SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA congratulates ISFFH
LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF
November 14, 2007
Dear Friends:
Dn behalf of the men and women of the Los Angeles County Sheriff‘ s Department, I am pleased
to congratulate the International Student Film Festival Hollywood as you celebrate your fifth
year. I applaud your efforts to offer student film makers from all over the world a unique
opportunity to gain recognition and create career development opportunities.
The Intemational Student Film Festival Hollywood welcomes students of all ethnic and academic
backgrounds, and its work benefits the film industry as well as the community as a whole by
bringing together people of various cultures and differing viewpoints.
I am honored to recognize your strong commitment and dedicated service to the community and
pleased to add my voice to what is certain to be a week full of activities and enlightenment. May
your event be successful and your message and goals be heard and followed by all those in
attendance.
Sincerely, ‘
LEROY D. BACA
SHERIFF
A citizens complaint it’s me buddy george I was right about the city of la mirada listen I used tactics to get human behavior by writing the city mayor and the District attorney Christina abanese for the city of la mirada and I seen probation officer tracy duran and she made it a special condition of probation saying they may revoke my right to use the intranet and I can’t contact the city about deputy Neil that is contracted by the city and the damages he caused by preventing my communication with Robert Mueller fbi director and the sheriff’s department done everything to prevent communication as well even though I already reported to the fbi the sendis family drug business on both nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis and quinn and big john and all the cell phone contacts out of 3 shot callers cell phones up to the line of drug cartels over 600 pounds of methamphetamine off the streets and 300 kilos of cocain off the streets and firearms trafficking and murders and a pipe bomb was lifted out of the sendis family house in one of the indictments the city of la mirada should be held accountable for this with you pluss I took a deal to prevent tarnish to Robert Mueller director of fbi and I’m the one that helped with Pandoras box with the fbi in the jail in Los Angeles county and I helped president Barack Obama with both campaigns voices and forward and the truth and I designed a idea for president Barack Obama that made the San Gabriel valley daily newspapers and with the jail I done this I figured out the code of silence and got cameras put up and got Rotation of the deputies and got department of public health to comb the jail for msra staph infections and to disinfectant the jail to prevent outbreaks of infections and the drug probe the the deputy with the burrito with herion and I designed samepage with tarnish and shine ethics and my code name the most honest man in blue and I reported the Dr Enriquez with accepted money a fake medical records to prescribe Medication for Howard bloomgarden and wrote about skinheads with syringes and I wrote about China and it’s chemicals and much more in the contacts were baller tapia nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis flaca the general and sinolia cartel and sinoah and smoah and many more thanks for your time and assistance Sincerely and respectfully submitted Buddy george Code name firefly
My address is
Buddy George
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Hi there, I enjoy reading through yojr article.
I wanted to write a little comment to support you.
LEROY BACA SHERIFF 1,21,2016
The following deserves your attention I signed a life time contract with you and held my end of the deal with tarnish and shine ethics with samepage with core values what the hell happened with la mirada contracted deputy Neil obviously he’s not about the core he’s about tarnish and not shine what makes no damn sense I thought for sure you had my back I know for a fact if you would have had contact with the federal bureau of investigations it would have never have had happened I literally took a deal to prevent tarnish to Robert Mueller fbi director out of respect for his high trusted position unlike alot of people that can care less about the CIA I’m a big fan of david Petraeus and John Brennan and I’m sure in the hell not with all that corruption I’m not a criminal and sure in the don’t think like one hell let me be a CIA operative that works with community relations that deals with the lawenforcements and chains of commands I would iron that out real quick they would be no two sides of the fence being played by any law enforcements and their wouldn’t be any need for it either I wrote to you about Neil and I wrote to Robert Mueller fbi director about Neil as well and no cared about what it is I was onto hell you mise well have just gave El chapa the keys to the jail the problem is everyone plays know it all not a care in the world for public saftey it’s like everyone is either money Hungary or blood thirsty with not a care in the world for tax payers either
Mise well just be one organized crime ring that just loves lies right under your noses they done it was it worth it for that political pony show with Los Angeles county superior court with judge Espinoza and Sgt Neil who is a proven perjury case with that police report with favoritism that stems with Cheri ives and Lynette O’Brien and the la mirada district attorney Christina abanese and Ann harkinson and Susan Hill with that faulty unwise judgement that still has the harassment going with probation DPO TOM BYRD Out of Neil carelessness and lack of regard for federalism he made a decision for the federal bureau of investigations and now la mirada is playing victim with probation and the probation stipulations are not to contact the following
1)the city of la mirada
2)Fullerton Police Department
3) la habra police department
4)California rehabilitation center Norco state prison
Do these people know and understand it was my communication with the federal bureau of investigations that took alot of stuff off the streets I done it online so how Is that no matter what deputy Neil prevented that communication all the training in the world and it’s a vigorous liars match out of prejudice for the federal bureau of investigations and yet they still are trying to stand by those guns here’s my guns with the federal bureau of investigations,
1)Nick casper sendis
2)Roger rogelio sendis
3)baller tapia
4)big john la habra
5)quinn
6)350 phone contacts up to the line of sinolia drug cartel to Robert Mueller fbi director
7) Atleast 3 firearms trafficking cases
8)45 million dollars
9)22 tons of Marijuana
10) $750,000
11)over 600 pounds of methamphetamine
12)over 300 kilos of cocain
13)180 counts of frauds
14) over a million dollars with the Roger rogelio sendis and roman
15)Pandoras box with leroy Baca
This is just a glimpse of the truth as a federal man thar helped the federal bureau of investigations
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Dear Leroy Baca January 21 2016
I’ve been trying to get ahold of you just to touch bases with you its obvious I kept my end of it sure I took the deal to help the federal bureau of investigations and you would me amazed of what I syphoned out of that sentence with the sole intentions of integrity to help the federal bureau of investigations prevail as a fed that’s what we do sure nice little camping trip that what military and everyone else does its about perception with multiple hats with being about to understand human behavior with code language and knowledge I went in as a loaded gun and I’m glad I’m not about greed I done all of it 100 % for free not a penny was given to me as everyone else whines and snivels about stuff it takes bravery if it’s about money keep it bath your selves I’m it the part I don’t like is the lies and the tarnish of my reputation
Where your deputy wanted to discredit me nice try for the rest of my life my eyes are peeled and I sure in the hell know what it looks like it takes a act if ignorance to play deputy Neil with la mirada I’m way ahead of the entire big picture I’m talking about over one hundred trillion dollars worth of information for free that’s priceless
I’m writing a documentary on it I sure in the hell have the entire story to fill I’m the blanks I’m with the federal bureau of investigations 100 % with any issue they have regardless of what ever it is we have alot In common with issues I’m 100 % against corruption I’m not in favor of lies I came out the winner I created a test for communication and it’s obvious I’m not shy and I’m not with that BS either you know where I stand on issues by heart I fully understand from your perspective of why you do and don’t do certain things like the back of my hands I asked Neil contact the federal bureau of investigations fbi director Robert Mueller for a reason I was on my own investigations and I was onto the sinolia drug cartel and here comes deputy Neil dumb as a box of rocks for Cheri ives with for a very prejudice city with Christina abanese district attorney and the mayor regardless they are caught with their pants down I wrote to president Barack Obama with 900 names pluss tons of information and said watch the sheriff’s department will cash in on the information I left behind and when I get our I’m going to write the city of la mirada and district attorney Christina abanese is going to write Laurie and say is he using drugs I sent Christina abanese live ammunition a complete list 100 % with accuracy and with that information entailed in it was thar message I told president Barack Obama if I’m meant to be a fbi agent god will make this happen for me and I predicted everything and you know what everything I forecasted happened you know why it’s god given talents remember that word PROVEN I’m sure you do honestly I gave a damn about public saftey and the arresting officer didn’t the words were never to be touched and someone pulled a political card you know what I turned over enough to prove law enforcements into criminals with president Barack Obama remember the news lawenforcements are the problem he meant it between the federal bureau of investigations and The Barack Obama administration and the CIA theirs alot of intel and it’s the largest Gun In the world not a phony pony show real guns real live ammunition and I’m with them 100 % on any issues they stand for I my self believe in everything they stand for hell let me read the mission statements let me be a CIA operative I know I would never bring tarnish to my badge neither would I for our country it’s united we stand in the United States of america remember that .
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Another truth is I saved alot od gangland lives by doing what I done alot of the homies have kids and rather focus on their families and not some political pressure of a drug cartel that’s powerful and claimed many lives I designed 2nd chance dream act that made it possible for a colture to have a chance with their families without deportation if I had it my way they would all have the American dream regardless of race or gang I’ve spoken with the big homies and alot them said they want something different
I know everyone has potential if my idea with president Barack Obama comes into play with futuristic planning they with have opportunities and action at the American dream and it won’t be prison I my self understand the streets and the structure and I know the CAUSE like the back of my hands I’ve made a difference I’ve saved lives by getting cameras put up in the jail I had the department of public health comb the jail for msra staph infections and to get the jail disinfected to prevent spreading of outbreaks to prevent it from spreading to the Los Angeles county community including the sheriff’s department and in the white house with the president’s theirs ideas of mine their that would seriously fix it I made the San Gabriel valley daily newspapers with president Barack Obama “A IDEA DESIGNED FOR A PRESIDENT ”
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Another thing is my cousin is a TOP AID FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH ADMINISTRATION and and I’m proud of my cousin and what makes no sense at all is people like to make up stories and lie about people and Play games with people’s lives I guarantee if their was people in high places that said enough is enough let’s put these people in apartments instead where the prison guards can’t enforce political structure and where theirs not any price gauging where they sell 99 cent store items at hole grocery store prices and give these people a chance at the American dream they will jump on it take the caps of potential and let them become someone instead of forced failures they will prevail the truth is they have taken a beating with discrimination and put downs and judges and district attorneys and a bunch of judges that really added to the problem with stiff sentences and alot of people didn’t have family so they created their own a family that wouldn’t betray them or let them down as a result of alot of sentences alot of people didn’t get a chance to say good bye loss of a mother of their wives leaving them or when they get out their isn’t enough jobs and the clavo is all they know here with a fat sack get on your feet the government should have just legalized drugs and just left it at that instead of entrapment with punishing people for self medicating on it if your going after the demand your beating a dead horse and your never going to be able to stop it so it’s cheaper to just let it be and save tax dollars I guarantee by not arresting people your saving more money it cost more to keep someone in on drug charges than the drugs are worth imagine $20 bag and you gene someone 3 years for it at how much per day on housing and theirs lawenforcements playing both sides of the fence putting political pressure on slot of these guys to do their dirty work do or else knowing these people have a family if not a belly button family they have eachother my words of advice if your a gang member just stop the killings and report the ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT to the FBI federal bureau of investigations because no one wants to see a family blown up out of the sick demented twisting thinking of a terrorist and with the United states of america nothing to fear be strong and if you have time Take a CPR class so if disaster strikes you can jump in gear and save lives and not panic
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Something to consider and this is for the the ones that lice by code and structure with the gang structured movement listen theirs alot more you can do if you put your minds to it education is really cool and if you don’t agree with something get all the homies and gangs and everyone to go to the white house website theirs a site call WE THE PEOPLE START a petition and get people to sign it remember if you don’t address it your voice won’t be heard my best advice would be to empty the system believe me I’m a very extremely powerful man and I care about people and thousands beyond thousands of people know me if I could influence you to do anything is to seek something else other than crime life style you wouldn’t believe how much diffrence it would make with law enforcements if they could focus resources on THE ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT and other things Let’s Do this just to show a count of hands that want a better life and better future past the word to stop the killings and crime we gave the best country in the world The best military the best lawenforcements the best of everything and this president cares ok by a show of hands just to PROVE A POINT STOP THE CRIMES AND KILLINGS FOR STATISTICS to send a message of statistics with crime statistics this will prove that you want it I’ll write president Barack Obama and tell him if crime rates drop low enough that will be your voices as a strategy for you to be heard and who ever reads this pass the word
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Another thing is if you know any information to help solve mystery of crimes with murders and terrorism with ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT report it the the federal bureau of investigations it’s not hard and don’t be scared of It it doest weigh 10,000 pounds it will make a diffrence in society the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS are highly trained and their not your enemies and their not with CORRUPTION if you have cell phones and your incarcerated report it anyways because they will deal with prison and jail related issues I know I’ve gotten quite a bit done with integrity and the diffrence makes a diffrence fir everyone and alot of people have kids and children and families by doing this it makes the streets safer if your one of the people the city of la mirada pulled a political move on write to the Los angeles county board of supervisors or the city mayor the ones behind the harassment is la mirada district attorney Christina abanese and Ann harkinson and Susan Hill believe me their famous for this I took a little time out of my life and busted them red handed it’s often either defamation of character or a ponzee scheme wich are both highly illegal I know of a lot of people they done it to this time I proved them into a crime spree scientifically proven lies and the federal bureau of investigations and the white house and the central intelligence agency CIA all have my information to prove it deputy Neil and Morris and tousey and Harmon and Davis and Lopez and all of them are dirty and I have proof of it I have pictures and videos of my federal bureau of investigations tips that proves not with any criminal intent and I’m a FED and la mirada doesn’t know their rear from a hole in the ground theirs a few attorneys that handle these types of cases you can file torts and 42 usc $1983 and they may put a stipulations of not contacting the city but remember it’s your god given right to correspond with any government agency regardless if it’s the city of la mirada or the president or any law enforcements with confidentiality without reprisals or retaliation I have some stuff going on in high places the city of la mirada is going to have no choice but to compensate and repair the reputation that they tarnished out of harassment theirs also parole officer Steven Perez and and parole officer Victor verimontes and I got him fired from the Santa fee springs parole department and the city of la mirada public saftey I’M 100 % FEDERAL as a Fed
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
If you live in the city of la mirada and you get pulled over a lot and had experienced stalking or had a female drop or leave drugs in you car and you got pulled over by deputies deputy Neil or deputy Harmon or deputy Davis and deputy Lopez or deputy Davis it’s the la mirada district attorney Christina abanese and even if you move she will call your probation officer as a threat with intent to terrorize with harassment I’ve turned over billions of dollars worth of stuff to the federal bureau of investigations and la mirada has been proven into embezzlement and entrepreneurs of entrapment and racketeering and civil rights violations they are working for the sinolia drug cartel I hope this leads to a thorough investigations into the city of la mirada I reported it to the federal bureau of investigations I caught onto it real quick keep documentation of a list of evens I’m working on some stuff and I know alot of people they done this to theirs Cheri ives and rich Ives rich ives works for public saftey rich ives is married to Cheri ives Cheri ives has a daughter named Lynette O’Brien and Lynette O’Brien is married to mike O’Brien that lives in big bear he manufactures methamphetamine and rich Ives and Cheri ives has a nice little face front with the city and Cheri ives is apart of the harassment look I helped with Pandoras box with the fbi and leroy Baca and much more and I know for a fact I’m not whi they claim me to be they say aka lee george a gang member when I’m orthodox Jewish and I’m a very very very famous man with this president and his administration as well as with the federal bureau of investigations as well as with the CIA CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY contact THE DEA ATF CIA NSA THE SECRET SERVICE AND US MARSHALS IF YOU KNOW OF ANYTHING if you had the city put politics on your attorneys would where they won’t fight for you or you get a saying they don’t want you out their waiting your bail money it’s Ann harkinson city management in the city of la mirada REPORT TO THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
The city of la mirada has systematic corruption and does everything in its power with the speaking lies about people and even has its city management that goes through the extent of harassment with calling people’s probation officers such as DPO TRACY DURAN AND TOM BYRD with intent to have harassment inflicted and I reported that to the federal bureau of investigations the city has no clue I’M SEALED I have a seal on me and it’s with the federal bureau of investigations it’s awfully Strang of a city to do its up most to force people out of their houses la mirada screwed up and done it to the person and of course they are going to pay a large settlement as compensation for damages it’s caused with destruction of property and it’s tactics to help drug cartels elude the federal bureau of investigations well the boarder patrol and the narcotics bureau and the organized crime investigations needs to look into the city for its own set laws and they consider them selves exempt nit with federal authorities their not they don’t have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of and if leroy Baca was any kind of human being he would tell them personally because leroy Baca and the federal bureau of investigations and the president of the United states of america Barack Obama are my witnesses to the city of honestly don’t know how these people cab be trusted with public saftey issues because I know Neil wanted nothing to do with organized crime such as cartels or 15 pounds of methamphetamine and he wasn’t interested in murder and theirs a good chance Neil is apart of the killings theirs a guy named AL and I’m starting to think Neil had something to do with it Neil is a leak to gangs as well he loves setting people up and he will even threaten your attorney and he will threaten your families and loved ones to get deals taken the city of la mirada has a whole smorgasbord of systematic corruption and harassment tactics rather it be code enforcements they really are about you losing your house to they will force you out of your houses and they pay attention to ways to drown you out they will offer to buy your house or force you out if it they will have neighbors call repeatedly and make stories and spread lies and even have people in the streets lying about you to take you out of you character if you have a family member that’s been murdered well Neil isn’t interested in it but he us most likely close to the people that had it done Cheri ives was at one time offering money to have Aaron borassa snuffed out its a dirty game of politics and alot of deputies made it past Pandoras box as murderers as gang members so if you know anything about the la mirada law enforcements with the city of la mirada I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU TO CONTACT THE FBI THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ANYONE THAT KNOW ANYTHING REPORT IT TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
1) HOMICIDES
2)ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT
3)ORGANIZED CRIME NETWORKS
4)DRUG SMUGGLING
5)MONEY LAUNDERING
6)EMBEZZLEMENT
7)RACKETEERING
8)LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED HOMICIDES GANG RELATED
ANY TYPE OF CRIMES IT’S EASY
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
FBI DEA NSA THE US MARSHALS THE SECRET SERVICE
IT’S NOT HARD TO FIND ONLINE AND IT’S SIMPLE ANY INFORMATION WITH LEADS ON CERTAIN THINGS YOU NEVER KNOW YOU MAY GET A REWARD FOR IT IF NOT THE BEST REWARD MAYBE SEEING THE DIFFRENCE THAT IT MAKES WITH KIDS BEING ABLE TO PLAY SAFELY OUTSIDE WITHOUT HARM BEING INFLICTED ON THEM DON’T BE ADFRAID OF ANYTHING IT MAKES YOU A BETTER PERSON TO BE IF INTEGRITY REMEMBER EVERYONE IS A HUMAN BEING AND IT ALL COUNTS
REMEMBER
CONTACT THE FOLLOWING
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS FBI
THE ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO AND FIREARMS ATF
THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DEA
IF YOU HAVE A EMERGENCY CONTACT 911
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
IF YOUR CONFINED IN A INSTITION AND HAVE A CELL PHONE THE FOLLOWING IS REPORTABLE
1)PPRISON GUARDS OR LAW ENFORCEMENTS PRESSURING YOU TO SELL DRUGS OR CELL PHONES OR TOBACCO
RATHER IT’S PRISON OR STREET RELATED IT’S A TACTIC
2)PRISON GUARDS OR LAW ENFORCEMENTS THAT CAUSE GANG VIOLENCE REPORT IT
3) IF YOU KNOW THEIRS LAW ENFORCEMENTS OR PRISON GUARDS THAT SINGLE PEOPLE OUT TO HAVE VIOLENCE INFLICTED IT’S CALLED VIRTUAL HITS
4) IF YOU KNOW ABOUT HOARDS OR SHERIFF’S THAT PUT HITS ON PEOPLE REPORT IT
ANY LAW ENFORCEMENTS WITH INVOLVEMENT OF WRONG DOING REPORT IT IT’S A DOGGY DOG WORLD AND IT COULD BE YOU GOING UNDER THAT BUS AS A RESULT OF THEIR VIOLENCE TO BE INFLICTED INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULTS STAFF INFLICTED
REPORT IT TO THE FBI FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
C/O THE FOLLOWING
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA
FIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOLLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENTS
THE SECRET SERVICE
MY FAMILY IS A TOP AID FOR
PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
AND THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER
DIRECTOR JAMES B COMEY
CIA DIRECTOR DAVID PETRAEUS
CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF
LEROY BACA AND ALL PARTICIPANTS
WITH OPERATION PANDORAS BOX
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ALL FEDERAL AGENTS AND
OTHER TYPES OF LAW ENFORCEMENTS
POLICE AND SHERIFF’S
THAT TOOK MY FEDERAL REPORTS
WITH SERIOUSNESS TO MAKE ALL THE
DIFFRENCE IN THE WORLD
I’M A FIRM BELIEVER IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK WE SHOULD PUT IT IN THE BOOK OF WORLD HISTORY WITH THE DIFFERENCE THAT HAS BEEN MADE TOGETHER
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE WORLD’S BEST COUNTRY
WE HAVE THE BEST
MILITARY AND ARMED SERVICES
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT LEAVES OFFICE TO BE AS APART OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FAMILY
LOOK HOW MANY VOICES WERE HEARD
LOOK HOW MANY LIVES WERE SAVED
LOOK HOW MUCH DISEASE WAS PREVENTED LOOK HOW MUCH CORRUPTION HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR SOCIETY LOOK AT THE DIFFRENCE WITH A FUTURISTIC VISIONS POINT OF VIEW WITH A OPEN MIND NO ONE IN WORLD HISTORY HAS DONE THIS
WITH EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY FOR ALL PEOPLE AS HUMAN BEINGS
REMEMBER THE CAMPAIGNS
THE TRUTH AND VOICES AND FORWARD
NO CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS IN THE WORLD HAS EVERY LOVED THE WORLD AND THE PEOPLE AS MUCH AS THE THE BARACK OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON AND HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN KERRY AND MICHELLE OBAMA
MY HAT IS OFF TO EVERY ONE OF YOU AND REMEMBER THAT I’M WITH YOU 100 % ON ANY AND ALL ISSUES
I’VE GOT YOUR BACKS
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED WITH WARM WISHES AND BEST REGARDS
YOUR FRIEND AND FAMILY MEMBER
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE BEST FOR LAST DEDICATED TO ALL LAW ENFORCEMENTS
I’M WRITING CERTIFIED LETTERS DIRECTLY TO THE MAYOR’S IN ALL CITY’S WITH THAT STIPULATIONS FULLERTON MAYORS
LA MIRADA MAYOR
LA HABRA MAYOR
AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
AND I NEED ALL DOCUMENTATION NOW BECAUSE IF IT’S NOT WRITTEN IT DIDN’T HAPPEN
AND WITH THE ISSUES PARTICIPANTS WITH INVOLVEMENT OF DAMAGES STEM FROM THESE CITIES NEVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD ANY ETHICAL MAKE SUCH STIPULATIONS HERE’S WHY BECAUSE WHO YOU HAVE ON PAPER I NOT ME
AND THEIRS A COVER UP AND NO ONE WANTS TO HONE UP TO RESPONSIBILITY WELL I’M GOING TO FIX IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IT’S CONSIDERED TAMPERING WITH OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND TIME IS CRITICAL AND IT’S DISRESPECTFUL FOR A PERSON NOT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WRONG DOING TO AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE WRONG DOING THEY CAN FACE A PRISON SENTENCE FOR SUCH ACTIONS AND I’M PUSHING FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS HUSH UP PONZEE SCHEME THAT WENT SOUR BECAUSE THEIRS FLAWS AND MISTAKES AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND WRECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND A WHOLE LOT OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY THESE PO EOPLE OVER LACK OF COMMUNICATION NOW I’M WRITING TO THE ETHICS BOARD ON PROBATION OFFICERS WITH THESE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE UNPROFESSIONAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARE OF ENTRAPMENT PURPOSES AND AS A WRONGFUL CONVICTION OUT OF THAT COMMUNICATION BEING PREVENTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT I’M ASKING ALL PARTICIPANTS BEING FIRED AND EXCUSED FROM DOING AND CHARGED AND INDICTMENTS FOR THAT OBSTRUCTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND TAMPERING WITH OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL HARASSMENT WITH SAID PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED IN THIS WRITING I’M A VERY VERY POWERFUL PERSON THAT LOVES PROVING STUFF WRONG WHEN IT INVOLVES ME OR THE PUBLIC I MY SELF AM LISTENED TO IN HIGH PLACES NOW I’M GOING ON ETHICS AND TRAINING PROCEDURES AND POLICY
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
FOR CIVIL REASONS I NEED THIS IN WRITING I’VE RESPRESENTED MY SELF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA
501 “I” ST
SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814
MAGISTRATE JUDGES
GREGORY HOLLOWS
DALE DRODZE
PETER A NOWINSKI
When you do 42 u.s.c $1983
The judges like to see all supporting evidence of your exausted remedies I’m pushing to change the system on communication because without that communication with law enforcements and the cities their was a denied right to life and liberty as a innocent man even if the deal was taken my innocence is proven because it involves helping the federal bureau of investigations and preventing tarnish to the FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER AND NOW DIRECTOR JAMES B COMEY IT’S CLEAR AND OBVIOUS THAT THE COUNTY IS OVERSTEPPED BOUNDARIES WITH ME AS A FED A FAMOUS FED NOW SOME PHONEY PONY SHOW THE REAL DEAL I’M SEALED WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
AND THIS DEPRIVATION IS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION WITH THE PARTIES MENTIONED WITH THESE CITIES BECAUSE WITH ALL THE PICTURES AND VIDEOS WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF CRIME MOVED OFF THE STREETS THIS STIPULATIONS SHOULD NOT EXIST BECAUSE IT’S SELF IS CRIMINAL WITH CRIMINAL INTENT IT’S A COVER UP CREW IS WHAT A DIRECTOR POINTED OUT TO ME AND I CAN’T MENTION THE NAME OF THIS DIRECTOR
I AM GUARANTEEING THEIRS GOING TO BE ALOT OF INDICTMENTS ON ALL INVOLVED PARTIES
AND WITH THE CRIME REPORTS WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS THEIRS A GRAIN ON LAWS AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM BEING INDICTMENTS FOR INVOLVEMENT WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING THEIRS A FULL THROTTLE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THIS
THIS INVOLVES PROBATION OFFICER TRACY DURAN AND TOM BYRD DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTED AS SENT TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS JANUARY 26 2016
A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IS OVERSTEPPING BOUNDARIES ON FEDERAL ISSUES
1)THEY PREVENT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PEOPLE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENTS,
2)THEY HAVE THE INTEREST OF HELPING THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT LARGER CRIMES GET AWAY WITH IT.
3)THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENTS ARE PREJUDICE AGAINST THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS.
4) IT’S BECOME SO OBVIOUS THAT IT’S BECAME EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS GOING INTO FORCED ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION WITH POLITICAL MOTIVES THAT HAS BECOME PROFESSIONAL FEDERAL CRIME COVER UP EXPERTS,
5) INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT IT AS ORGANIZED CRIME THEY KEEP IT NICE AND SELECTIVE BASED ON GANG AFFILIATIONS,
6)IT’S BECOME A GANG MOVEMENT INVOLVING PRISON GUARDS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND CORRUPTION.
7) IT’S ONE HUGE ORGANIZED CRIME RING WITH STRUCTURED POLITICS THAT PUTS MONEY FIRST INSTEAD OF THE BIGGER PICTURE ADDING TO THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY BENIFIT MORE FROM INVESTIGATIONS THAT GO ENDLESS AND NO WHERE.
8)THAT’S RIGHT THE LARGEST SYSTEM CORRUPTION IN THE WORLD INVOLVING DRUG CARTELS AND PROBATION OFFICERS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENTS WITH THE GANG MOVEMENT,
9) THEY CAN JUST PUT A HUGE COVER UP ON ISSUES WITH NEWS MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT WHERE THEY CAN BLACK BALL YOU AND JUST PLAY POLITICAL FAVORITISM AND SPEND MORE MONEY ON COVER UPS THAN THEY DO TO FIX IT,
10)JUDGES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WORKING FOR DRUG CARTELS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS IF YOU REPORT THE DRUG CARTELS THE JUDGES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS WILL RETALIATE ON YOU AND FRAME YOU UP .
11)LAW ENFORCEMENTS ARE HAVING GIRLS FRAME GUYS UP TO KEEP THE BEDS FULL BASED ON AFFILIATIONS,
12)I GUARANTEE IF YOU REPORT 300 PLUSS PEOPLE ALOT OF THEM WILL WIND UP DEAD WITH LOWER LEVELS OF LAW ENFORCEMENTS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND THEIR CLIQUES,
13)IT’S ABOUT ORGANIZED CRIME AND ORGANIZED CORRUPTION AND ORGANIZED POLITICAL FAVORITISM
IF YOUR ON THEIR TEAM YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER,
14)CIVIL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT TO THE DRUG CARTELS AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS,
15)THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT WILL KIDNAPP YOU FOR FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS BECAUSE IT’S A GANG BRAINWASHED STRUCTURED CORRUPTION,
16)THE LAW ENFORCEMENTS CAN JUST TURN YOU INTO ANYTHING THEY WANT SUCH AS FRAME YOU UP AS A GANG MEMBER THAT’S NEVER GANG BANGED A DAY IN YOUR LIFE,
17) YOU CAN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE IT AND YET IT’S SO SYSTEMATICCORRUPTION THAT NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO YOU MEANING ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT IS ORGANIZED CRIME WITH BEING ENTERPRISES OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND FILTHY RICH ORGANIZED SCHEMES AND SCANDLES JUST TO ROB AND STEAL FROM TAX PAYERS,
18)NEWS MEDIA IS ALL ABOUT IT HIDDEN SECRETS FROM THE PUBLIC TO HELP THE ORGANIZED LOOP HOLES OF CORRUPTION GROW AND EXPAND IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS,
19)RIGHT UNDER TAX PAYERS THE LAW ENFORCEMENTS TURNED INTO DRUG CARTELS.
20) THE CORRUPTION STEMS INSIDE AND OUT OF PRISONS AND JAILS INVOLVING PRISON GUARDS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND INMATES THAT WORK FOR THEM SELLING DRUGS AND TOBACCO AND CELL PHONES PRICE GAUGING.
21)THEIR NEEDS TO BE GANG INJUNCTIONS FOR FUTURISTIC PLANNING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE AND YET LAW ENFORCEMENTS ARE EXEMPT AND USE THEIR EXEMPT TO PRETEND TO BE LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND BE CRIMINALS WEARING BADGES WITH HIDDEN SECRETS WITH JUDGES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND CORRUPTED LAWYERS THAT HELP THE CRIME NETWORKS EXPAND IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS FOR THE BENIFIT OF THEIR ORGANIZED CRIMES AND ENTREPRENEURS OF ENTRAPMENT ENTREPRENEURS OF PRICE GAUGING ENTREPRENEURS OF CORRUPTION ENTREPRENEURS OF UNNECESSARY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNETHICAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL AS PROFESSIONAL LIARS SCIENTIFICALLY VIGOROUS LIES THEY DON’T KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT’S NOT IN THEM ANYTHING TO RIP TAX PAYERS OFF RAIS TAXES FOR SERVICES NEVER RENDERED,
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
1)THAT CARES LESS ABOUT POTENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS FEDERAL AND THEY TURN IT INTO THEY CASHED IN GREEDY CLIQUE ENTERPRISES LIKE SQUIRRELS CHASING NUTS AND WITHOUT LOOKING BOTH WAYS WIND UP GETTING HIT BY TRUCKS CALLED FEDERAL SEALED INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THEY ABANDON THEIR POLICIES THEIR CORE THEIR TRAINING ON GET RICH QUICK SCANDALS AND BECOME BRAINWASHED VIGOROUS LIARS AND HIDE SECRETS FROM THEIR CHAINS OF COMMANDS WITH A CODE OF SILENCE.
2)THEY HAVE A CLIQUE THAT STOPS MAIL FROM GOING OUT DEPUTY LIMA AND DEPUTY JOLIFF
3)THEIRS DEPUTIES THAT GET INMATES TO SELL DRUGS FOR THEM IN THE PODS AND DORMS
4)THEIRS ALOT OF DEPUTIES THAT MADE THROUGH BEFORE OPERATION PANDORAS BOX THAT HAVE THE ESCAPING MENTALITY WHERE THEY SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE ABUSE OF INMATES AND LIVE BY A CODE OF GANG STRUCTURED POLITICS THAT ARE OK WITH KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES.
5)ANY AND PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY CAN LIVE BY HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES WITH THE BRAINWASHED GANG MENTALITY BECAUSE IT FINDS FAVORITISM IN THE WRONG DOING ITS SELF THAT FOSTERS CORRUPTION.
