late evening) because I was aware that a request for an extension of the yardage (from 2 yards to 200 yards) had been requested by the victim, my sister, Dianne Jackson, in her request for renewal application,and therefore, when the Commissioner, A. Veronica Sauceda, increased the yardage at the renewal hearing, I had had notice (and a hearing--the renewal hearing) that the yardage could be increased. If I remember correctly, the judge read from the transcript of the renewal hearing (which had been attached to the CA's untimely opposition)noting judge Sauceda's assertions that she was increasing the yardage to 100 yards. NOTE: For full disclosure, I admit that I did not object to the government's opposition being considered, and I should have (as I did with its belated protective order motion at an earlier proceeding), so the judge was permitted to consider it (although she could have questioned it and asked if I had a problem with it--that also would have been appropriate. But that required a display of impartiality) .
Here are some points I believe were not addressed and should have been (and I will state "I believe" because although I am recalling matters as I remember them, the "true" transcript may differ with my recall) in the court's decision :
1. Although I raised specific grounds for my motions, the court did not address those specific grounds in her decision (although she recounted those grounds prior to her decision).
2. Although I specifically raised the issue of the constitutionality of the restraining order used to prosecute me with, as I recall, the judge did not provide an answer to this question : whether the final restraining order was constitutional or not ? This is what the referred case from judge Bennett was all about. Judge Guillemet did not answer that question in her decision.
3. I took the witness stand and testified at the hearing, under oath, and stated that I did not receive the order and was not aware of the order used to prosecute me. But, notwithstanding this testimony, the judge did not address it in her decision to deny the motions. That testimony went SPECIFICALLY to my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to due process of law, that is, NOTICE AND A HEARING regarding the Order used to prosecute me.
NOTE: The government waived its right to cross-examine me at the hearing. How often does the government waive the right to cross-examine a defendant in criminal trial proceedings?
Another matter to be noted is that the judge cleared her calendar before hearing my case, therefore, my case was heard before an empty courtroom. The same thing happened at judge Bennett's last hearing. I interpret the action, even if done for legitimate reasons, e.g., providing sufficient time for a hearing, as a denial of a public hearing.
Also, judge, like judge Bennett, raised the issue of a plea offer, and once again, I said there would be no deal (because I'm INNOCENT). Judge Guillemet added the gamble of going to trial. And, I insisted that I'm going to trial, because I'm innocent of the charge. And, at this time, the government has enough evidence to KNOW that I'm innocent.
Finally, near the end of the hearing, the government submitted a trial brief in anticipation of trial, and contained in that brief is a request for the court to "exclude the Defendant from mentioning or arguing that the restraining order was invalid or unconstitutional as it would be prejudicial to the people's case. . . ." This is basically asking the court to eliminate an element of what the people must prove to find me guilty. It's ridiculous! But, it's basically throwing out a bone to a judge, hopefully an unscrupulous one, hoping that he or she will bite.
Now, the trial is scheduled to begin on June 11, 2019. It must first go to courtroom #56 to be assigned to a court.
At this point, I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial. Why? Because this case should have been dismissed by both judges Bennett and Guillemet, but it wasn't.
I'll provide the actual courtroom and judge when it is assigned.
UPDATE--June 16, 2019
I now have EVEN LESS CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial. Judge Guillemet was assigned to my case and immediately thereafter, I submitted a form 170 to disqualify her from hearing my case on the basis of BIAS. My understanding was that a party had an automatic right to a first disqualification, but, I am not a California lawyer. Anyway, judge Guillemet denied my request or right and presided over the trial. At that point, I knew that I wouldn't receive a fair trial, and I didn't. I will research the 170 request later to get a better understanding of the right and requirements, but, the bottomline is once I was assigned Guillemet as my judge, I KNEW I would not receive a fair trial. And, I DIDN'T.
BREAKING NEWS : This was the most OUTRAGEOUS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL jury trial I've ever experienced as a lawyer or as a citizen observing jury trials in my 30 years of practice as a lawyer.
For example, I moved for judgment of acquittal after the government's case-in-chief. That motion is required to be heard in open court in the absence of the jury. Over my objection, judge Guillemet heard and decided the motion during a bench conference she called.
I won't go into detail at this time regarding other matters. But, detail will come.
But, I want to make clear, my charge of outrageous and unconstitutional actions are only assigned to the court and court actors, NOT the jury. But, court rulings can effect the jury's decision. Whether they will or not, we'll see. If I'm found guilty, they did.
The jury has begun deliberations.
Whatever the outcome, I will be contacting my federal senator, Kamala Harris. And, remember, she is a former prosecutor. So, she knows what takes place in a criminal jury trial, and she knows what actions are or can be unconstitutional or outright illegal.
Jury deliberations continue on Monday, July 16, at 9:30 am , Courtroom #53.
UPDATE--July 10, 2019
I'm back. Down but not out. I've waited to inform you of the verdict because other matters were involved, such as a writ of mandate to stay sentencing and grant me a judgment of acquittal.
Anyway, I was found guilty by the "jury". But, as I told you previously, if I was found guilty, it was because of the court rulings. In essence, the "jury" was the prosecutor and the judge, who, together, collaborated to produce the verdict. For instance, I moved the judge to appoint co-counsel or advisory counsel. The prosecutor, Susan Kolahi, at the BENCH (another bench conference--denying me a public trial), states that another judge has already denied me appointment of counsel (even though that judge denied the request without prejudice to bringing it again). The judge then says she will take it under advisement. She then comes back and says "I'm denying the motion because another judge has already denied the motion." (if not the exact language, paraphrased).
This verdict was a product of dishonesty, criminality, and racism (which includes gender discrimination). And, keep in mind, this is just one case. Do you really believe I am the only Black man to have experienced this? Not hardly! That's why, at least in part, Black men and other minorities fill California prisons. And, I am a lawyer. Think about what happens to the young Black men who know nothing about the law (even those represented by public defenders). In the meantime though, some of the conduct of the prosecutor and the judge amounts to misconduct, and they will likely have to deal with other agencies regarding the conduct. At least one act of misconduct will be grounds for reversal of the conviction.
But, moving on, at the sentencing, the judge ordered that I attend mental health classes. So, what's the basis for it? If anything, my sister is the one who should be ordered to attend mental health classes, which was supported by her emotional statement at sentencing. But, this order of attending mental health classes directed to me as a Black male is similar to the racism and discrimination exercised against the young Black males in the school systems, where they are placed in special education classes in disproportionate amounts, without valid reasons. So, the judge's order is clearly a case of gender discrimination with a mixture of racial consideration as well, i.e., a Black male, or racism directed against a Black male. And, the judge should be aware of the situations in primary and secondary schools where the discrimination against Black males has been found, and thereafter, incorporate those findings in her decision to order mental health classes to a Black attorney with no history of mental health or emotional problems.
Prior to sentencing, I petitioned the Appellate Division for a writ of mandate to suppress the illegal restraining order and to order a judgment of acquittal, and for a stay sentencing pending a decision. The Appellate Division did not order a stay, clearly, and has yet to decide the petition. So, you see what's happening here. And, the writ decision should have been decided before an appeal. I've now filed a notice of appeal. This is the California justice system for Black males.
More next time.
UPDATE--February 19, 2020
In the meantime, I completed sentencing conditions ordered by the judge, but I'm still awaiting a clarification from the judge herself. The actual completion of the conditions ordered by judge Guillemet was accepted and certified by judge Victoria Wilson, in the absence of judge
Guillemet who is off of the bench presently, for some reason, until March, apparently.
MY APPEAL
First, I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a FAIR appeal. I am a Black male, proceeding pro se, and I've charged the Appellate Division with misconduct regarding prior proceedings before. See, infra. I had NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair trial, and I didn't receive one; and I have NO CONFIDENCE in receiving a fair appeal. And, one reason for my position has already been supported from the outset of the appellate process, i.e., motions. See, infra. The only way that I cannot prevail on appeal is for my appeal to be as unfair as my trial. There are multiple reversible errors.
I've now received a Record on Appeal after months of postponements. Initially, I requested the appointment of counsel, but that request went well beyond the 30 days that were required for the appointment to be made, so I withdrew my request in order to obtain the transcripts of the jury "trial" myself. So, I proceeded as a pro se Defendant, and, after months of postponements, was issued the Record (including Clerk's transcripts) and trial transcripts. I also received the briefing schedule. Thereafter, I moved the Appellate Division for an extension of time to file a brief, production of pre-trial transcripts, which were not included with the trial transcripts (and I thought they would be), and appointment of counsel. In an order acting on the three(3) separate motions, the Appellate Division granted an extension of time until my appellate counsel received the Record and transcripts (and request further time for briefing), DENIED my motion for production of the pre-trial transcripts--even though a California Court Rule REQUIRES the production of transcripts by the court reporter for ALL motions brought by a defendant in a CRIMINAL case (and most of the pre-trial matters surrounded pre-trial motions, e.g., motions to suppress and to dismiss; and granted the appointment of counsel (naming an attorney with a Hollywood office). But, get this : after denying my motion for pre-trial transcripts, without prejudice, the Court then offered that the newly appointed counsel could augment the Record (apparently with pre-trial transcripts or some other matter)(with the Court indirectly suggesting that counsel could request the transcripts, have the request granted, and thereafter, augment the Record with the transcripts). Is that discrimination or what? I think so. But, you be the judge. However, I've charged the Appellate Division with discriminating against me before. At least one basis has been that the Appellate Division refused to follow California Supreme Court precedent in order to deny me relief (regarding an unlawful detainer matter) .
The Appellate Division has now appointed counsel. Let's see what happens.
Keep in mind that one purpose of this blog is to reveal how the criminal "justice" system works for poor, Black male defendants, especially (which is most times) when the case is unreported by the L.A. Times or other media (which is the case for most Black male defendants). If the L.A. Times was really interested in promoting fairness in California's criminal "justice" system, this is the very type of case it would cover and promote to demonstrate the unfairness and/or discrimination in the system, so that the criminal "justice" system, through exposure, might be improved.
More next time.
UPDATE--March 14, 2020
JUDGE VICTORIA B. WILSON : ANOTHER RARE FAIR JUDGE IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT SYSTEM
Before I go forward with information about my appeal, I want to take this time to recognize and applaud the efforts of judge Victoria B. Wilson. My first impression of Judge Wilson is that she is a fair judge. A rare thing in the L.A. Superior Court, from my experiences.
After I completed mental health hours ordered by judge Guillemet , I decided that I wouldn't wait until the scheduled time for me to appear before judge Guillemet to reveal the completion of the mental health hours, rather, I decided that I would go in earlier and get it over with. So, I appeared one day at the courthouse and asked to be put on judge Guillemet's calendar, expecting to see and appear before judge Guillemet. But, surprisingly, judge Guillemet wasn't there, and her cases had been transferred to courtroom #51 , the courtroom of judge Wilson. So, I decided to allow judge Wilson to decide the matter, upon submission of the proof of completion. I'm glad I did. Otherwise, I would not have had the opportunity of appearing before another fair judge in the Superior Court system.
Judge Wilson, in her fairness, offered me a period of extended relief, which I ultimately mistakenly declined, which would have allowed me a greater period of time within which to complete 100 hours of community service (which was ordered by judge Guillemet ). But, what the judge showed me was that she was looking out for me, as a Black male, pro se defendant, more than I was looking out for myself, and that she was looking out for me BETTER than I was looking out for myself.
Here's the deal, once judge Wilson had confirmed the completion of the mental health hours, she turned to my community service hours due. She recognized and revealed that judge Guillemet had stayed my completion of the community service hours pending completion of the mental health hours; and pursuant to that revelation, she OFFERED me a year to complete my community service hours. I declined. I told her that as I recalled, judge Guillemet had stayed the completion of the community service hours pending appeal ( and I, in my confused state, believed that somehow that period of time would be longer or unnecessary). I was wrong. Judge Guillemet did not stay completion of the community service hours pending "APPEAL", she only stayed them pending completion of the community service hours, see infra. So, I would live to regret not accepting judge Wilson's offer. But, the important thing is that judge Wilson, in her wisdom and fairness, had viewed the entire scenario and determined that the FAIR thing to do was to give me a year to complete the community service. In that way, that time period would generally cover the time pending appeal as well as the appeal (with a positive outcome, it would preclude a requirement to perform the community service). But, again, I, in my confused state, declined the offer. I believe this is one appearance where assistance of counsel would have caused a different outcome. I really didn't come prepared for judge Wilson's offer (I had come expecting to appear before judge Guillemet) . Effective counsel would have persuaded me to accept the offer. But, THANKS JUDGE WILSON for the FAIRNESS, and for looking out for me (as I believe you would have done for any other defendant in my position). *Thanks for being a fair judge and, NECESSARILY, for being a GOOD judge. One cannot be a good judge without being a fair *one.
JUDGE GUILLEMET'S RULING
With my decline of Judge Wilson's offer of a year to complete the community service, I kept a calendar date with judge Guillemet . I continued my argument to judge Guillemet that I believed that her decision was to stay the completion of the community service hours pending appeal. I was WRONG. I had forgotten that I had the transcript of my oral stay motion in the appellate record supplied by the court (which indicated that the stay was NOT pending appeal), so I requested the court to postpone her decision on performing the community service hours until I could review the transcript. She declined. So, she ordered me to perform the 100 hours of community service hours in 3 months, not a year (as offered by judge Wilson). So, I will have completed the community service even if my conviction is reversed and I am acquitted. Judge Guillemet's decision accentuates judge Wilson's fairness.
More next time.
UPDATE—May 27, 2020
MY APPEAL : APPOINTED COUNSEL
This was short-lived. I discovered that the procedure with appointed counsel is that appointed counsel, usually without consultation with the defendant, peruse the record to determine if there are any appealable issues. And, if he or she finds that there are no appealable issues, he or she can request to withdraw after determining that the appeal lacks merit or is frivolous, and thereafter, the appellate court can also determine whether the appeal is meritorious or frivolous,and , ultimately, could dismiss the appeal, without even conferring with the defendant. A so-called “Anders” appointment of counsel and appeal, from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Anders v. California. However, the defendant, somewhere during the process might get the opportunity to file a pro se brief, if he is persistent.
Once I discovered the destiny of my appeal could and probably would be determined by appellate counsel and the court without my input, I knew I would be proceeding pro se, because I knew that wasn’t going to happen, especially where I conducted my own trial and would be in the best position to offer the initial opinion as to what errors occurred (particularly with me being a lawyer).
Thus, I am proceeding pro se on appeal.
I have now filed my opening brief. The city attorney’s brief is due June 15, 2020.
THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD IN MINNESOTA
There’s nothing more to say. This was second degree murder. Clearly!
More next time.
UPDATE—June 1, 2020
THE GEORGE FLOYD RIOTERS, OR PROTESTERS, ARE RIOTING FOR “ME TOO” : THANKS BROTHERS AND SISTERS
The George Floyd rioters , nationwide, but especially in California and Los Angeles County, are rioting for me too, as a Black male residing in Los Angeles County. The white police or law enforcement officer, Derek Chauvin, represents the white government officials in my case, and in the case of other similarly-situated Black males in the County. While Chauvin’s knee was literally on the neck of Floyd, the government officials’ knees , in my case, have been “figuratively” on my neck. While Chavin’s actions caused Floyd’s death, the ultimate harm (second degree murder), the white officials’ actions in my case caused homelessness, poverty, pain and suffering (emotional), and deprivation of constitutional rights. Other Black males in L.A. County have suffered the same or similar damage or harm. Floyd’s death occurred on the streets of Minnesota; my injuries occurred in the courts of California. Finally, the cause or source of Floyd’s death (or injuries in my case) was racial discrimination or racism. Mine was too. When Chavin kneeled on Floyd’s neck causing Floyd’s death, Chauvin, to my knowledge, didn’t call Floyd a “nigger”. The officials in my case didn’t call me one either. But, in both cases, it wasn’t necessary. Action speaks louder than words.
Thank you my young brothers and sisters. I am an O.G. now, so you must carry the torch. It is you who will change this racist country, one way or the other.
Why Second Degree Murder
There are two things that I observed on the video that causes Floyd’s murder to be second degree murder : (1) As Chauvin was holding his knee on Floyd’s neck, he had his hand in his pocket, very nonchalantly , as if he was taking a smoke break at work. It was a complete disregard for Floyd’s life. (2) At one point, Floyd not only said “I can’t breathe”, but, he said “I can’t breathe, officer”. So, even as he was dying, he continued to show respect for Chauvin, as a police officer, who is supposed to “protect” and serve. But, in view of this, Chauvin continued to leisurely keep his knee on Floyd’s neck, totally disregarding the fact that Floyd was a human being, not an animal, e.g., like a cowboy roping a steer or maybe a pig, or some other animal, begging for his life.
Peaceful Protest Versus Violence
Do you really believe Chauvin would have been fired and, subsequently , arrested and charged with murder (in a span of a few days after the video was exposed) without the violence? I don’t think so. The only one who would have had a ghost of a chance of pulling that off is M.L.K., and as you know, he’s not around anymore.
The Cause Of The Damage And/Or Destruction To Property Or Loss Of Property
While I feel for the businesses which have suffered losses due to the theft of property, ESPECIALLY the small businesses, the businesses need to look to the real cause of the problem, i.e., racism. To simplify the matter , I’ll borrow from negligence law. While the so-called “looters” may be the cause—in-fact, the racism is the proximate cause. That is, but for the discrimination or racism exercised against Floyd, which resulted in his death, the so-called “looters” would not have been there to “loot” in the first place. The racism caused the demonstrations, protests, or riots, which were composed of groups which included the “looters”; and the “looters” thereafter, stole property from the businesses. The bottomline : If Floyd was not racially murdered, there would not have been any protests or riots; and if there weren’t any protests or riots, which drew and were composed of “looters”, there would not have been any theft of property by the “looters”.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 6, 2020
THE RIOTERS/PROTESTERS—-DAY 11 : THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR HAVING MY BACK
I am so proud of all of you. Young and old, black, white, brown, yellow, and red. Change is coming. In fact, there has already been some changes : elimination of the chokehold as a method of apprehending citizens, and requiring observant officers to intervene to prevent harm to a citizen or arrestee in certain jurisdictions.