6)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA AND IT’S CONTRACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH ITS PUBLIC SAFTEY RICH IVES AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY NEIL AND VICTOR VERIMONTES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE AND ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT AND SUSAN HILL THAT FOUND A WAY TO USE AND ABUSE THE MAYOR’S COLOR OF AUTHORITY AS THEY FOSTER CORRUPTION WITH GANGS DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN IS MARRIED TO MIKE O’BRIEN A LONG TIME METH COOK THAT IS MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE IN BIG BEAR CHERI IVES IS LYNETTE O’BRIENS MOTHER RICH IVES IS MARRIED TO CHERI IVES RICH IVES USES THE COLOR OF PUBLIC SAFTEY AS A FAKE FRONT TO HIDE THEIR CLEVER MONEY LAUNDERING EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION.
7)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA HAS SIMILAR PRACTICES AS A GUY NAMED HEAD TO PREY ON CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF LA MIRADA TO FORCE THEM OUT SO THEY CAN EITHER TAKE THEIR HOUSE OR FORCE THEM OUT THEY EVEN ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY WITH ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENTS PEOPLE IN THE COURTS ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT CALLED THE COURT AND BECAME APART OF A PONZEE SCHEME WITH ABUSED CITY POWER WITH ITS DEFAMATION PRACTICES THAT HARBORS THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL.
WITH ITS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE IS FRIENDLY WITH ORGANIZED CRIME AND CARTEL EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND MONEY LAUNDERING PRACTICES AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH TAX PAYERS EATING THE COST OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY FAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT’S ALL ONE POLITICAL FAVORITISM SCHEME AND SCANDLES THAT PAYS THEM BETTER AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR FEDERALISM,
8)THE CORRUPTION RUNS SO DEEP THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BACK THEIR PLAY UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES AS A TRUSTED POSITION THEY THEY HAVE ALSO ABANDONED WITH THEIR OWN CARELESSNESS WITH THE DRUG CARTELS AND CAN CARE LESS HOW THE PUBLIC SEES THEM AND THEIR IMAGE IS NOT SHINY.
9)THEY USED AND ABUSED HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ON COVER UPS AND TO HELP THE DRUG CARTELS GO UNNOTICED OF THE NAKED EYE WITH A BLIND EYE TO IT AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN IT THEM SELVES THE CHAIR AND CROWN THAT MADE IT TO NATIONAL TV REPRESENTS MAFIA AND DRUG CARTELS GANG STRUCTURED POLITIC JUSTICE,
10) EVERY ONE OF THESE HIGH TRUSTED POSITIONS ABANDONED A HIGHER TRUSTED POSITION THE CIA AS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WITH OUR MILITARY KEEPS ARE FOREFRONT SAFE WITH OUR BOARDERS AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THESE PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT AND BETRAYED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PUT MONEY OVER LIFE AND AS PAPER CHASERS WITH CASH ENTERPRISES LOST ALL PERCEPTION AND FELL BEHIND ON THE HANDS OF TIME WITH A STRATEGY AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN MISTAKES BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE IT’S A SICKNESS IT’S A CANCER THAR HAS NO TREATMENT UNLESS IT GETS TREATMENTS AND UNLESS HONESTY IS APPLIED IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE KNOW AND IT’S SPREADING LIKE A WILDFIRE AND THE MEDIA HAS ITS OWN PROFITS KEEPING IT AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT’S CONTROLLED WITH NO FUTURISTIC CARE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS HARBORING CORRUPTION.
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
1)THAT CARES LESS ABOUT POTENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS FEDERAL AND THEY TURN IT INTO THEY CASHED IN GREEDY CLIQUE ENTERPRISES LIKE SQUIRRELS CHASING NUTS AND WITHOUT LOOKING BOTH WAYS WIND UP GETTING HIT BY TRUCKS CALLED FEDERAL SEALED INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THEY ABANDON THEIR POLICIES THEIR CORE THEIR TRAINING ON GET RICH QUICK SCANDALS AND BECOME BRAINWASHED VIGOROUS LIARS AND HIDE SECRETS FROM THEIR CHAINS OF COMMANDS WITH A CODE OF SILENCE.
2)THEY HAVE A CLIQUE THAT STOPS MAIL FROM GOING OUT DEPUTY LIMA AND DEPUTY JOLIFF
3)THEIRS DEPUTIES THAT GET INMATES TO SELL DRUGS FOR THEM IN THE PODS AND DORMS
4)THEIRS ALOT OF DEPUTIES THAT MADE THROUGH BEFORE OPERATION PANDORAS BOX THAT HAVE THE ESCAPING MENTALITY WHERE THEY SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE ABUSE OF INMATES AND LIVE BY A CODE OF GANG STRUCTURED POLITICS THAT ARE OK WITH KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES.
5)ANY AND PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY CAN LIVE BY HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES WITH THE BRAINWASHED GANG MENTALITY BECAUSE IT FINDS FAVORITISM IN THE WRONG DOING ITS SELF THAT FOSTERS CORRUPTION.
6)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA AND IT’S CONTRACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH ITS PUBLIC SAFTEY RICH IVES AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY NEIL AND VICTOR VERIMONTES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE AND ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT AND SUSAN HILL THAT FOUND A WAY TO USE AND ABUSE THE MAYOR’S COLOR OF AUTHORITY AS THEY FOSTER CORRUPTION WITH GANGS DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN IS MARRIED TO MIKE O’BRIEN A LONG TIME METH COOK THAT IS MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE IN BIG BEAR CHERI IVES IS LYNETTE O’BRIENS MOTHER RICH IVES IS MARRIED TO CHERI IVES RICH IVES USES THE COLOR OF PUBLIC SAFTEY AS A FAKE FRONT TO HIDE THEIR CLEVER MONEY LAUNDERING EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION.
7)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA HAS SIMILAR PRACTICES AS A GUY NAMED HEAD TO PREY ON CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF LA MIRADA TO FORCE THEM OUT SO THEY CAN EITHER TAKE THEIR HOUSE OR FORCE THEM OUT THEY EVEN ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY WITH ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENTS PEOPLE IN THE COURTS ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT CALLED THE COURT AND BECAME APART OF A PONZEE SCHEME WITH ABUSED CITY POWER WITH ITS DEFAMATION PRACTICES THAT HARBORS THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL.
WITH ITS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE IS FRIENDLY WITH ORGANIZED CRIME AND CARTEL EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND MONEY LAUNDERING PRACTICES AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH TAX PAYERS EATING THE COST OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY FAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT’S ALL ONE POLITICAL FAVORITISM SCHEME AND SCANDLES THAT PAYS THEM BETTER AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR FEDERALISM,
8)THE CORRUPTION RUNS SO DEEP THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BACK THEIR PLAY UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES AS A TRUSTED POSITION THEY THEY HAVE ALSO ABANDONED WITH THEIR OWN CARELESSNESS WITH THE DRUG CARTELS AND CAN CARE LESS HOW THE PUBLIC SEES THEM AND THEIR IMAGE IS NOT SHINY.
9)THEY USED AND ABUSED HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ON COVER UPS AND TO HELP THE DRUG CARTELS GO UNNOTICED OF THE NAKED EYE WITH A BLIND EYE TO IT AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN IT THEM SELVES THE CHAIR AND CROWN THAT MADE IT TO NATIONAL TV REPRESENTS MAFIA AND DRUG CARTELS GANG STRUCTURED POLITIC JUSTICE,
10) EVERY ONE OF THESE HIGH TRUSTED POSITIONS ABANDONED A HIGHER TRUSTED POSITION THE CIA AS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WITH OUR MILITARY KEEPS ARE FOREFRONT SAFE WITH OUR BOARDERS AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THESE PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT AND BETRAYED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PUT MONEY OVER LIFE AND AS PAPER CHASERS WITH CASH ENTERPRISES LOST ALL PERCEPTION AND FELL BEHIND ON THE HANDS OF TIME WITH A STRATEGY AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN MISTAKES BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE IT’S A SICKNESS IT’S A CANCER THAR HAS NO TREATMENT UNLESS IT GETS TREATMENTS AND UNLESS HONESTY IS APPLIED IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE KNOW AND IT’S SPREADING LIKE A WILDFIRE AND THE MEDIA HAS ITS OWN PROFITS KEEPING IT AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT’S CONTROLLED WITH NO FUTURISTIC CARE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS HARBORING CORRUPTION.
11)BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF ANY OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENTS PERIOD TIME IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO CHARGE THE WRONG DOING BUT ALSO WITH COMING UP WITH A STRATEGY TO COMBAT CRIME AND CORRUPTION INVOLVING BOTH THE ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT INVOLVING PRISON GUARDS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND INMATES.
12)REGARDLESS THEIR SHOULD BE A OPEN MIND OF RESPECT TOWARDS OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE IF THEIR WORKING ON INVESTIGATIONS IT’S USEFUL TO HAVE MORE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION ON THE WRONG DOING.
13)NEVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD THEIR BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT DENYING A PERSON THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY BECAUSE TIME IS CRITICAL WHEN DEALING WITH DRUG CARTELS AND GANG ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MURDER HOMICIDES AND MISSING PERSONS OR COLD CASES .
14) WITH THE INTEREST OF THE BIGGER PICTURE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC IT’S BETTER TO HAVE OPEN DOOR POLICIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES FBI DEA ATF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
15) FOR INSTANCE SOMEONE MAY HAVE STUMBLED ONTO SOMETHING AND TO FEED THEIR CURIOSITY THEY MAY DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT AS WELL .
16)I MY SELF WAS FRAMED UP BY DARCY BENNET AND DEPUTY NEIL LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN AND DEPUTY JOLIFF AND DEPUTY LIMA AND SHERIFF JOHN SCOTT AND SENIOR BARNES AND DEPUTY HURTADO AND DEPUTY ORASCO AND DEPUTY BECCERA AND DEPUTY NAVARRO AND DEPUTY LITTLE AND DEPUTY JACKSON AND DEPUTY ZEIGLER AND DEPUTY AHARAH ALL HAVE A CLIQUE THAT WORKED TOGETHER WITH UPPER CHAINS OF MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIL ROOM TO PREVENT COMMUNICATION FROM UPPER CHAINS OF COMMAND AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE TOWARDS TO THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE.
17) WITHOUT RAPPORT WICH MEANS TRUST WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENTS IT IN ITS SELF IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHAT IF A PERSON KNEW ABOUT TERRORIST AND PIPE BOMBS OR MURDERS AND WASN’T COMFORTABLE WITH THE ARRESTING AGENCY OR OFFICER IS A CONVICTION MORE IMPORTANT THAN TAKING OUT THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL HOW DO YOU GET A STRATEGY FOR A PROBLEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS WORKING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WITH COVER UPS ONE AFTER ANOTHER WHEN INTEGRITY NEEDS TO PREVAIL NOT LIES IT SHOULD PAY OFF FOR PEOPLE OF INTELLIGENCE WITH INTEGRITY NOT TARNISH OUT OF THEIR OWN DEEP POCKET SPENDING OF THEIR OWN WANTING REPUTATION TO THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE WITH A TRADITION OF SERVICE WITH INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY THESE ARE OF SHINE IN TERMS OF BADGES.
18) UNDER PENALTY AND PERJURY THESE PEOPLE TAKE ON THIS EXPECTATIONS FOR THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE FOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE WITH THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND INTEREST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST CIA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
19)THEIRS MISSION STATEMENTS AND SWORN IN DUTIES AND THE TRUTH SHOULD BE COUNTED ON THE MOST NOT POLITICS NOT PREJUDICE AND HATRED AND SURE IN THE HELL NOT RETALIATION NOR DISCRIMINATION EITHER NOR BIAS OVER POLITICAL FAVORITISM BECAUSE THE NATURE OF SWORN DUTIES ARE NOT SWORN IN POLITICIANS THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND FEELING AND EMOTIONS STAY AT HOME.
20)I HIGHLY RECOMMEND A THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE WHOLE SHABANG I HAVE MY END OF IT I HAVE ALL MY DOCUMENTATION AND ALL MY COMMUNICATION RECORDED ALL MY FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS BECAUSE IT’S APART OF WHAT WE DO AS FEDS WE DON’T PLAY AROUND WITH STUFF WE NAIL STUFF TO A POLE AND HARD AND QUICK WITHOUT GIVING PEOPLE TIME TO PLAN ANYTHING OR CHANCE TO ELUDE OR AVOID BEING CAPTURED IT ALL WINDS UP THE SAME RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT FLAMING BUSTED THE PAPER TRAILS DON’T LIE IT’S EVIDENCE THAT’S WHY IT’S GOING TO BE A SNOW BALL EFFECT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT.
21)A COMMUNICATION POLICY NEEDS TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW SAYING AT TIME OF ARREST
1)WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY SUCH AS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
2)ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
3)DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
I ASSURE YOU WHAT YOU’LL HAVE IS A VOTING POLE IN BACK OF SQUAD CARS AND YOU’LL OBTAIN ALOT OF RESOURCEFUL INFORMATION THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL FOR A STRATEGY FOR COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION AND BOTH ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT WITH FUTURISTIC VISIONS OF PUBLIC SAFTEY THIS IS ALSO ESSENTIAL.
4)THEIR SHOULD NEVER BE DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND TAKING A PERSON’S INTENTIONS AND TWISTING IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENIFIT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING PURPOSES AND NUMBER ONE BEST FOR “LAST “A TEST FOR COMMUNICATION THAT FAILED .
5) ALL THE TRAINING WITH POLICY AND PROCEDURES AND COMMUNICATION IS TOO HARD ALL IF A SUDDEN THE PHONE WEIGHS 10,000 POUNDS AND AT THE SAME TIME IT JEOPARDIZED INVESTIGATIONS WITH THAT OBSTRUCTION BY PREVENTING THAT COMMUNICATION OUT OF RETALIATION TO “OPERATION PANDORAS BOX ” THE DEPUTIES HATE HAVING “CAMERA’S UP AND FOR JAILS SAFE WITH OSJ CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IT’S PERFECT I TOOK A CHANCE AT FELONIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GET CAMERA’S UP THEY WERE GOING TO BOOK ME BUT THE DA’S OFFICE SAID NO “INTEREST OF JUSTICE ”
6)I WROTE TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ABOUT UNSANITARY LIVING CONDITIONS WITH LEAKING TOILETS AND MSRA STAPH INFECTIONS AND ABOUT EXPOSED METAL IN MCJ 5900 SHOWER THEY DID A FULL THROTTLE INVESTIGATIONS INTO IT AND HAD THE JAIL COMBED FOR OUTBREAKS OF INFECTIONS AND THEY PUT IN A WORK ORDER TO FIX THE TILES AND THEY MADE THEM RUN AROUND THE JAIL WITH CARTS TO DISINFECTANT THE ENTIRE JAIL I HAVE THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND SO DOES CUSTODY.
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
INTERNAL AFFAIRS REQUEST ON
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
1)THAT CARES LESS ABOUT POTENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS FEDERAL AND THEY TURN IT INTO THEY CASHED IN GREEDY CLIQUE ENTERPRISES LIKE SQUIRRELS CHASING NUTS AND WITHOUT LOOKING BOTH WAYS WIND UP GETTING HIT BY TRUCKS CALLED FEDERAL SEALED INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THEY ABANDON THEIR POLICIES THEIR CORE THEIR TRAINING ON GET RICH QUICK SCANDALS AND BECOME BRAINWASHED VIGOROUS LIARS AND HIDE SECRETS FROM THEIR CHAINS OF COMMANDS WITH A CODE OF SILENCE.
2)THEY HAVE A CLIQUE THAT STOPS MAIL FROM GOING OUT DEPUTY LIMA AND DEPUTY JOLIFF
3)THEIRS DEPUTIES THAT GET INMATES TO SELL DRUGS FOR THEM IN THE PODS AND DORMS
4)THEIRS ALOT OF DEPUTIES THAT MADE THROUGH BEFORE OPERATION PANDORAS BOX THAT HAVE THE ESCAPING MENTALITY WHERE THEY SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE ABUSE OF INMATES AND LIVE BY A CODE OF GANG STRUCTURED POLITICS THAT ARE OK WITH KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES.
5)ANY AND PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY CAN LIVE BY HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES WITH THE BRAINWASHED GANG MENTALITY BECAUSE IT FINDS FAVORITISM IN THE WRONG DOING ITS SELF THAT FOSTERS CORRUPTION.
6)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA AND IT’S CONTRACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH ITS PUBLIC SAFTEY RICH IVES AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY NEIL AND VICTOR VERIMONTES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE AND ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT AND SUSAN HILL THAT FOUND A WAY TO USE AND ABUSE THE MAYOR’S COLOR OF AUTHORITY AS THEY FOSTER CORRUPTION WITH GANGS DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN IS MARRIED TO MIKE O’BRIEN A LONG TIME METH COOK THAT IS MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE IN BIG BEAR CHERI IVES IS LYNETTE O’BRIENS MOTHER RICH IVES IS MARRIED TO CHERI IVES RICH IVES USES THE COLOR OF PUBLIC SAFTEY AS A FAKE FRONT TO HIDE THEIR CLEVER MONEY LAUNDERING EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION.
7)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA HAS SIMILAR PRACTICES AS A GUY NAMED HEAD TO PREY ON CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF LA MIRADA TO FORCE THEM OUT SO THEY CAN EITHER TAKE THEIR HOUSE OR FORCE THEM OUT THEY EVEN ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY WITH ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENTS PEOPLE IN THE COURTS ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT CALLED THE COURT AND BECAME APART OF A PONZEE SCHEME WITH ABUSED CITY POWER WITH ITS DEFAMATION PRACTICES THAT HARBORS THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL.
WITH ITS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE IS FRIENDLY WITH ORGANIZED CRIME AND CARTEL EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND MONEY LAUNDERING PRACTICES AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH TAX PAYERS EATING THE COST OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY FAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT’S ALL ONE POLITICAL FAVORITISM SCHEME AND SCANDLES THAT PAYS THEM BETTER AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR FEDERALISM,
8)THE CORRUPTION RUNS SO DEEP THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BACK THEIR PLAY UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES AS A TRUSTED POSITION THEY THEY HAVE ALSO ABANDONED WITH THEIR OWN CARELESSNESS WITH THE DRUG CARTELS AND CAN CARE LESS HOW THE PUBLIC SEES THEM AND THEIR IMAGE IS NOT SHINY.
9)THEY USED AND ABUSED HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ON COVER UPS AND TO HELP THE DRUG CARTELS GO UNNOTICED OF THE NAKED EYE WITH A BLIND EYE TO IT AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN IT THEM SELVES THE CHAIR AND CROWN THAT MADE IT TO NATIONAL TV REPRESENTS MAFIA AND DRUG CARTELS GANG STRUCTURED POLITIC JUSTICE,
10) EVERY ONE OF THESE HIGH TRUSTED POSITIONS ABANDONED A HIGHER TRUSTED POSITION THE CIA AS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WITH OUR MILITARY KEEPS ARE FOREFRONT SAFE WITH OUR BOARDERS AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THESE PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT AND BETRAYED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PUT MONEY OVER LIFE AND AS PAPER CHASERS WITH CASH ENTERPRISES LOST ALL PERCEPTION AND FELL BEHIND ON THE HANDS OF TIME WITH A STRATEGY AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN MISTAKES BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE IT’S A SICKNESS IT’S A CANCER THAR HAS NO TREATMENT UNLESS IT GETS TREATMENTS AND UNLESS HONESTY IS APPLIED IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE KNOW AND IT’S SPREADING LIKE A WILDFIRE AND THE MEDIA HAS ITS OWN PROFITS KEEPING IT AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT’S CONTROLLED WITH NO FUTURISTIC CARE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS HARBORING CORRUPTION.
11)BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF ANY OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENTS PERIOD TIME IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO CHARGE THE WRONG DOING BUT ALSO WITH COMING UP WITH A STRATEGY TO COMBAT CRIME AND CORRUPTION INVOLVING BOTH THE ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT INVOLVING PRISON GUARDS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND INMATES.
12)REGARDLESS THEIR SHOULD BE A OPEN MIND OF RESPECT TOWARDS OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE IF THEIR WORKING ON INVESTIGATIONS IT’S USEFUL TO HAVE MORE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION ON THE WRONG DOING.
13)NEVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD THEIR BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT DENYING A PERSON THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY BECAUSE TIME IS CRITICAL WHEN DEALING WITH DRUG CARTELS AND GANG ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MURDER HOMICIDES AND MISSING PERSONS OR COLD CASES .
14) WITH THE INTEREST OF THE BIGGER PICTURE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC IT’S BETTER TO HAVE OPEN DOOR POLICIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES FBI DEA ATF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
15) FOR INSTANCE SOMEONE MAY HAVE STUMBLED ONTO SOMETHING AND TO FEED THEIR CURIOSITY THEY MAY DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT AS WELL .
16)I MY SELF WAS FRAMED UP BY DARCY BENNET AND DEPUTY NEIL LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN AND DEPUTY JOLIFF AND DEPUTY LIMA AND SHERIFF JOHN SCOTT AND SENIOR BARNES AND DEPUTY HURTADO AND DEPUTY ORASCO AND DEPUTY BECCERA AND DEPUTY NAVARRO AND DEPUTY LITTLE AND DEPUTY JACKSON AND DEPUTY ZEIGLER AND DEPUTY AHARAH ALL HAVE A CLIQUE THAT WORKED TOGETHER WITH UPPER CHAINS OF MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIL ROOM TO PREVENT COMMUNICATION FROM UPPER CHAINS OF COMMAND AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE TOWARDS TO THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE.
17) WITHOUT RAPPORT WICH MEANS TRUST WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENTS IT IN ITS SELF IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHAT IF A PERSON KNEW ABOUT TERRORIST AND PIPE BOMBS OR MURDERS AND WASN’T COMFORTABLE WITH THE ARRESTING AGENCY OR OFFICER IS A CONVICTION MORE IMPORTANT THAN TAKING OUT THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL HOW DO YOU GET A STRATEGY FOR A PROBLEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS WORKING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WITH COVER UPS ONE AFTER ANOTHER WHEN INTEGRITY NEEDS TO PREVAIL NOT LIES IT SHOULD PAY OFF FOR PEOPLE OF INTELLIGENCE WITH INTEGRITY NOT TARNISH OUT OF THEIR OWN DEEP POCKET SPENDING OF THEIR OWN WANTING REPUTATION TO THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE WITH A TRADITION OF SERVICE WITH INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY THESE ARE OF SHINE IN TERMS OF BADGES.
18) UNDER PENALTY AND PERJURY THESE PEOPLE TAKE ON THIS EXPECTATIONS FOR THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE FOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE WITH THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND INTEREST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST CIA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
19)THEIRS MISSION STATEMENTS AND SWORN IN DUTIES AND THE TRUTH SHOULD BE COUNTED ON THE MOST NOT POLITICS NOT PREJUDICE AND HATRED AND SURE IN THE HELL NOT RETALIATION NOR DISCRIMINATION EITHER NOR BIAS OVER POLITICAL FAVORITISM BECAUSE THE NATURE OF SWORN DUTIES ARE NOT SWORN IN POLITICIANS THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND FEELING AND EMOTIONS STAY AT HOME.
20)I HIGHLY RECOMMEND A THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE WHOLE SHABANG I HAVE MY END OF IT I HAVE ALL MY DOCUMENTATION AND ALL MY COMMUNICATION RECORDED ALL MY FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS BECAUSE IT’S APART OF WHAT WE DO AS FEDS WE DON’T PLAY AROUND WITH STUFF WE NAIL STUFF TO A POLE AND HARD AND QUICK WITHOUT GIVING PEOPLE TIME TO PLAN ANYTHING OR CHANCE TO ELUDE OR AVOID BEING CAPTURED IT ALL WINDS UP THE SAME RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT FLAMING BUSTED THE PAPER TRAILS DON’T LIE IT’S EVIDENCE THAT’S WHY IT’S GOING TO BE A SNOW BALL EFFECT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT.
21)A COMMUNICATION POLICY NEEDS TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW SAYING AT TIME OF ARREST
1)WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY SUCH AS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
2)ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
3)DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
I ASSURE YOU WHAT YOU’LL HAVE IS A VOTING POLE IN BACK OF SQUAD CARS AND YOU’LL OBTAIN ALOT OF RESOURCEFUL INFORMATION THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL FOR A STRATEGY FOR COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION AND BOTH ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT WITH FUTURISTIC VISIONS OF PUBLIC SAFTEY THIS IS ALSO ESSENTIAL.
4)THEIR SHOULD NEVER BE DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND TAKING A PERSON’S INTENTIONS AND TWISTING IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENIFIT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING PURPOSES AND NUMBER ONE BEST FOR “LAST “A TEST FOR COMMUNICATION THAT FAILED .
5) ALL THE TRAINING WITH POLICY AND PROCEDURES AND COMMUNICATION IS TOO HARD ALL IF A SUDDEN THE PHONE WEIGHS 10,000 POUNDS AND AT THE SAME TIME IT JEOPARDIZED INVESTIGATIONS WITH THAT OBSTRUCTION BY PREVENTING THAT COMMUNICATION OUT OF RETALIATION TO “OPERATION PANDORAS BOX ” THE DEPUTIES HATE HAVING “CAMERA’S UP AND FOR JAILS SAFE WITH OSJ CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IT’S PERFECT I TOOK A CHANCE AT FELONIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GET CAMERA’S UP THEY WERE GOING TO BOOK ME BUT THE DA’S OFFICE SAID NO “INTEREST OF JUSTICE ”
6)I WROTE TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ABOUT UNSANITARY LIVING CONDITIONS WITH LEAKING TOILETS AND MSRA STAPH INFECTIONS AND ABOUT EXPOSED METAL IN MCJ 5900 SHOWER THEY DID A FULL THROTTLE INVESTIGATIONS INTO IT AND HAD THE JAIL COMBED FOR OUTBREAKS OF INFECTIONS AND THEY PUT IN A WORK ORDER TO FIX THE TILES AND THEY MADE THEM RUN AROUND THE JAIL WITH CARTS TO DISINFECTANT THE ENTIRE JAIL I HAVE THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND SO DOES CUSTODY.
7)INVESTIGATIONS NEED TO BE DONE WITH ACCURACY WITH INTEGRITY AND WITH A DETECTIVE STATE OF MIND NOT A POLITICIAN OF A GANG STRUCTURED MENTALITY WITH POLITIC FAVORITISM ON COVER UPS AND UNJUSTIFIED HOMICIDES AND RULINGS AS TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION WHERE THE LAWS ARE BENT AND BROKEN ONLY IN THE FAVOR OF THE PREJUDICE PARTY BECAUSE NOW CORRUPTION IS INTO EVERYTHING AND I’M GOING TO PROVE IT AND BE ASSURED IT’S WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD.
8)WHAT’S REALLY COOL IS ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SERVE MULTIPLE SENTENCES FOR INVOLVEMENT AND THAT IS GOING TO DEFLATE THE STRUCTURE AND THE KEY IS TO DISRUPT THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE ON BOTH ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT.
9)IT’S HIGHLY ILLEGAL THE WAY THAT IT HAS BECOME AND IT’S COMPLETELY GROSS NEGLIGENCE WITH GREED PRACTICES AND IT’S DEADLY POLITICS WITH A NO HARM ACT AND NO FEAR ACT AND EVERYTHING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WITH ETHICS AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND THE CONSTITUTION AND AMENDMENTS WITH MISSION STATEMENTS IT’S COMPLETELY BEING BACKWARDS .
10)HOW IT NEEDS TO BE SEEN IS ANY UNDERLINGS WANTING TO BRING TARNISH TO CHAINS OF COMMAND OR DIRECTORS FIRE THEM ONE LIE LEADS TO ANOTHER AND YOU LOSE LEADS ON OTHER INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT UNDERLING OR UNDERLINGS YOU CAN’T TRUST THEM THEN WHY KEEP THEM AROUND LIES AND LIARS AND SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE ENTIRE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT A REQUEST FOR
INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
Enclosed is information is strictly being held with strict confidentiality because the nature of it and as a fed I want to bring it to your attention and with trust I’m going to use you as a sounding board through my writing ok with my theories as well ok !
So far you have this as credibility with me ok . I SENT THIS TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
1)nick casper sendis dubbed ” south whittier couple ”
2)Roger rogelio sendis dubbed “the family reunion ”
3)the guy that shared the driveway with Robert willie aka moody Southside whittier gang off Inez street the guy that had a Eddie Bauer with ostrich leather seats with Marijuana leaves on the outside of the vehicle embedded into the paint with 22 tons of Marijuana
4) kin gill in la habra off Idaho with frauds he had a dmv format program for making fake id’s and had shoppers working for him in best buy that made a percentage of the profits with dave vincent that lives off palm st in the trailer park,
5)over 350 phone contacts up to the line of sinolia drug cartel sent to Robert Mueller fbi director,
6)teressa 180 counts of frauds she worked at whittier medical center stealing profiles from patients folders .
7) big john
8)quinn
9)bull off Lakeland
10) 45 million dollars in la habra
11) $175,000 nick casper sendis
12)Roger rogelio sendis with roman over a million dollars
13) Atleast 3 firearms trafficking cases with different people separate cases
Just in case your wonder the signature on the drugs with nick casper sendis was a plastic sandwich bags with the methamphetamine in it with the top tied and placed in a paper lunch bag with the top rolled down,
14) the theirs blanco off Inez street in south whittier
15) aka cheese
With the email from the District of attorney Christina abanese from the city of la mirada theirs a list off names 100 % with accuracy drug cartels and drug rings and much more .
With Pandoras box with leroy Baca here’s the accomplished
1)code of silence
2) Rotation of the deputies
3)got cameras put up
4) got the department of public health to comb the jail for msra staph infections and to disinfectant the jail and to do a repair order on the mcj 5900 shower because of the tile were broken and their was exposed metal and I have the investigation report from the department of public health and the jail custody has a copy of the work order has well.
5) Dr Enriquez with accepted money for a fake medical records to prescribe Medication for Howard bloomgarden Ritalin $ 12,000 or more
6) the deputy with the burrito with herion in it 6000 floor I believe it was I told leroy Baca guess who bringing it in through the tray slot.
7)to debrief them all and depending on seriousness give them a chance and got them to seek professional help counseling,
8) encouraged leroy Baca to implement the core .
9) skinheads with syringes
10) inmate on inmate assaults staff inflicted virtual hits,
11) the elder and mentally ill being preyed on
13)deputy beccera slammed a pod door on inmate taco s finger taking the tip of it off what happened was taco was standing by the pod door in twin towers correctional facility maybe 262 or 261 floor and deputy beccera kicked the door shut and taco got his finger stuck between the door and the door jam and as deputy beccera was walking away taco started yelling hey you shut the door of my finger and deputy beccera opened it and the tip of his finger fell to the floor deputy beccera escorted taco to medical where they could not sew the tip of his finger back on but they did cut some of the bone and sewed the tip and wrapped it with gauze and prescribed pain medication,
14) deputies beccera and little use to single inmates out by locking everyone down over laundry being found in the cell with mentally ill and often it would lead to inmate on inmate assaults staff inflicted virtual hits.
15) inmate Jessie esquardo use to pick on mentally ill and elderly one time he kicked a old man splitting his chin open and the guy needed stitches.
16)one time Howard bloomgarden was on the phone telling someone on the other end to keep point for either a art heist or bank robbery,
17) deputy Joliff took Howard bloomgarden new York mobsters legal mail and kept it in a undisclosed area of the jail,
18)I sent president Barack Obama over 900 names pluss a bunch of information
19)I sent leroy Baca sheriff about 500 names pluss alot of information
20)I sent senior Barnes about 350 names pluss alot of information
21)I sent sheriff john scott about 300 names pluss alot of information
22)theirs a aka wicket that was in a previous relationship with Darcy bennet that was stealing copper from parks something about lighting systems or copper pipes he maybe your LAUSD COPPER BANDIT
23) in mcj 5900 this ca Platta that told inmate Shawn aka mawhalk that a Armanian guy in the dorm was a child molester and aka drifter had the guy stomped out and after he was removed from the dorm aka drifter said it should have been done differently meaning he should have been killed.
24) one time I told deputy jackson about aka yogi having 2 ounces of herion in the down and he had no interest in it
25)deputy Walton that works lcmc said if Howard bloomgarden ever gets out he owes him alot of money.