THE “LOOTERS” : A MATTER OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS
Discounting the few professional thieves , who actually attend a protest for the specific purpose of stealing goods, I believe most of the “looters” are local people who would be considered “have-nots”. Incidentally, I will usually not use the term “looters” without quotes, because I think it’s a term specifically used against or for describing Black people by white people, or others, similar to the word “nigger”. That is, instead of saying the niggers are stealing or looting the stores, white people and others, say the “looters” are taking the goods. Most of the “looters” are usually black. White people feel free to say or use the term “looters” because they can use it without being charged with racism or discrimination . That’s just MY perception of the usage of the word or term and why it will usually be in quotes when I use the term. That is, I perceive the term “looters” to be a negative term, specifically meant to describe Black people participating in the stealing of goods during a riot or protest.
I believe the looting done during a riot or protest is usually committed by students, the unemployed, or individuals making no more than $40,000 a year (usually less). These people I would consider “have-nots”. And what happens is the have-nots see an opportunity during the riot to obtain goods that they ordinarily will not have an opportunity to obtain, so they seize on the opportunity. Some of the thieves take the goods out of anger and frustration, and after destroying the property. That is, since we’ve destroyed the store out of anger, and the store is now open, we may as well take the goods, goods that we ordinarily would never be able to afford otherwise.
On the other hand, the haves has no need to loot, they can afford to buy the goods. How many rich Black folks do you catch looting? How many middle class Black folks do you catch looting? I doubt very few if any. How many rich or middle class Black folks do you see rioting, i .e., with violence or destruction? Very few, if any (usually none). Non-violent protest, yes. But violent or destructive protest, none.
So, when it comes to looting during a riot or protest (usually regarding civil rights), it’s a matter of the difference between the haves and the have-nots.
THE SIGNS OF HOPE
There are probably several other signs of hope that others can identify in an effort to eradicate racism or achieve equal rights, but a few stand out for me : (1) The diversity of the rioting or protest crowd—there are all races and colors, and for the most part, there are more white people than black people. *And , multiple nationalities. It is very similar to Dr. King’s march on Washington in 1963. And, while I cannot detect it by looking at the crowd, I believe there are also LGBTQ people who are part of the crowd. And, there are all ages. And, some women pushing strollers with babies; (2) The protest has now gone on for 11 days. That is absolutely encouraging. So, the People are saying, “we’re serious, this is not some meaningless 1-2 day protest, where the establishment can just return to the status quo and continue the racism and discrimination with no changes; and (3) While I don’t remember the state where it occurred, at one point, two officers were subduing a black man during the protest. The man being subdued had his chess to the ground, with two officers present. One of the officers proceeded to place his knee on the black man’s neck, but, the other officer said, “get your knee off of his neck.” They both were white officers. That’s the officer that should be recognized and put on T.V., to tell why he did what he did, and to be recognized. This officer might have saved the man’s life. Had this officer not been there, another officer might have let the other officer continue to leave his knee on the man’s neck. It was on tape, so this should be used by other police departments to show what should be done by observant officers in a similar situation. And, it could be used by the Floyd prosecutors to show what should have been done by the Floyd’s two other officers besides Chauvin who were helping to hold Floyd down (like the officer in this case). I saw it on the Channel 4 news broadcast, and the station was pointing out some of the positive aspects of the protests.
More next time.
UPDATE—June 27, 2020
The government’s brief was due June 15, 2020, but guess what? It wasn’t filed. They requested and received ANOTHER extension of time, to July 15, 2020. The Court granted the City Attorney another extension without allowing me an opportunity to respond to or oppose the “request”. The request is nothing more than a motion, and I should have been given an opportunity to respond before the Court acted on the motion.
So, I objected to the grant of the motion without an opportunity to respond, charging prejudice and bias. I ordinarily would not have a problem agreeing to an extension of time for a good reason. But, here, all the government set forth is the same reason it gave for the first extension, basically, a busy practice or large caseload, which is not sufficient for a second extension, especially for the government with its vast resources. The extension also denies me the right to speedy appeal.
The main argument in my brief is : a judgment of acquittal.
More next time.
UPDATE—July 20, 2020
THE GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF.
The People’s brief was due July 15, 2020. Today is the 20th. But, no brief.
UPDATE—July 31, 2020
Now, since the government has failed to file a brief, I have filed a motion asking the Court to decide the case based on my opening brief and other matters, as a sanction for the government’s failure to file a brief.
More next time.
UPDATE—August 11, 2020.
With a little maneuvering , the City Attorney has obtained more time to file his brief. After I filed my motion for the court to rely on my opening brief , etc., to decide the appeal, the Appellate Division has now ruled that the city attorney is now in default, and thereafter, gave the government 30 more days to file its brief, or until August 21, 2020. So, the longer I would have waited to file the motion, the more time the government would have received to file its brief. Even though, the Court, on its own, could have *and should have entered the default the day after the brief was due, and allowed the 30 days thereafter. The brief then would have been due about a week earlier.
More next time.
UPDATE—August 28, 2020
The government has now filed its brief. I now have an opportunity to reply if I chose to. So , the government was given 60 days after its first extension to file its brief. *After the government finally filed its brief, the Appellate Division denied my motion for the court to decide the case on my brief alone—even though without my motion, we might still be waiting. Moreover, my motion preceded any finding of default, and should have been acted upon, precluding a finding of default. The only way the government could have gotten around the motion was to file its brief as a response to my motion. But, the government got help. Can you see where this appeal is going?
KUDOS TO THE PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PLAYERS AND/OR TEAMS OF THE VARIOUS SPORTS, e.g., NBA, MLB, NFL, WNBA, *NHL, MLS, AND INCLUDING NAOMI OSAKA (TENNIS) FOR BOYCOTTING THE GAMES AT LEAST FOR A COUPLE OF GAMES, IF NOT MORE, IN RESPONSE TO THE POLICE SHOOTING OF THE BLACK JACOB BLAKE IN WISCONSIN : I’M SO PROUD AND MOVED : IT’S A START (AND NEEDED).
But, let’s be real, after the games continue and are completed (and I take no position as to whether there should have been a boycott of the rest of the entire season—only because it is not my income or livelihood that is at stake—it is the athletes’—*but a boycott of the rest of the season certainly would have presented a greater potential for creating substantial change) the boycott will not be impactful as to causing change in the racism or causing justice for the racist shooting of Jacob Blake. What is needed is for the athletes to use their riches , or fame and fortune, to exact change. In America, money talks. Athletes need to figure out how to use their fame and fortune to fight racism and cause change. And, this boycott is a start.
Nevertheless, the fight against racism in this country , and the defeat of racism in the country, will require we Black Americans altogether , not just athletes, to hold ourselves accountable for doing our part. The sacrifices of the men, women, and *”youngsters“ of the 2020 racial justice Movement *(unlike the men, women, and CHILDREN of the 60’s civil rights movement—what a difference between the Black people of today and the Black people of the 60’s—the 60’s Black people were more courageous and sacrificial ) including the Portland, Ore. rioters or protestors, must be buttressed by the efforts of *UNSELFISH and courageous Black Americans as well, if racism is to be defeated. Otherwise, 50 years from now, we will still be rioting and protesting about police shootings, killings, and murders of Black people *and other forms of institutional and/or systemic racism.
REMEMBERING DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., REP. JOHN LEWIS, AND THE 1963 MARCH ON WASHINGTON. THANKS.
More next time.
UPDATE—September 3, 2020
WHAT DOES CHADWICK BOSEMAN, SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, AND I HAVE IN COMMON ?
We are all graduates of Howard University. I graduated from the Law School.
THE KILLING OF DIJON KIZZEE : ANOTHER SOUTH CENTRAL KILLING OF A BLACK MAN OR LATINO MAN BY POLICE : This time, its FIRST DEGREE MURDER
My assessment is based on news sources and a videotape played on television (the same sources I relied on when I concluded that George Floyd’s killing was SECOND degree murder—while Minnesota officials had only charged the police with third degree murder—the charge was later upgraded to second degree murder). I did consider the allegations : Kizzee hit an officer; Kizzee dropped a gun while running away; and Kizzee made a motion toward the gun.
What puzzles me is that Black Lives Matter started a movement over the killing of George Floyd. But it appears nothing is being done for the killing of Dijon Kizzee. And I think what happened to Kizzee is worse , or at least equal , to what happened to Floyd. What happened to Kizzee is like the police officers running down and finally catching up to a rabid animal. And, thereafter, killing the animal. No one deserves to die that way. Especially over a bicycle violation (purportedly). This was the result of hatred. Racial hatred. The involvement of the gun just gives the police something to hang their hat on in defending their actions. It’s unfortunate for Kizzee that he possessed a gun, IF, in fact he did (and that has to be proven), but that’s no excuse for the way he died , IF he died the way it has been reported (that also has to be proven).
There was a white man in Seal Beach who murdered 8 people at a beauty salon, and he was in possession of a weapon when he was “captured”. He was taken in alive. How many of you think he would have been taken in alive if he was black ? (Especially if the murders had occurred in a South Central beauty salon). But Kizzee wasn’t stopped for a charge of murdering someone, he purportedly was stopped for a bicycle traffic *or code violation. He did not deserve to die the way he died. His Life Mattered.
Black Lives Matter should consider or reconsider advocating for justice on behalf of Dijon Kizzee.
More next time.
UPDATE—September 5, 2020.
THE DIJON KIZZEE MURDER : THE POLICE SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER
While the police in Minnesota were fired and charged with murder or aiding and abetting, I will not offer an opinion regarding the firing of the police in the Kizzee case because I am not familiar enough with the police conduct code giving rise to the conduct necessary for firing an officer (and I choose not to take the time to research it at this time) . However, I believe if the police conduct code in Minnesota was sufficient to fire the police in Minnesota, the *Sheriff Department code would be sufficient to fire the officers in Kizzee’s case. But, again, I will not offer an opinion on the firing aspect. Kizzee has several lawyers that I presume are getting paid, so they can research the code and make a determination . I’ll stick to the criminal charge, because I practice *or am familiar with criminal law, as well as other areas.
While I conclude that the police officers committed first degree murder, they *absolutely should be charged with committing SECOND DEGREE murder, and nothing less.
UPDATE—August 11, 2020.
With a little maneuvering , the City Attorney has obtained more time to file his brief. After I filed my motion for the court to rely on my opening brief , etc., to decide the appeal, the Appellate Division has now ruled that the city attorney is now in default, and thereafter, gave the government 30 more days to file its brief, or until August 21, 2020. So, the longer I would have waited to file the motion, the more time the government would have received to file its brief. Even though, the Court, on its own, could have *and should have entered the default the day after the brief was due, and allowed the 30 days thereafter. The brief then would have been due about a week earlier.
More next time.
UPDATE—August 28, 2020
The government has now filed its brief. I now have an opportunity to reply if I chose to. So , the government was given 60 days after its first extension to file its brief. *After the government finally filed its brief, the Appellate Division denied my motion for the court to decide the case on my brief alone—even though without my motion, we might still be waiting. Moreover, my motion preceded any finding of default, and should have been acted upon, precluding a finding of default. The only way the government could have gotten around the motion was to file its brief as a response to my motion. But, the government got help. Can you see where this appeal is going?
KUDOS TO THE PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PLAYERS AND/OR TEAMS OF THE VARIOUS SPORTS, e.g., NBA, MLB, NFL, WNBA, *NHL, MLS, AND INCLUDING NAOMI OSAKA (TENNIS) FOR BOYCOTTING THE GAMES AT LEAST FOR A COUPLE OF GAMES, IF NOT MORE, IN RESPONSE TO THE POLICE SHOOTING OF THE BLACK JACOB BLAKE IN WISCONSIN : I’M SO PROUD AND MOVED : IT’S A START (AND NEEDED).
But, let’s be real, after the games continue and are completed (and I take no position as to whether there should have been a boycott of the rest of the entire season—only because it is not my income or livelihood that is at stake—it is the athletes’—*but a boycott of the rest of the season certainly would have presented a greater potential for creating substantial change) the boycott will not be impactful as to causing change in the racism or causing justice for the racist shooting of Jacob Blake. What is needed is for the athletes to use their riches , or fame and fortune, to exact change. In America, money talks. Athletes need to figure out how to use their fame and fortune to fight racism and cause change. And, this boycott is a start.
Nevertheless, the fight against racism in this country , and the defeat of racism in the country, will require we Black Americans altogether , not just athletes, to hold ourselves accountable for doing our part. The sacrifices of the men, women, and *”youngsters“ of the 2020 racial justice Movement *(unlike the men, women, and CHILDREN of the 60’s civil rights movement—what a difference between the Black people of today and the Black people of the 60’s—the 60’s Black people were more courageous and sacrificial ) including the Portland, Ore. rioters or protestors, must be buttressed by the efforts of *UNSELFISH and courageous Black Americans as well, if racism is to be defeated. Otherwise, 50 years from now, we will still be rioting and protesting about police shootings, killings, and murders of Black people *and other forms of institutional and/or systemic racism.
REMEMBERING DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., REP. JOHN LEWIS, AND THE 1963 MARCH ON WASHINGTON. THANKS.
More next time.
UPDATE—September 3, 2020
WHAT DOES CHADWICK BOSEMAN, SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, AND I HAVE IN COMMON ?
We are all graduates of Howard University. I graduated from the Law School.
THE KILLING OF DIJON KIZZEE : ANOTHER SOUTH CENTRAL KILLING OF A BLACK MAN OR LATINO MAN BY POLICE : This time, its FIRST DEGREE MURDER
My assessment is based on news sources and a videotape played on television (the same sources I relied on when I concluded that George Floyd’s killing was SECOND degree murder—while Minnesota officials had only charged the police with third degree murder—the charge was later upgraded to second degree murder). I did consider the allegations : Kizzee hit an officer; Kizzee dropped a gun while running away; and Kizzee made a motion toward the gun.
What puzzles me is that Black Lives Matter started a movement over the killing of George Floyd. But it appears nothing is being done for the killing of Dijon Kizzee. And I think what happened to Kizzee is worse , or at least equal , to what happened to Floyd. What happened to Kizzee is like the police officers running down and finally catching up to a rabid animal. And, thereafter, killing the animal. No one deserves to die that way. Especially over a bicycle violation (purportedly). This was the result of hatred. Racial hatred. The involvement of the gun just gives the police something to hang their hat on in defending their actions. It’s unfortunate for Kizzee that he possessed a gun, IF, in fact he did (and that has to be proven), but that’s no excuse for the way he died , IF he died the way it has been reported (that also has to be proven).
There was a white man in Seal Beach who murdered 8 people at a beauty salon, and he was in possession of a weapon when he was “captured”. He was taken in alive. How many of you think he would have been taken in alive if he was black ? (Especially if the murders had occurred in a South Central beauty salon). But Kizzee wasn’t stopped for a charge of murdering someone, he purportedly was stopped for a bicycle traffic *or code violation. He did not deserve to die the way he died. His Life Mattered.
Black Lives Matter should consider or reconsider advocating for justice on behalf of Dijon Kizzee.
More next time.
UPDATE—September 5, 2020.
THE DIJON KIZZEE MURDER : THE POLICE SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER
While the police in Minnesota were fired and charged with murder or aiding and abetting, I will not offer an opinion regarding the firing of the police in the Kizzee case because I am not familiar enough with the police conduct code giving rise to the conduct necessary for firing an officer (and I choose not to take the time to research it at this time) . However, I believe if the police conduct code in Minnesota was sufficient to fire the police in Minnesota, the *Sheriff Department code would be sufficient to fire the officers in Kizzee’s case. But, again, I will not offer an opinion on the firing aspect. Kizzee has several lawyers that I presume are getting paid, so they can research the code and make a determination . I’ll stick to the criminal charge, because I practice *or am familiar with criminal law, as well as other areas.
While I conclude that the police officers committed first degree murder, they *absolutely should be charged with committing SECOND DEGREE murder, and nothing less.
UPDATE—October 4, 2020
WATERGATE #3
On Labor Day, my home was broken into while I was away. Among the items stolen was, get this, trial transcripts (both clerk and reporter’s) or the Record for the criminal appeal.
Now, who would want me not to have the trial transcripts or who would want the transcripts for themselves? I doubt if the common thief would want the transcripts. The only one that can benefit from me not having the transcripts is the City Attorney’s Office. But, let’s say IF it was the city attorney’s office, wouldn’t that be treacherous or outlandish conduct coming from a government agency which is supposed to be serving and protecting citizens or the public ? Criminals charged with catching criminals. Until and unless I discover otherwise, I have to believe that the city attorney’s office had something to do with it.
A SPEEDY APPEAL
This is a criminal appeal, and I question whether I’m receiving a speedy appeal. In an August order, the Court stated that the appeal will be set for oral argument at the expiration of the briefing period. Briefing has been complete at least by 9/16. But, there may be a conflict of interest problem with the Appellate Division hearing the appeal.
This appeal involves fundamental issues and/or rights, including constitutional rights, such as the right to counsel and the right to a public trial. Also, whether the government should have been granted a protective order for body cam evidence.
More next time.
UPDATE—October 30, 2020
CRIMINAL APPEAL’S ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument has now been set for the appeal. It is set for November 19, 2020 at 9: 00 a.m. at the Appellate Division. Again, my main argument will be for judgment of acquittal, with the bottom line being I was not present when the restraining order I was supposed to have violated was issued (to Dianne Jackson). When the restraining order was issued to Jackson, the hearing was over.
Other important issues raised will be the right to counsel, the right to a public trial, the right to due process of law, the denial of a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss, and whether the government can place a protective order on police body cam evidence turned over in discovery.
This appeal is important because it might provide some insight into why there are so many black and brown men in California jails and prisons, and how they got there. California has the most prisons and prisoners in the nation.
If the local media, including the L.A. Times, was really interested in striving for the improvement of the criminal justice system in California, it or they would cover this appeal to see how it is decided. But, they probably won’t, because they aren’t really that concerned.
More next time.
UPDATE—November 18, 2020
THE ELECTION : ALL OF MY MAJOR CANDIDATES WON —JOE BIDEN, GEORGE GASCON, AND HOLLY MITCHELL
THE BAIL CONTROVERSY AND PROPOSITION 25
I voted NO on Proposition 25. I think those who are able to pay should be allowed to pay and get out of jail. However, those who aren’t able to pay should also be allowed to get out on bail. Therefore, I think there should be both money bail and no money bail.
There should be 4 types or categories of bail :
1. No bail. The person is denied bail of any kind. This requires extraordinary circumstances and a high showing by the court. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
2. Money bail. Maintain the current bases for determining the amount of bail, pay and get out of jail. No other showing is necessary.