26)ca sugucci that worked twin towers correctional facility allowed colored pencils come in to Howard bloomgarden
27) I sent john Brennan CIA DIRECTOR about 500 names pluss information
28) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director about 400 or 500 names pluss alot of information
29) theirs a deputy that was throwing apples at Howard Bloomgarden like fast balls in twin towers correctional facility
30) theirs another deputy that kicked Howard bloomgarden in his ankle or chin doing damage to it
31)theirs evidence in Howard Bloomgardens case that was destroyed with 9/12 when the terrorist attacked the towers with a plane and he has a document from justice Kennedy to support that claim
32)in Howard Bloomgardens case theirs something about a guy named rubin going through letters
33) one time Howard bloomgarden was on the phone with his mom and he said are you under the bridge yet
34) theirs something about Michael Goldberg with customs and something about every time he gets either $12,000 or $15,000 maybe more
35)something about Howard bloomgarden he has a financial advisor
36)and Howard bloomgarden has a uncle named scott in Thailand and told me he wanted to do a koi Bros Inc and that scott would buy a million of them and have them imported out of Thailand or Japan
37) something with Howard bloomgarden and old teak wood maybe money smuggling or laundering
38)Howard bloomgarden said something about diamonds from Israel with investments
39)Howard bloomgarden told a younger jewish guy I can tell you how to make a million dollars in less than a hour
40) in twin towers correctional facility 262 floor their was a guy selling methamphetamine out of A POD cell 12 or 14 a and OSJ CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT k9 had no interest in it
41) I spoke with OSJ k9 and told him about Howard bloomgarden wanting to know prices on a quarter pound of methamphetamine and if he wanted I could arange it and they can take it down on the outside
42) their was a deputy in visiting throwing up gang signs
43)I designed samepage with tarnish and shine ethics with same team.
44) deputies would try to prevent my letter from going out but after I got cameras put up I started writing to the cameras
45) in mcj 5900 I wrote a letter in regards to two hundred eighty million dollars and had a civilian from the streets call medical saying I had chest pains and before getting to medical I flipped a u turn and went into the watch commanders office and said who’s in charge here and who do you trust with two hundred and eighty million dollars and it was full of top brass and one them said me and I said give this to leroy Baca from “the most honest man in blue “he’ll know who I am,
46)in my letters I wrote about China and it’s chemicals before it was blown up
47)I wrote about tunnels under the Mexican jail saying that EL CHAPA MEXICAN CARTEL LEADER was going to escape,
48) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director Howard bloomgardens DNA a hair sample to be sent in for testing to help prevail with his cases pluss to prove he has a son named Aiden meaning his girlfriend a playboy bunny got pregnant since he’s been in custody either federal prison or los angeles county jail from my knowledge the kid isn’t that old so in confident it happened while in custody of los angeles county jail my theory is either she came in with the rabbi’s on a religious even or LCMC medical and that’s the reason deputy Walton said he owes him alot of money when he gets out .
49) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director Howard bloomgardens mom’s number to have a wiretapping done to pay attention for activities and involvement in criminal activities street related while in custody because I know he was putting deadly hits on people even while in Los Angeles county jail.
50) rabbi zvi boyarsky visits Howard bloomgarden often and when Howard bloomgardens mom comes in from new York to see him she stays at rabbi zvi boyarsky house I’ve personally seen Howard bloomgarden give zvi boyarsky kites to smuggle out for him wich consist of tiny peices of paper with small writing on it and under the bridge yet when he asked his mom meaning it could be either a meeting place drop off or pickup.and rabbi zvi boyarsky took his dress shoes off and I noticed their was a little hole on the inside in the heel of it just small enough for smuggling kites or drugs in and out of the jail I also noticed their were rabbinical visits with rabbi Howard Winkler where the meetings were unsupervised and no one else was allowed to be at the table with them I know I’m orthodox Jewish and spent the holidays with them on several occasions
51)on one of the holidays the rabbi’s and a Lt all showed up and a pillow was brought in with them wrapped in plastic and was switched out with another pillow that Howard bloomgarden had from his Dr’s prescription as a orthopedic specialist.
52)the enclosed email from the city of la mirada district attorney is with criminal intent of the city of la mirada and it’s contracted Law enforcement to obstruct justice and tampering with open federal investigations and is embezzlement and racketeering.
▼ Hide quoted text
Thank you very much
Laurie Ytuarte RN, MSN,FNP
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cristine Albanese
Date: December 14, 2015 at 10:46:31 AM PST
To: “‘lauriemytuarte@gmail.com'”
Subject: FW: For your information
Hi Ms. Ytuarte,
The City of La Mirada received this incoherent email from Buddy George. I am assuming he was released from prison and is currently living with you. I just thought you might be concerned that he may be taking drugs again based on the nature of this email. Are you still in La Mirada or is the Fullerton address correct. If there is any assistance I can give you please let me know.
Sincerely,
Cristine Albanese
Deputy District Attorney
Los Angeles County
La Mirada SAGE – Community Prosecution
(562) 902-2981
From: Buddy George [mailto:buddybloomgarden@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:35 PM
To: City Contact
Subject: For your information
El chapa Mexican cartel leader China and it’s chemicals baller tapia nick Padilla aka kilo long beach nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis quinn quest castro roman chaba ochoa mikey ssw pokey lmp chino ssw Robert willie jr ssw aka moody ghost lakewood ghost lakewood time bellflower sos gang fernando sfv fernando lamirada john mcguire mack riverside sweets Ontario cho cho Kenneth Lewis tank sgv mo lmp tracy lmp Goodman big shane lmp Billy bones lmp ladybug ocs heather orange County tuesday Carey orange County john rodriguez Ray of la habra tim in la habra heights rebel ocs lizzet and maddy big john la habra Howard bloomgarden ghost of Torrance tiffany la mirada toker 18st gang and don in the desert and don of la mirada and snakes and kilo long beach and mo orange County and flaca and camel norwalk and droops peaceful norwalk bambam southeast spanky bellflower and country and smoah lmp and sinolia cartel and sinoah and magic ssw and whetto ssw and diablo hesh and Julie orange County and ultimate lmp and huckleberry fin and ray dog and tank sgv and maryano Inez st and Enriquez montero and negro ssw and sneaks ssw and sneaks 30s and thumper ssw and Aaron fowler and puppet lmp and jayleen norwalk and snoop norwalk and the lady Carmellas dan on lambert Rd and porky ssw and yogi avenues and frankie old pico and dreamer ssw and adrian ssw and Travis lambarti lmp and curtis lmp and dave vincent and kamala la habra thumper ssw and Gato and racoon and cricket big hazard and Verdugo from Verdugo IE and Baer IE hells angels and mike bohner and mike Zimmerman aka zimmie and shadow f13 and dannyboy ssw and dannyboy ssw and mike O’Brien and spark lmp and speedy lmp and demon sfv and Armanian power sfv and spinner and bombshell lmp and chino ssw and apache lmp and kojoe or cochoe and John rodriguez la habra heights and ray of la habra adam off greanleaf and jerry aka stern lmp and Terry woods and John guten sfv and chantel la mirada and silent la habra and spider la habra and big spike Pomona
Little spike and pokey stamy house,
Mexican gary, guy ,kamala la habra off harbor blvd, yvette and Fred la habra,
Frank off burgess la mirada whittier area, will ssw, william ssw, kieth Gordon sr,kieth Gordon jr, bobby lmp, Taylor lmp, ellise norwood, janine and josh lmp,
Aka badass last name Wagner his mom is trafficking methamphetamine to Tennessee or somewhere else badass is from IE, then Howard bloomgarden is having diamonds smuggled from Israel through customs with Michael Goldberg,
Then theirs cris that was going to john rodriguez house in la habra trafficking firearms, and ray from la habra that goes to john rodriguez is selling high powered firearms or military weapons,
Gypsy dresses up light a construction contractor and goes to contractors warehouse and purchases heavy duty tools and diamond tip saw blades and he sells methamphetamine,
and in modesto California
Gino gregg and buddy Humphreys
In Taft California buddy spoonmoore
In Sacramento California
Franko ramano aka franko sr and franko ramano aka franko jr and tim martin and Cindy worthington and Richard Martin aka pugs and melody atkinson and Kim and Clifford nelson and nacho and castro and Jayne thompson and art sprouls jr and Bart sprouls and the richie or richies or richy family and gay Robert and dougy martin and John martin sr and John martin jr and Delilah martin and gwin and quest and cris brown and Floyd merideth and buffalo and aisel and Sarah and John crow aka rooster on ford Rd or Hayes ave and mike shoemaker and Rex shoemaker and Jim and pam in Carmichael and little jack and Jimmy jack and scotty griffin and Jessie hampton aka bumpy and hate and mike desifino and shaggy and snowman and iceman and 4×4 leroy haynes and lil J and isac grandon and drupey and G-force and lil oak and leonard carlile and Robert johnson mike Anderson mike thompson
Rodney parent
Westpoint willsieville then Glenn and Raymond and Frida,
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
By buddy george
Code name firefly
My address
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
This is recorded for quality assurance and is copied on SanDisk going to
James b comey
935 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20235
In my report to the fbi about the sendis family drug business
The south whittier couple with nick aka casper sendis he owned 3 houses and thoroughbred horses and the signature on the drugs was in a sandwich bags and put in a paper lunch bag with the top rolled down ,
It’s also being mailed to
THE WHITE HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BARACK OBAMA
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20500
AND DIRECTORS FOR
NSA , US MARSHALS, FBI , DEA , CIA ,ATF, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
AND EVERY ARMS CHAIR COMMITTEE
AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20525
LORETTA LYNCH ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AND DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND US NAVY COMMUNITY RELATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS
AND CAL OSHA BECAUSE OF
FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENTS
This is a sealed federal document to be unsealed by the federal bureau of investigations and has been brought to the attention of the following
Attn:JAMES B COMEY FBI DIRECTOR
Attn:JOHN BRENNAN CIA DIRECTOR
Attn : DPO TOM BYRD DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SUPERVISORS
The enclosed information is true and correct under penalty and perjury
With 100 % ACCURACY
Federally signed from the world’s largest fed and as a cartel fed signed with the federal bureau of investigations asked f hat thus be a complete and thorough investigations for embezzlement and racketeering and organized crime and organized corruption with law enforcements and the SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL
FEDERAL DOCUMENT SEALED 1,24,16
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
SIGNATURE BUDDY GEORGE
THE ENCLOSED IS 100 % ACCURACY
OF DRUG CARTELS AND DRUG RINGS
THE CONTENTS IS TO BE UNSEALED BY THE FOLLOWING
1)THE US STATES ATTORNEYS
2)THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
3)THE CIA HAS BEEN ASKED TO MAINTAIN THIS DOCUMENTATION FOR FUTURISTIC REASONS OF PUBLIC TRUST
SIGNED BUDDY GEORGE
THE BIGGEST FAN OF THE FOLLOWING
1)FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER
2)FBI DIRECTOR JAMES B COMEY
3)CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN
4)CIA DIRECTOR DAVID PETRAEUS
JUST IN CASE YOUR WONDERING YES IF YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENTS THEIRS A GRAIN ON THIS GO AHEAD TARNISH YOUR SELVES TELL YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND HOW MUCH YOU LOVE AND HONOR LIES AND HOW YOU WISH YOU COULD JUST BE A CRIMINAL WELL THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS GO TO PRISON AND EARN YOUR STRIPES A LEVEL 4 YARD AND TAKE FLIGHT ON SOME ONE AND DO A SHU TERM AND PUT SOME REAL NOTCHES ON YOUR BELT DON’T BE A CLOSET CRIMINAL BE OPEN ABOUT IT EVERYTHING I’VE WRITTEN IS REPORTED TO INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AND BEYOND THE BORDER WITH ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN MEXICO I RECUMENDED THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY REVOKE YOUR PASSPORT AND DEEM YOU A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AS A MENACE TO SOCIETY AND THE ENEMY OF THE STATE WITH CORRUPTION PRACTICES
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
EVERYTHING I’VE WRITTEN ABOUT IS BEFORE THE FOLLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENTS
1)TTHE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
2)DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
3)ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
4)U.S MARSHALS
5)THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
6)NNATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
7)HOMELAND SECURITY
8)U.S BORDER PATROL
9)TTHE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
10)U.S STATES ATTORNEYS
11)FFEDERAL GRAND JURY
12)LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS
13)DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS
14)CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY CIA
15)EVERY LAPD POLICE CHIEFS AND CAPTAINS AND COMMISSIONERS
16)LAW ENFORCEMENTS OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
17)FFEDERAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION
18)JJERRY BROWN GOVERNOR
19) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION OMBUDSMAN
20) FULLERTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
21)LA HABRA POLICE DEPARTMENT
22)LA MIRADA CITY MAYOR
23) WHITTIER POLICE CHIEF
24) LA MIRADA DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE
25)LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE
26) LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
27) LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAYOR
29) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH PATIENTS RIGHTS
30) DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS RIGHTS
31) ALL FIOA BRANCHES
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
FIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON
PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
DEPARTMENT OF STATE JOHN KERRY
AND THE FOLLOWING
ARMS CHAIR COMMITTEE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE SENATE
CONGRESS
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
U.S MILITARY
U.S ARMED SERVICES
U.S NAVY
U.S AIR FORCE
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MENTAL HEALTH
POLICE AND SHERIFF’S MENTAL HEALTH
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
ONTARIO POLICE DEPARTMENT
INLAND EMPIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT
LA MIRADA NORWALK SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
FEDERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
U.S MAGISTRATES JUDGES ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
CHIEF OF PROBATION
PROBATION HEADQUARTERS
THE FOLLOWING MAYOR’S
FULLERTON MAYORS
LA HABRA MAYOR
THE US MAYOR’S ASSOCIATION
THE BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT
BILL GATES MICROSOFT
THE FRYERS CLUB
DONALD T STERLING
EVERY BILLIONAIR
DONALD TRUMP
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
WWF WRESTLING FFEDERATION
COCA COLA BEVERAGE COMPANY
MONSTER ENERGY CCOMPANY
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE OF CHARITIES
PEPSI
7UP
SHASTA
NIKE
NBA
NFL
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
1)PPUBLIC SAFETY HEADQUARTERS
2)EEVERY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FACILITY’S
3)LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ACADEMY
4)THE GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
5)EVERY GOVERNOR IN EVERY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
6) EVERY NEWS MEDIA RADIO AND TV STATIONS
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
1)FAIR HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2) INTERNATIONAL OMBUDSMAN
3) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS
4)SCIENCE INTELLIGENCE
5) CIA FEDERAL AGENT TRAINING ACADEMY
6) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING
7) HOUSE OF ETHICS
8) TAX FRANCHISE BOARD
9)TREASURY DEPARTMENT
10) NATIONAL SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION
11)SHERIFF’S HEADQUARTERS
EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
1)EEVERY AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
2)EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEYS
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THE FOLLOWING KNOW ABOUT THIS
SAMSHA.GOV
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
EVERY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ALL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CIA HEADQUARTERS
NCIS
BOARD OF EDUCATION
EVERYTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE
ORACLE DETECTIVES
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
ORGANIZED CRIME UNIT BEYOND THE BORDER WITH MEXICAN CARTEL TASK FORCE POLICE
INTERNAL AFFAIRS REQUEST ON
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
1)THAT CARES LESS ABOUT POTENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS FEDERAL AND THEY TURN IT INTO THEY CASHED IN GREEDY CLIQUE ENTERPRISES LIKE SQUIRRELS CHASING NUTS AND WITHOUT LOOKING BOTH WAYS WIND UP GETTING HIT BY TRUCKS CALLED FEDERAL SEALED INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THEY ABANDON THEIR POLICIES THEIR CORE THEIR TRAINING ON GET RICH QUICK SCANDALS AND BECOME BRAINWASHED VIGOROUS LIARS AND HIDE SECRETS FROM THEIR CHAINS OF COMMANDS WITH A CODE OF SILENCE.
2)THEY HAVE A CLIQUE THAT STOPS MAIL FROM GOING OUT DEPUTY LIMA AND DEPUTY JOLIFF
3)THEIRS DEPUTIES THAT GET INMATES TO SELL DRUGS FOR THEM IN THE PODS AND DORMS
4)THEIRS ALOT OF DEPUTIES THAT MADE THROUGH BEFORE OPERATION PANDORAS BOX THAT HAVE THE ESCAPING MENTALITY WHERE THEY SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE ABUSE OF INMATES AND LIVE BY A CODE OF GANG STRUCTURED POLITICS THAT ARE OK WITH KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES.
5)ANY AND PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY CAN LIVE BY HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES WITH THE BRAINWASHED GANG MENTALITY BECAUSE IT FINDS FAVORITISM IN THE WRONG DOING ITS SELF THAT FOSTERS CORRUPTION.
6)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA AND IT’S CONTRACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH ITS PUBLIC SAFTEY RICH IVES AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY NEIL AND VICTOR VERIMONTES AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE AND ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT AND SUSAN HILL THAT FOUND A WAY TO USE AND ABUSE THE MAYOR’S COLOR OF AUTHORITY AS THEY FOSTER CORRUPTION WITH GANGS DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN IS MARRIED TO MIKE O’BRIEN A LONG TIME METH COOK THAT IS MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE IN BIG BEAR CHERI IVES IS LYNETTE O’BRIENS MOTHER RICH IVES IS MARRIED TO CHERI IVES RICH IVES USES THE COLOR OF PUBLIC SAFTEY AS A FAKE FRONT TO HIDE THEIR CLEVER MONEY LAUNDERING EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION.
7)THE CITY OF LA MIRADA HAS SIMILAR PRACTICES AS A GUY NAMED HEAD TO PREY ON CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF LA MIRADA TO FORCE THEM OUT SO THEY CAN EITHER TAKE THEIR HOUSE OR FORCE THEM OUT THEY EVEN ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY WITH ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENTS PEOPLE IN THE COURTS ANN HARKINSON CITY MANAGEMENT CALLED THE COURT AND BECAME APART OF A PONZEE SCHEME WITH ABUSED CITY POWER WITH ITS DEFAMATION PRACTICES THAT HARBORS THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL.
WITH ITS SYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHRISTINA ABANESE IS FRIENDLY WITH ORGANIZED CRIME AND CARTEL EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING AND MONEY LAUNDERING PRACTICES AND IS COMFORTABLE WITH TAX PAYERS EATING THE COST OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY FAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT’S ALL ONE POLITICAL FAVORITISM SCHEME AND SCANDLES THAT PAYS THEM BETTER AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR FEDERALISM,
8)THE CORRUPTION RUNS SO DEEP THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BACK THEIR PLAY UNTIL THE WHEELS FALL OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY ROLES AS A TRUSTED POSITION THEY THEY HAVE ALSO ABANDONED WITH THEIR OWN CARELESSNESS WITH THE DRUG CARTELS AND CAN CARE LESS HOW THE PUBLIC SEES THEM AND THEIR IMAGE IS NOT SHINY.
9)THEY USED AND ABUSED HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ON COVER UPS AND TO HELP THE DRUG CARTELS GO UNNOTICED OF THE NAKED EYE WITH A BLIND EYE TO IT AS THEY PARTICIPATED IN IT THEM SELVES THE CHAIR AND CROWN THAT MADE IT TO NATIONAL TV REPRESENTS MAFIA AND DRUG CARTELS GANG STRUCTURED POLITIC JUSTICE,
10) EVERY ONE OF THESE HIGH TRUSTED POSITIONS ABANDONED A HIGHER TRUSTED POSITION THE CIA AS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WITH OUR MILITARY KEEPS ARE FOREFRONT SAFE WITH OUR BOARDERS AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES THESE PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT AND BETRAYED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PUT MONEY OVER LIFE AND AS PAPER CHASERS WITH CASH ENTERPRISES LOST ALL PERCEPTION AND FELL BEHIND ON THE HANDS OF TIME WITH A STRATEGY AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN MISTAKES BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO HURT THEIR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE IT’S A SICKNESS IT’S A CANCER THAR HAS NO TREATMENT UNLESS IT GETS TREATMENTS AND UNLESS HONESTY IS APPLIED IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE KNOW AND IT’S SPREADING LIKE A WILDFIRE AND THE MEDIA HAS ITS OWN PROFITS KEEPING IT AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT’S CONTROLLED WITH NO FUTURISTIC CARE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS HARBORING CORRUPTION.
11)BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF ANY OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENTS PERIOD TIME IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO CHARGE THE WRONG DOING BUT ALSO WITH COMING UP WITH A STRATEGY TO COMBAT CRIME AND CORRUPTION INVOLVING BOTH THE ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT INVOLVING PRISON GUARDS AND LAW ENFORCEMENTS AND INMATES.
12)REGARDLESS THEIR SHOULD BE A OPEN MIND OF RESPECT TOWARDS OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE IF THEIR WORKING ON INVESTIGATIONS IT’S USEFUL TO HAVE MORE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION ON THE WRONG DOING.
13)NEVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD THEIR BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT DENYING A PERSON THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY BECAUSE TIME IS CRITICAL WHEN DEALING WITH DRUG CARTELS AND GANG ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MURDER HOMICIDES AND MISSING PERSONS OR COLD CASES .
14) WITH THE INTEREST OF THE BIGGER PICTURE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC IT’S BETTER TO HAVE OPEN DOOR POLICIES WITH OTHER AGENCIES FBI DEA ATF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
15) FOR INSTANCE SOMEONE MAY HAVE STUMBLED ONTO SOMETHING AND TO FEED THEIR CURIOSITY THEY MAY DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT AS WELL .
16)I MY SELF WAS FRAMED UP BY DARCY BENNET AND DEPUTY NEIL LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND CHERI IVES AND DEPUTY LYNETTE O’BRIEN AND DEPUTY JOLIFF AND DEPUTY LIMA AND SHERIFF JOHN SCOTT AND SENIOR BARNES AND DEPUTY HURTADO AND DEPUTY ORASCO AND DEPUTY BECCERA AND DEPUTY NAVARRO AND DEPUTY LITTLE AND DEPUTY JACKSON AND DEPUTY ZEIGLER AND DEPUTY AHARAH ALL HAVE A CLIQUE THAT WORKED TOGETHER WITH UPPER CHAINS OF MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIL ROOM TO PREVENT COMMUNICATION FROM UPPER CHAINS OF COMMAND AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE TOWARDS TO THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE.
17) WITHOUT RAPPORT WICH MEANS TRUST WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENTS IT IN ITS SELF IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHAT IF A PERSON KNEW ABOUT TERRORIST AND PIPE BOMBS OR MURDERS AND WASN’T COMFORTABLE WITH THE ARRESTING AGENCY OR OFFICER IS A CONVICTION MORE IMPORTANT THAN TAKING OUT THE SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL HOW DO YOU GET A STRATEGY FOR A PROBLEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENTS WORKING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE WITH COVER UPS ONE AFTER ANOTHER WHEN INTEGRITY NEEDS TO PREVAIL NOT LIES IT SHOULD PAY OFF FOR PEOPLE OF INTELLIGENCE WITH INTEGRITY NOT TARNISH OUT OF THEIR OWN DEEP POCKET SPENDING OF THEIR OWN WANTING REPUTATION TO THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE WITH A TRADITION OF SERVICE WITH INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY THESE ARE OF SHINE IN TERMS OF BADGES.
18) UNDER PENALTY AND PERJURY THESE PEOPLE TAKE ON THIS EXPECTATIONS FOR THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF SERVICE FOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE WITH THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND INTEREST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRUST CIA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
19)THEIRS MISSION STATEMENTS AND SWORN IN DUTIES AND THE TRUTH SHOULD BE COUNTED ON THE MOST NOT POLITICS NOT PREJUDICE AND HATRED AND SURE IN THE HELL NOT RETALIATION NOR DISCRIMINATION EITHER NOR BIAS OVER POLITICAL FAVORITISM BECAUSE THE NATURE OF SWORN DUTIES ARE NOT SWORN IN POLITICIANS THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND FEELING AND EMOTIONS STAY AT HOME.
20)I HIGHLY RECOMMEND A THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE WHOLE SHABANG I HAVE MY END OF IT I HAVE ALL MY DOCUMENTATION AND ALL MY COMMUNICATION RECORDED ALL MY FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS BECAUSE IT’S APART OF WHAT WE DO AS FEDS WE DON’T PLAY AROUND WITH STUFF WE NAIL STUFF TO A POLE AND HARD AND QUICK WITHOUT GIVING PEOPLE TIME TO PLAN ANYTHING OR CHANCE TO ELUDE OR AVOID BEING CAPTURED IT ALL WINDS UP THE SAME RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT FLAMING BUSTED THE PAPER TRAILS DON’T LIE IT’S EVIDENCE THAT’S WHY IT’S GOING TO BE A SNOW BALL EFFECT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT.
21)A COMMUNICATION POLICY NEEDS TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW SAYING AT TIME OF ARREST
1)WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO ANOTHER AGENCY SUCH AS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
2)ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
3)DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
I ASSURE YOU WHAT YOU’LL HAVE IS A VOTING POLE IN BACK OF SQUAD CARS AND YOU’LL OBTAIN ALOT OF RESOURCEFUL INFORMATION THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL FOR A STRATEGY FOR COMBATING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION AND BOTH ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT WITH FUTURISTIC VISIONS OF PUBLIC SAFTEY THIS IS ALSO ESSENTIAL.
4)THEIR SHOULD NEVER BE DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND TAKING A PERSON’S INTENTIONS AND TWISTING IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENIFIT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND RACKETEERING PURPOSES AND NUMBER ONE BEST FOR “LAST “A TEST FOR COMMUNICATION THAT FAILED .
5) ALL THE TRAINING WITH POLICY AND PROCEDURES AND COMMUNICATION IS TOO HARD ALL IF A SUDDEN THE PHONE WEIGHS 10,000 POUNDS AND AT THE SAME TIME IT JEOPARDIZED INVESTIGATIONS WITH THAT OBSTRUCTION BY PREVENTING THAT COMMUNICATION OUT OF RETALIATION TO “OPERATION PANDORAS BOX ” THE DEPUTIES HATE HAVING “CAMERA’S UP AND FOR JAILS SAFE WITH OSJ CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT IT’S PERFECT I TOOK A CHANCE AT FELONIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GET CAMERA’S UP THEY WERE GOING TO BOOK ME BUT THE DA’S OFFICE SAID NO “INTEREST OF JUSTICE ”
6)I WROTE TO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ABOUT UNSANITARY LIVING CONDITIONS WITH LEAKING TOILETS AND MSRA STAPH INFECTIONS AND ABOUT EXPOSED METAL IN MCJ 5900 SHOWER THEY DID A FULL THROTTLE INVESTIGATIONS INTO IT AND HAD THE JAIL COMBED FOR OUTBREAKS OF INFECTIONS AND THEY PUT IN A WORK ORDER TO FIX THE TILES AND THEY MADE THEM RUN AROUND THE JAIL WITH CARTS TO DISINFECTANT THE ENTIRE JAIL I HAVE THE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND SO DOES CUSTODY.
7)INVESTIGATIONS NEED TO BE DONE WITH ACCURACY WITH INTEGRITY AND WITH A DETECTIVE STATE OF MIND NOT A POLITICIAN OF A GANG STRUCTURED MENTALITY WITH POLITIC FAVORITISM ON COVER UPS AND UNJUSTIFIED HOMICIDES AND RULINGS AS TO LACK OF COMMUNICATION WHERE THE LAWS ARE BENT AND BROKEN ONLY IN THE FAVOR OF THE PREJUDICE PARTY BECAUSE NOW CORRUPTION IS INTO EVERYTHING AND I’M GOING TO PROVE IT AND BE ASSURED IT’S WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD.
8)WHAT’S REALLY COOL IS ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SERVE MULTIPLE SENTENCES FOR INVOLVEMENT AND THAT IS GOING TO DEFLATE THE STRUCTURE AND THE KEY IS TO DISRUPT THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE ON BOTH ISIS TERRORIST MOVEMENT AND GANG MOVEMENT.
9)IT’S HIGHLY ILLEGAL THE WAY THAT IT HAS BECOME AND IT’S COMPLETELY GROSS NEGLIGENCE WITH GREED PRACTICES AND IT’S DEADLY POLITICS WITH A NO HARM ACT AND NO FEAR ACT AND EVERYTHING STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WITH ETHICS AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND THE CONSTITUTION AND AMENDMENTS WITH MISSION STATEMENTS IT’S COMPLETELY BEING BACKWARDS .
10)HOW IT NEEDS TO BE SEEN IS ANY UNDERLINGS WANTING TO BRING TARNISH TO CHAINS OF COMMAND OR DIRECTORS FIRE THEM ONE LIE LEADS TO ANOTHER AND YOU LOSE LEADS ON OTHER INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT UNDERLING OR UNDERLINGS YOU CAN’T TRUST THEM THEN WHY KEEP THEM AROUND LIES AND LIARS AND SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE ENTIRE AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT A REQUEST FOR
INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
Enclosed is information is strictly being held with strict confidentiality because the nature of it and as a fed I want to bring it to your attention and with trust I’m going to use you as a sounding board through my writing ok with my theories as well ok !
So far you have this as credibility with me ok .
1)nick casper sendis dubbed ” south whittier couple ”
2)Roger rogelio sendis dubbed “the family reunion ”
3)the guy that shared the driveway with Robert willie aka moody Southside whittier gang off Inez street the guy that had a Eddie Bauer with ostrich leather seats with Marijuana leaves on the outside of the vehicle embedded into the paint with 22 tons of Marijuana
4) kin gill in la habra off Idaho with frauds he had a dmv format program for making fake id’s and had shoppers working for him in best buy that made a percentage of the profits with dave vincent that lives off palm st in the trailer park,
5)over 350 phone contacts up to the line of sinolia drug cartel sent to Robert Mueller fbi director,
6)teressa 180 counts of frauds she worked at whittier medical center stealing profiles from patients folders .
7) big john
8)quinn
9)bull off Lakeland
10) 45 million dollars in la habra
11) $175,000 nick casper sendis
12)Roger rogelio sendis with roman over a million dollars
13) Atleast 3 firearms trafficking cases with different people separate cases
Just in case your wonder the signature on the drugs with nick casper sendis was a plastic sandwich bags with the methamphetamine in it with the top tied and placed in a paper lunch bag with the top rolled down,
14) the theirs blanco off Inez street in south whittier
15) aka cheese
With the email from the District of attorney Christina abanese from the city of la mirada theirs a list off names 100 % with accuracy drug cartels and drug rings and much more .
With Pandoras box with leroy Baca here’s the accomplished
1)code of silence
2) Rotation of the deputies
3)got cameras put up
4) got the department of public health to comb the jail for msra staph infections and to disinfectant the jail and to do a repair order on the mcj 5900 shower because of the tile were broken and their was exposed metal and I have the investigation report from the department of public health and the jail custody has a copy of the work order has well.
5) Dr Enriquez with accepted money for a fake medical records to prescribe Medication for Howard bloomgarden Ritalin $ 12,000 or more
6) the deputy with the burrito with herion in it 6000 floor I believe it was I told leroy Baca guess who bringing it in through the tray slot.
7)to debrief them all and depending on seriousness give them a chance and got them to seek professional help counseling,
8) encouraged leroy Baca to implement the core .
9) skinheads with syringes
10) inmate on inmate assaults staff inflicted virtual hits,
11) the elder and mentally ill being preyed on
13)deputy beccera slammed a pod door on inmate taco s finger taking the tip of it off what happened was taco was standing by the pod door in twin towers correctional facility maybe 262 or 261 floor and deputy beccera kicked the door shut and taco got his finger stuck between the door and the door jam and as deputy beccera was walking away taco started yelling hey you shut the door of my finger and deputy beccera opened it and the tip of his finger fell to the floor deputy beccera escorted taco to medical where they could not sew the tip of his finger back on but they did cut some of the bone and sewed the tip and wrapped it with gauze and prescribed pain medication,
14) deputies beccera and little use to single inmates out by locking everyone down over laundry being found in the cell with mentally ill and often it would lead to inmate on inmate assaults staff inflicted virtual hits.
15) inmate Jessie esquardo use to pick on mentally ill and elderly one time he kicked a old man splitting his chin open and the guy needed stitches.
16)one time Howard bloomgarden was on the phone telling someone on the other end to keep point for either a art heist or bank robbery,
17) deputy Joliff took Howard bloomgarden new York mobsters legal mail and kept it in a undisclosed area of the jail,
18)I sent president Barack Obama over 900 names pluss a bunch of information
19)I sent leroy Baca sheriff about 500 names pluss alot of information
20)I sent senior Barnes about 350 names pluss alot of information
21)I sent sheriff john scott about 300 names pluss alot of information
22)theirs a aka wicket that was in a previous relationship with Darcy bennet that was stealing copper from parks something about lighting systems or copper pipes he maybe your LAUSD COPPER BANDIT
23) in mcj 5900 this ca Platta that told inmate Shawn aka mawhalk that a Armanian guy in the dorm was a child molester and aka drifter had the guy stomped out and after he was removed from the dorm aka drifter said it should have been done differently meaning he should have been killed.
24) one time I told deputy jackson about aka yogi having 2 ounces of herion in the down and he had no interest in it
25)deputy Walton that works lcmc said if Howard bloomgarden ever gets out he owes him alot of money.
26)ca sugucci that worked twin towers correctional facility allowed colored pencils come in to Howard bloomgarden
27) I sent john Brennan CIA DIRECTOR about 500 names pluss information
28) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director about 400 or 500 names pluss alot of information
29) theirs a deputy that was throwing apples at Howard Bloomgarden like fast balls in twin towers correctional facility
30) theirs another deputy that kicked Howard bloomgarden in his ankle or chin doing damage to it
31)theirs evidence in Howard Bloomgardens case that was destroyed with 9/12 when the terrorist attacked the towers with a plane and he has a document from justice Kennedy to support that claim
32)in Howard Bloomgardens case theirs something about a guy named rubin going through letters
33) one time Howard bloomgarden was on the phone with his mom and he said are you under the bridge yet
34) theirs something about Michael Goldberg with customs and something about every time he gets either $12,000 or $15,000 maybe more
35)something about Howard bloomgarden he has a financial advisor
36)and Howard bloomgarden has a uncle named scott in Thailand and told me he wanted to do a koi Bros Inc and that scott would buy a million of them and have them imported out of Thailand or Japan
37) something with Howard bloomgarden and old teak wood maybe money smuggling or laundering
38)Howard bloomgarden said something about diamonds from Israel with investments
39)Howard bloomgarden told a younger jewish guy I can tell you how to make a million dollars in less than a hour
40) in twin towers correctional facility 262 floor their was a guy selling methamphetamine out of A POD cell 12 or 14 a and OSJ CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT k9 had no interest in it
41) I spoke with OSJ k9 and told him about Howard bloomgarden wanting to know prices on a quarter pound of methamphetamine and if he wanted I could arange it and they can take it down on the outside
42) their was a deputy in visiting throwing up gang signs
43)I designed samepage with tarnish and shine ethics with same team.
44) deputies would try to prevent my letter from going out but after I got cameras put up I started writing to the cameras
45) in mcj 5900 I wrote a letter in regards to two hundred eighty million dollars and had a civilian from the streets call medical saying I had chest pains and before getting to medical I flipped a u turn and went into the watch commanders office and said who’s in charge here and who do you trust with two hundred and eighty million dollars and it was full of top brass and one them said me and I said give this to leroy Baca from “the most honest man in blue “he’ll know who I am,
46)in my letters I wrote about China and it’s chemicals before it was blown up
47)I wrote about tunnels under the Mexican jail saying that EL CHAPA MEXICAN CARTEL LEADER was going to escape,
48) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director Howard bloomgardens DNA a hair sample to be sent in for testing to help prevail with his cases pluss to prove he has a son named Aiden meaning his girlfriend a playboy bunny got pregnant since he’s been in custody either federal prison or los angeles county jail from my knowledge the kid isn’t that old so in confident it happened while in custody of los angeles county jail my theory is either she came in with the rabbi’s on a religious even or LCMC medical and that’s the reason deputy Walton said he owes him alot of money when he gets out .
49) I sent Robert Mueller fbi director Howard bloomgardens mom’s number to have a wiretapping done to pay attention for activities and involvement in criminal activities street related while in custody because I know he was putting deadly hits on people even while in Los Angeles county jail.
50) rabbi zvi boyarsky visits Howard bloomgarden often and when Howard bloomgardens mom comes in from new York to see him she stays at rabbi zvi boyarsky house I’ve personally seen Howard bloomgarden give zvi boyarsky kites to smuggle out for him wich consist of tiny peices of paper with small writing on it and under the bridge yet when he asked his mom meaning it could be either a meeting place drop off or pickup.and rabbi zvi boyarsky took his dress shoes off and I noticed their was a little hole on the inside in the heel of it just small enough for smuggling kites or drugs in and out of the jail I also noticed their were rabbinical visits with rabbi Howard Winkler where the meetings were unsupervised and no one else was allowed to be at the table with them I know I’m orthodox Jewish and spent the holidays with them on several occasions
51)on one of the holidays the rabbi’s and a Lt all showed up and a pillow was brought in with them wrapped in plastic and was switched out with another pillow that Howard bloomgarden had from his Dr’s prescription as a orthopedic specialist.
52)the enclosed email from the city of la mirada district attorney is with criminal intent of the city of la mirada and it’s contracted Law enforcement to obstruct justice and tampering with open federal investigations and is embezzlement and racketeering.
▼ Hide quoted text
Thank you very much
Laurie Ytuarte RN, MSN,FNP
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Cristine Albanese
Date: December 14, 2015 at 10:46:31 AM PST
To: “‘lauriemytuarte@gmail.com'”
Subject: FW: For your information
Hi Ms. Ytuarte,
The City of La Mirada received this incoherent email from Buddy George. I am assuming he was released from prison and is currently living with you. I just thought you might be concerned that he may be taking drugs again based on the nature of this email. Are you still in La Mirada or is the Fullerton address correct. If there is any assistance I can give you please let me know.
Sincerely,
Cristine Albanese
Deputy District Attorney
Los Angeles County
La Mirada SAGE – Community Prosecution
(562) 902-2981
From: Buddy George [mailto:buddybloomgarden@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:35 PM
To: City Contact
Subject: For your information
El chapa Mexican cartel leader China and it’s chemicals baller tapia nick Padilla aka kilo long beach nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis quinn quest castro roman chaba ochoa mikey ssw pokey lmp chino ssw Robert willie jr ssw aka moody ghost lakewood ghost lakewood time bellflower sos gang fernando sfv fernando lamirada john mcguire mack riverside sweets Ontario cho cho Kenneth Lewis tank sgv mo lmp tracy lmp Goodman big shane lmp Billy bones lmp ladybug ocs heather orange County tuesday Carey orange County john rodriguez Ray of la habra tim in la habra heights rebel ocs lizzet and maddy big john la habra Howard bloomgarden ghost of Torrance tiffany la mirada toker 18st gang and don in the desert and don of la mirada and snakes and kilo long beach and mo orange County and flaca and camel norwalk and droops peaceful norwalk bambam southeast spanky bellflower and country and smoah lmp and sinolia cartel and sinoah and magic ssw and whetto ssw and diablo hesh and Julie orange County and ultimate lmp and huckleberry fin and ray dog and tank sgv and maryano Inez st and Enriquez montero and negro ssw and sneaks ssw and sneaks 30s and thumper ssw and Aaron fowler and puppet lmp and jayleen norwalk and snoop norwalk and the lady Carmellas dan on lambert Rd and porky ssw and yogi avenues and frankie old pico and dreamer ssw and adrian ssw and Travis lambarti lmp and curtis lmp and dave vincent and kamala la habra thumper ssw and Gato and racoon and cricket big hazard and Verdugo from Verdugo IE and Baer IE hells angels and mike bohner and mike Zimmerman aka zimmie and shadow f13 and dannyboy ssw and dannyboy ssw and mike O’Brien and spark lmp and speedy lmp and demon sfv and Armanian power sfv and spinner and bombshell lmp and chino ssw and apache lmp and kojoe or cochoe and John rodriguez la habra heights and ray of la habra adam off greanleaf and jerry aka stern lmp and Terry woods and John guten sfv and chantel la mirada and silent la habra and spider la habra and big spike Pomona
Little spike and pokey stamy house,
Mexican gary, guy ,kamala la habra off harbor blvd, yvette and Fred la habra,
Frank off burgess la mirada whittier area, will ssw, william ssw, kieth Gordon sr,kieth Gordon jr, bobby lmp, Taylor lmp, ellise norwood, janine and josh lmp,
Aka badass last name Wagner his mom is trafficking methamphetamine to Tennessee or somewhere else badass is from IE, then Howard bloomgarden is having diamonds smuggled from Israel through customs with Michael Goldberg,
Then theirs cris that was going to john rodriguez house in la habra trafficking firearms, and ray from la habra that goes to john rodriguez is selling high powered firearms or military weapons,
Gypsy dresses up light a construction contractor and goes to contractors warehouse and purchases heavy duty tools and diamond tip saw blades and he sells methamphetamine,
and in modesto California
Gino gregg and buddy Humphreys
In Taft California buddy spoonmoore
In Sacramento California
Franko ramano aka franko sr and franko ramano aka franko jr and tim martin and Cindy worthington and Richard Martin aka pugs and melody atkinson and Kim and Clifford nelson and nacho and castro and Jayne thompson and art sprouls jr and Bart sprouls and the richie or richies or richy family and gay Robert and dougy martin and John martin sr and John martin jr and Delilah martin and gwin and quest and cris brown and Floyd merideth and buffalo and aisel and Sarah and John crow aka rooster on ford Rd or Hayes ave and mike shoemaker and Rex shoemaker and Jim and pam in Carmichael and little jack and Jimmy jack and scotty griffin and Jessie hampton aka bumpy and hate and mike desifino and shaggy and snowman and iceman and 4×4 leroy haynes and lil J and isac grandon and drupey and G-force and lil oak and leonard carlile and Robert johnson mike Anderson mike thompson
Rodney parent
Westpoint willsieville then Glenn and Raymond and Frida,
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
By buddy george
Code name firefly
My address
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
This is recorded for quality assurance and is copied on SanDisk going to
James b comey
935 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20235
In my report to the fbi about the sendis family drug business
The south whittier couple with nick aka casper sendis he owned 3 houses and thoroughbred horses and the signature on the drugs was in a sandwich bags and put in a paper lunch bag with the top rolled down ,
It’s also being mailed to
THE WHITE HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BARACK OBAMA
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20500
AND DIRECTORS FOR
NSA , US MARSHALS, FBI , DEA , CIA ,ATF, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
AND EVERY ARMS CHAIR COMMITTEE
AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20525
LORETTA LYNCH ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AND DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND US NAVY COMMUNITY RELATIONS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS
AND CAL OSHA BECAUSE OF
FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENTS
This is a sealed federal document to be unsealed by the federal bureau of investigations and has been brought to the attention of the following
Attn:JAMES B COMEY FBI DIRECTOR
Attn:JOHN BRENNAN CIA DIRECTOR
Attn : DPO TOM BYRD DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SUPERVISORS
The enclosed information is true and correct under penalty and perjury
With 100 % ACCURACY
Federally signed from the world’s largest fed and as a cartel fed signed with the federal bureau of investigations asked f hat thus be a complete and thorough investigations for embezzlement and racketeering and organized crime and organized corruption with law enforcements and the SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL
FEDERAL DOCUMENT SEALED 1,24,16
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
SIGNATURE BUDDY GEORGE
THE ENCLOSED IS 100 % ACCURACY
OF DRUG CARTELS AND DRUG RINGS
THE CONTENTS IS TO BE UNSEALED BY THE FOLLOWING
1)THE US STATES ATTORNEYS
2)THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
3)THE CIA HAS BEEN ASKED TO MAINTAIN THIS DOCUMENTATION FOR FUTURISTIC REASONS OF PUBLIC TRUST
SIGNED BUDDY GEORGE
THE BIGGEST FAN OF THE FOLLOWING
1)FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER
2)FBI DIRECTOR JAMES B COMEY
3)CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN
4)CIA DIRECTOR DAVID PETRAEUS
JOHN MCDONNELL SHERIFF
FROM BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
THEIRS A CERTIFIED LETTER GOING TO THE MONTEREY PARK ADDRESS
YOUR GOING TO SAY WOW THEM UNDERLINGS AND OHHH BOY MICKEY MOUSE ARE THEY KEEPING SECRETS
FROM YOU REMEMBER THE TERMS
OPERATION MICKEY MOUSE.
THEIRS 900 PAGES ON THE WAY VERY SOON .
AND JAMES B COMEY FBI DIRECTOR
FBI HEADQUARTERS
HAS CERTIFIED BY MAIL COMING
AS WELL WITH PICTURES AND VIDEOS OF FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS AND TONS OF INTEL PLUSS 6500 PHONE CONTACTS UP TO THE LINE OF SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL,
EVERYTHING I WRITE ABOUT I HAVE A NICE HEALTHY TYPED UP COPY .
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
BUDDY GEORGE
2018 W WOODCREST AVE
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA 92833
WORDS AND FAMOUS CODE NAMES
LIKE THE GUY ON “WHITE COLLAR ” AS SEEN ON TV
“THE MOST HONEST MAN IN BLUE ”
“FREEDOM ”
“BLDG”
“HONEST & WORTHY
“OPERATION MICKEY MOUSE ”
KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN GOING THROUGH THE LETTERS THEIRS HIDDEN STUFF IN IT DISREGARD WHAT’S ABOUT ME THAT WAS A TEST FOR COMMUNICATION AND SOMEONE GOT MY CHARACTER ALL WRONG I GOT 900 PLUSS NAMES PAST YOU TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BARACK OBAMA,
PLUSS TONS OF INFORMATION TO THE PRESIDENT.
REMEMBER I SAID YOU’LL “SMILE NOW CRY LATOR ”
I ALREADY HAD
“OPERATION PANDORAS BOX ”
AND
THE SENDIS FAMILY DRUG BUSINESS INDICTMENTS,
PLUSS
OVER 350 PHONE CONTACTS UP TO THE LINE OF SINOLIA DRUG CARTEL TURNED OVER TO ROBERT MUELLER FBI DIRECTOR.
I HAVE THE STORY TO ALL 900 PLUSS NAMES DO YOU ???
IT’S GOING TO BE CHECKED OUT TO SEE WHO CASHED OUT ON THE INFORMATION LEFT BEHIND IT WAS MY TEST FOR COMMUNICATION AND WHO EVER CASHED IN ON IT IS APART OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND TAMPERING WITH OPEN AND ACTIVE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS.
I HAVE THE WHOLE ENTIRE STORY DOCUMENTED BEFORE I WENT IN PICTURES AND VIDEOS THIS IS GOING TO BE JUST LOVELY I WENT CAMPING AND SYPHONED MORE INTEL SO I’M STILL A SHINY WINNER AS A FED I LOVE IT THANK YOU I WANTED THAT TO HAPPEN I FORECASTED IT . REMEMBER HHH THE GAME BECAUSE I HHH’D IT AND THE BIG SHOW SHOW STOPPER !!!!
WHITE COLLAR CRIMES YEAH !!!! I FOUND THE RIGHT PLACE YIPPY! !
I BET I WRITE OUT ABOUT 10,000 PAGES OF REAL LIVE INFORMATION WITH PICTURES AND VIDEOS OF FEDERAL CRIME REPORTS PLUSS REAL LIVE EVENTS FOR “OPERATION DONKEY KONG “
Theirs going to be exibits pages and pages of very federal information keep in mind in the interest of justice with the federal bureau of investigations with character to prove my character has been put on paper and sworn with penalty and perjury false police report with proof of it I’m not worried about who changed what I have it all recorded I have the original reports and all the photos of phone numbers I kept it away from my living environment I posted bail just to put it away because it’s valuable information theirs integrity intelligence families interested and working on stuff because it involves national security I am the about it 100 % with it I’m a very very Shiney person that’s made world history with leroy Baca with the federal bureau of investigations and the president of the United states of america Barack Obama and I’m going full force in effect on that corruption any and all guilty parties are going to stand out like a sore thumb I love it how this stuff works
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
And the retaliation I received after my federal bureau of investigations crime reports with no due process and now theirs stipulations saying not to have communication with the city of la mirada and the la habra police department and the Fullerton police department and harassment with probation being made to do unnecessary things very unethical and unprofessional and unconstitutional
On May 21, 2016 8:25 PM, “Buddy George” wrote:
Here’s proof Anaheim police department Anaheim California received everything
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Hide quoted text
On May 21, 2016 5:04 PM, “City of Anaheim” wrote:
—If replying by email, enter your reply above this line—
(Please allow up to 15 minutes to update your request record when replying by email)
Dear Buddy,
Thank you for contacting the City of Anaheim. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
The Question you submitted was:
Request type: Suspicious Activity Related to Domestic and/or Foreign Terrorism
Description: I sent all this fbi tips the best news media tip in the world to verify contact bill Lewis fbi director and James B comey fbi director thank you
El Chapo Mexican cartel leader China and it’s chemicals baller tapia nick Padilla aka kilo long beach nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis quinn quest castro roman chaba ochoa mikey ssw pokey lmp chino ssw Robert willie jr ssw aka moody ghost lakewood ghost lakewood time bellflower sos gang fernando sfv fernando lamirada john mcguire mack riverside sweets Ontario cho cho Kenneth Lewis tank sgv mo lmp tracy lmp Goodman big shane lmp Billy bones lmp ladybug ocs heather orange County tuesday Carey orange County john rodriguez Ray of la habra tim in la habra heights rebel ocs lizzet and maddy big john la habra Howard bloomgarden ghost of Torrance tiffany la mirada toker 18st gang and don in the desert and don of la mirada and snakes and kilo long beach and mo orange County and flaca and camel norwalk and droops peaceful norwalk bambam southeast spanky bellflower and country and smoah lmp and sinolia cartel and sinoah and magic ssw and whetto ssw and diablo hesh and Julie o
range County and ultimate lmp and huckleberry fin and ray dog and tank sgv and maryano Inez st and Enriquez montero and negro ssw and sneaks ssw and sneaks 30s and thumper ssw and Aaron fowler and puppet lmp and jayleen norwalk and snoop norwalk and the lady Carmellas dan on lambert Rd and porky ssw and yogi avenues and frankie old pico and dreamer ssw and adrian ssw and Travis lambarti lmp and curtis lmp and dave vincent and kamala la habra thumper ssw and Gato and racoon and cricket big hazard and Verdugo from Verdugo IE and Baer IE hells angels and mike bohner and mike Zimmerman aka zimmie and shadow f13 and dannyboy ssw and dannyboy ssw and mike O’Brien and spark lmp and speedy lmp and demon sfv and Armanian power sfv and spinner and bombshell lmp and chino ssw and apache lmp and kojoe or cochoe and John rodriguez la habra heights and ray of la habra adam off greanleaf and jerry aka stern lmp and Terry woods and John guten sfv and chantel la mirada and silent la habra
and spider la habra and big spike Pomona
Little spike and pokey stamy house,
Mexican gary, guy ,kamala la habra off harbor blvd, yvette and Fred la habra,
Frank off burgess la mirada whittier area, will ssw, william ssw, kieth Gordon sr,kieth Gordon jr, bobby lmp, Taylor lmp, ellise norwood, janine and josh lmp,
Aka badass last name Wagner his mom is trafficking methamphetamine to Tennessee or somewhere else badass is from IE, then Howard bloomgarden is having diamonds smuggled from Israel through customs with Michael Goldberg,
Then theirs cris that was going to john rodriguez house in la habra trafficking firearms, and ray from la habra that goes to john rodriguez is selling high powered firearms or military weapons,
Gypsy dresses up light a construction contractor and goes to contractors warehouse and purchases heavy duty tools and diamond tip saw blades and he sells methamphetamine,
and in modesto California
Gino gregg and buddy Humphreys
In Taft California buddy spoonmoore
In Sacramento California
Franko ramano aka franko sr and franko ramano aka franko jr and tim martin and Cindy worthington and Richard Martin aka pugs and melody atkinson and Kim and Clifford nelson and nacho and castro and Jayne thompson and art sprouls jr and Bart sprouls and the richie or richies or richy family and gay Robert and dougy martin and John martin sr and John martin jr and Delilah martin and gwin and quest and cris brown and Floyd merideth and buffalo and aisel and Sarah and John crow aka rooster on ford Rd or Hayes ave and mike shoemaker and Rex shoemaker and Jim and pam in Carmichael and little jack and Jimmy jack and scotty griffin and Jessie hampton aka bumpy and hate and mike desifino and shaggy and snowman and iceman and 4×4 leroy haynes and lil J and isac grandon and drupey and G-force and lil oak and leonard carlile and Robert johnson mike Anderson mike thompson
Rodney parent
Westpoint willsieville then Glenn and Raymond and Frida,
Connecting dots
Rayray cheese blanco roman chaba ochoa mikey pokey chino dreamer whetto magic Enriquez montero negro snoop jayleen Lisa duran Erick hicks tom merideth Shawn Gerard vivian bubbuh maryano able john rodriguez ray big john quinn demon sfv Armanian power sfv shadow dannyboy ssw Jessie diaz Terry woods chante aka Tay baller tapia spider silent avalos will william mike bohner fatboy gigi gen Breanna norwood ellise dannyboy dannyboy tuesday Joe coby cloey vivian tim in la habra heights rebel ocs lizzet lizzard brandon meyhem don in la mirada ghost lakewood ghost lakewood time bellflower sos gang fernando sfv fernando lamirada john guten sfv whetto magic brian greenwood Craig greenwood requel jackson fred ross Kim ross lucky yvette la habra thumper ssw Aaron fowler puppet lmp linda from the block tank sgv mo lmp tracy lmp the general flaco El chapa Mexican cartel leader China and it’s chemicals smokey lmp smoah lmp sinoah sinolia drug cartel cho cho sweets Ontario head Ontario Baer
IE hells angels mike O’brien big bear maniac IE skinhead flaca camel norwalk droops peaceful norwalk bambam southeast spanky bellflower country quiet brian brian greenwood Craig greenwood requel jackson Lisa duran little kieth dan the man on lambert Rd fernando lamirada fernando lamirada big shane lmp Billy bones Robert willie jr ssw aka moody ghost Torrance tiffany la mirada ultimate lmp huckleberry fin ray of la habra tim in la habra heights nick Padilla aka kilo long beach kilo long beach Terry woods nick casper sendis Roger rogelio sendis sergio will william mike garcia Raul from sendis family droopy lmp thumper ssw Aaron fowler puppet lmp mike bohner mike Zimmerman aka zimmie pokey porky ssw big john big spike Pomona spanky bellflower sweets Ontario mack riverside one towing demon sfv Howard bloomgarden new York mobster
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
The largest tip ever submitted to Anaheim police department Anaheim California and to the fbi and it’s been sent to every news media in the world for investigations and the president of the United States of America Barack Obama has it as well
On May 19, 2016 11:33 AM, “City of Anaheim” wrote:
—If replying by email, enter your reply above this line—
(Please allow up to 15 minutes to update your request record when replying by email)
Dear Buddy,
Thank you for contacting the City of Anaheim. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
The Complaint you submitted was:
Request type: Suspicious Activity Related to Domestic and/or Foreign Terrorism
Description: Phone numbers to look into for oranized crime and corruption street gangs inside and out of jails and prisons and drug cartels and drug rings DEDICATED TO ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT YES THE FBI HAS A COPY
1)Robert willie 562-941-0016
909-854-4682
323-259-9219
626-622-5271
2)john rodriguez 714-788-1257
3) Tanja 714-913-8787
4) baller tapia 562-479-6661
5)Dannyboy ssw 323-453-5551
6)Dan the man 323-547-4762
7)dannyboy 562-360-5523
8)dannyboy 562-868-1684
9)dannyboy 323-691-7270
10) dave vincent 562-697-4639
11) days Inn friend 562-712-4620
12) Dino lmp 562-665-1354
13) Dino n reaper 562-479-4332
14) Dino n reaper 562-547-1236
15) dub dub 714-785-2484
16)dub dub twin bro 714-723-8374
17)Eddie 562-587-5415
18)Edgar 714-329-2478
19)Erick hicks 562-237-9533
20)fatboy lmp 562-360-4436
21) frankie berganza 562-587-7134
22) Freddy 562-686-0588
23)grimmy 714-497-5622
24) hicks 562-315-6000
25) hicks 562-371-7565
26) Homeboy 562-536-7704
27) Homeboy 562-686-3267
28 ) Homeboy ind 323-526-1254
29)insane 562-313-8272
30)Jeff the man 760-662-9067
31) Jenny from the block 562-360-7865
32)john mcguire 562-324-1553
33) john tapia 562-947-8926
34) cook shards 626-240-3676
35) Largo 562-479-1379
36) lizzard 562-347-9976
37) lucky 562-968-9099
38) lucky 562-200-9391
39) Mario 562-360-8407
40) Mario 562-826-7217
41)mark tapia 562-846-0477
42)mark tapia 562-418-3064
43) mark tapia 562-536-8523
44) mark Vaught 562-616-4317
45) martin weirdo 714-989-7227
46) mike Benson 949-528-7291
47) mike casa 562-360-7500
48) mike risky 562-324-3614
49) mike swamp 562-458-1371
50)mike risky lmp 562-360-3690
562-360-3696
51) Molisa mo 714-366-5574
52) Mugsy 562-753-3811
53) Mugsy 562-467-3974
54) mumbles 562-946-1240
55) omar manuls brother 562-967-1576
56)old school Danny la Habra heights
562-536-3387
57)Peewee 562-325-0179
58) Peewee 562-686-9558
59) quiet 562-313-4257
60)quiet 562-392-2348
61) Ralphy 714-809-7301
562-328-1465
62)ray 562-324-8759
63) risky ssw 562-325-9155
562-846-5361
64)risky new 714-306-1390
65) Sean girrard 562-200-4365
66)Shmooo 562-500-2102
67)smoker 562-536-7698
68) Southbay 714-820-0230
69)sparks 626-476-5665
70)speedy 562-217-2079
71)speedy 562-420-7847
72)sporty 562-968-9093
73) Tavis mail out guy 760-351-6577
74)termite 562-242-8981
75) termite 714-312-9399
76)the wizard 949-630-1173
77) thumper 714-353-5179
78) tiffany 562-781-4429
79)tiffany 562-587-5978
80)tim 562-565-3797
562-565-3792
81) Tommy cv3 310-594-2445
82) Tony Cano 805-258-1510
83) Travis L 714-234-8493
84) turtle LM 562-536-8861
85) tuesday 562-371-5985
86) Venessa barron wonder woman frank- 562-321-3681
87)Venessa 562-321-3681
88) weirdo new 562-219-9545
89) Yoggie 562-677-5902
90)youngster 626-660-9946
91)Wachang yum 562-758-5413
92) Wejo 562-567-5562
93) Wednesday 562-412-2839
94) Wendy and lily Neff 562-404-1685
95)white gangster 714-369-5191
96)wildcat 562-552-2990
97)will 562-686-8053
98) willy 818-371-2594
99)wizard Ftt 562-619-5155
100)koi pounds equipment- 405-440-0000
101)Darcy 714-395-0439
102)yabball 562-479-2123
103)Zimmy 562-242-9539
104)beadljuice 562-285-8054
105) breaking bad Robby 562-686-1082
106)Aileen swartzel 562-443-2314
107)Aj 562-665-4950
108)alix tamecula bud 760-560-6972
109)Amy pixkie 562-773-2107
110)Angi 562-319-7746
111)Apc shipping Jeff Pont- 310-200-1181
112)apple Wizzz compt fix 562-283-8186
113)Artuo roomy rynardo 323-239-4119
114)Arturo baby 323-875-4819
115)Danna 619-347-3017
116)Anthany 619-520-2698
117)Donna 562-347-3017
118)magnum 714)516-0900
119) Baer hells angel 951-285-2239
120)Bbooobbby deep 562-204-9790
121)BC 562-686-7134
122) becks family plumbing 760-802-2275
123)beeny patty 562-665-9149
124)Bian golfer 714-913-5567
125) big kid well 562-881-8754
126)big mike 714-986-0277
127)big moma 562-567-5021
128)big popa 562-204-5700
129)big Steve again 562-245-6242
130)Billii use gas 951-303-7345
131) birdman 562-6964882
132)Blas 714-583-4216
133)blend and sand kurk 714-231-6160
134)Bo 949-612-4725
135) Bo and Trish 562-270-8230
136)Bo 949-610-6841
137)bobby boob 562-237-7913
138) bobby cuzon 760-885-5729
139)bobby gils 714-616-1208
140)rob carona 562-361-3376
141) brandales building 951-760-6794
142)brandon parker 909-238-3478
143)brandy Southside 951-491-3576
144)Brandy Southside 562-360-7041
145) Breanna 714-235-9769
146)Brettsky 562-665-9618
147)brian jobs 949-584-8731
158)brian macanic 818’641-2323
159)Brian requel 562-686-7134
160)Britany ss13 562-360-8378
161)Brits work 714-891-0717
162) Brittany Bunny562-371-5527
163)brook Armstrong 714-415-9082
164) brues 562-500-5993
165 )Bryan Kelly 562-321-8364
166)Btt DSnuggle 714-737-9886
167)bubbu 562-217-5846
168)bubbu Tony 562-658-8800
169)Buch worker Ramone 562-659-5365
170)Luise 562-480-5617
171)calif arbis 562-762-9099
172)Carhill gas pipe 323-724-6259
173)Carines 562-458-4520
174)Carlas and cris 69 mustang – 909-461-5737
175)Carlin big moma 562-639-8566
176)Carr hill comp 323-724-6087
177)Carriena 951-907-5005
178)Casto whahocka 562-944-1671
179)562-944-1671
180)Castos cuson 562-464-8413
181) Catline the boss 714-396-5069
182 )Charly 562-425-3246
183)chase riddle 562-587-0202
184) chelset 562-698-0058
185)Chhis hockins 562-208-9575
186)China 562-326-7870
187)Choi 714-675-3588
188)Chris biker 714-737-2507
189)Chris ddds buddy 562-333-1903
190)chis doter phone 714-330-7107
191)Chris hawken plast 714-981-4105
192)Chris mickelini 714-404-0131
193)Christos brother 562-762-6434
194)chubby hillbilly 562-325-9439
195)Chucky bboy rider 562-479-5305
196)clinic JD 949-200-0403
197)Clodeo man 626-277-1682
198)Clottio 714-851-2906
199)crazy house 562-697-3388
200)Crazzy eyes Ganga queen- 562-217-1404
201)cow bobdrt 562-237-8368
202)Curtuse 951 wood 951-805-5988
203)Affers 408-225-5087
204)Carlos 424-221-2627
205)cwp1 714-935-6203
206)cwp2 714-935-6940
207)coyoty club 714-994-7777
208)my dad apple 626-240-3676
209)Dan Lil man’s sis 714-248-4682
210)Dan the pool job guy 562-318-9038
211)Dana 562-328-4842
212)Daniel Staton 714-267-0700
213)danhhhooo 626-324-2725
214)Danny cannon and Kattie 562-544-5727
215)Danny saliess 562-943-2183
216)Dan the job man 562-506-4663
217)Dannyboys Vicky 949-395-5469
218)Debbiey doo 562-900-6619
219)Derick cwp italiona 562-537-5384
220)Dianne germ 562-713-1741
221) Dianne germ 562-753-1741
222)dodge 8700 714-369-6317
223)Dom 562-481-1338
224)Dominick 626-321-3672
225)don Newport 949-322-0666
226)Doneta Norwood 949-466-0588
227)Donyella mom 714-319-1372
228)downer 714-213-4257
229)Dr brues 951-265-7687
230)Dr Haland 562-458-1243
231) Ducko engineering walnut- 909-597-7414
232)dug dag dad 951-294-1167
233)dug hovis 951-506-9847
234)E mideo 562-360-8321
235)Erick rusle 562-631-1355
236)erick wood 562-237-6498
237)erica benedeto 520-907-1969
238)ericka 562-325-8787
239)erron runner 562-458-3003
240)express piper 562-698-7774
241)face 339-203-1173
242)face 6+6 562-631-4413
243)fat ic what are you doing 6 562-686-3267
244)Fatbois new 323-573-3129
245)fernando arroyo 562-448-4539
246)fernando 562-464-8584
247)flaka 562-781-8248
248)fernando auto body 951-250-4045
249)found puppy 562-319-3244
250)frank clinic 909-709-0950
251)frank San jaun connect- 929-412-4410
252)frank the tank 562-652-5434
253) frankie 562-340-5333
254)frankie berganza 562-587-7134
255)Freddy 562-686-0858
256)Fro rock bro 562-325-4963
257)Fuggy wa t11e 714-939-0518
258)Furley Supercross party 714-493-9561
259)gabby girl 714-335-1950
260)gabreal soya 562-201-0354
261)Gardenhill 562-944-6128
262)Garit hillbilly cop 951-326-9216
263)Garry ffucker 562-375-1556
264)gary AAA 714-468-8428
714-278-6897
265)gary and Karan 714-993-1238
266)gary Lamc 562-328-8693
267)gary PK 562-616-3783
268)Gavin sherts hat cars 714-862-3813
269)Geano 562-665-7722
270) Geico wood 562-237-8230
271) Geno 562-479-2631
272)George 562-281-3808
273) George blk taxi 562-220-8186
274)George refrigerator 562-881-5612
275)George smokey 562-261-7260
276)Georges friend 323-830-5864
277)Georges new 213-985-5308
278)Georges pad 562-803-0353
279)Georges smokey 562-391-6275
280) get it done wood 562-321-7092
281)GG 562-623-8802
282)GG 562-318-9588
283)giant vetmees 657-235-4321
284)giggles farm 714-717-0587
285)Gina Shantels 562-900-5101
286)Ginna 562-822-6733
287)Gino 562-246-4395
288)Gina Walter Farris 734-469-3486
289)Gino GGG 562-287-5419
290)Gino bro in law Charlie 951-348-9854
291)Gino’s temp 562-972-3392
292)GMA 714-523-3982
293) GMA XXX cell 714-318-8444
294)go daddy. Com Brian 480-505-8859
295) GOLD GUY 714-781-5700
296) gold west apoxy 949-689-6154
297)good year 714-731-0212
298)Gordan Sutter 310-628-2146
299) grant 714-240-2099
Sincerely and respectfully
Submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Phone numbers up to the level of drug cartel
300)Greg Madison 714-523-3938
301) Greg spot 714-523-3937
302)Gteg Trans am 562-391-7800
303)hank bridgettes 661-212-2613
304)hawii janneen 808-385-0828
305)hawii singer 808-385-3651
306)Hayword jai O’neil 949-701-3205
307)heather Gotha 714-650-0530
308)heather Jeff 562-536-5752
309)Hellon 714-770-9408
310)Hether discount store 714-617-6509
311) home funishin larance armeo 714-479-8931
312)Homeboy big red truck 562-686-3267
313)Hommie whittier 13 562-200-4148
314)hoodlums cell 715-678-1933
714-420-1979
315)Hoodack 562-397-2987
316)Hayland Brea 714-990-6867
317)IMZZ Jim 562-905-0721
714-905-7721
318)insane 737 562-313-8271
319)Instafoam 909-591-7425
320)Iren 626-905-4848
321) investigator 909-214-5691
322)Irenes new 626-969-2941
323)Irenes other 626-969-2941
324) Israel glez 951-826-9922
951-534-8298
325)italiona contractor 626-221-6960
326)JJ 951-313-2040
327)Jane 562-587-0661
328) Janene wp 818-579-5413
329)Janene 562-991-9853
330) Jaramia wahocko 562-781-8234
331)Jason 562-587-6020
562-200-9109
332)714-732-1641
714-762-1641
333)Jason doogard 562-322-6784
334)Jason heartly 562-458-3792
335)Jason Joey 714-721-4402
714-365-7403
714-721-4402
714-365-7403
336)Jason LAD 714-561-3619
337) Jason Lisa 562-676-2818
338)Jason mongol phils 909-660-2600
339)Jason salazar 562-361-0165
340)Jay 562-318-6008
562-846-0477
341)Jay 562-318-6008
562-846-0477
342)Jay bird 909-267-5994
343)Jay liquor store 562-713-2277
344)Jay neighbors dad 310-421-6644
345)Jay red 714-522-1749
346)Jayhub 951-375-1722
347)J birds new 702-445-9908
310-912-3302
434-236-5855
348)Jeanette 323-947-6800
349)Jeff the man 760-662-9067
350)Jeff block yard bud 626-625-2359
351)Jeff Heather 714-349-7831
352)Jeff I can do it 714-696-4531
353)Jeff junior 562-746-7572
354) Jeff Tracy new 714-395-8745
562-943-0976
355)Jeff grandpa’s cell 562-665-0184
356)Jen 562-391-3880
357)jen wolfy 562-472-4868
358)janay 562-206-4217
359)jennifer atkinson 562-714-9631
360)jenny from the block 562-360-7865
361)jenny mom’s house 951-279-7215
362) Jeses Dom 562-944-6715
363) Jens nabor wha Chung 562-991-7031
364) Jeremy ledesma peepww 714-883-8523
365)Jesse 562-479-5562
714-228-0997
562-479-5562
714-228-9071
366)Jesse Doms new 714-497-5841
367) Jesse girl 562-479-5562
368)Jesse girl 714-228-9071
369) Jesse misty 714-228-9071
370) Jesse tattoo 562-479-5562
371) Jessica sharl 714-326-2414
372)Jessica weinbera 562-479-9280
373)Jessie family bud 951-282-9908
374)Jill 714-457-1799
375)Jill jack 626-533-6791
376) Jim baseball cards 714-724-8628
377)Tweety Lynnwood 562-282-7420
378) TV guy atheer 714-699-6962
379) Uncal donny cell 760-554-0959
380)Uncal jeef 951-204-3469
381)Uncal Wes 760-315-2918
382) Uncal shownesy 760-801-0194
383) uncle beans 562-360-7493
384) Uncal Jim 805-679-3312
385)Uncal Mike 323-568-7039
386)unicorn recycle 714-992-2562
387)union local 803 714-978-6232
388)us bank cards 562-691-4399
389)used cooking oil Bob 562-889-7780
390)Valdez 562-612-5346
391) Vance boxes 562-695-0408
392)vic Anthany LH trailer lambert 562-467-3513
393)Vicki Hanna 714-670-0166
714-670-9166
394) Victor salea 562-201-6585
395) Vitina Na poli 949-584-7812
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
I submitted them to fbi tips and figured maybe you could make something off them you know more money for the holidays for your families very very federal information page 1 names and numbers
Since this appears to be the first time you have entered a request,
we have automatically created a User name and a Password for you
to access Anaheim Anytime for tracking this request.