3. OR (own recognizance) Bail. This is character or background bail; basically no criminal record or other previous bad character trait. The person is released on his recognizance or word that he will return to court as ordered.
4. Conditional or conditioned Bail. For those who would otherwise be granted bail if they had the money, but who do not have the money. These individuals must make a showing. But that showing would only be related to the ability to pay. It would be the same as a fee waiver application for civil cases. There would be NO algorithms. And the reason there won’t be any is because the only reason the person is denied bail is because he or she doesn’t have the money for bail. However, like a judge has the discretion to raise or lower money bail, a judge would have the discretion to place other conditions on the conditional bail, depending on the crime , such as murder, rape, and kidnapping, and the showing by the government, usually special circumstances (but not ANY circumstances, only SPECIAL and/or SERIOUS circumstances). NOTE: If the person is represented by the Public Defender Office, that will represent prima facie evidence of meeting the waiver requirement.
Generally, for all misdemeanors, and low level felonies, all the person would have to do is demonstrate that he lacks the money to pay bail, even if he has some criminal history (***remember, the person who can afford to pay for bail does not have his or her criminal history examined when he or she pays bail or as a condition for paying bail, so the conditional bail applicant should not have his criminal history considered either).
More next time.
UPDATE—November 25, 2020
THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
I appeared at oral argument. The city attorney did not . Prior to the argument, a tentative ruling was produced. It provided some insight as to where the panel was headed in their decision. I will not comment on the tentative ruling at this time, rather, I will await the final ruling, with one exception, the ruling on the motion for judgment of acquittal. See below.
To began with, oral argument had a technical drawback from the beginning. As I was presenting my argument, my mask would constantly come down below my nose, and the panel and court deputy, at different times , would interrupt me to tell me to pull the mask up to cover my nose. This occurred multiple times during the argument, so this detracted from the argument itself. In my opinion, the court could have simply allowed me to continue with my argument uninterrupted when the mask came down because I was at least 15 feet away from all parties in the courtroom (i.e., the panel, the deputy, and one clerk) and my argument wasn’t that long (5 to 7 minutes)(I informed the panel that I would only be orally arguing one issue, even though my brief argued multiple issues). But, I am not asserting here that the interruptions were intentional. In fact, the deputy, in showing his concern, asked me if I had presented my argument in some other way. I replied that I had (referring to my brief).
The only argument that I made before the panel was regarding the motion for judgment of acquittal. In its tentative ruling, the Appellate Division held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal below.
I argued that not only did the trial court err, but it’s err was absolute. That is, the government offered no evidence on any of the elements it was required to prove in order for the court to have a basis for denying the motion. Therefore, the trial court absolutely erred in denying the MJOA. My argument concentrated on one element, KNOWLEDGE, that I “knew of the court order” or the restraining order that I purportedly violated, and that I “had the opportunity to read the order” (from the trial court’s jury instructions). I argued that it was impossible for me to know about the order on the day of the hearing because I wasn’t present when the order was issued to the victim, Dianne Jackson (and it wasn’t issued to me at that time) or anytime later (because I left the courthouse after the legal renewed order (with a 2 yard stay away order) was issued. That is, the “amended” order granting a 100 yard stay away was issued after I had left the court and after the hearing was over (Jackson noticed that the legally issued and legal restraining order only contained a 2 yard stay away order—as it was supposed to do—and she apparently went back to the judge, Sauceda, to seek another order).
Finally, and most importantly, I argued that I have NO burden . It is the government who has the burden. And that burden is to prove me guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And that burden remains with the government, throughout the criminal proceedings, even on appeal. And since the government offered no evidence below to defend against my motion for judgment of acquittal, it, necessarily could not meet its heavy burden. *It’s IMPOSSIBLE for the government to meet or achieve its burden of PROOF, when it has offered NO PROOF. Thus, the trial court committed absolute err in denying the MJOA, and the Appellate Division is REQUIRED , *as a matter of law, to reverse the court’s decision.
THE BOTTOMLINE : The People (or the City Attorney) has had three occasions to produce sufficient evidence to avoid my being granted a judgment of acquittal, and on each occasion, it has failed to do so.
First, during the trial court proceedings on the MJOA. After I argued that the People did not produce evidence to meet the requirements of any of the required elements to find me guilty of the charged crime, here was the People’s response :
THE COURT : DO THE PEOPLE WISH TO BE HEARD ?
MS. KOLAHI : NOT ON THIS MOTION, YOUR HONOR.
Second, on appeal, through the briefs :
My Opening Brief : “The evidence presented in Defendant’s case supported the fact that Defendant was not issued or served the amended restraining order at or after the July 2, 2018 hearing, and was not even present when it was issued to Jackson”. , p. 12. (The amended order was issued to Jackson AFTER the hearing).
People’s Brief : “Dianne testified appellant was present at the July 2018 hearing (2RT 962), and a record of those proceedings reflects appellant’s presence (2RT 965-966; People’s Exh. 6).”, p. 20.
Third, on appeal, at oral argument :
Appellant (me) : I appeared.
People : Did not appear.
If the Appellate Division continue to rule that the trial court did not err in denying the judgment of acquittal, what will be its rationale ?
More next time.
UPDATE—December 2, 2020
THE BATTERY MISDEMEANOR WAS DISMISSED
On November 20, 2020, the battery charge against me was dismissed. The People were unable to proceed
(based on the unavailability of testimony from the “victim”, i.e., he didn’t show for the “readiness” hearing),* and the judge announced the dismissal or that the case “is dismissed”.
In another of my blogs, “Judges David Cowan and Laurie Zelon ....”, at the May 24th, 2020 Update, I charged that this battery charge was a set-up from the beginning, because there was no set of facts offered where I could have committed the battery. The charge was brought by a roommate, who has a long criminal record, and mental or emotional problems *and he was taken advantage of; but, I was never informed of the factual scenario in which the battery was supposed to have taken place, and the Sheriff deputies who arrested me had two different viewpoints, one called it a battery and the other called it an assault. The deputy writing the citation called it a battery. The deputy I asked what I was being charged with , called it an assault.
I was arrested, booked , and released within an hour to an hour and a half. I demanded to make a false police report complaint against my roommate, but a separate deputy at the sheriff station refused to complete a report. This added to my belief that the charge was a set-up.
At the arraignment, I pleaded not guilty. This matter was administered at the Inglewood Courthouse.
*Apparently, this case was handled by the District Attorney’s office, and not a city attorney. It was likely with some reluctance *that the D.A. announced that he could not proceed; but, the D.A. did the right thing in the end, and that’s what counts. *It should be noted however that “ the right thing” was a forced right thing. It wasn’t a good faith voluntary dismissal by the government, as it should have been, rather, it was a dismissal by the court based on a lack of evidence by the D.A. to proceed or to prosecute the case. In fact, although my case was no. 1 on the list of cases on the court’s calendar, it was the LAST case called, or at least, I was the last defendant in the courtroom when my case was finally called, while awaiting a decision by the government whether to go forward or not.
UPDATE—December 22, 2020
I still await the decision of the Appellate Division in my criminal appeal case.
UPDATE—January 18, 2021 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. DAY. THANKS MARTIN.
THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION : EVIDENCE OF WHY *LIKELY MANY BLACK AND BROWN BOYS AND MEN ARE WRONGFULLY IN CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS. AND, EVIDENCE OF THE SYSTEMIC RACISM IN CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS.
INSTEAD OF REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT AND ENTERING A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, AS IT SHOULD HAVE, THE APPELLATE DIVISION ISSUES A FRAUDULENT “OPINION”, RESULTING IN A FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC.
The Appellate Division, judges Sanjay T. Kumar , who wrote the opinion, Patti Jo McKay, presiding judge, and Alex Ricciardulli, has now issued an “Opinion” . The decision began as a one-page “Tentative Ruling“, which was completely arbitrary and capricious, whereby the AD affirmed the trial court’s denial of a judgment of acquittal *with no reasoning whatsoever. After I produced my blogpost, whereby I asked if the AD continued to affirm the trial court’s denial of the judgment of acquittal, “what will be its rationale” ?, the AD has now produced a 19-page opinion, which is biased, prejudiced and/or racist, and defamatory.
Before I continue with the gist of the blog, I will pause here to say that I knew that I would not be able to complete the blog today, but, I believe it is important that I begin the blog on MLK, *Jr. Day, because it is in the spirit of promoting racial and social equality and justice, like Dr. King, that I am writing this blog. Therefore, it is my way of performing some meaningful act on MLK Day in recognition of Dr. King and his efforts in helping Black people reach “the promised land”. CLEARLY, WE ARE NOT THERE YET!
Now, back to the blog. In most cases, once the tentative ruling has been produced, if the AD panel is not convinced by oral argument of the parties to change its ruling, the final decision is simply a replica of the tentative ruling. But, in this case, because of my blog, the panel decided to offer some explanations to try and support its decision to affirm the trial court, regarding the judgment of acquittal as well as the other errors that I raised on appeal. But, there are no true reasons it can provide to sustain an affirmation of the trial judge’s decision regarding most of the issues that I raised on appeal, especially the judgment of acquittal (because I wasn’t present when judge Sauceda issued the illegal restraining order to my sister, because it was issued after the renewal hearing—and issuance of the legal restraining order, 2-yard stay away— was over).
Consequently, in order to affirm the trial court’s decision, particularly as it relates to the judgment of acquittal, the AD had to LIE or provide false statements, suggestions, findings, or innuendoes. And, because the lies were spread throughout the opinion, it caused the opinion itself to be fraudulent. And, because the opinion is a public document or made public, it is a fraud on the public, because the public believes the opinion is true, and that my conviction is rightful or legal, when , in actuality, it is not.
So, now, instead of this case being over—ending with my acquittal—I must pursue further litigation to prove my innocence. But, at the same time, the AD , with its affirmation, has opened a whole new “ can of worms”, that will cause a small group of people to face criminal charges, both state and federal, who might have otherwise avoided the charges had this case been closed, as it should have been. More on that at a later time. However, keep in mind that the U.S. Attorney, Nicola Hanna, who presided over the racist L.A. U.S. Attorney’s Office, has now resigned. So, another one has to be nominated by President-Elect Joe Biden. Will the next U.S. Attorney be more like the Bush-Mueller Justice Department or the Trump-Hanna Justice Department) ? And, we have a new District Attorney, George Gascon. Will he take action against public officials, or will he not ? Or , will he refer a case to the Attorney General of California ? I don’t know his record in San Francisco in bringing charges against public officials, but, he will be tested here. But, I am impressed so far with his attempt to keep his word to the people who voted for him, and I am one of them, and he should know that the People are still behind him, despite the deputy DAs’ challenge to his actions. The deputy DAs’ actions are certainly not on behalf of most black and brown people. So, what major group of people is left that they could be representing?
I now must pursue “habeas corpus” litigation, and decide whether to go state or federal. I’ll decide later.
More next time on the AD’s decision.
UPDATE—January 27, 2021
THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION : THE LIES AND DEFAMATION
As alluded to earlier, the Appellate Division (AD)’s decision was filled with lies or false statements, and some recent incidents and comments on lies and false statements shows the negative impact and , usually, results of lies or false statements. For instance, former CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, through a video message, reflecting on Nazi Germany and how the leaders of the movement convinced the subordinates to rampage through Germany and Austria (while comparing it to the “rioters” who broke into the Capitol two weeks ago) , stated, “It all started with lies, and lies, and lies and intolerance.” And, again referring to the Capitol break-in, he said that President Trump “sought a coup by misleading people with lies. My father and our neighbors were mislead also with lies. And I know where such lies lead.” “What are we to make of those elected officials who have enabled (Trump’s) lies and his treachery ? Schwarzenegger asked.” L.A. Times, “Who’s bold and who’s spineless in GOP”, January 14, 2021. In again referring to the Capitol break-in, “Schwarzenegger said, ‘We need to hold accountable the people who brought us to this point.’ He didn’t specify whether it was the violent mob or the enabling politicians who should be held accountable, I *(the article’s writer) assume both.” Id.
President Joe Biden, in his inaugural speech : “The recent weeks and months have taught us a painful lesson. There is truth and there are lies....” “Each of us has a duty and a responsibility to defend the truth and defeat the lies.” L.A. Times, “Message of healing and fight for truth”, January 21, 2021.
Finally, the singer-musician Stevie Wonder, in an open letter to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for MLK Day (published by the L.A. Wave, “Musical icon writes letter to Martin Luther King Jr.”, January 21, 2021) : “Those who promote lies and false truths must be held accountable. It is the only way that we can move forward. It is time to formally seek the truth and formally declare facts. We need a truth commission that forces this country to look at its lies. I am calling on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to launch a formal , government investigation to establish the truth of inequality in this country. . . . It is time for all to take the only stand. We cannot be afraid to confront a lie and a liar. Those in leadership who won’t or don’t acknowledge the truth should should be held accountable.”
As to the legally characterized “false statements” (rather than lies), an example of the gravity of the false statements made in the AD’s decision can be illustrated by the criminal case against former councilman Mitchell Englander. “Englander, while serving in office (here, the AD was serving in office) made false statements to FBI agents (here, the AD made false statements to the public and future judges who will review habeas corpus petitions) during three separate interviews, prosecutors said, providing untrue information about his dealings with a businessman who gave him $15,000 in two casino bathrooms. The case was resolved quickly, with Englander pleading guilty to a single count of scheming to falsify material facts.” L.A. Times, “Prosecutors object to probation for Englander”, supra. “In paperwork filed this month, prosecutors argued that probation officials failed to take into account Englander’s many lies and attempts to obstruct justice.” So the FEDERAL prosecutors clearly believe that multiple lies warrant exceptional punishment. I submit that the same standard should apply here with Kumar, the authoring judge, in viewing the impact of his lies.
With the above in mind, I will now turn to the lies.
THE LIES
Whether you would consider them false statements, or suggestions, or findings, or innuendoes , or whatever , the bottom line is : they are false, and they tend to attribute guilt rather than innocence to me and my case. And, you may find that some lies are more damaging than others, but, they are all damaging, because they are not the truth, and the persons reading the opinion will believe that they are true, and that I am truly guilty of the offense with which I have been charged , based on that purported truth.
Lie # 1 : The first lie was on the first page of the Opinion. Judge Kumar states, “Defendant seeks reversal of the judgment on a number of grounds, chief among which are the following : (3) defendant’s section 1118.1 motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence he had knowledge of THE TERMS of the order”. Emphasis added. This is false. I did NOT seek reversal based on insufficient evidence that I had knowledge of “the terms” of the order.
THE TRUTH : I sought reversal because there was insufficient evidence that I had knowledge of the “amended” ORDER itself. I was aware of the terms of the order, i.e., the 100 yard stay away, because the terms were discussed during the hearing. Indeed, I was the one who offered transcript evidence of the hearing. So, if I had offered this as a ground for reversal, I would be incriminating myself through my own offer of proof (because the government could easily prove that I had knowledge of the “terms” of the order—through the transcript, where the terms were discussed and purportedly ordered). But, at the end of the hearing, judge Sauceda issued a 2-yard stay away order to both Jackson and me, which, in fact , was the only LEGAL order she could issue (because Jackson only legally sought a renewal of the original 2-yard stay away order, notwithstanding her informal request for a greater yardage, i.e., the 100 yard stay away). So, when I received the 2-yard stay away order, I left the courthouse. Jackson apparently stayed and apparently convinced Sauceda to issue her the “amended” order, which contained the 100 yard distance, in MY ABSENCE. Finally, I was charged with violating the “amended” order, not with terms contained within the order, and, TRUTHFULLY, this was my asserted ground for reversal, see my Reply Brief, at p.2, where “evidence of Appellant’s presence at the hearing is insufficient to prove knowledge of the amended order, because the amended order was issued to Jackson alone , after the hearing, and after the original order was issued, thus, an “amended” order, which signifies that a change was made to the original and legal renewal order.”
Lie # 2 : On page 2 of the decision, Kumar states, “the renewed order prohibited defendant from coming within 100 yards of Dianne, her car, and the house on 93rd Street for a period of three years.” This is false.
THE TRUTH : The renewed order only prohibited me from coming within 2 yards of Jackson, and did not include her car or the house on 93rd Street, which is why there was an “amended” order issued by Sauceda, which included the 100 yard distance. And, it is this “amended” order that the government charged me with violating. The order I was never issued at the hearing.
Lie # 3 : On page 3 of the decision, Kumar states that one of my defenses was “Dianne’s petition to renew the underlying restraining order made no mention of a request to modify the original restraining order”. This is false.
THE TRUTH : This was NOT one of my defenses . In fact, I admitted that Jackson made an INFORMAL request to modify the original restraining order, but, I argued that a formal motion was required. See the trial transcript, at the government’s cross-examination of me, where :
Q. Okay. So you never had any notice that your — that Ms. Jackson wanted to modify the restraining order; is that right?
A. (me) I had notice of her request within the renewal order. I had no notice of any formal request that she made.
Lie # 4 : On page 6 of the Opinion, Kumar states, “defendant offers no legal authority in support of his position that the July 2 order should have been excluded on the ground that he was not served with a paper copy of it .” This is false.
THE TRUTH : I DID offer legal authority to support my position that the July 2 amended order should have been suppressed on the ground that I was not served with it. I offered the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. See my Opening Brief, at Arg. IV, pgs. 17-18, where “Defendant continued to rely on the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, due process, for suppression of the amended order”; and “it (amended order) was unconstitutional , as a violation of due process because it was issued in Defendant’s absence, i.e. , Defendant had left the courthouse, and Jackson stayed, when Jackson was issued the amended order; and the evidence should have been suppressed because of the constitutional violation(s).”; and at Arg. VI, pg. 20, “Judge Sauceda did not provide NOTICE during the hearing that she would be issuing an “amended” order after the hearing.”
Lie # 5 : On page 10 of the Opinion, Kumar states, “Defendant does not identify in his opening brief ANY particular element or elements of the charge against him on which he believes the prosecution’s evidence presented in its case-in-chief fell short.” Emphasis added. This is a lie or false.
THE TRUTH : I DID identify, in my opening brief, at least one or more elements of the charge that I believe the prosecution’s evidence in its case-in-chief was insufficient. The elements of the order , per jury instructions, are : (1) a court issue a written order that the defendant not contact the protected person, (2) the court order was a restraining/stay away order, (3) the defendant KNEW of the order , (4) the defendant had the ability to follow the order, and (5) the defendant intentionally violated the order. See my opening brief at p.21, where “ ‘Bray, at (citation to trial transcript) , argued to the the court that the word ‘lawfully’ should have been included in the jury instruction for ELEMENT #1 (emphasis added) of the violating a restraining order offense, i.e., ‘a court issue a written order that the defendant not contact directly or indirectly the protected person. . . .’ It should have been ‘a court issue a ‘lawfully’ written order’ . The court refused to insert the word ‘lawfully’ in her instruction. . . . This was error, because whether the restraining order was lawful or not was at issue, and impliedly an order must be lawful to be enforceable.’” As to element (3) knowledge of the order, see my opening brief at p.4, where “Bray was charged with violating California Penal Code Section 273.6, which charges knowingly violating a ‘protective’ order. (Citation omitted). However, Bray was not issued or served with the order he was charged with violating.” Citation omitted). See also, pgs. 12-13, where “the restrained person needs to be served with or made aware of the order’.” (Citation omitted). “Bray was not served with or made aware of the ‘amended’ restraining order.” But, see especially, my Reply Brief, at pgs. 2-3, where “evidence of Appellant’s presence at the hearing is insufficient to prove KNOWLEDGE of the amended order, because the amended order was issued to Jackson alone, after the hearing, and after the original order was issued, thus, an ‘amended’ order, which signifies that a change was made to the original and legal renewal order”, and, finally, where “since the government offered no evidence that Appellant was actually issued the amended order, it could not meet its burden at trial of showing that Appellant KNEW (emphasis added) about the order.”
Finally, in my opening brief, at p. 10, I stated I moved “for judgment of acquittal”, and I cited to the Record (trial transcripts), and the citation is PART of the opening brief, where I argued “My basic ground is that the government is required to prove four ELEMENTS for convicting me of violating a restraining order, and they haven’t proved (sic) either one.” Emphasis added. Then , I proceeded to argue the elements.
Lie # 6 : On page 17 of the Opinion, Kumar states, “he offers no legal authority or ARGUMENT in support of his assertion that there are no privacy interests at issue that require governmental protection.” Emphasis added. This statement is blatantly false. And, this one can be easily shown.
THE TRUTH : I offered BOTH legal authority and argument to support my assertion that there are no privacy interests at issue that require governmental protection. I emphasized the word “argument” above because the argument is CLEAR, i.e., in bold LETTERS. From my reply brief, at pgs. 8-9 :
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE BODY CAM DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC CAN GAIN ACCESS TO THE BODY CAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT, THEREFORE THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR “PROTECTING” IT
FROM PUBLIC EXPOSURE.
A. THE VICTIM’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Under the main argument, I cited the case of National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, No. S252445__P.3__(May 28, 2020).
Under the “victim’s right to privacy”, I argued, in part, “This was a public criminal trial in which the victim took the stand and testified in her own behalf. And, there was no information that would be considered to be confidential or “private” . . . . Therefore, there are no privacy concerns for the victim or the parties in this case or the case below. So, the protective order for the body cam granted by the trial court should be reversed.”
Lie # 7 : On p. 9 of the Opinion, Kumar states, in part, “Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the People did not prove ONE (emphasis added) of the necessary elements for establishing he violated the restraining order, i.e., that the order was lawfully issued.” This is false.
THE TRUTH : I moved for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the People did not prove ANY of the elements necessary for proving I violated the restraining order. See my opening brief at p. 10, where “Bray moved for judgment of acquittal”, and I cite to the trial transcript, where I state “My basic ground is that the government is required to prove four elements for convicting me of violating a restraining ordering, and they haven’t proved (sic) either one.” Furthermore, Kumar, in attempting to clarify his assertion of my only attempting to prove ONE element of the charged offense was not proven by the People , admitted that I charged that the People did not prove at least one other element : that I knew of the order. Kumar stated that I “moved for judgment of acquittal on the ground. . . that the order was lawfully issued, both because. . . and because. . . the People did not prove he KNEW of the order when he committed the acts in violation of it.” At p. 9 (emphasis added). That’s TWO elements.
There are other false statements in the Opinion, but these are the ones I’m providing for the purpose of this blog. *And, I am making these statements public because the Opinion is made public, and it reflects on my character, especially since Kumar points out in his Opinion that I am a lawyer.
The totality of the false statements creates a fraudulent decision, fraud on the public , and defamation of character. And, I am a Black male. *Do any of you really believe that if I were white, and especially a white lawyer, that the Appellate Division, and the court system would be going through these lengths, i.e., lying in a court opinion, to avoid issuing an acquittal ? More evidence of the institutional and/or systemic racism directed at Black males in the Los Angeles Superior Court system.
More next time on the Opinion.
UPDATE—February 10, 2021
DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE GASCON : SO FAR, SO GOOD : SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS ; CASH BAIL ; AND NON-COURT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
DA George Gascon thusfar has continued to maintain his positions of carrying out the will of the People (especially those people who voted him in office, but all of the people because his decisions are intended to be fair to all of the people, as opposed to being fair to just some of the people, as was the case before him) and at the same time enforcing the law. SO FAR, SO GOOD. He continues to maintain his position on sentencing enhancements , which he believes the voters wanted and which he believes is fair. He has suffered a setback with respect to the sentencing enhancements , in that a Superior Court judge, James Chalfant , has ruled that he can’t implement a major portion of his enhancement plans because they are unlawful, that is, Gascon ordered prosecutors not to file enhancements generally, and the judge found he lacked authority to do so (at least without placing prosecutors in an unethical position). Gascon says he will appeal. I’m satisfied that he is keeping his word to the People, and the community should continue to support him throughout the appeals.
He continues to maintain his position of no cash bail whatsoever, which a number of voters , including myself, disagreed with (voters, including me, voted to keep cash bail—I thought that it should be just one type of bail included with other non-cash types of bail), but, which Gascon believes is the FAIREST method, and fairness takes precedence over other objections or disagreements ; and finally, Gascon has shown that he will prosecute NON-COURT public officials for violating the law.
For instance, last week, the DA’s office informed the public that bribery, conspiracy, embezzlement, and other charges are being brought against several public officials , e.g., two former mayors , and an ex-City Manager of the city of Maywood . In bringing the charges, Gascon is said to have stated, “No one is above the law. Public officials should be working to benefit the people, not their own bank accounts.”
*Gascon office has now prosecuted another ex-official, this time a former Pomona City Councilman, and it appears that he is a Latino. This official has pleaded “no contest to one count of possession of child sex abuse material and one count of annoying or molesting a child, according to a statement released by the district attorney’s office” (according to news reports).
BUT, these are non-court public officials, *who appears to be minorities.
What about COURT public officials ? *And, WHITE court public officials ? For me, that will be the ULTIMATE TEST . Not only as to whether he will continue to be a fair prosecutor, but also, whether he will be a STRONG prosecutor. *One of the reasons that I voted against former D.A. Jackie Lacey was that, even though she was Black herself, she , *as D.A., discriminated against Black and Latino men or officials who had committed the same or similar crimes as white men or officials. That is, Lacey, *as D.A., although she was Black, exercised racial discrimination or racism when it came to Black and Latino men. So, the TEST will also be, for me as a Black man residing in L.A. County, whether Gascon, *as D.A., will prosecute white or non-Black public officials , and especially COURT public officials, the same as he does Black, Latino, or other non-white public officials.
I am particularly interested in his * “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” statement in reference to the Maywood case. *We shall see. So, for me, the final questions are :
1. WILL GASCON PURSUE AND PROSECUTE COURT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, *AND ESPECIALLY WHITE OR NON-BLACK COURT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, WHERE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR *THEIR ARREST ? OR,
2. WILL THEY BE HELD ABOVE THE LAW ?
*The answer to this question will finally decide what type of prosecutor Gascon will be.
I will provide some subjects for the test. And, I will only speak with Mr. Gascon *regarding the subjects.
THE APPELLATE OPINION *IN THE CRIMINAL CASE
I believe the Opinion may have far-reaching effects, not just for me, but for other defendants as well. But, that will depend in large part on defense attorneys and their effective representation of their clients, particularly the black and brown ones. *But then, that’s probably another reason why so many black and brown boys and men are in California jails and prisons, *i.e., poor representation.
UPDATE—March 18, 2021
SENTENCING CONDITIONS : *(Information Deleted)
I had to appear before the trial court again, this time regarding sentencing conditions—community service.
I was scheduled to appear before judge Guillemet, but, she was replaced by judge Susan de Witt, a white female . I appeared to provide a status update on the performance of my ordered community service. I was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. I had performed 40 hours, before I was forced to stop because of the pandemic. My community service activity was a group activity. I argued for waiver of the remaining hours because of the pandemic (I had performed the 40 hours in one week, before I had to stop). The judge and the prosecutor (I didn’t get his name) * (Artin Afkhami) (concluded that there was “substantial performance” of the community *service hours, therefore, the community service was deemed complete.
The judge then ordered the remaining condition originally ordered by judge Guillemet, a $500 fine to be paid by the end of the probation.
As I will always do, if possible, when faced with a new trial court judge, and sometimes with appellate judges as well, I will give my opinion as to whether the judge is a fair judge or not. When faced with a judge for the first time, I can only give an initial impression opinion. Although there is not enough for me to really KNOW whether judge de Witt is a fair judge, based on my first impression, with one moment of pause, I believe that judge de Witt is a fair judge. The moment of pause is based on the fact that the judge deferred to the prosecutor before finally deciding to waive the remainder of the community service hours. How would she have ruled if the prosecutor had objected or disagreed with a waiver *or substantial performance ? Would she have still granted the waiver or not ? Would that affect my view about her fairness ? I will never know .
But, part of the reason for my fairness decision is that I had requested the same waiver from judge Guillemet, and she had denied my request (without specifically or formally denying the request, she simply referred me to another source of performing the community service—which I believe would have the same problem as the service that I had performed, i.e., pandemic restrictions) without asking for any input from the prosecutor in the case.
*(Information Deleted)
*Update—June 12, 2022 : AFTER RE-ASSESSMENT, AND MORE INFORMATION, I HEREBY FIND THAT JUDGE DE WITT IS NOT A FAIR JUDGE
Above I stated, in part, “Although there is not enough for me to really KNOW whether judge de Witt is a fair judge, based on my first impression. . ., I believe that judge de Witt is a fair judge”. However, after another appearance before her, and sitting in her courtroom observing cases before my case was called, I can now state informatively that judge Susan de Witt IS NOT A FAIR JUDGE. See below at my June 13, 2022 entry in this blog.
UPDATE—March 22, 2021
I will be submitting the test “subjects” for D.A. Gascon’s consideration, I have just been delayed in doing so. I did contact Gascon’s office, and attempted to make an appointment to speak with Gascon. But, I was told that I have to e-mail his office first, and thereafter a determination will be made regarding a meeting with him. In the meantime, the list has grown. It is likely close to the number of defendants in the Maywood case. And, I know at least one charge in my “subjects” case is the same or similar charge as one in the Maywood case. I will name my defendants case the “Court” case. So, it will be the Court case versus the Maywood case. Will they be treated equally ? My primary purpose for this post is to let you know the subjects’ complaints will be forthcoming. I have not changed my mind. And, I will not. It’s too serious. Just as serious as the Maywood case. *Actually, more serious. The Maywood case primarily involves greedy public officials who violate the criminal law in attempting to line their pockets with extra cash. The Court case involves public officials who fail or refuse to carry out their duties to protect and serve citizens and their rights, in a fair and impartial manner, and who , in doing so , violate the criminal law.
*While the Maywood case can be said to involve “victimless” crimes for the most part, with a few exceptions, the Court case clearly has a victim.
UPDATE—March 26, 2021
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS JUST ADOPTED MY PLAN FOR BAIL DECISIONS
The California Supreme Court has just adopted my plan for bail decisions, that is, that there should be provisions made for bail for those who cannot afford cash bail, while not eliminating cash bail altogether. While the Supreme Court’s decision was based on the Constitution or constitutions (both state and federal), and my plan was based on simple fairness, both plans are the same . That is , they both advocate that there should be a provision made for those who can’t afford money or cash bail. I advocated a four category class of bail, see my November 18, 2020 blogpost above, which included a category for those with an inability to pay cash bail, as well as a category for cash bail (for those who can afford to pay). The Supreme Court allows cash bail while creating a category of no cash bail (for those who cannot afford cash bail). *Regarding the other two categories of my plan, *i.e., no bail and OR, the Supreme Court *simply agreed with them *by not commenting or deciding on them in its decision. In the case of In re Kenneth Humphrey, the Court found that basing bail on a person’s ability to pay is unconstitutional. “The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional,” per Justice Mariano-Florentine Cuellar.
“Bail schedules will remain, and people who are arrested can continue to post the required amounts. . . . But the accused are entitled to bail hearings within 48 hours after arrest and can argue to a judge that they cannot afford the set amounts.” *(this quote is not Justice Cuellar‘s—it is from a news account) (News reports). “Those who can afford bail will continue to post it, and bail amounts for others may now come down as a result of the ruling.” Id.
UPDATE—April 12, 2021
A MESSAGE TO DAVID LACEY : GO TO TRIAL
Let me first say that I am a civil rights lawyer. I strongly believe in and advocate a citizen’s right to exercise his or her first amendment right to assemble and petition the government for relief, or otherwise , protest. As a Black man in America, together with other Black people, I , and others on my behalf, e.g., Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rep. John Lewis, have relied upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to help garner the overall civil rights that we Black people have fought to obtain and have obtained throughout our history in this country, e.g., the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Both Acts were obtained after protests or the exercise of our first amendment rights, where a lot of us lost our lives or were seriously injured. We, Black people, are still fighting to obtain our civil rights today. Therefore, we continue to utilize the First Amendment to help in that fight.
But, the exercise of first amendment rights has its limits. Sometimes, we must respect those limits (or risk going to jail or other actions), other times, we should respect those limits (or risk facing civil actions or other actions). In the case of David and Jackie Lacey, the former L.A. District Attorney, the protesters SHOULD have respected those limits. They didn’t. As a result, they got a gun pointed at them from a man inside his own home, in protection of his wife and himself.
At the outset, I did not vote for Jackie Lacey in the last District Attorney election. I voted for George Gascon for his fair or “progressive” ideology . And, I , as much, voted against Lacey, who is Black, for what I believe was her discrimination against Black males in her prosecutorial decision-making. So, I am not a supporter of Jackie Lacey, or by association , her husband, David. And, at the same time, I believe that Black Lives Matter had a first amendment right to demonstrate at or outside the home of the Laceys, and I agree with at least one of the reasons set forth by BLM for protesting against Lacy, i.e., her not prosecuting police officers involved in shootings ending in death, especially of minorities.
For those not in the know, and briefly, David Lacey, the husband of Jackie Lacey, was charged with several gun-related offenses, e.g., assault with a firearm, for pointing a gun at several Black Lives Matter protesters, including Melina Abdullah (co-founder of the L.A. chapter) , who walked onto the porch of the Lacey’s Granada Hills home in March of 2020 in an attempt to speak with Jackie Lacey. David, as an apparent offer to plead guilty to the charges, is, according to news sources, requesting to be entered into a diversion program “that would allow him to avoid jail time”.
I believe David Lacey should go to trial. Under the circumstances of this case, he had a right to use a weapon in defense of his wife and himself.
First of all, the BLM protesters should have respected the Laceys themselves in terms of a line of demarcation over which they should not have broached, and the right of the Laceys, as private citizens (clearly David was) or as public officials in their private homes, in protesting against them. The protestors didn’t do that. The protesters had no right, legal or otherwise, to enter upon the porch of the Laceys and ring the doorbell. The only way the protesters could have had a right to enter upon the porch of the Laceys’ home would be if the Laceys gave them that right (through a permission to enter the property). And, the Laceys’ didn’t give them that right. While some citizen-workers may have implied permission to enter upon a private citizens’s porch or steps leading to the door , e.g., mail carriers, utility workers, etc., the protestors had no such permission. Clearly. The protestors knew that the Laceys did not want them on their property, and, in fact, didn’t want them protesting in front of their property (but, the protestors had a first amendment RIGHT to be there). Therefore, when the protestors entered onto the Laceys’ porch, they were trespassers. And, when David pointed the gun at them, from inside his home, he made that clear.
Second, the pointing of the gun at the protestors at the Laceys‘ front door. To begin with, according to the L.A. Times, “Abdullah and about 30 others had marshaled outside the Lacey’s home before dawn”, so this wasn’t just one or two people (where, perhaps, Lacey would not have reached for a gun). Thereafter, three people entered upon the porch and approached the Laceys’ front door. For an individual who might be frightened of a hostile crowd, that circumstance , without more, is enough to prompt him to grab a weapon in his home, to defend his wife and himself. But, there is more.
Based on the L.A. Times’ article, “The Laceys said they had received NUMEROUS death threats during the campaign, one of them prompting an investigation by the Long Beach Police Department. A demonstrator also tried to rush the stage during a primary debate between Lacey and her two challengers.” These facts, if true, likely compounded the fright or fear in David, for his wife (“he was only trying to protect her”) and himself. How is he to know that the death threats are not coming from some of the protestors ? A reasonable person in David’s shoes, under the circumstances, might draw a gun inside his own home, and point it at protestors on the porch of his home, in defense of his wife and himself. If he assaulted the protestors, he did so in defense of his wife and himself.
I realize that David Lacey must consider several factors in making his decision whether to plead guilty or go to trial, not the least of which is advice of his counsel. But, my position is : he should go to trial.
UPDATE—April 16, 2021
DAVID LACEY AND THE DIVERSION DECISION
David Lacey and the court were supposed to make a decision regarding Lacey entering a diversion program, upon a guilty plea, on Tuesday. But that didn’t happen. So, the decision has been postponed until May 13th. From my interpretation of what is happening, without knowing for sure, the District Attorney’s Office has apparently agreed to the diversion remedy, but not the judge, David W. Stuart. If this is the case, it’s unusual. Usually, a judge will accept the D.A.’s recommendation of diversion. But, apparently, Lacey is not altogether sold on diversion himself. According to a news report, “Lacey’s attorney said he needed time to discuss the proposed diversionary program with his client. . . .” Lacey did not appear at the hearing. So, that means Lacey has not made a decision himself yet whether to plead guilty or not.
If Lacey does not have a criminal record at this time, and if Lacey truly pointed his gun at the protestors in defense of his wife and himself, my position continues to be : PLEAD NOT GUILTY AND GO TO TRIAL.