Your Sign In information is:
Sign In name: bgeorge23
Password: bgeorge23246
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
You will receive a response within 10 days for this request.
You may add additional information to your request by:
1) Replying to this email,
2) Sign into Anaheim Anytime, or
3) Going to:
Show quoted text
9-110.000 – Organized Crime And Racketeering
9-110.010Introduction9-110.100Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)9-110.101Division Approval9-110.200RICO Guidelines Preface9-110.210Authorization of RICO Prosecution——The Review Process9-110.300RICO Guidelines Policy9-110.310Considerations Prior to Seeking Indictment9-110.320Approval of Organized Crime and Gang Section Necessary9-110.330Charging RICO Counts9-110.400RICO Prosecution (Pros) Memorandum Format9-110.600Syndicated Gambling9-110.700Loansharking9-110.800Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959)9-110.801Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959)——Division Approval9-110.802Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959)——Approval Guidelines9-110.811The Review Process for Authorization under Section 19599-110.812Specific Guidelines for Section 1959 Prosecutions9-110.815Prosecution Memorandum——Section 19599-110.816Post-Indictment Duties——Section 19599-110.900The Gambling Ship Act——18 U.S.C. §§ 1081 et seq.
9-110.010 – Introduction
This chapter focuses on investigations and prosecutions involving RICO, (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), illegal gambling (18 U.S.C. §§ 1511 and 1955), loansharking (18 U.S.C. §§ 891-896), violent crimes in aid of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959), and gambling ships (18 U.S.C. §§ 1081-1083). The Organized Crime and Gang Section of the Criminal Division supervises prosecutions of each of these statutes. For an additional discussion of RICO, see “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO): A Manual for Federal Prosecutors,” available from OCGS.
[updated May 1999]
9-110.100 – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO” statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
Section 1961(10) of Title 18 provides that the Attorney General may designate any department or agency to conduct investigations authorized by the RICO statute and such department or agency may use the investigative provisions of the statute or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law. Absent a specific designation by the Attorney General, jurisdiction to conduct investigations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 lies with the agency having jurisdiction over the violations constituting the pattern of racketeering activity listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
[cited in USAM 9-110.812]
9-110.101 – Division Approval
No RICO criminal indictment or information or civil complaint shall be filed, and no civil investigative demand shall be issued, without the prior approval of the Criminal Division. See RICO Guidelines at USAM 9-110.200.
[cited in USAM 6-4.210;Tax Resource Manual 14;Criminal Resource Manual 110]
9-110.200 – RICO Guidelines Preface
The decision to institute a federal criminal prosecution involves balancing society’s interest in effective law enforcement against the consequences for the accused. Utilization of the RICO statute, more so than most other federal criminal sanctions, requires particularly careful and reasoned application, because, among other things, RICO incorporates certain state crimes. One purpose of these guidelines is to reemphasize the principle that the primary responsibility for enforcing state laws rests with the state concerned. Despite the broad statutory language of RICO and the legislative intent that the statute “. . . shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose,” it is the policy of the Criminal Division that RICO be selectively and uniformly used. It is the purpose of these guidelines to make it clear that not every proposed RICO charge that meets the technical requirements of a RICO violation will be approved. Further, the Criminal Division will not appro ve “imaginative” prosecutions under RICO which are far afield from the congressional purpose of the RICO statute. A RICO count which merely duplicates the elements of proof of traditional Hobbs Act, Travel Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, gambling or controlled substances cases, will not be approved unless it serves some special RICO purpose. Only in exceptional circumstances will approval be granted when RICO is sought merely to serve some evidentiary purpose.
These guidelines provide only internal Department of Justice guidance. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.
[cited in USAM 9-110.101; USAM 9-110.811]
9-110.210 – Authorization of RICO Prosecution—The Review Process
The review and approval function for all RICO matters has been centralized within the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the Criminal Division. To commence the review process, the final draft of the proposed indictment or information and a RICO prosecution memorandum shall be forwarded to the Organized Crime and Gang Section. Separate approval is required for superseding indictments or indictments based upon a previously approved information. Attorneys are encouraged to seek guidance from the Organized Crime and Gang Section by telephone prior to the time an investigation is undertaken and well before a final indictment and prosecution memorandum are submitted for review. Guidance on preparing the RICO prosecution memorandum is in the Criminal Resource Manual at 2071 et seq.
RICO reviews are handled on a first-in-first-out basis. Accordingly, the submitting attorney must allocate sufficient lead time to permit review, revision, conferences, and the scheduling of the grand jury. Unless there is a backlog, 15 working days is usually sufficient.The review process will not be dispensed with because a grand jury, which is about to expire, has been scheduled to meet to return a RICO indictment. Therefore, submitting attorneys are cautioned to budget their time and to await receipt of approval before scheduling the presentation of the indictment to a grand jury.
If modifications in the indictment are required, they must be made by the submitting attorney before the indictment is returned by the grand jury. Once the modifications have been made and the indictment has been returned, a copy of the indictment filed with the clerk of the court shall be forwarded to Organized Crime and Gang Section. If, however, it is determined that the RICO count is inappropriate, the submitting attorney will be advised of the Section’s disapproval of the proposed indictment. The submitting attorney may wish to redraft the indictment based upon the Section’s review and submit a revised indictment and/or prosecution memorandum at a later date.
[updated May 2011]
9-110.300 – RICO Guidelines Policy
It is the purpose of these guidelines to centralize the RICO review and policy implementation functions in the section of the Criminal Division having supervisory responsibility for this statute.
9-110.310 – Considerations Prior to Seeking Indictment
Except as hereafter provided, a government attorney should seek approval for a RICO charge only if one or more of the following requirements is present:
RICO is necessary to ensure that the indictment adequately reflects the nature and extent of the criminal conduct involved in a way that prosecution only on the underlying charges would not;
A RICO prosecution would provide the basis for an appropriate sentence under all the circumstances of the case in a way that prosecution only on the underlying charges would not;
A RICO charge could combine related offenses which would otherwise have to be prosecuted separately in different jurisdictions;
RICO is necessary for a successful prosecution of the government’s case against the defendant or a codefendant;
Use of RICO would provide a reasonable expectation of forfeiture which is proportionate to the underlying criminal conduct;
The case consists of violations of State law, but local law enforcement officials are unlikely or unable to successfully prosecute the case, in which the federal government has a significant interest;
The case consists of violations of State law, but involves prosecution of significant or government individuals, which may pose special problems for the local prosecutor.
The last two requirements reflect the principle that the prosecution of state crimes is primarily the responsibility of state authorities. RICO should be used to prosecute what are essentially violations of state law only if there is a compelling reason to do so. See also theCriminal Resource Manual at 2070.
9-110.320 – Approval of Organized Crime and Gang Section Necessary
A RICO prosecution memorandum and draft indictment, felony information, civil complaint, or civil investigative demand shall be forwarded to the Organized Crime and Gang Section, Criminal Division, 1301 New York Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, at least 15 working days prior to the anticipated date of the proposed filing or the seeking of an indictment from the grand jury.
No criminal or civil prosecution or civil investigative demand shall be commenced or issued under the RICO statute without the prior approval of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, Criminal Division. Prior authorization from the Criminal Division to conduct a grand jury investigation based upon possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 is not required.
A RICO prosecution memorandum and draft pleading or civil investigative demand shall be forwarded to the Organized Crime and Gang Section. It is essential to the careful review which these factually and legally complex cases require that the attorney handling the case in the field not wait to submit the case until the grand jury or the statute of limitations is about to expire. Authorizations based on oral presentations will not be given. See theCriminal Resource Manual at 2071 et seq. for specific guidance.
These guidelines do not limit the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigations of suspected violations of RICO. The authority to conduct such investigations is governed by the FBI Guidelines on the Investigation of General Crimes. However, the factors identified here are the criteria by which the Department of Justice will determine whether to approve the proposed RICO. The fact that an investigation was authorized, or that substantial resources were committed to it, will not influence the Department in determining whether an indictment under the RICO statute is appropriate.
Use of RICO in a prosecution, like every other federal criminal statute, is also governed by the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See USAM 9-27.000, et seq. Inclusion of a RICO count in an indictment solely or even primarily to create a bargaining tool for later plea negotiations on lesser counts is not appropriate and would violate the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
[updated February 2012] [cited in USAM 9-63.1200]
9-110.330 – Charging RICO Counts
A RICO charge where the predicate acts consist only of state offenses will not be approved except in the following circumstances:
Local law enforcement officials are unlikely to investigate and prosecute otherwise meritorious cases in which the Federal government has significant interest;
Significant organized crime involvement exists; or
The prosecution of significant political or governmental individuals may pose special problems for local prosecutors.9-110.400 – RICO Prosecution (Pros) Memorandum Format
A well written, carefully organized prosecution memorandum is the greatest guarantee that a RICO prosecution will be authorized quickly and efficiently. See the Criminal Resource Manual at 2071 et seq. for specific guidelines on drafting the RICO prosecution memorandum. OCGS has sample prosecution memoranda.
Once a RICO indictment has been approved by the Organized Crime and Gang Section and has been returned by the grand jury, a copy of a file-stamped copy of the indictment shall be provided to the Section. The Section shall also be notified in writing of any significant rulings which affect the RICO statute—for example, any ruling which results in a dismissal of a RICO count, or any ruling affecting or severing any aspect of the forfeiture provisions under RICO. In addition, copies of RICO motions, jury instructions and briefs filed by the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO), as well as the defense, should be forwarded to the Organized Crime and Gang Section for retention in a central reference file. The government’s briefs and motions will provide assistance to other USAOs handling similar RICO matters.
Once a verdict has been obtained, the USAO shall forward the following information to the Section for retention:
the verdict on each count of the indictment;a copy of the judgment of forfeiture;estimated value of the forfeiture; andjudgment and sentence(s) received by each RICO defendant.
[updated February 2012] [cited in USAM 9-110.815]
9-110.600 – Syndicated Gambling
See the Criminal Resource Manual at 2085.
9-110.700 – Loansharking
Useful information on the prosecution of loansharking is available in the Criminal Resource Manual at 2086 through 2088.
9-110.800 – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959)
Section 1959 makes it a crime to commit any of a list of violent crimes in return for pecuniary compensation from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of joining, remaining with, or advancing in such an enterprise. The listed violent crimes are murder, kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and threatening to commit a “crime of violence,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. The listed crimes may be violations of State or Federal law. In addition, attempts and conspiracies to commit the listed crimes are covered. The maximum penalty varies with the particular violent crime involved, ranging from a fine and/or three years imprisonment up to a fine and/or life imprisonment, except for any murder occurring on or after September 13, 1994, which are subject to the death penalty.
For any murder occurring on or after September 13, 1994, the prosecutor must comply with the Department’s death penalty protocol (see USAM 9-10.000).
See approval guidelines at USAM 9-110.811through 816.
9-110.801 – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959)—Division Approval
No criminal prosecution under Section 1959 shall be initiated by indictment or information without the prior approval of the Organized Crime and Gang Section (OCGS). All requests for approval must be submitted at least 15 days in advance and accompanied by a prosecution memorandum and final proposed indictment.
See approval guidelines at USAM 9-110.811through 816.
[updated May 2011] [cited in USAM 9-63.1200]
9-110.802 – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1959)—Approval Guidelines
Because Section 1959 reaches conduct within state and local jurisdictions, there is, absent compelling circumstances, a need to avoid encroaching on state and local law enforcement authority. Moreover, Section 1959 complements the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and incorporates RICO concepts and terms, namely “enterprise” and “racketeering activity,” and there is a need to maintain consistent applications and interpretations of the elements of RICO. All proposed prosecutions under Section 1959 therefore must be submitted to the Organized Crime and Gang Section Criminal Division, for approval in accordance with the following guidelines.
[updated May 2011]
9-110.811 – The Review Process for Authorization under Section 1959
The review process for authorization of prosecutions under Section 1959 is similar to that for RICO prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 to 1968. See USAM 9-110.200, et seq. To commence the formal review process, submit a final draft of the proposed indictment and a prosecution memorandum to the Organized Crime and Gang Section. Before the formal review process begins, prosecuting attorneys are encouraged to consult by telephone the Organized Crime and Gang Section in order to obtain preliminary guidance and suggestions.
The review process can be time-consuming because of the likelihood that modifications will be made to the indictment and because of the heavy workload of the reviewing attorneys. Therefore, unless extraordinary circumstances justify a shorter time frame, a period of 15 working days must be allowed for the review process.
[updated May 2011] [cited in USAM 9-110.800;USAM 9-110.801]
9-110.812 – Specific Guidelines for Section 1959 ProsecutionsIn deciding whether to approve a prosecution under Section 1959, the Organized Crime and Gang Section will analyze the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment to determine whether there is a legitimate reason the offense cannot or should not be prosecuted by state or local authorities. For example, federal prosecution may be appropriate where local authorities do not have the resources to prosecute, where local authorities are reasonably believed to be corrupt, where local authorities have requested federal participation, or where the offense is closely related to a federal investigation or prosecution. A prosecution will not be authorized over the objection of local authorities in the absence of a compelling reason. Accordingly, every prosecution memorandum must state the views of local authorities with respect to the proposed prosecution, or the reasons for not soliciting them. In addition, the specific factors set forth in the following sections will be considered with respect to all proposed prosecutions.
Section 1959 was enacted to combat “contract murders and other violent crimes by organized crime figures.” SeeS.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 304-307, 306 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code & Admin. News (U.S.C.A.N.) 3182, 3483-3487. The statutory language is extremely broad, in that it covers such conduct as a threat to commit an assault, and other relatively minor conduct normally prosecuted by local authorities. Thus, although the involvement of traditional organized crime will not be a requirement for approval of proposed prosecutions, a prosecution will not be authorized unless the violent crimes involved are substantial because of the seriousness of injuries, the number of incidents, or other aggravating factors.
The statutory definition of “enterprise” also is very broad; it is closely related to the definition of the same term in the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). (It should be noted that the definition in section 1959, unlike the RICO definition, includes a requirement of an effect on interstate commerce as part of the definition, and does not include an “individual” within the definition.) No prosecution under section 1959 will be approved unless the enterprise has an identifiable structure and purpose apart from the racketeering activity and crimes of violence it is engaged in, and otherwise meets the standards for a RICO prosecution.
The term “racketeering activity” is borrowed directly from the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1). It will be construed in the same way under Section 1959 as it is under RICO, for purposes of approval. See USAM 9-110.100, et seq.
[updated May 2011]
9-110.815 – Prosecution Memorandum —Section 1959
Every request for approval of a proposed prosecution under section 1959 must be accompanied by a final draft of a proposed indictment and by a thorough prosecution memorandum. The prosecution memorandum should generally conform to the standards outlined for RICO prosecutions. See USAM 9-110.400. The memorandum must contain a concise summary of the facts and a statement of the evidentiary basis for each count, a statement of the applicable law, a discussion of anticipated defenses and unusual legal issues (federal, and where applicable, state), and a statement of justification for using section 1959. It is especially important that the memorandum include a discussion of the nexus between the enterprise and the crime of violence, the defendant’s relationship to the enterprise, and the evidentiary basis for each section 1959 count. Submission of a thorough memorandum is particularly important, because of the complexity of the issues inv olved and because of the statute’s similarity to RICO. OCGS has sample prosecution memoranda.
[updated February 2012]
9-110.816 – Post-Indictment Duties—Section 1959
Once the indictment or information has been approved and filed, it is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to submit to the Organized Crime and Gang Section a copy bearing the seal of the clerk of the court. In addition, the attorney should keep the Organized Crime and Gang Section informed of any unusual legal problems that arise in the course of the case, so those problems can be considered in providing guidance to other prosecutors.
[updated May 2011] [cited in USAM 9-110.800;USAM 9-110.801]
9-110.900 – The Gambling Ship Act—18 U.S.C. §§ 1081 et seq.
See the Criminal Resource Manual at 2089.
‹ 9-105.000 – Money Launderingup9-111.000
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
In California as in every state, the judicial system’s integrity hinges on honest actions by participants, without fear of reprisals; when a participant does not act honestly, he or she may be charged with obstruction of justice. Basically, obstruction of justice is the interfering with proper or legitimate operations of either a court or officers of the court through either actions or words. A few examples of this criminal offense include threatening a judge, encouraging someone to destroy evidence, or attempting to bribe a witness. Obstructing justice is a crime under both state and federal laws.
Insufficient evidence to secure a conviction
Even when there is not sufficient evidence to convict, prosecutors may charge an individual with obstruction of justice based on suspicions that he or she is refusing to provide information or withholds information vital to continuing an investigation. When someone is arrested for obstructing justice, or even charged with the crime, law enforcement officials are highly focused on putting that person in prison, even without substantial evidence supporting the original crime being investigated. Ultimately, prosecutors know that a conviction for obstruction of justice can result in the defendant spending up to 5 years in state prison, and therefore see this as a way to secure a meaningful conviction.
Hiding or destroying evidence or material that would be useful in proving a crime, or attempting to prevent another individual from providing information regarding a crime may also leave you facing charges of obstruction of justice.
In December of 2013, 18 officials of the LA County Sheriff’s Department were charged with various crimes including improper arrest/search of visitors to the jail, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. These officials, some of which were current sheriff’s deputies and some of which were former deputies, allegedly engaged in misconduct inside Los Angeles County jails, and inmate abuse. An attorney in the case said that the pattern of activity alleged against the deputies demonstrated that they considered themselves to be ‘above the law,’ according to a news article at the Los Angeles Times.
Obstruction of justice may be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony offense. Misdemeanor charges generally leave a defendant facing less harsh punishment if convicted, however the impact to his or her reputation and career can be devastating. Felony charges will result in criminal penalties which include up to 5 years in prison. In situations where the obstruction is related to terrorism, either domestic or international, a defendant may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
Anyone who is under investigation for obstruction of justice must speak with an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who will work to protect your legal rights and help you avoid a conviction and the resulting criminal penalties.
Posted in: Obstruction of Justice
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Defamation
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.
The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff’s interest in preserving his reputation against the public’s interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes “vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen’s reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person’s name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.
Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalousDivorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.
Further readings
Collins, Matthew. 2001. The Law of Defamation and the Internet. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Friedman, Jessica R. 1995. “Defamation.” Fordham Law Review 64 (December).
Jones, William K. 2003. Insult to Injury: Libel, Slander, and Invasions of Privacy. Boulder, Colo.: Univ. Press of Colorado.
Smolla, Rodney A. 1999. Law of Defamation. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
Cross-references
Freedom of the Press; Libel and Slander.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
defamation (of character)
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease, or being unable to perform one’s occupation are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error. (See:fair comment)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
defamationnoun abuse, aspersion,calumniation, calumny, denigration, derogation, detraction,disparagement, disrepute, false accusation, false publication, false report, imputation, infamy, insinuation,invective, libel, obloquy, scandal, slander, slur, smear,smirch, traducement, untruth
Associated concepts: defamation against title, defamation of business or profession, defamation of character, defamation per quod, defamation per se, defamatory publication, defamatory upon its face, defamatory words, injury to charrcter or reputation, injury to profession or business
Foreign phrases: Inveniens libellum famosum et non corrumpens punitur.A person who finds a libel and does not destroy it is punished.See also: aspersion, denunciation, dishonor, hatred, infamy,libel, malediction, obloquy, opprobrium, phillipic, scandal,shame, slander, vilification
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
defamation a form of wrong done by words. A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking people. In England there is a technical distinction in the law of defamation between libel and slander. Libel refers to a permanent form such as print and slander to a transient form such as speech. Some Australian states have abolished the distinction between slander and libel. In England, but not in Scotland, the statement complained of must be communicated to a person other than the plaintiff The essence, however, is that the statement must be defamatory, as above defined. If it has this special quality, then it is not essential that the plaintiff should prove malice, making the effective onus fall on the defendant. For example, to allege a person is a criminal or behaves immorally is defamatory. To be actionable, the statement must be false, and this is resolved in court by the defendant pleading justification (or veritas in Scotland). The Defamation Act 1952 makes it unnecessary for the defendant to show that every charge is true so long as those that remain false do not materially injure the plaintiff ‘s reputation. Communication has been established by many means, including film and effigy or by the Internet. It is open to the plaintiff to innuendo a statement, that is, to show that a statement which is not, on the face of it, defamatory, actually has a defamatory meaning. The plaintiff must state in words in his pleadings what this meaning is. A statement in a foreign language always requires an innuendo. Of practical importance are the other defences. Absolute privilege protects certain communications – parliamentary proceedings, judicial proceedings and official communications.
The Defamation Act 1996 allows absolute privilege to fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of judicial proceedings in newspapers and in broadcasts. Qualified privilege is more subtle. It protects (subject to the qualification discussed later) statements made in certain circumstances. The categories are not closed, but among those that have been recognized are included statements in pursuance of a duty, in protection of an interest, and fair and accurate reports by any means of proceedings of public and semipublic bodies. Some categories of statement are given qualified privilege and others qualified privilege subject to explanation or contradictions. The qualified nature of qualified privilege is that the maker of the false defamatory statement is protected only if there is not actual malice – in other words, the defence really only takes away the presumption of malice inherent in a defamatory statement. The House of Lords has recognized a form of qualified privilege open to responsible journalism. Fair comment is another frequently used defence, but it depends upon the matter being shown to be a comment on facts truly stated. People are allowed to be most vehement in such comment. It has recently been called honest comment in the House of Lords. It does not forgive false statements. The matter must be one of some public interest.
The Defamation Act 1996 gives a publisher, including, for example, an Internet service provider, a defence where it neither knew nor had reason to know that a statement was defamatory of the person complaining. However, there must be an offer of amends, that is, to publish a correction and apology and to pay such compensation as may be agreed.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
DEFAMATION, tort. The speaking slanderous words of a person so as, de bona fama aliquid detrahere, to hurt his good fame. Vide Slander.
2. In the United States, the remedy for defamation is by an action on the case, where the words are slanderous.
3. In England, besides the remedy by action, proceedings may be instituted in the ecclesiastical court for redress of the injury. The punishment for defamation, in this court, is payment of costs and penance enjoined at the discretion of the judge. When the slander has been privately uttered, the penance may be ordered to be performed in a private place; when publicly uttered, the sentence must be public, as in the church of the parish of the defamed party, in time of divine service,, and the defamer may be required publicly to pronounce that by such words, naming them, as set forth in the sentence, he had defamed the plaintiff, and, therefore, that he begs pardon, first, of God, and then of the party defamed, for uttering such words. Clerk’s Assist. 225; 3 Burn’s Eccl. Law, Defamation, pl. 14; 2 Chit. Pr. 471 Cooke on Def.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Due Process
Introduction
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses these words have had in American constitutional law.
Incorporation
The Fifth Amendment’s reference to “due process” is only one of many promises of protection the Bill of Rights gives citizens against the federal government. Originally these promises had no application at all against the states. Did the Fourteenth Amendment change that? In the middle of the Twentieth Century, about a century after its adoption, a series of Supreme Court decisions found that the Due Process Clause “incorporated” most of the important elements of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states. These decisions almost obliterated any difference between the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. If a Bill of Rights guarantee is “incorporated” in the “due process” requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, state and federal obligations are exactly the same. The right to a jury trial, to take just one example, means the same in state and federal courts; there are no differences about the number of jurors required, whether they have to be unanimous in their verdicts, and so forth.
Equal Protection of the Laws.
If the courts stretched Fourteenth Amendment “due process” to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, they stretched Fifth Amendment “due process” to require the federal government to afford equal protection of the laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the states from establishing segregated schools or otherwise discriminating invidiously against some of their citizens. There is no equal protection clause in the Bill of Rights. In a case involving segregation in the schools of Washington, D.C., which as the nation’s capital is a federal enclave governed by federal law, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause operates against the federal government just as the Equal Protection Clause does against the states.
Substantive due process
The words “due process” suggest a concern with procedure, and that is how the Due Process Clause is usually understood. We have just seen, however, that the clause has been taken as a kind of proxy for other rights. In those cases, the rights were actually expressed somewhere in the Constitution, but only as rights against federal (or state) action. What about rights the Constitution does not mention — “unnamed rights,” as Charles Black calls them, like the right to work in an ordinary kind of job, or to marry, or to raise one’s children as a parent? The dominant constitutional controversy of the first third of this century, which still echoes in the arguments about abortion and other “privacy” issues like sexual preference, was about an idea called “substantive due process.” The question was whether “due process of law” might put substantive limits on what legislatures could enact, as well as require procedures of judges and administrators. Thus, in 1905, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers, because it thought the public benefit of the law did not justify depriving the bakers of their right to work under whatever terms they liked. For thirty years, conservative judges sometimes used this idea to find legislative judgments about social or economic programs invalid, retarding the emergence of social welfare legislation. In the late 1930’s, after years of sharp criticism, the substantive due process approach was repudiated for “economic regulation.” Many think the idea is still vital as a barrier to legislation curbing other individual liberties.
The promise of legality and fair procedure
While the text of the due process clause is extremely general, the fact that it appears twice makes clear that it states a central proposition. Historically, the clause reflects the Magna Cartaof Great Britain, King John’s thirteenth century promise to his noblemen that he would act only in accordance with law (“legality”) and that all would receive the ordinary processes (procedures) of law. It also echoes that country’s Seventeenth Century struggles for political and legal regularity, and the American colonies’ strong insistence during the pre-Revolutionary period on observance of regular legal order. The requirement that government function in accordance with law is, in itself, ample basis for understanding the stress given these words. A commitment to legality is at the heart of all advanced legal systems, and the Due Process Clause often thought to embody that commitment.
The clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be. Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Suppose, for example, state law gives students a right to a public education, but doesn’t say anything about discipline. Before the state could take that right away from a student, by expelling her for misbehavior, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”
How can we know whether process is due (what counts as a “deprivation” of “life, liberty or property”), when it is due, and what procedures have to be followed (what process is “due” in those cases)? If “due process” refers chiefly to procedural subjects, it says very little about these questions. Courts unwilling just to accept legislative judgments have to find answers somewhere else. The Supreme Court’s struggles over how to find these answers echo its interpretational controversies over the years, and reflect the changes in the general nature of the relationship between citizens and government.
In the Nineteenth Century government was relatively simple, and its actions relatively limited. Most of the time it sought to deprive its citizens of life, liberty or property it did so through criminal law, for which the Bill of Rights explicitly stated quite a few procedures that had to be followed (like the right to a jury trial) — rights that were well understood by lawyers and courts operating in the long traditions of English common law. Occasionally it might act in other ways, for example in assessing taxes. In two decisions at the very beginning of the Twentieth Century the Supreme Court held that only politics (the citizen’s “power, immediate or remote, over those who make the rule”) controlled the state’s action setting the level of taxes, but if the dispute was about a taxpayer’s individual liability, not a general question, the taxpayer had a right to some kind of a hearing (“the right to support his allegations by arguments however brief and, if need be, by proof however informal”). This left the state a lot of room to say what procedures it would provide, but did not permit it to deny them altogether. Another early case suggested flexibility about the timing and nature of a required hearing. When a health inspector decided some chickens in cold storage had rotted, he didn’t have to hold a hearing before he could seize and destroy them, so they could not be sold; but the owner of the chickens could sue the inspector afterwards, and if it convinced the jury that the chickens were not rotten, make the inspector repay their value.
Whether process is due
The cases just mentioned established one important distinction: the Constitution does not require “due process” for establishing laws; the provision applies when the state acts against individuals “in each case upon individual grounds” — when some characteristic unique to the citizen is involved. Of course there may be a lot of citizens affected; the issue is whether assessing the effect depends “in each case upon individual grounds.” Thus, the due process clause doesn’t govern how Ohio sets the rules for student discipline in its high schools; but it does govern how Ohio applies those rules to individual students who are thought to have violated them — even if in some cases (say, cheating on a state-wide examination) a large number of students were allegedly involved.
Even when an individual is unmistakably acted against on individual grounds, there can be a question whether the state has “deprive[d]” her of “life, liberty or property.” The first thing to notice here is that there must be state action. The Due Process Clause doesn’t apply to a private school taking discipline against one of its students (although that school will probably want to follow similar principles).