NOTE : There are those who may attempt to compare the Lacey’s case with that of Mark and Patricia McCloskey of St. Louis, who, last year, each pointed a gun at Black Lives Matter protestors, and were later charged with unlawful use of a weapon. BUT, that case was different for two reasons : (1) the BLM protestors were merely walking past the McCloskeys’ home on the sidewalk or in the street, they were not entering upon the McCloskeys’ property and porch; and (2) the McCloskeys were not inside their home when they pointed the gun at the protestors, they were outside (and the protestors had a right to be where they were—on the sidewalk).
More later (after the Laceys’ decision).
UPDATE—April 24, 2021 GEORGE FLOYD’S WEEK
THE “COURT CASE” COMPLAINT HAS NOW BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE VIA E - MAIL : WILL THE DEFENDANTS BE HELD ABOVE THE LAW ?
Yesterday, I e-mailed the Court Case Complaint to the DA’s Office. Now, I will await a response. Will the defendants be held above the law ?
It is altogether fitting that the Complaint was filed during the week that the Derek Chauvin verdict came down. A diverse Minnesota jury , or , at least, a mixed race and gender one, found Chauvin guilty of all Counts, 2nd Degree Murder, Third Degree Murder, and 2nd Degree Manslaughter. In doing so, the jury made a statement : that it would protect and give value to the rights of a Black male, even in death, against the violation of the criminal law by a white purported law enforcement officer or official causing harm to the Black male, in this case death, under the guise of carrying out his lawful duties. As I stated in another of my blogs, the “George Floyd” blog, I hope that the verdict is a new beginning, for the protection of a Black male’s civil rights in the country from action by white or non-Black public officials or employees , in particular, but, black officials as well, acting or purporting to act in the name of the law, or lawfully.
As time goes on, we, as a country, will be able to see if there is a change in the way law enforcement officials , including the police and prosecutors, or public officials, such as those working in the courts, including judges, treat Black males and their civil or constitutional rights. To that end, my Complaint filed with the DA’s office will be a test case as to whether the D.A.’s Office or D.A. George Gascon will continue on the usual course of not protecting the rights of Black males from unlawful actions by law enforcement or public officials, including judges, or will he represent a change like the George Floyd (or Derek Chauvin) jury ? Will Gascon help carry out the aims of the 2020 Racial Justice Movement, or will he fail to get the message ?
As I stated above in this blog, my Complaint herein will present the ULTIMATE TEST for Gascon.
I hope he passes.
Ordinarily, I would name the defendants here, but, I will allow the D.A.’s office some reasonable time to do its job before I do.
UPDATE—May 7, 2021
REGARDING THE COURT CASE DEFENDANTS : THUSFAR , I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE D.A.’S OFFICE, NOT EVEN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE D.A.’S. OFFICE OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE GASCON HAS RECEIVED MY E-MAIL AND COMPLAINT
At minimum, there has been enough time for the D.A.s Office to acknowledge receiving my Complaint, since the Complaint was sent by e-mail, as requested by the D.A.’s Office. Ordinarily, I would have expected to receive an e-mail acknowledging the receipt of my e-mail within a few days (based on common courtesy). Nonetheless, I will wait until next week before proceeding further.
If I haven’t received a response from the D.A.’s Office, at least an acknowledgement of receipt of my complaint , by next week, I will conclude that the D.A.’s Office and Gascon are not going to investigate and charge any of the Defendants. And, if that happens, I will also conclude that Gascon has failed the “ultimate test“ (see above at the February 10, 2021 UPDATE for the ultimate test) , and if he fails the test, that will mean at least that he is a weak prosecutor, even if he continues to be considered a “fair” prosecutor, but the issue of fairness will be at issue when one compares Gascon’s treatment of the Maywood case to his treatment of the Court case.
Further, I will have to conclude that Gascon’s statement of “no one is above the law”, while applicable to the Maywood defendants, does not apply to the Court case Defendants.
While I’ll wait until next week, or thereafter, before I move to the next stage, if I must, and before I provide all of the names of the Defendants, I will provide one name here, Sanjay T. Kumar, the judge of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court who wrote the Opinion for my criminal appeal. No judge can tell that many lies (at least 7 or more) in a filed legal document without violating the criminal law . Especially in a criminal case, where one’s liberty is at stake and constitutional principles may be said to be most sacred. From President Joe Biden, “There is truth and there are lies—lies told for power and profit. . . . Each of us has a DUTY and a responsibility. . . to DEFEND the TRUTH and DEFEAT the LIES.” Emphasis added. L.A. Times, “Message of healing and fight for truth”/“Biden issues a call to unite and ‘defeat the lies’”, January 21, 2021. If Gascon doesn’t investigate Kumar, it will tell me a lot about how progressive he is, and how meaningful his assertion of “no one is above the law” is.
Finally, even former D.A. Jackie Lacey , whom I voted against during the last election, responded to complaints I filed against a lawyer and a judge. She refused to charge them, which is one of the reasons why I voted against her, but her office did respond to my complaints. And, she wasn’t supposed to be “progressive” .
So, if I haven’t heard from Gascon next week, I’ll move to the next stage.
UPDATE—May 17, 2021
DAVID LACEY’S DECISION : HE OPTED TO ACCEPT A PLEA AND DIVERSION : THAT’S HIS CHOICE, AND IT’S PROBABLY THE BEST DECISION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I WAS UNAWARE OF A CONDITION THAT MADE THE DEAL MUCH “SWEETER”, WHEN I MAINTAINED THE POSITION THAT I DID.
A few days ago, David Lacey , husband of former District Attorney Jackie Lacey, accepted the government’s offer to cop a plea of guilty (to several assault charges) and enter a diversion program. When I suggested that Lacey plead not guilty and go to trial, it was with the understanding that Lacey himself believed that he was not guilty, and that the plea offer only prevented him from serving jail time, not avoiding the conviction entirely. It now appears likely that Lacey himself questioned his complete innocence, and , according to news reports, “the criminal case against Lacey will be dismissed after he performs 100 hours of community service and attends anger management and gun safety classes. He also is barred from possessing a firearm for the duration of the agreement, which lasts 18 months.” I was not aware that the case would be “dismissed” upon completion of the diversion program. That condition made the diversion offer practical for acceptance if Lacey was not confident of his innocence.
The agreement was approved by Superior Court Judge David Stuart.
*It has come to my attention that the Laceys also have a civil case pending whereby Melina Abdullah of Black Lives Matter and others are charging the Laceys with assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress . I don’t know the status of that litigation, but, David Lacey’s plea probably doesn’t help their defense in the civil case.
UPDATE—May 20, 2021
GASCON HAS FAILED THE TEST(S) : OVERALL, HE IS NOT A FAIR PROSECUTOR, NOR IS HE A STRONG PROSECUTOR, AND HIS “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” STATEMENT APPARENTLY DOESN’T APPLY TO COURT OFFICIALS, ONLY TO MINORITY NON-COURT OFFICIALS; THEREFORE, HE HAS LOST CREDIBILITY WITH ME. JACKIE LACEY WAS NOT THE RIGHT ONE, BUT, GEORGE GASCON IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE EITHER.
Initially, I voted for L.A. District Attorney George Gascon in the last election for district attorney, and I voted against Jackie Lacey for what I believed was her discrimination against Black males in L.A. city and county (both for her failure to prosecute the killers of Black males, but also for her or the D.A.’s office, prosecuting Black and Latinx males, e.g., Sen. Roderick Wright and Clman. Richard Alarcon , where she didn’t prosecute white people for the same or similar conduct, and also for her not prosecuting criminal complaints brought by Black males against white or non-black people, especially officials). I voted for Gascon for the same reason so many others voted for him, that is , he was purportedly a “progressive” district attorney, with new ideas and fair ways of prosecuting people, especially minorities, because they are the most involved with and in the criminal justice system. And, as Gascon began his mission, I supported him, even in disagreement, because I believed he was still trying to be fair in his methodology .
However, until the Maywood case came along, there was no real test of his fairness, at least as it pertained to racial discrimination between minorities and white people and between non-court public officials and court public officials, including judges. The Maywood case , with charges of solicitation of a bribe, conspiracy, embezzlement, theft, and misuse of funds, basically money crimes based on greed, was the first real test of fair treatment and discrimination between minorities (it appears that most, if not all, of the Maywood defendants are Latinx) and whites, and between non-court public officials and court public officials (based on the law, the treatment is supposed to be the same). By coincidence, I happen to be bringing criminal complaints against several court officials, including judges (and the criminal law makes no exception for judges in its pronouncements or dictates). And this provided an avenue for comparison of how Gascon treated the two groups, the same or differently. As it turns out, he treats them differently, that is, he discriminates against the non-court public officials, who are mostly, if not all, Latinx (while the court public officials are racially-mixed, but does include some whites). Both the non-court and court public officials are charged with committing felonies, with the non-court public officials being charged by the DA’s office and the court officials charged through my complaint.
Backing up a little, it is the conduct of Superior Court judge Sanjay T. Kumar, of the Appellate Division, and his multiple lies in a filed legal document , that caused me to reflect on what I perceived as criminal conduct of others , which occurred during my criminal “trial”. I might otherwise have looked the other way if Kumar would have ruled as he should have, without the lies. Thereafter, once I decided that I clearly was going to charge Kumar and the other criminal case defendants with criminal conduct, I reflected on the conduct of others in several civil cases, conduct which clearly was misconduct, but conduct I perceived was also criminal conduct. Therefore, the formerly civil parties were also brought in as criminal defendants in my Complaint. So these individuals , at least in part, are facing criminal charges because of Kumar’s obvious criminal conduct. Most of the charges are centered on false statements, false evidence, and fraud.
Back to Gascon. I , as a Black male and a Black lawyer, have now filed a criminal complaint against various individuals with the district attorney’s office, but I have not received a response. Common courtesy demands a response. My status as a citizen-constituent demands a response. And, my status as a victim demands a response. But, no response has been forthcoming. Therefore, I am left to draw my own conclusions as to why I haven’t received a response. First, I conclude that the DA’s office and Gascon has refused to respond, and refused to investigate my complaints because I am a Black male and a Black lawyer (if I was white , they would have responded in some way). Second, I conclude that the complaints are not being investigated because the defendants are court officials that include white people (and in order to prosecute the non-white people, Gascon would have to prosecute the white people—otherwise the discrimination would be even more obvious than it is). Finally, I conclude that Gascon’s refusal to prosecute my complaint is no different than white prosecutors in states around the country who refuse to prosecute white police officers who murder Black people, it’s not that the evidence is not there, the prosecutors simply refuse to prosecute them, with the likely reason being systemic racism.
Consequently, at this point, Gascon has failed the test(s). The test(s) , in view of the Maywood case, was, first, whether he would continue to be a fair prosecutor, as he was perceived to be prior to the Maywood case ? The answer is No. Thus, he failed. The second test was whether he would be a strong prosecutor, as opposed to a weak one ? He is a weak prosecutor. He failed again. Finally, the third and final test was whether Gascon would prosecute white or non-black public officials, especially court public officials, where there is probable cause to do so ? The answer is No. So, he failed again. Therefore, Gascon has failed all three tests, which includes the ultimate test : whether he would investigate and prosecute court public officials, and especially white court officials (because he has demonstrated that he will prosecute non-white minority officials), where there is probable cause to do so ?
Lastly, Gascon made the statement, “No one is above the law”, as applied to the Maywood defendants; but, he doesn’t apply it to the Court defendants. That points to racial discrimination or a lack of integrity or both. Clearly, the Court case defendants are being held above the law, especially Kumar. An example: Recently, according to news reports, Gascon and the DA’s office sought and obtained grand jury indictments for two L.A. County sheriff deputies, who appear to be Latinx, Pedro Guerrero-Gonzalez and Noel Lopez, “on charges that they lied in a drug and weapons investigation, the district attorney’s office said.” Guerrero-Gonzalez was indicted on “one felony count of filing a false report”, and Lopez was indicted on one count of “perjury”. “When prosecutors learned of the alleged misconduct, they moved to toss the criminal case, the district attorney’s office said a judge in September 2019 dropped charges against both men.” L.A. Times, “2 L.A. deputies lied, D.A. says”, May 15, 2021. So, why isn’t Gascon acting on my complaint against Kumar, at least ? “ ‘Trust is one of the cornerstones of law enforcement’, District Attorney George Gascon said in a statement.” Id. “Our job is to help restore that trust when our community loses faith in the people who promise to uphold the law and protect us.” Id. And when those “people” are Gascon and the DA’s office ? *Who restores the trust ? And from Capt. John Satterfield, speaking on behalf of the Sheriff Department, “criminal misconduct will not be tolerated, and department members who allegedly violate the law will be INVESTIGATED and PROSECUTED to the fullest extent (emphasis added). For Gascon, what about Kumar ? And, the others ?
So, I have lost confidence in Gascon, and he has lost credibility with me. While he may exhibit periodic episodes of fairness, which I’m sure will be appreciated by the beneficiaries of such, overall, he is not a fair prosecutor, he is not a strong prosecutor, and his “no one is above the law” is meaningless, except when it comes to mostly minorities. While he may be a step up from Jackie Lacey in a few ways, he is so much like her in other ways, e.g., discrimination against Black and Latinx males. The Maywood case, and now the Guerrero-Gonzalez case , has helped prove that. That is, they are prosecuted, as they should be *when they commit crimes, but white males or *other white people are not prosecuted for similar conduct. But, I wouldn’t replace Gascon with a step down, ONLY a step UP (towards true fairness and equality, and racial justice), because *Gascon does provide relief to some black and brown people based on his purported “progressive” policies.
So, here are the Court case people I have complained about : From my criminal case : Susan Kolatti, Deputy City Attorney, LA (“DCA”), Brian I. Cheng, DCA, LA, Kimberly B. Guillemet, Judge, Superior Court of LA (“SCLA”), A. Veronica Sauceda, Judge Pro Tem (SCLA), and, of course, Sanjay T. Kumar, Judge, Appellate Div., (SCLA)
From civil appeals : Laurie Zelon , Second District Court of Appeal (“SDCA”), retired; and Dennis Perluss, Judge, SDCA .
From civil hearings : Armen Gregorian, Attorney; and David Cowan, Judge, SCLA (I filed a complaint against Gregorian and Cowan before with Lacey as D.A., but she refused to charge them. So, I’m re-charging them again under Gascon’s leadership, because Gascon is supposed to be a “progressive” D.A., but, as you can see, it’s the same result as with Lacey (but, even Lacey, her office that is, responded to my complaints—so she showed more courtesy, responsibility, and “progressiveness” than Gascon) ; and the last person, I will designate as John Doe (because I believe this person may have been caught-up in a crime without realizing how serious it is. Nevertheless, the acts committed were intentional.
There is probable cause to charge all of the Defendants.
So, now, with Gascon’s failure to respond, and to investigate and prosecute, the next stage will be a submission to the new Attorney General, Rob Bonta (“to RESTORE THE TRUST”, supra).
UPDATE—June 16, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS : THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND ITS COURT SYSTEM, TO DISPLAY SOME INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY IN MY CASE.
Last week, I filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of California, L.A., seeking to have my misdemeanor conviction and sentence set aside. I decided to offer the state of California one last opportunity to do the right thing before proceeding to federal court, if necessary. I must admit, even though I had planned to file in Superior Court after giving the matter some thought, I thought it would be a slightly different process. I thought the petition would be filed and submitted directly in the courtroom of my criminal proceedings, Courtroom # 53. Instead, per criminal court rules, *it must first be submitted to the court clerk *in Courtroom #100 on the 17th floor of the Criminal Court building, who then submits it to the Supervising judge of the Criminal Court, or, for misdemeanors , the assistant Supervising judge, who then, absent unusual circumstances, assigns it to the courtroom where sentencing took place, which is Courtroom # 53, which is now assigned to judge Susan de Witt (previously, the courtroom was assigned to my trial and sentencing judge, Kimberly Baker Guillemet, which would have created unusual circumstances causing the necessity to assign the petition to another courtroom; especially now with my complaints).
I do not know what prompted the Criminal Court division to substitute judge de Witt for judge Guillemet in Courtroom #53 (although I have thoughts), but, the outcome was the fairest process I’ve received in this criminal case and process, besides a ruling by judge de Witt regarding my community service hours.
Nevertheless, the facts are clear, and have been clear since pre-trial of this case. And, they are not going to change. I was never issued the restraining order I was supposed to have violated at the renewal hearing, so I could not have known about the order on the date I was supposed to have violated it. Further, the restraining order itself was illegal and fraudulent. And, the government did not dispute, at or during the trial, either of the facts. And, it could not have.
So, the focus of my habeas petition will not be on the facts , law , *or evidence of the case, rather, it will be on the integrity and dignity of the California—specifically the Los Angeles Superior Court here—court systems. Clearly, the decision of the Appellate Division, via judge Sanjay T. Kumar , lacked both integrity and dignity, not to mention its criminality, and, likely, racism.
UPDATE—July 15, 2021
BILL COSBY AND THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT : THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WAS THE ESSENCE OF INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY, NOT TO MENTION DEVOID OF RACISM ; AND, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT NOW , AND WILL NEVER BE, A “TECHNICALITY“.
When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s decision in the Bill Cosby sexual assault case, thereby overturning Cosby’s conviction and sentence in the case, it displayed the very essence of integrity and dignity. The Court could have easily, with minimal stress, feedback, or condemnation, chose to leave Cosby’s conviction in place. But, it didn’t. It could have easily accepted and adopted the view of the dissent in the case that the prosecutor’s agreement with Cosby not to prosecute him (after he made incriminating statements during a civil court deposition) was merely “a present exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the temporary occupant of the elected office of district attorney that would in no way be binding upon his own future decision-making processes, let alone those of his successor”. But, it didn’t. Why ? Integrity, dignity, and the Constitution. The Constitution was there at the outset, but it was the Court’s integrity and dignity that prompted and caused it to refer to and rely on the Constitution to vacate Cosby’s conviction and sentence. The Court held, “the discretion vested in our Commonwealth’s prosecutors, however vast, does not mean that it’s exercise is free of the constraints of due process.”
Moreover, it was the Court’s integrity and dignity that caused it to obey its oath of office, that is, to “support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth.” One or more of the judges may have believed that Cosby , on the facts before them , had somehow assaulted Andrea Constand, but their integrity and dignity would not allow them to overlook the Constitution(s) and the process by which the prosecutors were attempting to secure Cosby’s conviction for the assault. In other words, the Court placed the Constitution before any personal feelings it might have had, “A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of , the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.” Decision, at p. 79.
The judges likely had wives, daughters, granddaughters, etc., who disagreed with their decision and urged them to find the other way, but the Court’s integrity and the Constitution would not allow it to succumb to such influence. And, if you think that influence could not be vile, ask Phylicia Rashad, who came out in support of Cosby. “Quickly, some of the outrage aimed at Cosby was also turned on Rashad, who played Clair Huxtable, the wife of Cosby’s Cliff Huxtable, on the beloved TV series ‘ The Cosby Show’. . . . The exhilaration and pride that had followed the May announcement that the Class of 1970 alumna (of Howard University) and Tony winning actress would be joining the staff (of Howard) was, for many, replaced with dismay, rage and shame’.” L.A. Times, “Rashad post on Cosby rattles college”, July 5, 2021.
But, the icing on the Supreme Court’s integrity cake is : most of the Supreme Court’s majority deciding the case favorable to Cosby were WHITE FEMALES (3).
“(M)any expressed shock and fury over Cosby going free on a technicality”, L.A. Times article, supra, but, the Constitution is not, and will never be, a technicality.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s decision was absent systemic and/or institutional racism. Yes, race was a factor in the case, not formally or legally, but as a matter of societal “norms”. Whenever Black people, especially Black males, are involved in any matters of controversy where race might be a factor, it is a factor. In the United States of America, race matters (especially, when it comes to Black people). Here, Cosby was a Black male accused of sexually assaulting a white female. Does Emmett Till ring a bell ? It is clear that the Court, because of its integrity, did not allow racism to influence its decision, otherwise, Cosby would still be in jail. Many courts, because of , and based on, covert racism and a lack of integrity, would have decided the case a different way, i.e., Cosby would still be in jail. No, I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with the Court’s decision to free Cosby must be racist. I am saying that those who are racist or who would have exercised racism in Cosby’s case, could have and likely would have found a way to * “justifiably” deny Cosby relief, and only the racists would know that their decision was based on race or the fact that a Black man was charged with sexually assaulting a white woman.
Fortunately for Bill Cosby, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not one of them.
UPDATE—July 20, 2021
MY HABEAS CORPUS PETITION : SO FAR, NO RESPONSE
My habeas petition has now been pending for over a month now, and I haven’t received a response of any kind. I don’t know who is presiding over the petition or whether there has been a response to the petition, and , if there has been a response, who is responding . Ordinarily , the district attorney‘s office would respond to the petition. But , at this point, to my knowledge, no one has responded.
MY COMPLAINTS , ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO GEORGE GASCON, HAVE NOW BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROB BONTA : TO “RESTORE THE TRUST” AFTER I HAVE LOST FAITH IN GEORGE GASCON AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
I have now also filed the complaints I originally filed with the L.A. District Attorney’s Office with Attorney General Rob Bonta, received on July 15th. I now await a response from Bonta or his office, particularly regarding Appellate Division judge Sanjay Kumar and Court of Appeal judge Dennis Perluss.
Hopefully, Atty. Gen. Bonta will treat this matter as he did the matter in Solano County in May. “Bonta criticized Solano County Dist. Atty. Krishna Abrams, who he said had ‘unilaterally abdicated her responsibility’ to look into the shooting (by a Vallejo police officer) for possible criminal charges.” L.A. Times, “State attorney general to review killing by officer”, May 14, 2021. “Abrams’ ‘failure to act only serves to create more obfuscation and distrust in our justice system,’ Bonta said.” Id. “ ‘Without accountability, there is no justice,’ Bonta said in a statement announcing his decision to review the shooting. ‘It’s past time Sean Monterrosa’s family, the community, and the people of Vallejo get some answers. THEY DESERVE TO KNOW WHERE THE CASE STANDS. INSTEAD, THEY’VE BEEN MET WITH SILENCE.’ ” Id. Emphasis added.
Finally, “Bonta said Abrams has attempted to deliver the investigative file of the shooting to the California Department of Justice EVEN THOUGH ‘NO KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTED HER FROM DISCHARGING HER DUTIES (AS WITH GASCON IN MY CASE).’ ” Id. Emphasis added. “ ‘AS A RESULT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S INACTION, BONTA SAID, HIS OFFICE WILL REVIEW THE INVESTIGATION AND DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES.’ ” Id. Emphasis added.
Let’s see if Bonta does the same with my Complaints.
UPDATE—August 18, 2021
THE COURT CASE COMPLAINTS : BONTA LIKE GASCON : TALK THE TALK , BUT DOESN’T WALK THE WALK; THEREFORE, ON TO STAGE 3
It has been nearly a month now since I filed the Court Case complaint with the new Attorney General, Rob Bonta. Yet, I haven’t received a response from Bonta or his Office. Therefore, I must draw my own conclusions , as I did with Gascon, as to why Bonta did not respond to my complaint. They are exactly the same conclusions that I drew from the Gascon refusal to respond. So, rather than repeat those conclusions here, I will refer you to my May 20, 2021 UPDATE in this blog. And, regarding Gascon’s “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” statement, my response is essentially the same for Bonta’s nearly the same statement. Gascon’s statement was “no one is above the law”, Bonta’s statement goes even further (in the case of one Salvador Sanchez, “a former Los Angeles police officer who fatally shot a mentally disabled man during an off-duty confrontation at a Costco store”, who has been charged with manslaughter and assault, and who appears to be Hispanic or Latinx), where Bonta stated, “NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW”. Then why is that statement and philosophy not applied to the Court Case defendants ? Especially as to judge Sanjay Kumar, with his multiple lies in a filed legal document ? I believe the PEOPLE of the State of California (the real People, not the prosecution’s People) , especially the black and brown People, deserve an answer. And, my response to Bonta’s statement is the same as it was for Gascon’s statement as applied to the Court case defendants : it points to racial discrimination or a lack of integrity or both. And, the statement is meaningless, except when applied to minorities.
And so much for me believing that Bonta would treat my case like he did the Sean Monterrosa case, where he stated, “They deserve to know where the case stands, instead, they’ve been met with silence.”
I deserve to know where my case stands, yet, I’ve been met with silence by the D.A.’s office , and now, Bonta’s office. And, as with Gascon, “no known circumstances prevented (Bonta) from discharging his duties.” But, instead of taking action to review and investigate my complaint (because of Gascon’s neglect), Bonta has decided to “remain silent” as well.
Therefore, although both Gascon and Bonta have talked that talk about no one being above the law, “no matter who you are”, neither has walked the walk in implementing the philosophy, EXCEPT when it comes to certain Black and Latinx people.
If necessary, Gascon and Bonta could have appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Court Case if they were really interested in “justice” and fairness, but, they’re not.
Therefore, onto Stage 3 : The U.S. Department of Justice.
My main concern will be whether the new Biden-Garland Justice Dept. will be more like the Bush-Mueller Justice Dept., which demonstrated that it would act on criminal civil rights Complaints brought by a Black male, or other Administrations which have demonstrated otherwise. We’ll see.
THE L.A. TIMES AND THE LOS ANGELES JUDICIARY : WHY HASN’T THE TIMES PERFORMED AN IN-DEPT INVESTIGATION OF THE L.A. JUDICIARY AS IT HAS WITH OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE BODIES ? IS THERE A CONNECTION ? DOES THE FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY PERPETUATE MISCONDUCT AND RACISM ?
It has come to my attention that the L.A. Times, while investigating numerous other organizations, public and private, on matters involving misconduct, discrimination, and racial bias or racism, it has not conducted such investigations regarding the judiciary. What initially brought the matter to my attention was a Times editorial regarding the Medical Board of California, “State lawmakers concede too much to doctors lobby“, August 4, 2021, where it was stated :
“As Times reporters Jack Dolan and Kim Christensen documented recently in horrifying detail, the medical board has repeatedly failed to protect the public against doctors with track record of grievous errors. A study by Public Citizen found that California’s agency ranked 33rd among state medical boards imposing serious discipline (such as revoking or suspending a physician’s license) at well less than half the rate of the most aggressive state board, Kentucky’s. Even one of the board’s own members, Eserick Watkins, has publicly accused it of caring more about doctors than the public.”
“There is broad agreement among legislators that the board is failing the public.”
“This is, after all a board that has kept patients in the dark about complaints it receives, more than 95% of which result in no public record (more than 80% are dismissed without an investigation). Patient advocates say that the board has even dismissed complaints about serious misconduct without speaking to the victims.”
If the Times investigated and reported on the judiciary and the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)(the agency that oversees judicial misconduct of CA state judges), it would probably find the same type of misconduct and make the same statements, e.g., “the medical board has repeatedly failed to protect the public against doctors with track record of grievous errors”. Just substitute “the CJP” for the medical board, and “judges” for doctors. That is, “the CJP has repeatedly failed to protect the public against judges with (a) track record of grievous errors.” The same thing would apply to Watkins accusing the medical board of “caring more about doctors than the public.” Again , substitute doctors with “judges”, and the statement would be equally applicable to the CJP. That is, Watkins accusing the CJP of “caring more about judges than the public.” The same thing with “broad agreement among legislators that the board is failing the public.” Again, substitute the CJP for “the board”, and the statement is probably equally applicable to the CJP. That is, “broad agreement among legislatures that the CJP is failing the public.” Finally, and most importantly for me, as a victim, “Patient advocates say that the board has even dismissed complaints about serious misconduct without speaking to the victims”. Just substitute “the CJP” for the board, and I KNOW (from personal experience), not probably, this statement is equally applicable to the CJP. That is, “(Litigant) advocates say that the CJP has even dismissed complaints about serious misconduct without speaking to the victims.”
But, the Times has not investigated and REPORTED on the CJP as it has on the Medical Board. I wonder why ? What’s the connection ? And, the CJP was publicly criticized by the State Auditor for not disciplining judges as it should have. So, why didn’t the Times report this, i.e., the state audit of the CJP, to the public ? To my knowledge, it has not done so. Is the non-reporting a disservice to the public ? Absolutely!
Moreover, where some of the non-reported judges may be prejudiced or racist, the Times non-reporting is a perpetuation of racism in the courts, where the judges might otherwise be removed from the bench because of the reporting. Just look at what has happened to doctors who the Times have reported on : A UCLA doctor, Dr. Guillermo Andres Cortez. “The state medical board opened an investigation into Cortez in February after the Times detailed a former resident’s accusation’s that he cornered her in a windowless room at the hospital, reached under her scrubs and sexually assaulted her.” L.A. Times, “UCLA doctor stripped of license, accused of sexually assaulting former County-USC hospital colleagues”, June 1, 2018. A USC doctor, Dr. George Tyndall. “The case arose after the Los Angeles Times published accounts from former and current employees about Dr. Tyndall’s alleged sexual misconduct as a gynecologist.” BBC News, March 25, 2021.
An investigation into the conduct of some judges would likely result in the same outcome as that for Cortez and Tyndall. Yet, the Times DO NOT REPORT misconduct of judges (and I don’t count this mediocre stuff where a judge simply was impolite or hurt someone’s feelings, e.g., discourteous—I’m talking about serious misconduct, e.g., denying or depriving a litigant of his or her civil or constitutional rights or committing criminal acts or conduct), EXCEPT for the Black Jeffrey W. Johnson (evidence of racism by the Times ?). In the Cortez case, the Times reported “a former resident’s accusation”. As my readers know, I have made several “accusations” against judges. So, why hasn’t the Times reported ANY of them ? (further evidence of racism or the perpetuation of racism ?). And what would happen to the judges if the accusations were reported to the public, as the Times has done with the doctors, e.g., Cortez ?
So why doesn’t the L.A. Times publish the misconduct of judges in the same way that it publishes the misconduct of doctors, e.g., Cortez and Tyndall ? Is there a connection with the judges ? You be the judge.
THE BOTTOMLINE : As a result of the Times’ FAILURE AND/OR REFUSAL TO REPORT THE MISCONDUCT of judges as it does that of doctors, it allows certain judges to remain in the Los Angeles County court system who would otherwise be removed, and theTimes know or should know this. And, for those certain judges who otherwise would be removed, who have racist inclinations, they will continue to act on those inclinations. And, for those operating in the criminal courts, they will continue to send Black and Latinx boys and men to California jails and prisons unjustly and these same boys and men will unjustifiably spend a considerable amount of their lives in jails and prisons when they OUGHT NOT TO.
And, occasionally, many years later, some minority man, usually, will be set free by efforts of the Innocence Project, when , in actuality, he should have been set free at the outset, but for a bad judge.
On the civil side, many people, black, brown, white, and others, will continue to lose or be denied their constitutional rights, when they, rightfully, should have been granted them. For example, the homeless. Many homeless people are and have been denied their constitutional rights from the very beginning, by a bad judge. They have been unconstitutionally denied their right to a jury trial, they have been unconstitutionally denied their right to a fair and impartial judge, and they have been denied their right to due process in *the landlord securing the eviction from the outset, e.g., improper notice. Nevertheless, they end up and remain homeless, not because of a lack of affordable housing, not because of unemployment, but because of a bad or racist judge that the California Court system refuses to get rid of. In part, because the L.A. Times refuses to report these judges like they report the misconduct of doctors or others.
UPDATE—September 7, 2021
THE HABEAS CORPUS DECISION : JUDGE MAAME FRIMPONG : FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHY MANY BLACK AND BROWN MEN AND WOMEN, AND ESPECIALLY BLACK MEN, ARE LIKELY IN CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS UNJUSTLY; AND, ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT , WHICH I WILL ADD TO MY “ARSENAL OF LIES”.
Last month, I received the Superior Court’s Order in response to my Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging my conviction and sentence in the misdemeanor case of violating a restraining order. The Petition was summarily denied, through a 3-page Order (with the gusts of the decision located on the second page—page 3 is basically a signature page) without a response from the government (which likely would have been the district attorney’s office)(but, with the summary denial, the DA did not have to file a response—which prevented the government from showing that it had no response— because I’m INNOCENT, factually , actually, and legally), and without a hearing. The judge deciding the Petition was a Black female (unless there was another judge of the same name—I’ve never met this judge and I don’t know anything about her other than some background information that I discovered in trying to determine who he or she were—but, I bet she knows about me). And, I must admit, based on seeing the name on the docket, I initially thought it was a man; and I was surprised to discover that it is a woman, and a Black woman. Her name is Maame E. Frimpong.
First of all, when one reviews the Order, you have no idea what the case is all about. One cannot tell, by simply reading the Order, what the case is about. So, anyone trying to find out about this case and petition through reading the Court’s Order, you are wasting your time. That proposition alone gives you some insight into the fairness and “justice” of the decision. And, it is probable that the only reason the Order is three pages long and not just 1-page is because of a procedural rule which requires that a reason be given for the decision. Otherwise, it would probably have been a one-line decision noting that the petition was summarily denied. Nonetheless, even with the purported reasons provided, it still was a completely arbitrary and capricious decision.
Second, after having to provide reasons for the decision, the court provides the usual boilerplate reasons for denying a habeas petition, e.g., “the petition raises issues which were raised and rejected on appeal”.
And, it’s okay to use and rely upon those principles, but, they must be true. If the reasons are not true based on the facts of the petition, then, they must be false. Here, there was at least one or more false reasons and/or statements. Ordinarily, I would point it out here, but, I won’t this time, because I will be submitting a Petition to the Court of Appeal. The way the petition system works in California is one files an original petition at each stage, rather than appealing the decision of the lower level. So, the Court of Appeal will review a new petition the same way the trial court reviewed the original petition submitted to it. I will reveal the false statement in a different forum, and, if I remember, I will try and insert a new passage here with the statement after my appeal. However, the statement will be added to my “arsenal of lies”. Even if a reason could otherwise be open to interpretation, in my case, it could not be. For example, I requested expeditious treatment of the Petition (for a matter regarding my mother’s home). As one can see from reviewing the Order, there was no response to that request. And, the court had a duty to respond. Instead, the court took the maximum amount of time allowed to respond to the Petition, and thereafter, summarily denied the petition.
Finally, judge Frimpong’s decision in this case provides further evidence as to why there are likely many Black and Latino men and women, especially Black males, in California jails and prisons unjustly. One only has to imagine multiple cases decided this way, where the person is actually innocent, and this is the process he or she receives in attempting to prove his or her innocence. Especially pro se individuals. *I should have been ACQUITTED.
Do I believe this decision was discriminatory, in view of the fact that this was a Black judge ruling on the Petition? Absolutely (it was). I am a Black male residing in Los Angeles County, and until proven otherwise, a Black judge is no different from white or other non-Black judges in the Los Angeles County court systems, the majority of whom from my experiences, are at minimum, prejudiced. My trial judge, Kimberly Baker Guillemet, was also a Black female judge. It made no difference. I was discriminated against by her, based on gender, at least.
UPDATE—September 29, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS #2 : JUDGES ELIZABETH A. GRIMES, JOHN SHEPHERD WILEY, JR., AND SAM OHTA: STILL FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SO MANY BLACK MALES ARE PROBABLY IN CALIFORNIA JAILS AND PRISONS UNJUSTLY; AND ANOTHER FALSE REASON OR STATEMENT ADDED TO THE ARSENAL OF LIES.
Like the Superior Court decision for Habeas Corpus #1, the decision for Habeas #2 was completely arbitrary and capricious. Like Habeas #1, the panel likely provided a reason because a reason was required, otherwise, they likely would have summarily denied the petition with a one-line order without a reason. As it stands, it was a boilerplate reason, one that the Superior Court relied upon as well. But, it still must be true. And, it is still, by law, a summary denial. A summary denial of relief to an innocent person.
However, without intending to do so, the panel granted me some relief, i.e., an expeditious decision. I filed the Petition on September 15, 2021, and the panel denied the Petition on September 21, 2021, without an opinion or ANY written analysis, only conclusions, even though I asserted, in the Petition, that I am innocent. I had asked for an expeditious decision, and the court’s decision was certainly expeditious. Six days; that might be a record. That, alone, is a denial of due process (without any analysis or in-depth explanation of the merits of my claims). If the expeditious treatment was on my behalf, the panel would have said so, “Petitioner’s request for expedited action is granted”. Nevertheless, in fairness, since I don’t KNOW for sure that the expeditious treatment was wholly in bad faith, I will, in hindsight, give the panel the benefit of the doubt and assume that the expeditious treatment was granted per my request (even though the Petition was denied).