Whether state action against an individual was a deprivation of life, liberty or property was initially resolved by a distinction between “rights” and “privileges.” Process was due if rights were involved, but the state could act as it pleased in relation to privileges. But as modern society developed, it became harder to tell the two apart. Was a driver’s license a “right” or a “privilege”? How about a government job? Enrolment on welfare? An initial reaction to the increasing dependence of citizens on their government was to look at the seriousness of the impact of government action on an individual, without asking, as such, about the nature of the relationship affected. Process was due before the government could take an action that affected a citizen in a grave way.
In the early 1970’s, however, this gave way to an analysis that accepted as a threshold question whether “life, liberty or property” was directly affected by state action, but that required these concepts to be very broadly interpreted. Two Supreme Court cases involved teachers at state colleges whose contracts of employment had not been renewed as they expected, because of some political positions they had taken. Were they entitled to a hearing before they could be treated in this way? Previously, a state job was a “privilege” and the answer to this question was an emphatic “No!” Now, the Court decided that whether either of the two teachers had “property” would depend in each instance on whether persons in their position, under state law, held some form of tenure. One teacher had just been on a short term contract; because he served “at will” — without any state law claim or expectation to continuation — he had no “entitlement” once his contract expired. The other teacher worked under a longer-term arrangement that school officials seemed to have encouraged him to regard as a continuing one. This could create an “entitlement,” the Court said; the expectation need not be based on a statute, and an established custom of treating instructors who had taught for X years as having tenure could be shown. While, thus, some law-based relationship or expectation of continuation had to be shown before a federal court would say that process was “due,” constitutional “property” was no longer just what the common law called “property”; it now included any legal relationship with the state that state law regarded as in some sense an “entitlement” of the citizen. Licenses, government jobs protected by civil service, or places on the welfare rolls were all defined by state laws as relations the citizen was entitled to keep until there was some reason to take them away, and therefore process was due before they could be taken away. This restated the formal “right/privilege” idea, but did so in a way that recognized the new dependency of citizens on relations with government, the “new property” as one scholar influentially called it.
The application of this threshold test for whether process is due has presented three problems. The first is called the “positivist trap.” Since whether one has an entitlement depends on the prescriptions of state law, legislatures may be able to define important relationships — ones on which citizens in fact come to depend — in ways that preclude the conclusion that an “entitlement” is present. Recent “welfare reform” legislation has been explicit that one its purposes is to end any idea that welfare is an “entitlement”; although largely directed to the question how long one may remain on welfare, the rhetoric seems also aimed at the “new property” idea.
We are not discussing “liberty,” but you can see that similar problems will arise, perhaps even more importantly. What decisions affecting prisoners involve their “liberty” has been a particularly aggravating problem. The courts do not want to engage in close supervision of prison issues, but at the same time must recognize the plain command of the language of the clause.
Moreover, if the provisions of a state law define not only an entitlement but also the procedures by which that relationship can be ended or altered, how can a court separate the two? Mustn’t the citizen be prepared to accept the “bitter with the sweet”? This issue was presented when civil servants, enjoying tenure under statutes that provided for the procedures to be followed for removal, challenged the constitutionality of aspects of the removal procedures. The Court rejected the “bitter with the sweet” reasoning, but not without indicating a high level of respect for legislative judgments about what procedures would be fair.
The second problem might be described as a problem about what is a “deprivation.” A series of cases involving state harm to citizens led the Court to an almost inexplicable series of “due process” results. For example, an early case held that a state could not post a picture of a person naming him as an habitual drunkard without first providing a chance for a hearing; the posting made it unlawful for that person to be served alcoholic beverages in a bar. Yet when a city circulated the photograph of a person recently arrested (but not convicted) for petty theft under the heading “Active Shoplifters,” causing enormous damage to his reputation, the failure first to provide a hearing was not objectionable. Another case established that school officials could not suspend a student for ten days without first giving him some kind of hearing; attendance at public school was an “entitlement.” Yet a teacher who physically punished a student so severely that it kept him out of school for several days (but who did not formally exclude him from school) had not deprived her student of liberty or property without due process of law. Where liability was denied, perhaps one could say the challenged official acts did not change the victim’s legal status. It was still lawful to shop, or to come to school if health permitted. Yet the harms seem if anything worse than in the cases where procedure was required. Some have thought it important that in these cases (and others), state law appeared to provide a remedy after the fact; the victim could sue the official for slander or for assault. To find “due process” violations in such matters would involve the federal courts in what had traditionally been the business of state law. As a dissenter in the corporal punishment case observed, these considerations appear to explain the results in a technical sense. Yet it seems fair to characterize the justice of the opposing results in these cases as deeply questionable.
Finally, what about cases of potential entitlements for which a citizen is applying, and has not qualified? Does a statute saying that every citizen with characteristics A, B and C shall receive stated benefits or earn a driver’s license create an “entitlement,” so that “due process” constrains the application procedures the state can choose? Once qualified, the citizen could not be deprived of her “entitlement” without due process. Yet the Supreme Court has not said directly whether the same judgment applies at the application stage, and some Justices apparently believe that it does not. On the one hand, it can be said that the law is always more solicitous of established relationships than expectations. However, the “entitlement” analysis suffers some embarrassment in this argument. The claim of the citizen to state legality seems the same whether he has wrongly been denied access to an entitlement he has not yet enjoyed or has been terminated in one previously recognized.
When process is due
In its early decisions, like the rotten chicken case, the Supreme Court seemed repeatedly to indicate that, where only property rights were at stake (and particularly if there was some demonstrable urgency for public action) necessary hearings could be postponed to follow provisional, even irreversible, government action. This presumption changed in 1970 with the decision in Goldberg v. Kelly a case arising out of a state-administered welfare program. New York was seeking to terminate the enrolment of Kelly and others in its welfare program. It conceded that a federal statute required it to provide a full hearing before a hearing officer before finally terminating their enrolment and even — anticipating the new property, “entitlement” approach — that the Due Process Clause required such a hearing. At issue in the case was only its effort to suspend payments pending that full and formal hearing, a question in effect of timing. For this limited purpose New York employed a more informal process. It was willing to give persons like Mrs. Kelly opportunities to confer with responsible social workers and to submit written views before suspension, but it gave no “hearing” in the judicial sense before the suspension was put into effect.
The tremendous need facing a person dependent on welfare, even over a few weeks or months, persuaded the Goldberg Court that a suspension is in itself a deprivation, one that requires a hearing before it could be put into effect. Except for the situations mentioned earlier, where the courts have thought that a tort action could be an adequate remedy against officials who cause harm without affecting legal status, Goldberg in effect created a presumption that hearings must come first. The “hearing first” aspect of its holding spread rapidly through a variety of civil judicial remedies — for example, limiting traditional summary procedures lenders had used to repossess cars bought on credit, when payments ceased. This aspect seems reasonably stable in today’s law.
It is interesting that these cases have never made what might seem an obvious comparison. In criminal law, the state often takes very damaging actions against people pending trial, with only limited procedural safeguards. Arrest and search require, at most, that police satisfy a judicial officer, a magistrate, that they have reasonable grounds to act; the person they are going to act against has no right to be present at the time. Detention pending trial requires no more than a showing of “probable cause,” and the person who is going to be detained has no right to present witnesses or ask questions of the persons who present evidence for the state. The result may be time in jail, disrupted families, terrible damage to reputation, the loss of a job. The inquiry New York made about Mrs. Kelley seems easily comparable to these criminal law inquiries, but that comparison was never made.
What procedures are due
Probably the hardest of the analytic questions arising under the procedural aspect of “due process” is this one, just what procedures are constitutionally due. This is a question that has to be answered for criminal trials (where the Bill of Rights provides many explicit answers), for civil trials (where the long history of English practice provides some landmarks), and for administrative proceedings, which did not appear on the legal landscape until a century or so after the Due Process Clause was first adopted. Because there are the fewest landmarks, the administrative cases present the hardest issues, and these are the ones we will discuss.
As we have seen, the earliest expressions were very indefinite. The state had to provide “some kind of a hearing,” giving the citizen “the right to support his allegations by arguments however brief and, if need be, by proof however informal.” The battle over incorporation, however, made this seem a very subjective inquiry, and the reaction to the excesses of substantive due process made that subjectivity suspect. Judicially defining the liberties “indispensable to the dignity and happiness of a free man” case by case seemed a hazardous enterprise. At the same time, developments in the 1950’s underscored the importance of fair administrative procedures. This was the time of McCarthyism and the red-baiting that went with it. Rumors generated by faceless informers were widely used to deprive government employees of their jobs because of doubts raised about their loyalty and security. The resulting inquiries often left the employees with their honor challenged but no realistic possibility of response. They emphasized the value, in an administrative context, of procedural protections long associated with Anglo-American criminal trials: the right to have the assistance of counsel; the right to know one’s accuser and the evidence against one; the right to confront and cross-examine that person; the right to have decision based solely upon a record generated in open proceedings; as well as the right to present argument and evidence on one’s own behalf.
Yet, for each case that seemed to demand a detailed procedural prescription, another plainly required flexibility. A legislative investigation of alleged communistic activities could not be undertaken without respecting witness’ claims to procedural safeguards; but the Court would not burden a legislative investigation into civil rights issues with rigid procedural requirements, although the investigation’s conclusions might harm the reputation of witnesses before it in some parts of the country. An aeronautic engineer could not be threatened with loss of access to military secrets on which his profession depended, on the basis of anonymous accusations about his loyalty, without the opportunity to confront the information and his accuser; but a cook on a military installation threatened with loss of access to the installation (and hence that particular job), apparently on the basis of undisclosed concerns about her security status, had in all the circumstances no similar claim. The Court during this period seemed to agree on little, save the proposition that what the due process clause required could only be determined on the basis of all the circumstances of a given case — a view not far distant from “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.”
When the Goldberg Court came to answer the “what” question, it held that the state must provide a hearing before an impartial judicial officer, the right to an attorney’s help, the right to present evidence and argument orally, the chance to examine all materials that would be relied on or to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, or a decision limited to the record thus made and explained in an opinion. The Court’s basis for this elaborate holding has never been clear, although it seems to have some roots in the incorporation debates. Various prior cases were cited for the different ingredients provided for in the naval engineer’s case (but not the cook’s), for example, on the question of cross-examination — but without attention to the possibility the requirements of due process would vary from setting to setting. The opinion was written as if all would agree that the procedures it was discussing were generally required whenever procedure was “due.” Yet, overall, the collection of procedures it required was atypically demanding even of final government administrative determinations on issues of great importance. A survey of forty federal programs made a few years after Goldberg, for example, found only one other program (also welfare-oriented) in which all the Goldberg rights were respected. For the substantial majority, fewer than half were provided; only notice, the assurance of some degree of impartiality, and an explanation of the basis of decision were observed with any degree of universality.
Perhaps for this reason, an outpouring of cases after Goldberg’s due process “explosion” quickly persuaded the Supreme Court to a more discriminating approach. Process was “due” to the student suspended for ten days, as to the doctor deprived of his license to practice medicine or the person accused of being a security risk; yet the difference in seriousness of the outcomes, of the charges, and of the institutions involved made it clear there could be no list of procedures that were always “due.” What the Constitution required would inevitably be dependent on the situation. What process is “due” is a question to which there cannot be a single answer.
A successor case to Goldberg, Mathews v. Eldridge tried instead to define a method by which due process questions could be successfully presented by lawyers and answered by courts. The approach it defined has remained the Court’s preferred method for resolving questions over what process is due (although not one that the Court always refers to; sometimes it simply invokes tradition or some other basis for understanding). Mathews arose in a context much like Goldberg; Mr. Eldridge had been receiving disability benefits under a federally supported scheme. Responsible officials came to believe, on the basis of information he had provided and physicians’ reports, that he was no longer disabled. They then notified him that they intended to terminate his benefits. Only written procedures were available before the termination was made provisionally effective. Eldridge was entitled to a full oral hearing at a later date, and would have received full benefits for the interim period if he prevailed. His argument, like Kelly’s in Goldberg v. Kelly, was that even suspending payments to him pending the full hearing was a deprivation of a property interest that could not be effected without the use of the procedures specified in Goldberg.
Where Goldberg had listed procedures that had to be followed, Mathews attempted to define how judges should ask about constitutionally required procedures. The Court said three factors had to be analyzed:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
Using these factors, the Court first found the private interest here less significant than in Goldberg. A person who is arguably disabled but provisionally denied disability benefits, it said, is more likely to be able to find other “potential sources of temporary income” than a person who is arguably impoverished but provisionally denied welfare assistance. Respecting the second, it found the risk of error in using written procedures for the initial judgment to be low, and unlikely to be significantly reduced by adding oral or confrontational procedures of the Goldberg variety. It reasoned that disputes over eligibility for disability insurance typically concern one’s medical condition, which could be decided, at least provisionally, on the basis of documentary submissions; it was impressed that Eldridge had full access to the agency’s files, and the opportunity to submit in writing any further material he wished. Finally, the Court now attached more importance than the Goldberg Court had to the government’s claims for efficiency. In particular, the Court assumed (as the Goldberg Court had not) that “resources available for any particular program of social welfare are not unlimited.” Thus additional administrative costs for suspension hearings and payments while those hearings were awaiting resolution to persons ultimately found undeserving of benefits would subtract from the amounts available to pay benefits for those undoubtedly eligible to participate in the program. The Court also gave some weight to the “good-faith judgments” of the plan administrators what appropriate consideration of the claims of applicants would entail.
Matthews v. Eldridge thus reorients the inquiry in a number of important respects. First, it emphasizes the variability of procedural requirements. Rather than create a standard list of procedures that, en gross, constitute the procedure that is “due,” the opinion emphasizes that each setting or program invites its own assessment. About the only general statement that can be made is that persons holding interests protected by the due process clause are entitled to “some kind of hearing.” Just what the elements of that hearing might be, however, depends on the concrete circumstances of the particular program at issue. Second, that assessment is to be made both concretely, and in a holistic manner. It is not a matter of approving this or that particular element of a procedural matrix in isolation, but of assessing the suitability of the ensemble in context.
Third, and particularly important in its implications for litigation seeking procedural change, the assessment is to be made at the level of program operation, rather than in terms of the particular needs of the particular litigants involved in the matter before the Court. Cases that are pressed to appellate courts often are characterized by individual facts that make an unusually strong appeal for proceduralization. Indeed, one can often say that they are chosen for that appeal by the lawyers, when the lawsuit is supported by one of the many American organizations that seeks to use the courts to help establish their view of sound social policy. Justice William Brennan, the author of Goldberg, wrote about it afterwards in just these terms, and dissented from Mathews in a manner that again drew strongly on the plight of the particular individual threatened with loss of welfare in that case, as distinct from the general situation of disability benefit recipients and the general operation of the program, on which the majority had focused. The approach required by the Mathews majority seems more likely to preserve than to endanger existing procedural arrangements. Finally, and to similar effect, the second of the stated tests places on the party challenging the existing procedures the burden not only of demonstrating their insufficiency, but also of showing that some specific substitute or additional procedure will work a concrete improvement justifying its additional cost. Thus, it is inadequate merely to criticize. The litigant claiming procedural insufficiency must be prepared with a substitute program that can itself be justified.
The Mathews approach is most successful when it is viewed as a set of instructions to attorneys involved in litigation concerning procedural issues. Attorneys now know how to make a persuasive showing on a procedural “due process” claim, and the probable effect of the approach is to discourage litigation drawing its motive force from the narrow (even if compelling) circumstances of a particular individual’s position. The hard problem for the courts in the Mathews approach, which may be unavoidable, is suggested by the absence of fixed doctrine about the content of “due process” and by the very breadth of the inquiry required to establish its demands in a particular context. A judge has few reference points to begin with, and must decide on the basis of consideratÂions (such as the nature of a government program or the probable impact of a procedural requirement) that are very hard to develop in a trial. A not-at-all-surprisÂing result is to encourage judges to accept resolution of procedural issues by legislatures or others better placed to make these complex yet general assessments.
Two examples may illustrate the problems judges face. The first arose when one of the federal circuit courts of appeal had to decide a dispute about the procedures to be followed in determining certain low-value claims under the national medical insurance scheme. Initially, the court ruled with confidence that access to some kind of oral procedure was required under some circumstances, for no reported case had ever approved a completely written procedure for a setting in which process was “due.” Yet this reference point arose outside the Mathews decision as such; and when the case returned to the court at a later stage, it became clear that the Mathews inquiry did not answer for the court just how tightly access to an oral procedure could be controlled and just how informal that procedure could be. For example, would provision for discussions over the telephone suffice? The detailed outcome of the lawsuit seemed much more likely to be the product of negotiations between the litigants than to be the result of judicial decision.
The second example involved a statute that, by very severely restricting the fees that could be paid, had the effect of denying veterans access to attorneys when they made claims under veterans benefits statutes. The Court was closely attentive to the Mathews formulation, and relied on statistics about the usual outcome of veterans’ claims to establish that their need for attorneys’ assistance was not high. Most veterans prevailed; veterans’ organizations were available to provide substitute representation that seemed effective; and in the few cases in which lawyers had appeared, presumably without fee, veterans were not notably more successful than the general run. Yet these statistics cloaked what several of the Justices regarded as a real need for lawyers’ assistance in a smaller group of much more complex cases. This was a focus the attorneys for the veterans groups had not developed. Some of the Justices thought that in a well-developed case the Mathews inquiry might demonstrate that attorneys help was constitutionally required in that sub-group of cases; others would have decided that, like the element of orality, access to an attorney was a necessary element of the process “due,” one that could never be denied. What was apparent to both groups of Justices (together, a majority of the Court) was that the Mathews inquiry in this case was distorted by the great number of “easy cases,” for which the desired procedural change would make little difference.
It follows from the preceding discussion that one cannot expect to list the elements of “required procedures” under American law. In the case involving a ten-day suspension from public school, a chance to tell the school principal (someone other than the complaining teacher) one’s own side of the story was sufficient. Suspension of welfare payments may still be held to require all the elements specified in Goldberg, and actual termination of those payments, somewhat more. Nonetheless, an analysis made by the late Judge Henry Friendly in his well-regarded article, “Some Kind of Hearing,” generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:
An unbiased tribunal.Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.The right to know opposing evidence.The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.Opportunity to be represented by counsel.Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
Again, these are simply the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a “due process” argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance, and not a list of procedures that will in fact be required.
Author
The original text of this article was written and submitted by Peter Strauss
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 39. ABUSE OF OFFICE
Sec. 39.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Law relating to a public servant’s office or employment” means a law that specifically applies to a person acting in the capacity of a public servant and that directly or indirectly:
(A) imposes a duty on the public servant; or
(B) governs the conduct of the public servant.
(2) “Misuse” means to deal with property contrary to:
(A) an agreement under which the public servant holds the property;
(B) a contract of employment or oath of office of a public servant;
(C) a law, including provisions of the General Appropriations Act specifically relating to government property, that prescribes the manner of custody or disposition of the property; or
(D) a limited purpose for which the property is delivered or received.
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 39.015. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES UNDER THIS CHAPTER. With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this chapter.
Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 378 (S.B. 563), Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.
Sec. 39.02. ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or
(2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $100;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100 or more but less than $750;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $750 or more but less than $2,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $30,000 or more but less than $150,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $300,000 or more.
(d) A discount or award given for travel, such as frequent flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not things of value belonging to the government for purposes of this section due to the administrative difficulty and cost involved in recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity.
(e) If separate transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the offense.
(f) The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a)(2) may not exceed:
(1) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or
(2) if the fair market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a reasonable time after the offense.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3241, ch. 558, Sec. 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1983. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.01 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 82 (S.B. 828), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1251 (H.B. 1396), Sec. 28, eff. September 1, 2015.
Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, “sexual harassment” means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1217, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 16, Sec. 19.01(34), eff. Aug. 26, 1991. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.02 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 510 (S.B. 124), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.
Sec. 39.04. VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PERSON IN CUSTODY; IMPROPER SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH PERSON IN CUSTODY. (a) An official of a correctional facility or juvenile facility, an employee of a correctional facility or juvenile facility, a person other than an employee who works for compensation at a correctional facility or juvenile facility, a volunteer at a correctional facility or juvenile facility, or a peace officer commits an offense if the person intentionally:
(1) denies or impedes a person in custody in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, or immunity knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(2) engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with an individual in custody or, in the case of an individual in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department or placed in a juvenile facility, employs, authorizes, or induces the individual to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual performance.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a state jail felony, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the second degree if the offense is committed against:
(1) an individual in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department or placed in a juvenile facility; or
(2) a juvenile offender detained in or committed to a correctional facility.
(c) This section shall not preclude prosecution for any other offense set out in this code.
(d) The Attorney General of Texas shall have concurrent jurisdiction with law enforcement agencies to investigate violations of this statute involving serious bodily injury or death.
(e) In this section:
Text of subdivision as amended by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 216 (H.B. 511), Sec. 1
(1) “Correctional facility” means:
(A) any place described by Section 1.07(a)(14);
(B) any place or facility designated for the detention of a person suspected of violating a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq.); or
(C) a “secure correctional facility” or “secure detention facility” as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code.
Text of subdivision as amended by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1136 (S.B. 183), Sec. 2
(1) “Correctional facility” means any place described by Section 1.07(a)(14).
(2) “Custody” means the detention, arrest, or confinement of an adult offender, the detention of a juvenile offender, or the commitment of a juvenile offender to a correctional facility or juvenile facility.
(2-a) “Juvenile facility” means a facility for the detention or placement of juveniles under juvenile court jurisdiction and that is operated wholly or partly by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, a juvenile board, or another governmental unit or by a private vendor under a contract with the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, juvenile board, or governmental unit.
(3) “Sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “deviate sexual intercourse” have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.
(4) “Sexual conduct” and “performance” have the meanings assigned by Section 43.25.
(5) “Sexual performance” means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by an individual.
(f) An employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, a juvenile facility, or a local juvenile probation department commits an offense if the employee engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with an individual who the employee knows is under the supervision of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Juvenile Justice Department, or probation department but not in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Juvenile Justice Department, or probation department.
(g) An offense under Subsection (f) is a state jail felony.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (f) that the actor was the spouse of the individual at the time of the offense.
Added by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1383, ch. 618, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3242, ch. 558, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 18, Sec. 5, eff. April 15, 1987. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.021 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1406, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 158, Sec. 1 to 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1070, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, Sec. 69, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 263 (S.B. 103), Sec. 62, eff. June 8, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 263 (S.B. 103), Sec. 63, eff. June 8, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 378 (S.B. 563), Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 908 (H.B. 2884), Sec. 43, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87 (S.B. 1969), Sec. 19.003, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 260 (H.B. 549), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 216 (H.B. 511), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 734 (H.B. 1549), Sec. 144, eff. September 1, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 734 (H.B. 1549), Sec. 145, eff. September 1, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1136 (S.B. 183), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1136 (S.B. 183), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2015.
Sec. 39.05. FAILURE TO REPORT DEATH OF PRISONER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is required to conduct an investigation and file a report by Article 49.18, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the person fails to investigate the death, fails to file the report as required, or fails to include in a filed report facts known or discovered in the investigation.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person is required by Section 501.055, Government Code, to:
(1) give notice of the death of an inmate and the person fails to give the notice; or
(2) conduct an investigation and file a report and the person:
(A) fails to conduct the investigation or file the report; or
(B) fails to include in the report facts known to the person or discovered by the person in the investigation.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2510, ch. 441, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1983. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.022 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 321, Sec. 1.104, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Sec. 39.06. MISUSE OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, in reliance on information to which the public servant has access by virtue of the person’s office or employment and that has not been made public, the person:
(1) acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information;
(2) speculates or aids another to speculate on the basis of the information; or
(3) as a public servant, including as a school administrator, coerces another into suppressing or failing to report that information to a law enforcement agency.
(b) A public servant commits an offense if with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he discloses or uses information for a nongovernmental purpose that:
(1) he has access to by means of his office or employment; and
(2) has not been made public.
(c) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he solicits or receives from a public servant information that:
(1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and
(2) has not been made public.
(d) In this section, “information that has not been made public” means any information to which the public does not generally have access, and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.
(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class C misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3243, ch. 558, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 30, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 43, Sec. 3, eff. Oct. 20, 1987; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 927, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 39.03 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 5.95(90), eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 14.52, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1043 (H.B. 1783), Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2015.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Police integrity and ethics are fundamental to effective policing and help build trust within communities. Sound conduct by police improves community interactions, enhances communication, and promotes shared responsibility for addressing crime and disorder.
Police departments can repair and strengthen community relationships by understanding and training officers on three key concepts: procedural justice, bias reduction, and racial reconciliation. Together and when implemented, these concepts create an environment in which effective partnerships between the police and citizens can flourish. The COPS Office seeks to provide these critical resources to ensure integrity and ethics are well-understood and embedded in the culture of policing.
Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve
Focuses on the pivotal role of the Internal Affairs function in agency-wide professional standards efforts that seek to build trust between law enforcement agencies, their staff, and communities
COPS Evaluation Brief No. 3: Creating A Culture of Integrity
Examines the successes and challenges of creating a culture of integrity
Crime Prevention Research Review No. 10: Legitimacy in Policing
Assesses the direct and indirect benefits of interventions led by the police that contained elements of “procedurally just” dialogue
Mediating Citizen Complaints Against Police Officers: A Guide For Police and Community Leaders
Addresses the implementation, expectations, and evaluation of police/citizen mediation programs, as well as how to overcome obstacles to mediation, such as police and citizen resistance
Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy
Discusses issues raised at the executive session hosted by the COPS Office and the National Network for Safe Communities in Washington, D.C. on January 11, 2012
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded. The authenticated text of the Constitution can be found on the website of the Government Printing Office.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest William Jackson Secretary
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia
Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom
Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl. Carroll
Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.
North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler
Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin
New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman
New York
Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton
Pensylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt. Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris
For biographies of the non-signing delegates to the Constitutional Convention,
see the Founding Fathers page.
Print/Bookmark/Share
.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Glossary of Terms
Criminal Enterprise
The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in significant criminal activity. These organizations often engage in multiple criminal activities and have extensive supporting networks. The terms Organized Crime and Criminal Enterprise are similar and often used synonymously. However, various federal criminal statutes specifically define the elements of an enterprise that need to be proven in order to convict individuals or groups of individuals under those statutes.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, or Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961(4), defines an enterprise as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.”
The Continuing Criminal Enterprise statute, or Title 21 of the United States Code, Section 848(c)(2), defines a criminal enterprise as any group of six or more people, where one of the six occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management with respect to the other five, and which generates substantial income or resources, and is engaged in a continuing series of violations of subchapters I and II of Chapter 13 of Title 21 of the United States Code.
Organized Crime
The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole.
Significant Racketeering Activity
The FBI defines significant racketeering activities as those predicate criminal acts that are chargeable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. These are found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1961 (1) and include the following federal crimes:
BriberySports BriberyCounterfeitingEmbezzlement of Union FundsMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingObstruction of JusticeMurder for HireDrug TraffickingProstitutionSexual Exploitation of ChildrenAlien SmugglingTrafficking in Counterfeit GoodsTheft from Interstate ShipmentInterstate Transportation of Stolen Property
And the following state crimes:
MurderKidnappingGamblingArsonRobberyBriberyExtortionDrugs
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Governors’ Powers and Authority
OverviewQualifications and TenureLegislative RoleAppointment PowerExecutive OrdersEmergency Powers
Overview
Governors, all of whom are popularly elected, serve as the chief executive officers of the fifty states and five commonwealths and territories.
As state managers, governors are responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operation of the state executive branch. As state leaders, governors advance and pursue new and revised policies and programs using a variety of tools, among them executive orders, executive budgets, and legislative proposals and vetoes.
Governors carry out their management and leadership responsibilities and objectives with the support and assistance of department and agency heads, many of whom they are empowered to appoint. A majority of governors have the authority to appoint state court judges as well, in most cases from a list of names submitted by a nominations committee.
Although governors have many roles and responsibilities in common, the scope of gubernatorial power varies from state to state in accordance with state constitutions, legislation, and tradition, and governors often are ranked by political historians and other observers of state politics according to the number and extent of their powers. Ranking factors may include the following.
Qualifications and tenureLegislative—including budget and veto—authorityAppointment sovereignty
Although not necessarily a ranking factor, the power to issue executive orders and take emergency actions is a significant gubernatorial responsibility that varies from state to state.
Qualifications and Tenure
Qualifications
States, commonwealths, and territories vary with respect to minimum age, U.S. citizenship, and state residency requirements for gubernatorial candidates and office holders. The minimum age requirement for governors ranges from no formal provision to age 35. The requirement of U.S. citizenship for gubernatorial candidates ranges from no formal provision to 20 years. State residency requirements range from no formal provision to 7 years.
Term Limits
Gubernatorial terms are four years in every state, commonwealth, and territory but New Hampshire and Vermont, which have two year terms. All governors with the exception of Virginia’s may succeed themselves, although they may be limited to a specific number of consecutive or total terms.
For state by state information on gubernatorial qualifications, see “The Governors: Qualifications for Office”(Table 4.2, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
For state by state information on gubernatorial term limits, see NGA’s Current Governors by State, Party, and Terms in Office, and”Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Number of Consecutive Terms of Elected State Officials” (Table 4.9, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Vacancies/Succession
In the event of a vacancy in office, the lieutenant governor is the designated official who succeeds the governor in 49 states and territories (in two of which—Tennessee and West Virginia—the president/speaker of the Senate and lieutenant governor are one and the same). In the remaining 5 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, officials designated to succeed the governor include the secretary of state and leader of the senate.
For state by state information on succession, see “The Governors” (Table 4.1, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments). For more information on lieutenant governors and other executive branch officials, see the Appointment Power section below.
Impeachment
All states except Oregon provide for the impeachment of governors. As in the case of the federal government, the impeachment process starts with the lower body of the legislature and the trial is conducted by the upper body in every state but Alaska—where the process is reversed, and Nebraska, which has a unicameral legislature charged with the full impeachment process. In most cases, impeachment requires a majority of members, while conviction generally requires a two-thirds or other special majority.
Should a governor be impeached, the lieutenant governor serves as acting governor in the vast majority of states. For state by state information on impeachment, see”Impeachment Provisions in the States” (Table 4.8, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments). For more information on lieutenant governors, see the Appointment Power section below.
Legislative Role
Governors play two broad roles in relation to state legislatures. First, they may be empowered to call special legislative sessions, provided in most cases that the purpose and agenda for the sessions are set in advance. Second, and more familiarly, governorscoordinate and work with state legislatures in:
approval of state budgets and appropriations;enactment of state legislation;confirmation of executive and judicial appointments; andlegislative oversight of executive branch functions.
Approval of State Budgets and Appropriations
Governors develop and submit annual or biennial budgets for review and approval by the legislature. In a number of states, commonwealths, and territories, governors also have “reduction”—most often referred to as “line-item”—veto power that can be used for the removal of appropriations to which they object. These tools allow governors and their budget staff to play a strong role in establishing priorities for the use of state resources. For state by state information on gubernatorial budget making and line-item veto power, see”The Governors: Powers” (Table 4.4, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Enactment of Legislation
Governors often use State of the State messagesto outline their legislative platforms, and many governors prepare specific legislative proposals to be introduced on their behalf. In addition, state departments and agencies may pursue legislative initiatives with gubernatorial approval. Executive branch officials often are called to testify on legislative proposals, and governors and other executive branch leaders will seek to mobilize public opinion and interest groups in favor of or opposition to specific legislative proposals. Governors may use their role as party leaders to encourage support for legislative initiatives, and along with department heads and staff may seek to influence the progress of legislation through regular meetings with legislators and legislative officials.
Veto Power
All 50 state governors have the power to veto whole legislative measures. In a large majority of states a bill will become law unless it is vetoed by the governor within a specified number of days, which vary among states. In a smaller number of states, bills will die (pocket veto) unless they are formally signed by the governor, also within a specified number of days. Other types of vetoes available to the governors of some states include “line-item” (by which a governor can strike a general item from a piece of legislation), “reduction” (by which a governor can delete a budget item), and “amendatory” (by which a governor can revise legislation). Legislatures may override vetoes, usually by a supermajority vote.
For state by state information about veto powers, see “The Governors: Powers” (Table 4.4, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments) and “Enacting Legislation: Veto, Veto Override and Effective Date” (Table 3.16, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Confirmation of Appointments
Many gubernatorial appointments require legislative confirmation. For additional information, see the Appointment Power section below as well as “Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection”(Table 4.10, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Legislative Oversight
Governors interact with their legislatures to help ensure that their priorities, goals, and accomplishments are accurately presented and positively received during oversight hearings and other legislative activities that address and evaluate executive branch implementation of legislatively mandated programs and services.
Appointment Power
Gubernatorial Appointments – Overview
Most governors have broad authority to nominate officials to serve in state executive branch positions—many of whom will be included in the governor’s advisory committee, known as the “cabinet.” Governors may be empowered as well to make appointments to state judgeships. Frequently, these appointments are subject to confirmation by one or both houses of the state legislature. While often pro forma in nature, the confirmation process with respect to executive branch appointments can be used by legislatures to expand their influence on governors and their policies. Accordingly, many governors consult with key legislators before making formal nominations.
For state by state information on the methods of selecting state officials, see “Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection”(Table 4.10, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Boards and Commissions
The roles played by boards and commissions vary considerably by state and by program. In some states appointed boards have the primary responsibility for individual programs and agencies and are responsible for the selection of department and agency heads. This is particularly true in the field of education, but boards still retain responsibility for a broad range of other programs in fields such as labor, transportation and health and human services.
In many states the members of these boards are named or nominated by the governor. And in many of these cases, board members are subject to confirmation by one or both houses of the legislature.
Other boards play more limited regulatory or advisory roles. In most states boards oversee the licensing and regulation of numerous professions and business areas. In other states they advise the governor on areas of importance such as the environment and economic development.
While the elimination and/or consolidation of boards and commissions is a common focus of government efficiency and government reorganization initiatives, they still play a prominent role in state government, providing opportunities to address the concerns of special interests and to reward political supporters.
Executive Branch Positions Independently Selected
A large number of states provide for the independent selection of certain executive branch positions. Most noteworthy among these positions are lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and treasurer.
The position of lieutenant governor exists in the overwhelming majority of states, where the position is most often filled by popular statewide election and jointly with the governor, although in a small number of cases the role of lieutenant governor is assigned by state law to another position in either the executive or legislative branch (e.g., secretary of state or leader of the senate). The positions of secretary of state, attorney general, and treasurer are all subject to statewide popular election in the majority of states, and at least one of the three is elected in most of the remaining states.
Governors generally have limited authority in the appointment of state comptrollers and pre and post audit department heads. Governors’ appointment powers are also limited with regard to the heads of state education and higher education agencies. The education department head is independently elected statewide in 14 states and is appointed—independent of gubernatorial approval—by a board or agency head in 20 states and two territories. In most states and territories, the higher education head is appointed by a board independent of gubernatorial approval.
A number of states also provide for the statewide election of one or more other department heads, among them public utility regulators and the heads of agriculture, labor, and natural resources departments.
As with governors, other statewide elected positions may be subject to age, citizenship, and state residency requirements, as well as term limits.
For state by state data on the joint election of governors and lieutenant governors, see “The Governors” (Table 4.1, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
For state by state information on the methods of selecting state officials, see “Selected State Administrative Officials: Methods of Selection”(Table 4.10, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
For state by state information on eligibility requirements for state officials, see”Constitutional and Statutory Provisions for Number of Consecutive Terms of Elected State Officials” (Table 4.9, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Cabinets
State cabinets, which serve as advisory councils to the nation’s governors, generally are made up of officials appointed by the governor to head state departments and agencies, and in some cases top-level staff in the governor’s immediate office. In most states the cabinet fulfills two functions:
advises the governor on the development of policy; andserves as a vehicle for the governor or senior staff to convey priorities to gubernatorial appointees and address cross-agency issues or concerns.
In a number of states, governors have created sub-cabinets to bring together agencies to address issues such as the needs of children.
Forty-four states and all of the commonwealths and territories have cabinets and/or sub-cabinets. Cabinets themselves may have their origin in law, tradition, and/or the governor’s discretion. Cabinet membership may be a product of appointment to a specific office or be subject to selection by the governor. Cabinet size, and the frequency of cabinet meetings and formality and extent to which a governor uses his or her cabinet for advice and assistance, varies among the states, commonwealths, and territories.
For state by state information on cabinets, see”State Cabinet Systems” (Table 4.6, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Executive Orders
The authority for governors to issue executive orders is found in state constitutions and statutes as well as case law, or is implied by the powers assigned to state chief executives. Governors use executive orders—certain of which are subject to legislative review in some states—for a variety of purposes, among them to:
trigger emergency powers during natural disasters, energy crises, and other situations requiring immediate attention;create advisory, coordinating, study, or investigative committees or commissions; andaddress management and administrative issues such as regulatory reform, environmental impact, hiring freezes, discrimination, and intergovernmental coordination.
For state by state information on the power of governors to issue executive orders, see”Gubernatorial Executive Orders: Authorization, Provisions, Procedures” (Table 4.5, The Book of the States 2014, source: The Council of State Governments).
Emergency Powers
As chief executive, governors are responsible for ensuring their state is adequately prepared for emergencies and disasters of all types and sizes. Most emergencies and disasters are handled at the local level, and few require a presidential disaster declaration or attract worldwide media attention. Yet governors must be as prepared for day-to-day events—tornadoes, floods, power outages, industrial fires, and hazardous materials spills—as for catastrophes on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or the September 11 terrorist attacks. States focus on four stages of disaster or emergency management:
PreparePreventRespondRecover
These components afford a useful rubric for thinking about the cycle of disasters and emergencies and for organizing recommendations for state action. During an emergency, the governor also plays a key role in communicating with the public during an emergency, providing advice and instructions and maintaining calm and public order.
State emergency management laws usually define how a governor may declare and end a state of emergency. In some cases, the necessary response to a disaster is beyond the capacity of state and local governments. A state may petition the President to declare a major disaster. The declaration of a major disaster triggers a variety of federal programs depending on the scope of the disaster and the type of losses experienced.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
victim, or an informant
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US CodeNotesAuthorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a)
(1)Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A)
prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B)
prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C)
prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(2)Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—
(A)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B)cause or induce any person to—
(i)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv)
be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C)
hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).
(3)The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—
(A)
in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;
(B)in the case of—
(i)
an attempt to murder; or
(ii)
the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;
imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and
(C)
in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
(b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1)
influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2)cause or induce any person to—
(A)
withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B)
alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C)
evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D)
be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3)
hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)
alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)
otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1)
attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2)
reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation
1
supervised release,,
1
parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3)
arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4)
causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(e)
In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.
(f)For the purposes of this section—
(1)
an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2)
the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
(g)In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—
(1)
that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2)
that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.
(h)
There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.
(i)
A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.
(j)
If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
(k)
Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
(Added Pub. L. 97–291, § 4(a), Oct. 12, 1982,96 Stat. 1249; amended Pub. L. 99–646, § 61, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7029(a), (c), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4397, 4398; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117;Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60018, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(O), (U), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1975, 2148; Pub. L. 104–214, § 1(2), Oct. 1, 1996, 110 Stat. 3017; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(b)(31), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3508; Pub. L. 107–204, title XI, § 1102, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3001(a), (c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1803, 1804; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 205, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)
[1] So in original.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
For those of integrity no matter where your from if you do it such as help law enforcements make a difference in society you may be entitled to federal witness rights
645. Entrapment—Elements
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that “Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government’s use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort “that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties,” United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government’s behavior was such that “a law-abiding citizen’s will to obey the law could have been overborne”); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created “a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it”).
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant “was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: “the ready commission of the criminal act,” such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent’s offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
[cited in USAM 9-18.000]
Here’s a good one
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
A REPORT BY THE ETHICS TRAINING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE IACP AD HOC COMMITTEE ON POLICE IMAGE AND ETHICS
Established in late 1995 by then-President David Walchak, continued through 1997 under President Darrell Sanders and working under the guidance of Fourth Vice President Chief Bill Berger, IACP’s Ad Hoc Committee on Police Image and Ethics has generated a tremendous amount of positive interest in and anticipation of the final report. Based on two years of research and numerous meetings among co-chairs Berger, Neal Trautman and Michael Cosgrove, who oversaw the efforts of the 60+ members of the committee, the following is a final compilation of the committee report to IACP members, along with a list of the ad hoc recommendations and a detailed analysis of the first-ever IACP ethics survey.
Our Greatest Need
Ethics is our greatest training and leadership need today and into the next century. In addition to the fact that most departments do not conduct ethics training, nothing is more devastating to individual departments and our entire profession than uncovered scandals or discovered acts of officer misconduct and unethical behavior. The effects of unethical acts and behavior take many forms.
One of the more detrimental consequences of unethical behavior is the subjecting of an agency to civil litigation. Litigation now comes in many forms: excessive use of force, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination and sexual harassment suits. Violations of civil rights under Titles 18 and 42 are becoming too commonplace. Defending against such allegations both drains an organization financially and has a long-term reputation effect—in many cases, sigmatizing the agency forever.
These forms of civil litigation are more than tempting to the media; they are irresistible. The negative publicity generated is devastating, regardless of the type of employer. A single incident of unethical behavior can take you from one of the most-admired agencies to one of the least-respected, literally overnight.
Another reason is the personal consequences individual supervisors suffer. Simply being in the “chain of command” when substantial misconduct is discovered can literally destroy a career. When a scandal hits, heads will roll. Many supervisors lose their jobs or are demoted. Others are more fortunate by retaining their jobs, but may never be promoted again. Many of the violations that resulted in disciplinary actions or terminations were due to supervisory omissions or failure to take appropriate actions when dealing with acts of unethical conduct.
Professional destruction through termination does not end with these leaders. Finding one’s name or picture on television or the focus of a newspaper story about corruption is an overwhelming public humiliation for any officer and his family; even if later exonerated, he can never recover. The stigma of association resulting from an allegation of unethical behavior lasts forever, even into one’s personal life.
For officers who lose their jobs, the future is bleak, to say the least. Many times, unemployment compensation is not offered for such situations. Few employers would want to hire someone fired for being unethical. Without an income, domestic problems arise, often leading to divorce or separation and complicating an already strained and stressful situation.
Each year, considerably more officers commit suicide than are murdered. Many times, these suicides are a result of officers’ failure to deal with unethical acts in which they were personally or summarily involved. Thus, by preventing unethical acts, you will be literally saving the lives of fellow officers.
The Ethics Training Survey
If we in law enforcement do not know what our problems are, how do we know how to properly address these issues? Based on our committee’s recommendation, the solution is to create and conduct a needs assessment.
During the spring of 1997, the most extensive ethics training survey ever conducted by law enforcement was undertaken. Over 4,500 surveys were sent out to members of IACP; 20 percent (or 900 completed surveys) were returned. Though on the surface this percentage may seem low, private-sector marketers will tell you that anything over 10 percent is considered extraordinary. The large response was collected, and the interpretation of the results analyzed. This has produced solid recommendations for change in how we as a profession must address ethics today and in the future.
The survey research instrument utilized both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It was believed that by using the two distinct research designs, the special demands of this specific project could be strengthened.
The survey was constructed using both fixed-answer questions and statements and/or open-ended questions. Consideration was given to formulating questions or statements that measured specified variables in an articulate and meaningful way. The initial contents of the survey design comprised a large number of questions and statements related to ethics in law enforcement. The survey was ultimately refined to contain questions or statements that were judged most relevant to the subject matter. The intention was to enhance the integrity and effectiveness of the survey by securing the comments of specific external evaluators regarding both the quality and substance of the items contained in the survey.
Reading the complete survey questions from each section will provide an intelligible understanding of the data provided in the report. This report incorporates one primary statistical factor: a mean. A brief description of the methodology follows: The mean is the sum of a set of mathematical values divided by the number of values for that series of data. The intention was to focus on the manner in which responses to the various questions were distributed and how they might inform members of IACP.
Synopsis of Findings on Questions 1 – 69
Questions 1-69 were check-off questions addressing a wide range of ethical topics. An overwhelming number of agencies (80.3 percent) reported that they commit resources to train instructors offering ethics courses; and over 60 percent (62.4 percent) reported that they also provide their ethics trainers additional training in adult learning theory. The major approaches these agencies employed in teaching ethics were reported as lecture (78 percent), readings and discussion (67.3 percent), videotapes (53 percent) and video scenarios (49 percent).
Other methods—such as role play (26 percent), computers and games (about 7 percent) were used much less often. Sixty-three percent of the responding departments said that they employed a “standardized lesson plan” for ethics instruction, which means that over a third of the agencies did not equip ethics instructors with planned teaching materials.
The survey results regarding Field Training Officers (FTOs) ethics instruction were not as overwhelming as the reported statistics for instructors in general. Sixty-three percent received some formal training, while only 52 percent indicated they were trained in adult learning theories of education. Quite unexpectedly, only about a third (34.4 percent) of the agencies said they had an ethics category for the evaluation reports filled out by FTOs on their trainees. In other words, ethics-related categories were not included among those used to assess recruits’ qualifications and skills in about two-thirds of the agencies surveyed.
When asked about ethics curriculum topics such as decision-making skills, values, code of ethics, officer safety, etc., a significant majority (generally 75 to 90 percent) of the departments reported that these topics were provided in their courses for recruits, in-service and management personnel. One exception to this general observation was in the area of “management responsibility”; only two-thirds (65.9 percent) of the agencies included this ethics topic for their managers. In other curriculum categories, there was very little difference in programs offered for recruits, in-service and management personnel.
One point that was clearly revealed in the survey was that a vast majority (83.3 percent) of the departments were engaged in some form of ethics training for newly sworn officers. Over 505 of the respondents saw this training as fulfilling a “high” need among officers, supervisory personnel and command-level staff. These item responses clearly suggested that there were important concerns about ethics training, and that an emphasis on ethics should be a top priority for all levels of the organization. To address this need, 72 percent of the agencies said that they provide some ethics-related training beyond the basic academy experience.
Questions about how much time was devoted to ethics training provided for some interesting findings. A majority of the respondents (70.5 percent) said that they provided four classroom hours or less of programming. Only 16.8 percent of the respondents mentioned an eight-hour day of training reserved for ethics. For supervisors, 65.1 percent of the departments said they received some kind of ethics training, but again it was generally offered for four hours or less. Interestingly, although most saw a high need for ethics training, the amount of time earmarked for this activity was far less than what might be expected.
In resource commitment for ethics training, 56.9 percent of the agencies said that they sought external assistance in developing their ethics programs. Only about a third (30.4 percent), however, invested in formal training in teaching ethics for their FTOs, while almost two-thirds (63.5 percent) provided ethics training for narcotic and undercover officers. Whether this percentage for drug enforcement activities should be higher or not is difficult to decide. Perhaps it does reflect a concern about the ethical temptations inherent in that kind of work, and represents an effort by at least some agencies to aid in preventing more serious difficulties.
Other findings came from the items asking departments whether or not they addressed ethical issues in specific areas, such as gratuities (81 percent said “yes”), conflicts of interest (76 percent), abuse of force (90 percent), abuse of authority (78.9 percent), corruption (68.6 percent), discretion and the public trust (78.2 percent), cultural diversity (82.4 percent), off-duty ethics (70.9 percent), personal values (61.4 percent) and management of ethics (64.9 percent). What was interesting was the hourly breakdown regarding these issue areas. More time was spent discussing issues related to the use of force and cultural diversity than the other areas. This emphasis probably reflects major concerns in most agencies over the past several years in which the issues of racial discrimination and use-of-force incidents were highly publicized, not to mention highly expensive concerns related to defending against civil litigation.
One major finding was that the amount of time devoted to ethics training did not appear to be consistent with how important the needs were, based on the responses. There seems to be a recognized demand for expanded training hours, more quality training resources and greater involvement with ethics training at all levels of the organization, but the number of hours remains rather insignificant in terms of this recognized demand. It is possible that the gap revealed in this survey between “high need” and training hours devoted to ethics actually reflects changes that are occurring, and there is simply a resource lag while the gap closes. Whether this is the case, only time will tell. Generally speaking, these survey results support the general conclusion that ethics training is considered important by law enforcement agencies, and they are continuing to commit training resources, seeking outside assistance and generally providing some ethical training to recruits as well as in-service and management personnel.
Synopsis of Findings on Questions 69-73
Questions 69-73 consisted of open-ended, narrative and short-answer questions.
Overall, some of the answers were very thoughtful; some respondents provided typewritten pages with attached value statements clearly demonstrating that there was some time, effort and interest in the subject matter.
Other answers were so brief that the answers are subject to varying interpretations and are of little or no value. Some answers contained one or two words, and sometimes the answers were very cynical, such as, “A tiger can’t change his stripes.” Some answers were not responsive to the questions, and it is believed that these respondents did not understand how serious the ethical issues confronting law enforcement officers are. One respondent provided no answers to these questions.
Responses to the survey research instrument—and in particular to the open-ended questions—varied considerably, and by agency, with some responding to all of the questions and others to none. A breakdown follows:
Overall Survey
# sent
4,784
# returned
874
% total
18%
Open-ended Questions
Full response
52%
Partial response
28%
No response
18%
While the total percentage returned was within acceptable limits, it was somewhat low and, by extension, a disappointment. Moreover, the overall findings should be a relatively accurate reflection of the concerns of most agencies regarding ethics training. Furthermore, the responses to the open-ended questions revealed a paradox between a “clearly perceived need for ethics training” and a lack of “demonstrated concern in the responses.”
Question #69: What do you see as the more pressing ethical issues in law enforcement today?
The findings for this question are as follows, and reflect the perceptions of a very significant number of respondents.
Cultural diversity/racism/sexism
Corruption/gratuities
Public trust
Morals/personal values of officers/lack of values in new officers
Honesty
Abuse of force/abuse of authority
Decision-making
Code of silence
Off-duty issues/behavior
Poor work ethic of new recruits
Lack of a sense of responsibility
Lack of role models
Issues considered critical:
Honesty in official reports
Police unions supporting unethical officers
Fabricating evidence/honesty in official reports and embellishing testimony
Temptation to embellish testimony or belief that the truth needs help
Proliferation of drugs with money available to corrupt the police
Lowered standards
Professionalism
Respect
Loyalty
Media
The above offer a substantial reflection of the concerns noted in the surveys. In part, these are evidence of previous “case study” analysis, but they bring a greater level of reliability to the findings. Moreover, the responses reveal some interesting common themes. Those who responded mentioned the importance of a set of agreed-upon foundations for behavior and the need for involvement of supervisors and managers. Further, many of the respondents spoke of the importance of role-modeling in an agency and emphasis on the consequences of behavior.
Question #70: If you could design an ethics training program, which topics would you include?
This question was, to some extent, a reflection of responses posited in question #69. However, there were many occasions where there was substantial divergence. That is, problems as perceived in question #69 did not agree with the responses in question #70. This, perhaps, suggests that there is some level of disarray in terms of what the “critical issues are” and “what should be taught.”
Question #71: Please provide us with any “working definitions of ethics” your organization uses.
In this particular case, most of those responding provided members of the committee with various codes of conduct and ethical behavior (e.g., department mission/ vision statements, IACP code of ethics, other specific codes), while only a handful provided any “working definition.” To the extent that this occurred, it could suggest that the notion of what ethical behavior is should be more precisely defined as time progresses. In essence, this would provide some common ground from which to determine how to address issues related to ethical behavior.
Question #72: What do you consider to be the most important (or essential) elements or components of ethics training, and why?
One of the indicators that was focused on most frequently was the provision of a definition of ethics. Thus, further support was gained for question #71 (provision of a working definition of ethics).
Question #73: Further comments/suggestions/remarks.
This question was provided as a way in which to provide an opportunity for additional information. Very few agency representatives utilized this chance.
Summary/Conclusions
The overall perceptions of the members of the committee regarding the answers to these five questions was one of some level of disappointment and concern. Nevertheless, committee members do believe that a sufficient number of respondents answered the questions dealing with pressing ethical issues in law enforcement to provide some food for thought and critical insights. While it is impossible to scientifically categorize the poor responses to these questions, an educated guess is that the respondents would generally agree that the following represent the most serious ethical issues that confront law enforcement today.
Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations
If the effort to weave ethics training deeply into the fabric of police agencies is to succeed, it must be undertaken with a clear understanding of the very nature of the law enforcement profession. Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives and secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer.
Therefore, police leadership must meet the highest ethical standards in order to keep the public’s trust. As role models for officers as well as the community, police chiefs have an obligation to act in ways that avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In other words, integrity in word and deed, consistent with democratic principles, is one of the better ways to ensure that our organizations can live up to the noble promise of democratic public service.
Recommendation I: Increase visibility of ethics through the adoption of and support for a “Law Enforcement Oath of Honor.”
As the effort to incorporate ethics training fully within law enforcement community begins, it will be important to heighten the visibility and awareness of ethics across the profession. A public affirmation to adhering to the current code of ethics and the adoption of an Oath of Honor will have to be undertaken, along with role modeling and mentoring, which are very powerful vehicles for changing behavior. To be successful at enhancing integrity within an organization, leaders must ensure that ethical mentoring and role modeling are consistent, frequent and visible. Therefore, the committee wholeheartedly supported the creation of a symbolic reverberance and public affirmation to attest a commitment to ethical conduct. After numerous drafts and conferences, the following Law Enforcement Oath of Honor was recommended as the IACP symbolic statement of commitment to ethical behavior:
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
and community I serve.
Before any officer takes the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, it is important that he understands what it means. An oath is a solemn pledge someone makes when he sincerely intends to do what he says.
Honor means that one’s word is given as a guarantee.
Betray is defined as breaking faith with the public trust.
Badge is the symbol of your office.
Integrity is being the same person in both private and public life.
Character means the qualities that distinguish an individual.
Public trust is a charge of duty imposed in faith toward those you serve.
Courage is having the strength to withstand unethical pressure, fear or danger. Accountabilitymeans that you are answerable and responsible to your oath of office.
Community is the jurisdiction and citizens served.
The Oath of Honor’s brevity allows it to be constantly referred to and reinforced during conversations with FTOs and line supervisors. In addition, it can also be
referred to by administrators while communicating with others;placed on the back of all academy students’ name cards, ensuring that they are looking at it all day;strategically and visibly placed in all police academies and law enforcement agencies;signed by each academy student, framed and hung on the wall;given at all official police ceremonies and gatherings;printed on labels that are placed on equipment; andused as a backdrop in citizens’ meetings and news media events.
In conclusion, it is strongly recommended that the IACP adopt the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor and support a nationwide Oath of Honor sign-up campaign. Having officers take an oath will reconfirm the significance of integrity within the agency and help bring the entire profession together to show that the vast majority of law enforcement officers not only are good, decent individuals, but also will step forward to stop unethical acts by any members of our profession.
Recommendation II: Provide job-specific training on ethics.
While the approach to ethics training within a given agency should be viewed as universal in nature, it will be critically important to ensure that specific groups within a department have access to training tailored to their specific needs. Overall training content will be addressed in this section, but specific groups may include:
Recruits: Officers new to the profession must discuss the rules and regulations of an agency, while coming to understand the power of the police culture. Recruits should be armed with decision-making tools so they are prepared to make intelligent/ethical choices.Field training officers: FTOs are the most important link in developing a strong ethical foundation and culture within a police organization. FTOs must be schooled in the adult learning process so they are equipped to assist their trainees in learning to behave ethically. FTOs must understand the critical position they fill. It is not uncommon that an ethical situation will surface within the first 60 minutes spent with a new officer. The best illustration of this is exposing the new trainee to a half-price or free meal dilemma. More than any level within a police organization, the very finest, most ethical employees must be recruited and retained as FTOs. FTOs should become a gateway to first-line supervision within an agency.In-service police officers: Tenured officers must be equipped with the tools necessary to identify and analyze ethical dilemmas, and thereafter must possess the ability to make appropriate ethical choices.Supervisory personnel: Supervisors and first-line managers within a police department must understand their role in the development and maintenance of a healthy ethical climate in an agency. Supervisors can no longer absolve themselves of responsibility for misbehavior or personnel under their command. The prevailing attitude of being a popular supervisor rather than being an ethical supervisor must be reversed. This level of the organization, more than any other, must be constantly inundated with ethical situational training and scrutinized for indications of unethical behavior or dilemmas. The consensus of all members of the ad hoc committee identified this level of the police organization as essential in setting the ethical culture in the police profession.Executive personnel: Command-level executives must take the lead in setting an ethical standard for the agency. Development of value statements and a readiness to “walk the line” (serve as a role model) must be critical benchmarks.Civilian personnel: Often overlooked, civilians must understand the vital role they fulfill in the development of a fully ethical agency. Contract issues, records and financial matters are but a few of the areas open to discussion and examination.Specialized unit categories: While much ethics training could be described as “one size fits all,” certain specialized groups within an agency have very particular needs. Among those groups are undercover drug personnel, detectives, traffic units, evidence collection teams, DARE officers, property custodians and SWAT officers.
Training focus: It is critically important, from an integrity and ethics perspective, that we not just “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk.” Training bridges the gap between written integrity and ethics guidance and direction in the form of policy and procedure (talk the talk) to behavior change in the performance of duties and responsibilities (walk the walk) in police agencies. Training will ensure that police personnel will know what to do, given integrity and ethical applications. Supervision ensures that the policy and procedure and training curriculum are implemented at the operational level. Accountability systems ensure that all components of the integrity and ethics system are working, to include policy and procedure, training and supervision. Training becomes a critical and integral part of this process.
It is our recommendation that integrity and ethics training occur during police recruit training and throughout an individual’s police career. Integrity and ethics training should be both general and agency specific in nature. General training would include generic applications that are applicable to all agency personnel. Agency-specific training would include examples of integrity and ethics violations and issues that have occurred in the past within the agency and how those situations should have been responded to by agency personnel.
Reasoning for recommendation: As with other training topics, ethics training is most effective when it is focused upon the specific needs of those being trained. The development and use of customized ethics training tools, techniques, processes and programs should provide personnel with more skills, knowledge and abilities for preventing unethical acts.
Recommendation III: Enhance training curriculum content.
As training programs are created and put into place within agencies, several important points should be carefully considered for inclusion:
Decision-making models: Officers should walk out of a training program with a set of tools readily available for use in analyzing ethical dilemmas and choosing among available options. Simply talking about ethics in a class is inadequate; an effective program will provide usable tools available for immediate use outside the classroom.Discussion of specific values or moral anchors: As the tools described above are put to use, officers should be able to look toward a universally agreed-upon set of values to determine whether specific behavior is defensible and appropriate.Examinations of ethical thinking outside the law enforcement arena: In the interest of learning from the mistakes of other groups, regular reading and discussion of a variety of classic cases in ethical thinking should be considered. Roll call, in-service training, and staff and line meetings should be the stage for discussion of ethical situations, with an emphasis on “why” and “how,” followed by discussions of how it was resolved and what would be the most appropriate way if time were not a factor to resolve the situation. Feedback, feedback, feedback, combined with development of ethical solutions, must be continually emphasized.Recommendation IV: Develop the appropriate training style.
Any attempt to incorporate training within the law enforcement community must be carried out within the framework of an “adult learning environment.” Too often in the past, ethics training programs have consisted of little more than a lecture or sermon presented in a threatening and offensive tone. In such cases, it is little wonder that officers walk out of the classroom feeling they have, for all intents and purposes, wasted their time. The conscious decision should be made to treat police personnel attending ethics programs as adults, and to utilize the tenets of the adult learning process.
Reasoning for recommendation: The training of police personnel is most effective when the instructors concerned create a training style and environment that lends itself to the learning of adults. In particular, employees must fully appreciate how they will benefit from ethics training.
Recommendation V: Constantly reinforce ethics.
Police administrators must acknowledge that the development of a lasting and fully entrenched sense of positive ethical behavior within an agency will be arrived at only through continuing discussion of these issues. Ethics must be viewed as more than just a “Band-Aid” to be utilized after a scandal has arisen. Instead, personnel at all levels (and at all career stages) must have the opportunity to be reminded of these issues, and to have their decision-making skills refreshed and reinforced as discussed in examples given above.
Reasoning for recommendation: The ultimate solution for officer misconduct is for ethics and integrity to become ingrained throughout every aspect of an organization. Constant reinforcement, whether through training or leading by example, is a necessary element of organizational integrity.
Recommendation VI: Insist on strong recruit ethics training.
Executive summary: It is the recommendation of the ad hoc IACP Police Image and Ethics Training Committee that academies emphasize two major areas concerning ethics:
ethical dilemma simulation training, andethical perspectives on each training topic presented.
Specific recommendations:
Incorporate an ethical perspective to all topics covered in the police academy curriculum.Have the academy director, when addressing the new recruit class for the first time, emphasize ethics and integrity, and stress that these two concepts are the highest priorities of the academy.Have every instructor in each training topic area address the ethical perspectives of each specific topic, and require them to substantiate such perspectives in lesson plan construction.Prominently display motivational posters or other similar types of signs within police facilities. Such signs might include the Value Statement, Oath of Honor, Code of Ethics, short articles of an ethical nature and reports of positive ethical behavior by members of the local agency or other departments.Distribute wallet cards with the Oath of Honor or key information on ethical decision-making models for ready reference.Print an honor code, Oath of Honor or ethics statement on desk nametags so officers can be constantly reminded of the issues they represent.Present a formalized four- to eight-hour interactive ethics training presentation. Primary focus should be on dealing with current, real-life ethical dilemmas.Create ethical decision-making “tests” to be given periodically to recruits and in-service trainees.Require recruits to read a current book that discusses ethics and promotes integrity. The book should then become the basis for class discussion and written examination.Facilitate lecture and emotional role-play scenario training that teaches officers the need for intervention, as well as how to professionally intervene when another officer appears about to commit an unethical act.
Reasoning for recommendation: Ethics instruction has not been a high priority within basic police academies. As such, academies sometimes conveyed the message that ethics was not a critical issue. Every instructor should address the ethical perspectives of each training topic and use the most effective tools and techniques available.
Recommendation VII: Focus on FTO ethics.
Executive summary: As mentioned previously, FTO programs must immediately become a major focus of law enforcement’s efforts to prevent officer misconduct. FTOs should conduct ethics training in two major ways:
through ethical dilemma simulation training focusing on previously documented unethical cases involving new recruits, andby including ethical situational training components on the Training Checklist.
Specific recommendations:
Make the integrity and positive mental outlook of potential FTOs a high priority in their selection.Ensure that FTOs thoroughly understand that they create the “organizational culture” of the patrol division, accept the responsibility, and have received FTO training that addresses this fact.Enlist administrators’ deep support for the FTO program.Ensure that administrators follow the document-supported recommendation for termination of a recruit by FTOs, unless not doing so is truly justified.Have FTOs address each academy class to explain the upcoming FTO process.Add “Integrity/Ethics” to the trainee daily observation/evaluation report.Ensure that background investigator(s) have FTO experience.View members of the FTO program as part of the hiring process.Officially place “Integrity/Ethics” on the FTO training topic checklist.Confirm that each new officer has identified whom he talks to about any ethical dilemma, as a means of support.Provide lecture and emotional role-play scenario training that teaches officers the need for and how to intervene when another officer appears to commit an unethical act.Train FTOs in how to use audio and/ or video ethics simulation training for new officers.
Reasoning for recommendation: FTOs have a substantial impact upon the prevention or creation of unethical acts by patrol officers. Historically, law enforcement has not recognized this fact. The result was that ethics was seldom a training topic within FTO programs. In addition, the fact that the beliefs and attitudes of FTOs are usually replicated by recruits was not considered.
Recommendation VIII: Provide continual in-service training.
Executive summary: Ethics must immediately become a major focus of law enforcement’s in-service training efforts. Departments should conduct internal ethics training in two fundamental ways:
provide mandatory annual ethical dilemma simulation training, andrequire that instructors of each training topic address the ethical perspective of the topic they are presenting.
Specific recommendations:
Ensure that every instructor of each in-service class addresses the ethical perspective of what he is training.Use internal e-mail, newsletters or other correspondence to disseminate words, quotes or verbiage dealing with ethics.Develop lectures and emotional role-play scenario training that teaches officers the need for and how to intervene when another officer appears about to commit an unethical act.
Reasoning for recommendation: Ethics training must become a component of all internal instruction. Taking advantage of current ethics training techniques and tools can assist and enhance in-service ethics training. The neglect of in-service ethics training has frequently been present when employee misconduct occurred.
Comments
In order to have a viable and effective integrity and ethics impact within a police organization, it is critical that an integrity and ethics emphasis be infused into an agency’s policy and procedure, training, supervision and accountability systems. This integrity and ethics infusion should have generic and specific applications. It should be generic in that certain integrity and ethics principles are applicable to all personnel in every assignment and at every level within the agency. It should be specific in that there are unique integrity and ethics applications to each assignment and position in a police agency.
This is the good stuff
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
The leader of a drug ring that distributed methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico to the United States could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Jorge Cuevas-Mares, also known as Jesus Ruiz Sandoval, pleaded guilty on Oct. 28 to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, according to court records. He will be sentenced April 5 in a Los Angeles federal court.
He faces a minimum sentence of 20 years and a maximum sentence of life in federal prison, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Stern.
Stern said the minimum mandatory sentence is 20 years because Cuevas-Mares has a prior drug conviction. He was convicted in Oct. 30, 2001 of the transportation or sale of a controlled substance in Riverside County.
Cuevas-Mares’ lawyer in the federal case, Victor Sherman, didn’t return phone calls seeking comment for this story.