I am confident that this is not just happening to me, a Black male in Los Angeles County. And that is why it is still further evidence of why there are likely numerous Black males in California jails and prisons who are either innocent or not guilty of a charged offense. And, when they file habeas corpus petitions to try and secure their freedom, their petitions get treated the same way my two petitions have been treated. But, the California court systems call this “justice”. I call it racially-motivated “injustice”. That’s why California has more prisons and more prisoners than any other state in the nation. Yet, California is supposed to be “liberal”. For Black males, *California liberally metes out injustice.
Finally, like Habeas #1 (with at least one reason, of several provided) , the reason (s) provided here for the denial is false. I will only address the first part of a conjunctive reason for your (the readers here) understanding. The court stated, “Petitioner does not state a prima facie case for habeas relief or otherwise establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.” Proof of falsity of the first part is also proof of falsity of the conjunctive part. I will address the first part here. The statement is not true because I, in fact, DID “state a prima facie case for habeas relief”. “A prima facie case for relief states facts that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief, and states claims that are not procedurally barred”. S.F. Criminal Lawyer Blog. Put another way, “When presented with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court must first determine whether the petition states a prima facie case for relief - that is, whether it states facts that, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief- and also whether the stated claims are for any reason procedurally barred.” People v. Romero, 8 Cal.4th 735 (1994). I know of no procedural defects affecting the petition, but, you need not concern yourself with this requirement because even if there was a procedural defect, it would not prevent the part dealing with the merits, or the first part, from being false, and any part that is false is a denial of due process.
I stated a prima facie case for habeas relief because I “stated facts that, if true, entitled me to relief”. I stated, “I did not receive notice of the order I was charged with violating, and I testified to this at trial. And, the government offered no proof at trial that I had notice or knew about the restraining order at the time I was charged with violating the order.” If true, these facts entitled me to be acquitted, or, at minimum, to habeas relief, because one of the requirements or elements of the offense, i.e., violating a restraining order, is that the defendant KNEW about or had KNOWLEDGE of the court order. Therefore, in truth, I stated a prima facie case. And, in fact, because I stated a prima facie case, the panel did the exact opposite of what it was required to do, by law. That is, “When. . . a habeas corpus petition is sufficient on its face (that is, the petition STATES A PRIMA FACIE CASE on a claim that is not procedurally barred), the court is OBLIGATED by statute TO ISSUE a writ of habeas corpus. In the language of the Penal Code, ‘any court or judge authorized to grant the writ. . .MUST, if it appears that the writ ought to issue, GRANT the same WITHOUT DELAY. . . .’ (Pen. Code, § 1476.)” (emphasis added). Id. *Which means, I should have been ACQUITTED, expeditiously. But that is based on a level of integrity and dignity.
This time, all three judges, Grimes, Wiley, and Ohta, signed the Order. Therefore, they are all equally responsible for the action of the Order.
NOTE : This case was decided by Division 8, and I had filed an objection with the Court sometime earlier against Division 8 hearing any of my cases, based on its conduct in another earlier case of mine.
UPDATE—November 2, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS #3 : THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT : THE FINAL STATE DECISION AWAITS
Last week, I filed, in the California Supreme Court, the final habeas corpus petition *(actually, a Petition for Review) that I will file in the California State courts before proceeding to federal court, if necessary. It should not be necessary. But, that’s for the California Supreme Court to decide. I’m innocent, actually, factually, and legally. That is, COMPLETELY.
I await the Court’s decision.
UPDATE—November 21, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS #3 : ANOTHER RETURNED PETITION, WITH AN OFFER TO FILE AN ORIGINAL HABEAS PETITION
Last week , my Petition for Review of my Court of Appeal habeas corpus petition was returned by the California Supreme Court, based on untimeliness of the filing. So, the Court offered me the opportunity to file another original habeas petition. But, I am returning the Petition for filing, because I believe the Court made a mistake in its calculation of the time allotted to file the Petition. I believe it’s a matter of a court rule that the court did not include in its calculation of the time allowed. *The Petition was timely filed. We’ll see what happens.
UPDATE—December 1, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS #3 : A RETURNED PETITION FOR THE SECOND TIME ; AND A RE-RETURN FOR THE SECOND TIME
The CA Supreme Court has now returned the Petition a second time. This time the Court , via the Clerk, relied on a different Rule, which was not cited in its first letter returning the Petition. But, while the new rule facially appears to pertain to the categories of proceedings in my case, it does not apply to my case or proceeding. Briefly, the rule applies to different types of writs, but, it does not apply to the writ in my case, i.e., habeas corpus. Therefore, it does not preclude the Petition from being timely filed. Consequently, I am, for the second time, returning the Petition to the Court for filing.
UPDATE—December 11, 2021
HABEAS CORPUS #3 : A RETURNED PETITION FOR THE THIRD TIME , AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
Now, for the third and final time, the Clerk of the CA Supreme Court has returned the Petition for Review. This time, without mention of the CRC Rule it cited in its last letter, Rule 8.490(b)(1)(A), and after I demonstrated that the Rule was not applicable to my case, except where it supported my position that it was not applicable to my case, i.e., see 8.490(b)(2), e.g., a writ of habeas corpus petition; rather, 8.490(b)(1) applies to writs of mandate, certiorari, and prohibition petitions. See Subdivision (b) of the Advisory Committee Comment of Rule 8.490, where “This provision addresses the finality of decisions in proceedings relating to writs of mandate, certiorari, and prohibition.” The Clerk simply returned the petition and cited its previous reasons for the return, AFTER I demonstrated by the Rule itself, i.e., Rule 8.490(b) and the Advisory Committee Comment, that it was not applicable to my case, i.e., habeas corpus. That is, there was no further demonstration by the Clerk that the Rule was otherwise applicable to MY case. Thus, the decision to not file the Petition was arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of my right to due process of law. The Petition was timely filed.
However, and upon an earlier invitation of the Court, through the Clerk, to do so, after this last return of the Petition for Review, I submitted an original habeas corpus Petition. The Court has now filed that Petition, No. S272096 . But, I submitted the original habeas corpus Petition as an alternative to the Petition for Review (which was timely-filed). I could care less what document the Court relies upon in granting me relief, which I believe I deserve, if it grants such relief.
Nonetheless, if I must proceed to federal court to obtain habeas relief, I will carry both petitions along with me.
UPDATE—March 28, 2022
JAIL OR PRISON INMATES AT SOME FACILITY ARE BEING DENIED DUE PROCESS REGARDING TELEPHONE CALLS : IF TELEPHONE CALLS ARE MADE AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBILITY TO PARTIES MUST NOT BE DENIED BY PROCEDURAL PROCESS
In the last two weeks, an inmate has attempted to contact me by telephone. He (I assume) has tried on several occasions. At this time, I will assume it’s a he because I did manage to speak with an inmate over a year ago, but I can’t recall what the process was at that time, but we got through. And it may be the same inmate. But, I don’t KNOW that it is.
This time, with whoever it is, a recording comes on and tells you the call is from a correctional institution, but, it doesn’t say which one. So, I don’t know what institution the call is coming from . What is the point of not identifying the institution? If you knew the institution the call was coming from, it would be a step closer to identifying the caller. Next, it tells me that my telephone service provider doesn’t allow for billing, so I need to call another number. When I call that number, it tells you that you must arrange a billing method, and offers an assortment of methods, credit card, debit card, etc. But, it also says, if you want to speak to an operator, dial “0”. But, when I dial “0”, nothing happens. I’m not connected to anyone. Also, the recording ask if you want to arrange to maintain an account. Or, if you wish to continue receiving calls from the institution.
The main point is : why would an attorney want to go through all of these procedures for someone he doesn’t even know ? It’s a frustrating process. And, the correctional institution knows this. So, what’s the point of giving the inmate the right to make a phone call ? It’s a symbol without substance . Whatever happened to the old system of the inmate simply making a collect call ? I don’t know if the correctional institution is state or federal.
THE BOTTOMLINE : Even if some inmates get through with their calls, the ones who do not are denied due process.
UPDATE—March 30, 2022
RECALL GASCON : BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT SECOND CLASS REPRESENTATION, DISCRIMINATION, AND DISRESPECT FROM GASCON, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A FEW *PROGRESSIVE “PERKS”
To begin with, I started out supporting George Gascon based on his “progressive” agenda, e.g., regarding sentence enhancements, bail reform, and juvenile recognition. But, relying on my experience as a Black man, Black lawyer, criminal defense and civil rights lawyer in America, I knew that first impression and initial efforts would not be sufficient to determine how progressive, or, more importantly, how fair Gascon would be as a prosecutor. I knew that there would be certain tests that would arise that would put Gascon’s true progressiveness or fairness on full display. Especially, for me, knowing most white prosecutors as I do (and, most prosecutors are white. Jackie Lacey, *who is Black, was an exception).
Well, the tests have taken place, and Gascon has failed the tests. See my February 10, 2021 and May 20, 2021 UPDATES above in this blog. Therefore, he should be recalled.
Clearly, my reasons for recalling Gascon are not the same as the original recallers, but I, nonetheless, believe Gascon should be recalled. We, the People, do not need a prosecutor who is going to disrespect us. I don’t care how progressive he’s supposed to be. We deserve better. Nothing Gascon has done can overcome his disrespect for and discrimination against black and brown people.
UPDATE—May 16, 2022
GUESS WHAT ? MY HOME HAS BEEN BURGLARIZED AGAIN, AND WHAT DID THE THIEF OR THIEVES TAKE THIS TIME, AGAIN ? CRIMINAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Some days ago, I discovered my home had been burglarized again, and my criminal trial transcripts had been taken, again. This time it wasn’t a physical break-in, e.g., breaking a door or window, rather, it was a more sophisticated break-in, e.g., picking the locks ,use of a locksmith, or some other mechanism or device that allowed the door to opened without a breaking. I only discovered the burglary when a matter came up and I went to refer to the transcripts, and I discovered them gone. So, I don’t know exactly when they were taken. This is the second time they have been taken. The first time, it was a physical breaking of the door to my room (I had a roommate, with a criminal record, at the time—but, no longer, and I know he cooperated with others). The transcripts were replaced.
So, I pose the same questions as I did the first time regarding the theft of the transcripts, who would want to steal criminal trial transcripts ? And, perhaps more importantly, who would not want me to have the transcripts ? And, why ? Clearly, the typical burglar or thief would not want the transcripts, because the transcripts would be of no value to them for themselves, i.e., like a watch or necklace that he or she could wear, or that he could sell to others to wear; and they would be of no use to anyone else (other than someone who would be able to afford to purchase the transcripts for themselves, e.g., movie producer, author, etc.) that the thief might try and sell them to. So, it’s doubtful that it was a typical burglar or thief who stole the transcripts. Therefore, the probability is that it was a government agent or agents. And, based on the second question above, who would not want me to have the transcripts (which is evidence)?, the entity that would be most harmed would be the City or the city attorney’s office. And, I have to believe that the office was involved in some way. But, admittedly, I don’t KNOW for sure.
UPDATE—June 6, 2022
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL : AN UNANTICIPATED OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO REDEEM ITSELF AND ACTUALLY METE OUT REAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE
On June 8, 2022, a day after the election, I will return to the Superior Court of California, Courtroom #53, and request the Court to reconsider its decision denying my previous motion for judgment of acquittal made during my criminal trial for purportedly violating a restraining order. The unanticipated motion came about because of my request for the court to waive a fine, which was ordered as part of my sentencing, and which is due to be paid on July 5, 2022.
Since I was asking the court to waive the fine, I decided to also ask it to reconsider the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal made during trial, where the court generally found that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, without identifying the specific evidence that had been produced by the government (the “People”) to meet the required elements that it (the government) needed to prove to meet its burden of proof. Moreover, no court, including pre-trial, has decided whether the restraining order used to convict me was fraudulent or not.
Therefore, with the motion to reconsider, I am asking the court to determine whether the restraining order used to prosecute and convict me was fraudulent or not. I argue that it is. Moreover, I argue that the government failed to prove several of the elements of the offense that it was required to prove at trial, which should result in my acquittal. The government will be required to produce the evidence at the hearing, upon a grant of reconsideration.
THE BOTTOMLINE : The motions hearing will provide the Superior Court with an opportunity to free me of the negative effects of an illegal and racially-motivated prosecution and conviction . I was and am COMPLETELY INNOCENT of the restraining order charge, and have been so from the very beginning, and the government and the court knew as much as early as pre-trial proceedings. So, the motions hearing will offer the government and the court an opportunity to right a wrong. The nature of my character would prevent me from committing any acts against my sister or anyone else that would require a domestic restraining order of any kind. Consequently, both the initial restraining order and the attempted renewal of that order were based on lies (and HAD to be), which the courts accepted. In fact, at the hearing before one judge , I pointed out one of the lies and suggested that the Court could probably discover that it was a lie by contacting a City department. But, the judge stated that wasn’t her job. And, she issued the restraining order nevertheless. I subsequently contacted the City Department myself and confirmed the lie or false allegation to be a lie. The court can correct this injustice as well.
UPDATE—June 13, 2022.
JUDGE SUSAN DE WITT : A NECESSARY RE-ASSESSMENT : SHE IS NO EXCEPTION
THE MOTIONS FOR WAIVER OF THE FINE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JOA: BEGRUDGING JUSTICE AND NO JUSTICE : THEREFORE, NO REDEMPTION
The motions were heard on June 8, 2022 before judge Susan de Witt.
Prior to the June 8, 2022 hearing, the case was scheduled to be heard before judge de Witt (I had appeared before judge de Witt before; that was a positive experience; however, this appearance was not). But, when I arrived at the courthouse, judge de Witt’s courtroom was closed and her cases were being heard in Courtroom #54. When I went to check in at #54, I discovered the motion had not been calendared. That should have been a red flag. After the #54 clerk and deputy told me that I would just have to show up on the #53 next scheduled date, July 5th ( assuming I wouldn't know how to have the case heard)(but, I knew better) the case was calendared for #54 and judge Anne Hwang. The clerk was likely about to schedule the case at a later date before Hwang, but I somehow, in good faith, was believing that the failure to calendar the motion was a court “system” thing (as opposed to a de Witt thing) and I asked for the case to be placed on de Witt’s calendar, rather than Hwang’s, based on a past positive experience with de Witt. But, BIG MISTAKE (even if Hwang would have ruled the same way).
The Motion to Waive the Domestic Violence Fine : Begrudging Justice
First of all, the deputy city attorney took no position regarding either motion. That is, she didn’t OPPOSE either motion. That would have been enough for most judges to clearly grant the motion to waive the fine, based on the motion info, without any further discussion. It wasn’t enough.
Second, based on the city attorney’s non-opposition and on my motion and Declaration, this, again, should have been an easy call, and I expected it to be. It wasn’t. De Witt asserted that the fine was “mandatory”. I referred her to the Penal Code and case law that I cited to in my motion which indicated that the fine could be waived. After accepting the proposition that the fine could be waived, she proceeded to have me reveal more specific private and personal information regarding my income and debts in open court. For example, when I told her that my monthly income was below a certain amount, such as $1,200, she demanded to know the exact amount . Did she have a right to do it ? Yes. But, was it necessary ? No. It was simply an “abuse” of her discretion. Finally, she concluded that I was in the “red” financially, so she vacated the order to appear on July 5th and waived the fine. Therefore, it was begrudging and abusive justice.
The Motion for Reconsideration of the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
First, as stated above, the People took no position, or, DID NOT OPPOSE the motion to reconsider the motion for judgment of acquittal and to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal (which was the specific relief that I sought upon grant of the motion for reconsideration). That means that the People AGREED TO THE ACQUITTAL, or that I SHOULD BE ACQUITTED. But, its position had to be finalized by de Witt. It wasn’t.
NOTE : Although the People’s conduct in not taking a position regarding my motions is commendable, I surmise that another reason for not doing so is that they did not want to be put in a position of defending fraudulent and criminal conduct. An opposition would have left them in that position; and the prosecutors in the position of possibly facing the CA State Bar. So, the People likely concluded that if that “dirty work” was to be done, it would have to be done by de Witt. And she obliged.
Second, de Witt initially attempted to dispose of the reconsideration motion procedurally. She argued that I should go through proceedings that I already went through, e.g., an appeal and habeas corpus proceedings, instead of seeking reconsideration of the motion for judgment of acquittal (JOA). I reminded her that it was based on those proceedings that had me in her court (i.e., none of those other courts decided whether the restraining order that I was charged with violating was fraudulent or not).
Finally, after I stated that no court had answered the question as to whether the restraining order is fraudulent or not * ( and, it is fraudulent) de Witt stated that since I wanted a decision on the merits, she would rule that the motion (for reconsideration and judgment of acquittal) was without merit. And, that was her final ruling. Basically, she granted the motion for reconsideration and denied the motion for judgment of acquittal based on a lack of merit. *Consequently, for an answer to the question of whether the restraining order is fraudulent or not, or for a fair determination of the motion for judgment of acquittal, it was no justice.
De Witt’s ruling results in at least the following :
1. De Witt refused to grant a judgment of acquittal, even after the government offered NO OPPOSITION to her doing so, *without ANY justification.
2. De Witt defended fraudulent conduct and a fraudulent restraining order. Therefore, she defended criminal conduct.
3. In stating that my motion was without merit, she made a provable false statement. How can a motion that can decide whether a person is innocent or guilty be without merit ?
4. When De Witt ruled that the motion for reconsideration and for judgment of acquittal was without merit, *without any explanation, she denied me due process of law.
*5. De Witt DID NOT answer the question of whether the restraining order that I was charged with violating, and that I was found guilty of violating, was fraudulent or not.
*6. De Witt did not determine whether the People had proven all elements of the restraining order offense necessary for my conviction.
Moreover, she also denied me due process by not calendaring my motions in the first instance.
READERS : IN AN EARLIER BLOGPOST IN THIS BLOG, I STATED BASED ON FIRST IMPRESSION THAT I FOUND JUDGE DE WITT TO BE A FAIR JUDGE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, UPON SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION BEYOND FIRST IMPRESSION , INCLUDING A SECOND APPEARANCE BEFORE JUDGE DE WITT AND MY OBSERVATION OF HER TREATMENT OF AT LEAST ONE OTHER CASE AS I AWAITED MY APPEARANCE BEFORE HER, I NOW FIND THAT JUDGE SUSAN DE WITT IS NOT A FAIR JUDGE, *WHICH MEANS , SHE IS NOT A GOOD JUDGE
UPDATE—July 24, 2022
A SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR REDEMPTION OR JUSTICE : THE CORRECT COURTROOM AND THE CORRECT JUDGE : WILL I BE KEPT IN BONDAGE OR WILL I BE SET FREE ?
As it turned out, my waiver , reconsideration, and acquittal motions were erroneously calendared and assigned to judge De Witt. They should have been calendared , assigned to, and decided by judge Anne Hwang in Courtroom #54. The error in calendaring is being corrected by a renewed hearing properly calendared and assigned to judge Hwang. This time, the decision will be hers. The same questions remain : is the restraining order that I was charged with and convicted of violating fraudulent ? And, did the People prove all the elements of the crime necessary for my lawful conviction ? However, the only decision before judge Hwang will be the issue of the judgment of acquittal.
This time, I hope to get an answer to the questions. Those answers will determine my fate, either continued bondage or freedom. Here’s what I KNOW: I am COMPLETELY INNOCENT. So, that dictates what I perceive the correct answers are : Yes and No, respectively. And, there can only be one decision available for judge Hwang : Grant the motion for judgment of acquittal OR deny it. Any decision other than a grant of the motion is a denial of the motion. The matter will be heard on August 2.
UPDATE—August 9, 2022
JUDGE ANNA HWANG : NO EXCEPTION AND NO DIFFERENCE
THE DECISION : JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DENIED : NO JUSTICE : I REMAIN IN “BONDAGE“
Judge Anna Hwang, who is Asian, generally followed in the footsteps of judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet, who is Black, but there was one big difference between Guillemet’s circumstance and Hwang’s. See, infra. And, that difference is what gets Hwang in trouble.
The Motion for Re-Calendaring and for Judgment of Acquittal
Hwang granted the motion for re-calendaring, and thereafter, denied the motion for judgment of acquittal (JOA).
At the outset of the August 2, 2022 hearing, the People, not surprisingly, changed its “no position” response (which DID NOT OPPOSE the JOA motion) argued before judge De Witt, to the “motion had already been decided” (by judge De Witt). That decision supports my conclusion that the main reason the People took no position at the De Witt hearing was its concern about possibly incurring State Bar discipline, rather than any notions of fairness (which I stated was “commendable”). But, that position was later PRECLUDED by judge Hwang’s proclamation and/or decision that she would treat the motion as if it was originally before her in her courtroom (#54). However, the government was not asked , nor did it state, another position. But, once again, it DID NOT OPPOSE the MOTION. So, as with De Witt, Hwang had to do the “dirty work“ and decide whether the restraining order was fraudulent or not, and, if it was (is), whether to support criminal conduct or to support the use of fraudulent evidence to obtain a conviction. And, Hwang also had to decide whether the People had presented sufficient evidence that each element of the violation of a restraining order had been proven.
Hwang then reviewed my paper motion and other documents or papers attached to the motion, and concentrated on the appellate opinion in the case issued by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles. After she pointed out some findings in the opinion, I responded that the Appellate Division’s decision was irrelevant to her decision, because the decision had to be made before the appeal, and moreover, she could not rely on the Appellate Division’s decision because it was filled with lies (via judge Sanjay T. Kumar).
As it turned out, the appellate process did have some relevance based on a judgment of acquittal standard, P.C., sec. 1118.1, but, the appellate Opinion still could not be relied upon at this NEW and original hearing. P.C. : 1118.1 : “In a case tried before a jury, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion, at the close of the evidence on either side and before the case is submitted to the jury for decision, shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more of the offenses charged in the accusatory pleading if the evidence then before the court is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses on appeal.” Emphasis added. That means, the judge could only anticipate what might happen on appeal based on evidence provided at the hearing, i.e., “then before the court”.
Moving on, Hwang stated that she reviewed my motion and papers and was prepared to rule, and thereafter, asked if there was anything I wish to add. I proceeded to actually argue the JOA motion. I argued that the restraining order was fraudulent and that the government did not prove certain elements of the offense. The People was neither called upon to offer any REBUTTAL argument or EVIDENCE (by Hwang), nor did they voluntarily offer any. My motion contained the documentary evidence concerning the fraudulent restraining order that I argued about at the hearing.
Finally, after MY ARGUMENT, Hwang made her finding and ruling. She found that there was substantial evidence of each element of the offense, and therefore, the motion (for JOA) was denied. Honestly, after she said, I find there is “substantial evidence”, I tuned out for the rest of it, but it had to be “of the existence of each element of the offense charged”, or something to that effect, because she subsequently stated, and I did tune in to this phrase, “the motion is denied”. This is the same standard, “substantial evidence”, used by judge Guillemet at trial. Apparently, both Guillemet and Hwang substituted the term “substantial” for “sufficient” (as in insufficient evidence, per sec. 11118.1). In both cases, however, the People did not respond after I made my argument. But, the one BIG DIFFERENCE between Guillemet’s ruling and Hwang’s ruling was : The People had presented EVIDENCE in its case-in-chief at trial, prior to Guillemet’s substantial evidence ruling. Here, at the JOA hearing, the government presented NO EVIDENCE. And, that fact was crucial to Hwang’s decision. It was IMPOSSIBLE for Hwang to find “substantial evidence” of EACH element of the offense charged because the People presented NO EVIDENCE on ANY of the elements at the hearing. And, remember, it is the prosecution’s BURDEN to show that ALL of the elements of the offense have been PROVEN.
THE BOTTOMLINE : Whether one relies on “sufficient” evidence or “substantial” evidence, the People did not produce either. Hwang cited and READ aloud in open court the standard for granting a JOA, that is, sec. 1118.1, but, she refused to obey, apply, or follow the standard, and she was REQUIRED to do so. Moreover, because I met the standard, that is, “the court. . . at the close of the evidence on either side . . . , shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more of the offenses charged in the accusatory pleading if the evidence then before the court is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses on appeal” (emphasis added), Hwang HAD TO GRANT the judgment of acquittal. That is, because the People presented NO EVIDENCE then before the court, NECESSARILY, there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to sustain a conviction. Where there is NO EVIDENCE, there CANNOT BE sufficient evidence. As a matter of fact and law, I should have been ACQUITTED. I wasn’t.
Thus, there was no justice. And I remain in bondage.
Hwang’s ruling results in at least the following :
1. Hwang refused to grant my motion for judgment of acquittal, even though the government DID NOT OPPOSE the motion.
2. Hwang did not answer the question of whether the restraining order used to convict me was fraudulent or not. And what that means to me is : It is fraudulent. And, if it is fraudulent, that means that judge Hwang is supporting the use of fraudulent evidence to maintain my conviction.
3. When Hwang found that there was substantial evidence of the elements of the offense, she KNEW that the People had not produced ANY evidence at the hearing.
4. When Hwang denied the motion for judgment of acquittal without the government producing ANY evidence at the hearing, she denied me due process of law.
5. When Hwang ruled in the People’s favor without the People producing any evidence, it was an exercise of bias in favor of the government and against me. There was nothing fair and impartial about the decision.
JUDGE HWANG IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE OF UNFAIR OR PREJUDICED *OR RACIST JUDGES IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT SYSTEM. AND, EVEN THOUGH JUDGE HWANG IS A FORMER FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE; AND SHE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN JUDGE DE WITT, WHO IS A FORMER ASS’T U.S. ATTORNEY. HWANG IS NOT A FAIR JUDGE, WHICH MEANS, SHE IS NOT A GOOD JUDGE.
UPDATE—August 17, 2022
JUDGE HWANG FOLLOWED JUDGE GUILLEMET IN HER FINDING AT THE JOA HEARING, AND SHE ALSO FOLLOWED HER IN MY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT
Judge Anne Hwang, while following in the footsteps of judge Kimberly Baker Guillemet with her “substantial evidence” finding at the judgment of acquittal hearing, also followed Guillemet in my Justice Department Complaint. Neither one of them is there simply because they ruled against me; rather, they are there because they denied me fundamental constitutional rights, i.e., due process of law (especially regarding my liberty interest) and equal protection of the law, under color of law, together with other claims. They are joined by judge Susan De Witt, who is there for the same reasons *(although I was not explicit about the equal protection charge for her).
And what does Guillemet, De Witt, and Hwang all have in common ? They are all women *(and the so-called victim is a woman). And who am I ? A Black male. Could race and gender have entered into their decisions ? As a Black man in Los Angeles County, and under the facts and circumstances of their decisions, until proven otherwise, I assume that my race and GENDER, especially, here, were factors.
There is some indication that De Witt and Hwang are not presiding over cases at this time. * De Witt’s cases (Courtroom #53) were being handled by Ct. #45, and Hwang’s cases (Courtroom #54) were being handled by another judge (white female).
UPDATE—August 21, 2022
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS : THE FINAL STAGE
With the refusal of the California state courts to grant me relief and free me from bondage, I must now turn to the federal courts. As it happens, I had already started the federal habeas process when the opportunity appeared to ask judge De Witt for state court relief. And, as I indicated above in the December 11, 2021 UPDATE in this blog, I carried both the Petition for Review and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which were submitted to the California Supreme Court, with me to federal court. We are now awaiting a Magistrate decision on a frivolous motion to dismiss filed by the city attorney’s office.
UPDATE—September 5, 2022
THE FIRST TEST OF FAIRNESS IN FEDERAL COURT : THE CITY ATTORNEY’S FRIVOLOUS MOTION TO DISMISS ; IT WAS DOOMED FROM THE BEGINNING AND IT SHOULD BE DOOMED IN THE END; BUT, ONCE AGAIN, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS RELYING ON A JUDGE TO DO ITS DIRTY WORK, THAT IS, EXCUSE AND PROTECT CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND DENY ME RELIEF; AND, KEEP ME IN BONDAGE.
To begin with, there’s a serious question as to whether the idea of filing a motion to dismiss is that of the city attorney’s alone. For it was the Magistrate, Alka Sagar, who, after I filed the Petition for habeas corpus relief, suggested that the city attorney’s office (CAO), Rolando R. Reyes, deputy, could file a motion to dismiss or an Answer to the Petition on the merits, depending on what or how the CAO felt about the merits of the petition, that is, without deciding the merits or deciding the merits. But, how did Mag. Sagar know that Reyes even knew what a motion to dismiss was ? And, even if Reyes knew what a motion to dismiss was, how did Mag. Sagar know that Reyes would have tried or attempted that strategy ? But, once offered that suggested option, even if it was without merit, why not try it? So Reyes did .
The bottomline: The only order that Sagar could fairly give, without violating my due process rights, was for the CAO to respond to my Petition by a certain date (however it decided to respond).
Next, after the CAO decided to file a motion to dismiss, the motion was procedurally defective at the outset. The CAO neglected to include a time and date for the hearing on the motion, as required by United States District Court (USDC), Cent. Dist.’s Local Rules. Reyes also did not contact me to convene a conference meeting between the two of us prior to filing the motion, as required by the Rules. Therefore, the motion was doomed from the beginning.
Third, I, nevertheless, responded to the motion on the merits and argued in my response or opposition that the motion was frivolous. And, one of the main points of frivolity was the CAO arguing that “Petitioner does not identify as respondent the actual person having actual or constructive custody over him; he names the “State of California. . . .” But, no person has custody over me, actual or constructive, because I am NOT incarcerated. So, I had to name the State of California. Thus, the motion is (and should be) doomed in the end.
Finally, I followed-up with a Supplement to the Opposition, whereby I pointed out the CAO’s violation of the local rules and, per one of the local rules, requested that the Court decline to consider the CTA’s motion to dismiss for it’s violation of the local rules. I made this request in my opposition rather than submitting a formal motion. Reyes indicated that he waived his right to oral argument in his motion. But, I did not. But, I’m giving the Court an opportunity to decide the matter without argument if it chooses to.
However, if the Court does not issue a ruling in a reasonable time, e.g., 30 days or less from the date of the filed Supplement to Opposition, Aug. 31, 2022, I will file my own motion and it will include a time and date of the hearing.
We likely will never know what the CAO’s position would have been without the suggested litigation strategy, but, based on its state actions, it probably would not have taken a position as to the merits, to avoid supporting and defending criminal conduct, while, once again, leaving the final decision up to the Court.
There are four (4) main reasons why the court should deny the CAO’s motion to dismiss :
1. The motion to dismiss is without merit.
2. The CAO violated the Court’s local rules in filing the motion.
3. The same local rules allow the Court to decline to consider a motion that is in violation of the rules.
4. Mag. Sager denied me due process by suggesting litigation strategy to the CAO.
UPDATE—September 6, 2022.
Today, the Supplement to Opposition (a copy, that is) that I filed on August 31, 2022 was returned by mail, with NO EXPLANATION. But, my blogpost immediately above, September 5, 2022 Update, remains the same. Nothing is changed by the return of the Supplement to Opposition.
UPDATE—December 19, 2022
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS STATUS
First, the Supplement to Opposition is still on the Docket and a part of the Record, notwithstanding it being returned. Second, since the parties had not received a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss, I filed a motion requesting the Court to decline to hear the government’s motion to dismiss for it’s failure to comply with a Local Rule of the Court, as well as other reasons associated with Mag. Alka Sagar’s actions related to the City Attorney’s Office and counsel, i.e., suggesting litigation strategy. See above at 9/5/2022 Update. I also moved for a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss (MTD).
I filed the motion with District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, since I was alleging Mag. Sagar had taken actions associated with the government’s motion to dismiss. However, Judge Sykes referred the matter back to Sagar. Thereafter, Sager ordered a response to his tentative findings regarding the government’s motion to dismiss, whereby he found that I hadn’t exhausted all of my claims (in my habeas Petition) before the CA Supreme Court. I responded and argued that I had. Sagar thereafter responded and offered me a second opportunity to reconsider and choose from several options which suggested that I had not exhausted all of my claims before the CA Sup. Ct. I responded and maintained my position that the claims had been exhausted, and I continued to rely on a 9th Cir. case, cited by Mag. Sagar in his original Order, to support my position.
The next step should be a Report and Recommendation by Mag. Sagar to judge Sykes.
UPDATE—January 19, 2023
FED. HABEAS CORPUS STATUS
Mag. Alka Sagar has now made the Report and Recommendation to District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes. The Report mirrors Sagar’s original Order where he found a “mixed” Petition, in other words, all claims had not been brought before the CA Supreme Court. Again, I disagree, so I filed Objections to the Report, again principally relying on a 9th Circuit case to support my position.
The next step : a decision by Judge Sykes regarding the State of California’s motion to dismiss my petition for habeas corpus relief and my motion for the Court to decline to hear California’s motion.
UPDATE—May 18, 2023
DISTRICT JUDGE SUNSHINE S. SYKES : THE HABEAS CORPUS DECISION : DENIED PETITION AND DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION : A BLATANT AND ARBITRARY DENIAL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW
District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes has now ruled on the habeas corpus Petition, by and through accepting Magistrate Alka Sagar’s Report and Recommendation. And thereafter, she denied a Certificate of Appealability (COA), where she is suppose to identify the issues that she believes are colorable claims for appeal. By her denying the COA, it is suppose to signify that she didn’t find any appealable claims, after issuing an entirely arbitrary decision. She basically denied me a right to appeal her decision. That, in itself, is a denial of due process. Whatever happened to fair and impartial ? Here are three important points about Sykes’s decision :
1. Even though I charged that Mag. Sagar displayed bias in suggesting a motion and teaching litigation strategy to the city attorney, there was no discussion of the issue by judge Sykes. She simply rejected the contention and referred me to Sagar’s explanation (and he claimed some federal provision allowed him to be bias, i.e., suggesting motions, etc.).
2. Even though I relied on a 9th Cir. decision in arguing that I had exhausted my remedies in the CA Supreme Court, there was no mention of the case in Sykes decision.
3. The 9th Cir. decision presented at least one appealable issue in regard to the COA.
Now, because of the federal habeas corpus process and the COA, instead of receiving a briefing order as other appellants receive, I have to wait to see what the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals does in response to an unconstitutional decision.
NOTE : I think the so-called Certificate of Appealability(COA) is unconstitutional as a denial of due process by preventing a habeas corpus litigant from directly appealing a district judge’s decision. Rather, no matter how unconstitutionally a district court has acted, that court still decides whether a habeas corpus litigant has an appealable issue. And, clearly, a district court is not going to decide that his or her unconstitutional actions is an appealable issue. Basically, federal habeas corpus litigants are treated as second class litigants (requiring judges to decide whether they have appealable issues or not). And, if you are pro se, you are third class, and if you are Black, you are fourth class.
NOTE : In full disclosure, in the Record, I indicated that I would appeal the habeas corpus decision regardless of the outcome, based on the original assignment of my case (before it was re-assigned to judge Sykes). But, that position did not relieve judge Sykes of her responsibility to issue a fair and impartial decision. I could have decided to change my mind, depending on her fair and impartial decision.
READERS : I am INNOCENT of the restraining order charge and the Courts know that I am. But, rather than acquit me, the so-called criminal justice system chooses to violate my constitutional rights. I have PROVEN that : (1) I knew NOTHING about the specific restraining order that I was charged with violating, at the TIME it was supposed to have been issued to me, and (2) even if I had been issued the restraining order, it was FRAUDULENT, on its face. And those two facts are not going to change. So, I am INNOCENT, and that’s not going to change either. And so my continued conviction for violating the illegal restraining order only reflects on the lack of integrity of the criminal justice systems in Los Angeles County (to include the habeas corpus processes) and on the continued racism in both the criminal and civil “justice” systems in Los Angeles County, particularly when it comes to Black males.
**UPDATE—May 29, 2023 Memorial Day
MY CAR AND HOME HAS BEEN BURGLARIZED AGAIN
My car and home has been burglarized again. And, again, it’s clear that it was not the work of an ordinary burglar. It wouldn’t be worth the trouble. In both cases, car and home, it was eyeglasses that were taken. From my car, a pair of red-frame glasses and from my home, a pair of brown-frame glasses, after also rummaging through my legal files, which included a car insurance policy. It appears trivial (the eyeglasses) but there’s a reason for it. All of this occurred within the last 3 weeks, which also included an automobile “accident”, caused by the other driver. And, now, I’ll have to get my car repaired. And that will take time. It all points to government activity with a purpose in mind (my ruin). I’m still being illegally surveyed. Although , none of my conduct has been illegal.
I’m posting this on Memorial Day because I am a veteran. I’ve served and helped protect the country, during the Vietnam War Era. And, I would venture to say that probably, the people conducting the illegal activity against me here have never served the country through military service, and have no intention to do so. That should mean something.