CONTINUED
In an eighteen-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in February 2009 and unsealed this morning, 34 defendants are charged with narcotics and firearms violations arising from an alleged conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine in and around San Bernardino and Redlands under the oversight of the Mexican Mafia. The indictment was announced today by Thomas P. O’Brien, United States Attorney in Los Angeles, and Salvador Hernandez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles, on behalf of the San Bernardino-based Gang Impact Team (GIT), which includes the full-time participation of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the San Bernardino Police Department, the Redlands Police Department and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office.
According to the federal indictment, the narcotics trafficking was overseen by defendant Janet Hernandez, the wife of a Mexican Mafia member identified in the indictment as “Mexican Mafia Member #1.” According to the indictment, while her husband has been incarcerated, Hernandez has acted on his behalf to manage and control the sale and distribution of narcotics in sections of San Bernardino County by requiring narcotics dealers to pay the Mexican Mafia, through her, “taxes” in the form of a percentage of their profits. The indictment describes a series of recorded calls in which Hernandez allegedly discussed the collection and payment of these taxes with her co-conspirators.
“The charges resulting from this investigation, both federal and state, reflect the continuing cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement to hold the Mexican Mafia and those acting on its behalf accountable for their criminal conduct,” said United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien. “We will continue to work together to combat this organization’s narcotics trafficking and violence and the misery these activities inflict on the working people and families in our communities.”
Late last night and early this morning, over 200 agents and officers from the Gang Impact Team and several other agencies executed arrest warrants and took twenty of the federal defendants into custody. Four of the federal defendants are currently being sought by law enforcement. Ten of the defendants charged in the federal case were already in federal or state custody.
The investigation leading to the federal charges focused on the criminal activities of Hispanic street gangs affiliated with the Mexican Mafia, among them the “Westside Verdugos,” the “Northside Redlands” and the Varrio Redlands. These gangs operate primarily within San Bernardino and neighboring Redlands. The investigation focused on identifying key members of the drug trafficking network in this area in order to disrupt the violence associated with narcotics sales and associated criminal activity.
Those charged in the federal indictment and their custody status include:
Janet Hernandez, 41, of BloomingtonRuben Morales, 44, of RiversideRobert Jimenez Sr, 45, of San BernardinoGino Gonzalez, 37, of RedlandsJose DeJesus Ramirez, 37, of San BernardinoJose Trinidad Ramirez, 26, of San BernardinoArmando Estrada, 32, of San BernardinoErnie Estrada, 23, of San BernardinoErik Estrada, 23, of San BernardinoJuan Vaca, 38, of San BernardinoMichelle Tejada, 31, of RedlandsJohn Viveros, 34, of Mentone, currently being sought by law enforcementJessica Ramos, 28, of RedlandsDaniel Hocker, 46, of HighlandMichael Tejada, 31, of Redlands, currently being sought by law enforcementTina Valdepena, 45, of San BernardinoRuben Velasquez, 24, of San BernardinoMichelle Yglesias, 33, of RedlandsKelly Kelly, 49, of Rifle, CO, currently being sought by law enforcementJuan Beltran, 33, of Whittier, currently being sought by law enforcementJason Cardoza, in custody/USMS,SBDOJeanette Amaya, 51, in custody/CDCR,ChowchillaMario Hernandez, 36, in custody/SBDO CountyRudy Martinez Jr, 35, in custody/CDCR,ChinoJoel Martinez, 24, in custody/SBDO/ParoleJennifer Patterson, 30, in custody/SBDO CountyAlfredo Ramirez III, 25, in custody/CDCR,TehachapiNicolas Sendis, 33, Whittier, in custody/USMS,MDCChristopher Sims, 26, in custody/CDCR,TehachapiDavid Lopez, 28, incarcerated in SBCO County
Salvador Hernandez, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Office stated, “The communities in San Bernardino County and surrounding areas should be proud of their local police, sheriffs and prosecutors, for their cooperative spirit in participating on gang forces to proactively tackle the spread of gang violence seeping into suburban and rural areas.”
As a direct result of the investigation, an additional fifty-four defendants were charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with various state charges including weapons and narcotics violations. Twenty-five of the state defendants were already in state or local custody. Sixteen were arrested today and thirteen are being sought by law enforcement.
Those included in the State Warrants are:
Leiy Long ,32, of San BernardinoLorraine Cabral, 42, of RedlandsEdward Cuibal, 50, of RiversideKwame Givens, 25, of San BernardinoTimothy Nieto, 44, of RedlandsTimothy Klenke, 50, of RedlandsGabriel Banuelos, 27, of San BernardinoMaria Calderon, 48, of San BernardinoRalph Banuelos, 31, of San BernardinoJuan Marquez, 31, of HighlandDanny Marquez, 33Guadalupe AcunaGustavo Castro, 27, of San BernardinoAngel Lerma, 28, of San BernardinoBertha Ayon, 30, of San BernardinoGuadalupe Barajas
Additionally, seven people were taken into custody today at locations where warrants were served. These probable cause arrests will result in new charges, including drugs or weapons violations.
“This is an example of the future of law enforcement; agencies working together and pooling resources and intelligence to take down a large criminal enterprise,” said San Bernardino County Sheriff Rod Hoops.
During the investigation, task force members seized $36,000 in cash, over six pounds of methamphetamine, two pounds of cocaine, and 12 firearms. An additional seven guns and small quantities of methamphetamine were found this morning during the execution of the warrants.
Michael A. Ramos, San Bernardino County District Attorney, stated, “Our partnership with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies strengthens our ongoing war on gangs. A strong team approach is critical in eradicating gangs and, in these tough economic times, it is especially important for law enforcement to join forces to address the gang problem in order to protect the public.”
The federal defendants arrested this morning will have an initial appearance in U.S. District Court this afternoon. If convicted on the charges listed in the indictment, thirty-two of the defendants face a maximum statutory sentence of life in prison and two of the federal defendants face a maximum sentence of forty years in prison. The federal defendants listed above will be prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. The San Bernardino County District Attorney will prosecute individuals charged with state violations.
Tom Fitzmaurice, Commander, Redlands Police Department, said, “Redlands Police Department is very appreciative of all the efforts put forth by the law enforcement agencies that worked together to dismantle this gang managed criminal enterprise. We stand united with our law enforcement partners in stating that this type of criminal behavior will not be tolerated, and that we will put forth every resource we have available to us to keep our communities safe from the evil influence and actions of these gang members.”
The investigation was conducted by the Gang Impact Team in San Bernardino County, an FBI Safe Streets Task Force, which includes members from the FBI, deputies from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, officers with the San Bernardino Police Department and Redlands Police Department and investigators with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office. The GIT received assistance from the Highland Police Department, the Riverside Police Department, the Chino Police Department, California Highway Patrol, the California Department of Corrections and the Riverside District Attorney’s Office.
Chief Keith L. Kilmer, San Bernardino Police Department, stated, “This type of investigation and enforcement activity between agencies involved shows all of our commitment to addressing narcotics and associated gang violence in our communities. The level of cooperation amongst the agencies involved has been very apparent and will help to ensure increasing safety for our residents.”
The San Bernardino GIT is one of three within the Inland Empire; two others are located in Chino and Palm Springs to address gang-related criminal activity in those areas. The FBI’s Safe Streets Task Force in Los Angeles is one of dozens of such task forces throughout the United States, funded for the purpose of assisting local police in identifying and addressing gang-related violent crime in America.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court.
Robert willie 562-941-0016
909-854-4682
323-259-9219
626-622-5271
2)john rodriguez 714-788-1257
3) Tanja 714-913-8787
4) baller tapia 562-479-6661
5)Dannyboy ssw 323-453-5551
6)Dan the man 323-547-4762
7)dannyboy 562-360-5523
8)dannyboy 562-868-1684
9)dannyboy 323-691-7270
10) dave vincent 562-697-4639
11) days Inn friend 562-712-4620
12) Dino lmp 562-665-1354
13) Dino n reaper 562-479-4332
14) Dino n reaper 562-547-1236
15) dub dub 714-785-2484
16)dub dub twin bro 714-723-8374
17)Eddie 562-587-5415
18)Edgar 714-329-2478
19)Erick hicks 562-237-9533
20)fatboy lmp 562-360-4436
21) frankie berganza 562-587-7134
22) Freddy 562-686-0588
23)grimmy 714-497-5622
24) hicks 562-315-6000
25) hicks 562-371-7565
26) Homeboy 562-536-7704
27) Homeboy 562-686-3267
28 ) Homeboy ind 323-526-1254
29)insane 562-313-8272
30)Jeff the man 760-662-9067
31) Jenny from the block 562-360-7865
32)john mcguire 562-324-1553
33) john tapia 562-947-8926
34) cook shards 626-240-3676
35) Largo 562-479-1379
36) lizzard 562-347-9976
37) lucky 562-968-9099
38) lucky 562-200-9391
39) Mario 562-360-8407
40) Mario 562-826-7217
41)mark tapia 562-846-0477
42)mark tapia 562-418-3064
43) mark tapia 562-536-8523
44) mark Vaught 562-616-4317
45) martin weirdo 714-989-7227
46) mike Benson 949-528-7291
47) mike casa 562-360-7500
48) mike risky 562-324-3614
49) mike swamp 562-458-1371
50)mike risky lmp 562-360-3690
562-360-3696
51) Molisa mo 714-366-5574
52) Mugsy 562-753-3811
53) Mugsy 562-467-3974
54) mumbles 562-946-1240
55) omar manuls brother 562-967-1576
56)old school Danny la Habra heights
562-536-3387
57)Peewee 562-325-0179
58) Peewee 562-686-9558
59) quiet 562-313-4257
60)quiet 562-392-2348
61) Ralphy 714-809-7301
562-328-1465
62)ray 562-324-8759
63) risky ssw 562-325-9155
562-846-5361
64)risky new 714-306-1390
65) Sean girrard 562-200-4365
66)Shmooo 562-500-2102
67)smoker 562-536-7698
68) Southbay 714-820-0230
69)sparks 626-476-5665
70)speedy 562-217-2079
71)speedy 562-420-7847
72)sporty 562-968-9093
73) Tavis mail out guy 760-351-6577
74)termite 562-242-8981
75) termite 714-312-9399
76)the wizard 949-630-1173
77) thumper 714-353-5179
78) tiffany 562-781-4429
79)tiffany 562-587-5978
80)tim 562-565-3797
562-565-3792
81) Tommy cv3 310-594-2445
82) Tony Cano 805-258-1510
83) Travis L 714-234-8493
84) turtle LM 562-536-8861
85) tuesday 562-371-5985
86) Venessa barron wonder woman frank- 562-321-3681
87)Venessa 562-321-3681
88) weirdo new 562-219-9545
89) Yoggie 562-677-5902
90)youngster 626-660-9946
91)Wachang yum 562-758-5413
92) Wejo 562-567-5562
93) Wednesday 562-412-2839
94) Wendy and lily Neff 562-404-1685
95)white gangster 714-369-5191
96)wildcat 562-552-2990
97)will 562-686-8053
98) willy 818-371-2594
99)wizard Ftt 562-619-5155
100)koi pounds equipment- 405-440-0000
101)Darcy 714-395-0439
102)yabball 562-479-2123
103)Zimmy 562-242-9539
104)beadljuice 562-285-8054
105) breaking bad Robby 562-686-1082
106)Aileen swartzel 562-443-2314
107)Aj 562-665-4950
108)alix tamecula bud 760-560-6972
109)Amy pixkie 562-773-2107
110)Angi 562-319-7746
111)Apc shipping Jeff Pont- 310-200-1181
112)apple Wizzz compt fix 562-283-8186
113)Artuo roomy rynardo 323-239-4119
114)Arturo baby 323-875-4819
115)Danna 619-347-3017
116)Anthany 619-520-2698
117)Donna 562-347-3017
118)magnum 714)516-0900
119) Baer hells angel 951-285-2239
120)Bbooobbby deep 562-204-9790
121)BC 562-686-7134
122) becks family plumbing 760-802-2275
123)beeny patty 562-665-9149
124)Bian golfer 714-913-5567
125) big kid well 562-881-8754
126)big mike 714-986-0277
127)big moma 562-567-5021
128)big popa 562-204-5700
129)big Steve again 562-245-6242
130)Billii use gas 951-303-7345
131) birdman 562-6964882
132)Blas 714-583-4216
133)blend and sand kurk 714-231-6160
134)Bo 949-612-4725
135) Bo and Trish 562-270-8230
136)Bo 949-610-6841
137)bobby boob 562-237-7913
138) bobby cuzon 760-885-5729
139)bobby gils 714-616-1208
140)rob carona 562-361-3376
141) brandales building 951-760-6794
142)brandon parker 909-238-3478
143)brandy Southside 951-491-3576
144)Brandy Southside 562-360-7041
145) Breanna 714-235-9769
146)Brettsky 562-665-9618
147)brian jobs 949-584-8731
158)brian macanic 818’641-2323
159)Brian requel 562-686-7134
160)Britany ss13 562-360-8378
161)Brits work 714-891-0717
162) Brittany Bunny562-371-5527
163)brook Armstrong 714-415-9082
164) brues 562-500-5993
165 )Bryan Kelly 562-321-8364
166)Btt DSnuggle 714-737-9886
167)bubbu 562-217-5846
168)bubbu Tony 562-658-8800
169)Buch worker Ramone 562-659-5365
170)Luise 562-480-5617
171)calif arbis 562-762-9099
172)Carhill gas pipe 323-724-6259
173)Carines 562-458-4520
174)Carlas and cris 69 mustang – 909-461-5737
175)Carlin big moma 562-639-8566
176)Carr hill comp 323-724-6087
177)Carriena 951-907-5005
178)Casto whahocka 562-944-1671
179)562-944-1671
180)Castos cuson 562-464-8413
181) Catline the boss 714-396-5069
182 )Charly 562-425-3246
183)chase riddle 562-587-0202
184) chelset 562-698-0058
185)Chhis hockins 562-208-9575
186)China 562-326-7870
187)Choi 714-675-3588
188)Chris biker 714-737-2507
189)Chris ddds buddy 562-333-1903
190)chis doter phone 714-330-7107
191)Chris hawken plast 714-981-4105
192)Chris mickelini 714-404-0131
193)Christos brother 562-762-6434
194)chubby hillbilly 562-325-9439
195)Chucky bboy rider 562-479-5305
196)clinic JD 949-200-0403
197)Clodeo man 626-277-1682
198)Clottio 714-851-2906
199)crazy house 562-697-3388
200)Crazzy eyes Ganga queen- 562-217-1404
201)cow bobdrt 562-237-8368
202)Curtuse 951 wood 951-805-5988
203)Affers 408-225-5087
204)Carlos 424-221-2627
205)cwp1 714-935-6203
206)cwp2 714-935-6940
207)coyoty club 714-994-7777
208)my dad apple 626-240-3676
209)Dan Lil man’s sis 714-248-4682
210)Dan the pool job guy 562-318-9038
211)Dana 562-328-4842
212)Daniel Staton 714-267-0700
213)danhhhooo 626-324-2725
214)Danny cannon and Kattie 562-544-5727
215)Danny saliess 562-943-2183
216)Dan the job man 562-506-4663
217)Dannyboys Vicky 949-395-5469
218)Debbiey doo 562-900-6619
219)Derick cwp italiona 562-537-5384
220)Dianne germ 562-713-1741
221) Dianne germ 562-753-1741
222)dodge 8700 714-369-6317
223)Dom 562-481-1338
224)Dominick 626-321-3672
225)don Newport 949-322-0666
226)Doneta Norwood 949-466-0588
227)Donyella mom 714-319-1372
228)downer 714-213-4257
229)Dr brues 951-265-7687
230)Dr Haland 562-458-1243
231) Ducko engineering walnut- 909-597-7414
232)dug dag dad 951-294-1167
233)dug hovis 951-506-9847
234)E mideo 562-360-8321
235)Erick rusle 562-631-1355
236)erick wood 562-237-6498
237)erica benedeto 520-907-1969
238)ericka 562-325-8787
239)erron runner 562-458-3003
240)express piper 562-698-7774
241)face 339-203-1173
242)face 6+6 562-631-4413
243)fat ic what are you doing 6 562-686-3267
244)Fatbois new 323-573-3129
245)fernando arroyo 562-448-4539
246)fernando 562-464-8584
247)flaka 562-781-8248
248)fernando auto body 951-250-4045
249)found puppy 562-319-3244
250)frank clinic 909-709-0950
251)frank San jaun connect- 929-412-4410
252)frank the tank 562-652-5434
253) frankie 562-340-5333
254)frankie berganza 562-587-7134
255)Freddy 562-686-0858
256)Fro rock bro 562-325-4963
257)Fuggy wa t11e 714-939-0518
258)Furley Supercross party 714-493-9561
259)gabby girl 714-335-1950
260)gabreal soya 562-201-0354
261)Gardenhill 562-944-6128
262)Garit hillbilly cop 951-326-9216
263)Garry ffucker 562-375-1556
264)gary AAA 714-468-8428
714-278-6897
265)gary and Karan 714-993-1238
266)gary Lamc 562-328-8693
267)gary PK 562-616-3783
268)Gavin sherts hat cars 714-862-3813
269)Geano 562-665-7722
270) Geico wood 562-237-8230
271) Geno 562-479-2631
272)George 562-281-3808
273) George blk taxi 562-220-8186
274)George refrigerator 562-881-5612
275)George smokey 562-261-7260
276)Georges friend 323-830-5864
277)Georges new 213-985-5308
278)Georges pad 562-803-0353
279)Georges smokey 562-391-6275
280) get it done wood 562-321-7092
281)GG 562-623-8802
282)GG 562-318-9588
283)giant vetmees 657-235-4321
284)giggles farm 714-717-0587
285)Gina Shantels 562-900-5101
286)Ginna 562-822-6733
287)Gino 562-246-4395
288)Gina Walter Farris 734-469-3486
289)Gino GGG 562-287-5419
290)Gino bro in law Charlie 951-348-9854
291)Gino’s temp 562-972-3392
292)GMA 714-523-3982
293) GMA XXX cell 714-318-8444
294)go daddy. Com Brian 480-505-8859
295) GOLD GUY 714-781-5700
296) gold west apoxy 949-689-6154
297)good year 714-731-0212
298)Gordan Sutter 310-628-2146
299) grant 714-240-2099
300)Greg Madison 714-523-3938
301) Greg spot 714-523-3937
302)Gteg Trans am 562-391-7800
303)hank bridgettes 661-212-2613
304)hawii janneen 808-385-0828
305)hawii singer 808-385-3651
306)Hayword jai O’neil 949-701-3205
307)heather Gotha 714-650-0530
308)heather Jeff 562-536-5752
309)Hellon 714-770-9408
310)Hether discount store 714-617-6509
311) home funishin larance armeo 714-479-8931
312)Homeboy big red truck 562-686-3267
313)Hommie whittier 13 562-200-4148
314)hoodlums cell 715-678-1933
714-420-1979
315)Hoodack 562-397-2987
316)Hayland Brea 714-990-6867
317)IMZZ Jim 562-905-0721
714-905-7721
318)insane 737 562-313-8271
319)Instafoam 909-591-7425
320)Iren 626-905-4848
321) investigator 909-214-5691
322)Irenes new 626-969-2941
323)Irenes other 626-969-2941
324) Israel glez 951-826-9922
951-534-8298
325)italiona contractor 626-221-6960
326)JJ 951-313-2040
327)Jane 562-587-0661
328) Janene wp 818-579-5413
329)Janene 562-991-9853
330) Jaramia wahocko 562-781-8234
331)Jason 562-587-6020
562-200-9109
332)714-732-1641
714-762-1641
333)Jason doogard 562-322-6784
334)Jason heartly 562-458-3792
335)Jason Joey 714-721-4402
714-365-7403
714-721-4402
714-365-7403
336)Jason LAD 714-561-3619
337) Jason Lisa 562-676-2818
338)Jason mongol phils 909-660-2600
339)Jason salazar 562-361-0165
340)Jay 562-318-6008
562-846-0477
341)Jay 562-318-6008
562-846-0477
342)Jay bird 909-267-5994
343)Jay liquor store 562-713-2277
344)Jay neighbors dad 310-421-6644
345)Jay red 714-522-1749
346)Jayhub 951-375-1722
347)J birds new 702-445-9908
310-912-3302
434-236-5855
348)Jeanette 323-947-6800
349)Jeff the man 760-662-9067
350)Jeff block yard bud 626-625-2359
351)Jeff Heather 714-349-7831
352)Jeff I can do it 714-696-4531
353)Jeff junior 562-746-7572
354) Jeff Tracy new 714-395-8745
562-943-0976
355)Jeff grandpa’s cell 562-665-0184
356)Jen 562-391-3880
357)jen wolfy 562-472-4868
358)janay 562-206-4217
359)jennifer atkinson 562-714-9631
360)jenny from the block 562-360-7865
361)jenny mom’s house 951-279-7215
362) Jeses Dom 562-944-6715
363) Jens nabor wha Chung 562-991-7031
364) Jeremy ledesma peepww 714-883-8523
365)Jesse 562-479-5562
714-228-0997
562-479-5562
714-228-9071
366)Jesse Doms new 714-497-5841
367) Jesse girl 562-479-5562
368)Jesse girl 714-228-9071
369) Jesse misty 714-228-9071
370) Jesse tattoo 562-479-5562
371) Jessica sharl 714-326-2414
372)Jessica weinbera 562-479-9280
373)Jessie family bud 951-282-9908
374)Jill 714-457-1799
375)Jill jack 626-533-6791
376) Jim baseball cards 714-724-8628
377)Tweety Lynnwood 562-282-7420
378) TV guy atheer 714-699-6962
379) Uncal donny cell 760-554-0959
380)Uncal jeef 951-204-3469
381)Uncal Wes 760-315-2918
382) Uncal shownesy 760-801-0194
383) uncle beans 562-360-7493
384) Uncal Jim 805-679-3312
385)Uncal Mike 323-568-7039
386)unicorn recycle 714-992-2562
387)union local 803 714-978-6232
388)us bank cards 562-691-4399
389)used cooking oil Bob 562-889-7780
390)Valdez 562-612-5346
391) Vance boxes 562-695-0408
392)vic Anthany LH trailer lambert 562-467-3513
393)Vicki Hanna 714-670-0166
714-670-9166
394) Victor salea 562-201-6585
395) Vitina Na poli 949-584-7812
LOS ANGELES—An investigation by the San Gabriel Valley Safe Streets Task Force resulted in the arrest of 16 of 27 defendants today who face federal narcotics charges for their roles in a methamphetamine distribution network, announced representatives from the agencies who jointly conducted the investigation at a press conference this morning.
The arrests this morning mark the culmination of an 16-month investigation by the San Gabriel Valley Safe Streets Gang Task Force, which is made up of agents and officers with the Pomona Police Department, Pasadena Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives were partners during this investigation and devoted a great deal of resources throughout the case.
A federal grand jury returned an indictment in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The indictment, which was unsealed this morning, charges a total of 27 defendants, several of whom were already in custody prior to today’s operation. The indictment outlines hundreds of overt acts that formed the basis for the conspiracy to manufacture, possess, and distribute large quantities of nearly pure methamphetamine.
The indictment charges the defendants for their roles in the distribution of methamphetamine, the possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine; for conspiring to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribution of methamphetamine; and maintaining drug-involved premises, all violations of the United States Code, Title 21. The defendants are listed below; some of the defendants are not fully identified at this time. Eight defendants are currently being sought by law enforcement.
Jose Juan Garcia Barron, 33, of OntarioMartin Barron Alcazar, of OntarioRudy Arma Jose Chavez Espinosa, 38, of Bloomington Jorge Luis Barron Zarate, of OntarioJose Maria Chavez, of Baldwin Park Danielle Lupian, of Ontario Jorge Ruelas, of Pomona Rudy Zepeda, 35, of Pomona Jose Alvarado, 24, of Pomona David Aguilar, of Pomona Sara Garrido, of Montclair Oscar Robles, of RialtoMiguel Saucedo, of Pomona Andres Yepez, 32, of Pomona Daniel Yepez, 28, of Pomona Pete LNU Christopher Alvarado, 36, of Pomona
The indictment details the roles of each defendant in the methamphetamine distribution conspiracy involving members and associates of the La Familial Michoacán drug trafficking organization (or LFM) and gang members associated with Los Amables and Westside Pomona Malditos gang members.
The indictment alleges that a main defendant, Jose Juan Garcia Barron, spent time between Los Angeles County and Mexico and controlled the importation of methamphetamine from Mexico to the United States, where it was sold on the streets of Los Angeles County by networks made up of local gang members or their associates, who pay taxes to the Mexican Mafia.
The drugs were imported in an unfinished or liquid state and were then converted for local distribution in a process known as or re-crystallization or “icing.” Investigators believe the drugs were imported by airplane, boats, and in vehicles crossing the border, and the quality of the methamphetamine was, in most cases, 99 percent pure. The defendants range from alleged cartel members to street gang members or associates whose activity fueled violence in the communities in which they operated.
In addition to today’s arrests, 13 search warrants were executed in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. During the execution of the search warrants, investigators found quantities of methamphetamine, white rock substances, various pills not yet identified, drug paraphernalia, and at least nine firearms. Searches are continuing throughout the morning.
The federal defendants arrested today are expected to make their initial court appearances this afternoon in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles. Many of the defendants face a 10-year statutory maximum penalty of life in prison, if convicted, and some of the defendants face life in prison, if convicted on all charges.
Several agencies participated in the execution of arrest and search warrants this morning, to include agents and officers with the Ontario Police Department, L.A. IMPACT, U.S. Immigration, Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations, and the Los Angeles Police Department.
This case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically moves another person without that other person’s consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Kidnapping may be done for ransom or political purpose or other purposes. Kidnapping can be of first degree or second degree. Kidnapping is a crime which is punishable upon successful prosecution.
False imprisonment, on the other hand, gives rise to a civil claim for damages. False imprisonment means the illegal confinement of one individual without his or her consent by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual’s right to be free from restraint of movement.
Compared with kidnapping, false imprisonment can be a relatively inoffensive, harmless restraint of another person. It is usually a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than an year in jail. An individual whose conduct constitutes the tort of false imprisonment might also be charged with committing the crime of kidnapping, since the same pattern of conduct may provide grounds for both. However, kidnapping may require that other facts be shown, such as the removal of the victim from one place to another.
An individual alleging false imprisonment may sue for damages for the interference with her or his right to move freely. Damages can be nominal or punitiv
– See more at: http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/kidnapping-v-false-imprisonment/#sthash.MtGrnDl5.dpuf
This is what la mirada sheriff deputy Neil done to me I said call the fbi with a methamphetamine ring already off the streets as a result of my federal crime report and with drug cartels already reported and then sage putt special conditions of probation saying not to communicate with la Habra police department and Fullerton police department and the city of la mirada so DPO Tom Byrd could do the same thing put me away for reporting drug cartels
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Eighteen Charged as a Result of Federal Investigation into Corruption and Civil Rights Abuses by Members of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Current and Former Deputies Charged with Federal Crimes, Including Illegal Beatings of Jail Inmates and Obstruction of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s OfficeDecember 09, 2013
Central District of California(213) 894-2434
WASHINGTON—Five criminal cases that charge a total of 18 current or one-time deputy sheriffs of various ranks were unsealed today as part of ongoing and wide-ranging FBI investigation into allegations of civil rights violations and corruption involving members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Four grand jury indictments and one criminal complaint allege crimes that include unjustified beatings of jail inmates and visitors at downtown Los Angeles jail facilities, unjustified detentions, and a conspiracy to obstruct a federal investigation into misconduct at the Men’s Central Jail.
Federal authorities announced the charges after 16 of the defendants were taken into custody earlier today. Those defendants are expected to be arraigned on the charges this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
“The five cases allege a wide scope of illegal conduct,” said U.S. Attorney André Birotte, Jr. of the Central District of California. “This investigation started by focusing on misconduct in county jails, and we uncovered examples of civil rights violations that included excessive force and unlawful arrests. Our investigation also found that these incidents did not take place in a vacuum—in fact, they demonstrated behavior that had become institutionalized. The pattern of activity alleged in the obstruction of justice case shows how some members of the Sheriff’s Department considered themselves to be above the law. Instead of cooperating with the federal investigation to ensure that corrupt law enforcement officers would be brought to justice, the defendants in this case are accused of taking affirmative steps designed to ensure that light would not shine on illegal conduct that violated basic constitutional rights.”
Bill Lewis, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, commented, “The defendants charged in this case are facing serious allegations, including violating the trust of the public they were sworn to serve. It is equally as important to point out that these charges should not reflect on the thousands of men and women of the Sheriff’s Department who proudly serve the citizens of Los Angeles County and who partner with the FBI in a variety of crime areas.”
This morning, FBI agents took into custody 16 of the 18 defendants named in four indictments and one criminal complaint. Most of the defendants were arrested at various LASD facilities.
The five cases, which are part of an ongoing investigation, were unsealed this morning.
United States v. Brunsting and Branum, CR13-573
Two deputy sheriffs—Bryan Brunsting and Jason Branum—are charged in a six-count indictment with civil rights violations and making false statements in reports. Brunsting, who was a training officer, is charged in relation to an incident in which an inmate allegedly was assaulted and suffered bodily injury. Both Brunsting and Branum are charged in another assault. The victims were inmates at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility, where both deputies worked. Following the two incidents, the indictment alleges that Brunsting used deputies he was training to file reports that covered up the abuse. This case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brandon Fox, Lizabeth A. Rhodes of the Central District of California, and Margaret Carter of the Civil Rights and Public Corruption Section.
United States v. Gonzalez, et al., CR13-574
This indictment charges a sergeant and four deputies with civil rights violations that allege they arrested or detained five victims—including the Austrian consul general—when they arrived to visit inmates at the Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) in 2010 and 2011.
The lead defendant in this indictment—Sergeant Eric Gonzalez, who was a supervisor in the MCJ visiting center but no longer works for LASD—fostered an atmosphere “that encouraged and tolerated abuses of the law, including through the use of unjustified force and unreasonable searches and seizures by deputy sheriffs he supervised,” according to the indictment.
Each of the four deputies—Sussie Ayala, Fernando Luviano, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge, and Noel Womack—is charged with participating in at least one of the four incidents in which victims allegedly suffered civil rights violations. In one incident, a man suffered a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder that has left him permanently disabled. In another incident, the Austrian consul general and her husband were handcuffed and detained.
This case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brandon Fox, Lizabeth A. Rhodes of the Central District of California, and Margaret Carter of the Civil Rights and Public Corruption Section.
United States v. Thompson, et al., CR13-819
This six-count indictment that alleges a broad conspiracy to obstruct justice charges seven sworn members of the LASD. This case developed when deputies assigned to the Men’s Central Jail—including Lieutenant Gregory Thompson, who oversaw LASD’s Operation Safe Jails Program, and Lieutenant Stephen Leavins, who was assigned to the LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau—learned that an inmate was an FBI informant and was acting as a cooperator in the FBI’s corruption and civil rights investigation.
After learning that the inmate received a cellular phone from a deputy sheriff who took a bribe and that the inmate was part of a civil rights investigation, those allegedly involved in the obstruction scheme took affirmative steps to hide the cooperator from the FBI and the United States Marshals Service, which was attempting to bring the inmate to testify before a federal grand jury in response to an order issued by a federal judge. As part of the conspiracy, the deputies allegedly altered records to make it appear that the cooperator had been released. They then re-booked the inmate under a different name and then told the cooperator that he had been abandoned by the FBI.
Over the course of several weeks, the deputy sheriffs allegedly also attempted to obtain an order from a Los Angeles Superior Court judge that would have compelled the FBI to turn over information about its investigation to LASD. After the judge refused to issue such an order, according to the indictment, two LASD sergeants who are charged in this case nevertheless confronted an FBI special agent at her residence in an attempt to intimidate her into providing details about the investigation. The sergeants falsely told the special agent and her supervisor that they were obtaining a warrant for her arrest, according to the indictment.
Thompson no longer works for LASD. The other deputies named in this indictment are Gerard Smith, Mickey Manzo, and James Sexton, who were assigned to the Operation Safe Jails Program; and Scott Craig and Maricella Long, who were LASD sergeants within the Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau.
This case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brandon Fox, Lizabeth A. Rhodes of the Central District of California, and Margaret Carter of the Civil Rights and Public Corruption Section.
United States v. Piquette, CR13-821
Deputy Richard Piquette is charged in the fourth indictment with illegally building and possessing an assault rifle. The indictment charges Piquette with possessing an unregistered Noveske Rifleworks N-4 .223 caliber rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches. The second count in the indictment charges Piquette with manufacturing the Noveske rifle. Piquette, who is currently on leave with LASD, was previously assigned to the Twin Towers Correctional Facility. The investigation in this case was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lane Dilg of the Civil Rights and Public Corruption Section.
United States v. Khounthavong, et al., 13-3105M
The fifth case unsealed today is a criminal complaint that charges three LASD deputies, all of whom are brothers, with conspiracy to make false statements to two banks in connection with a “buy-and-bail” mortgage fraud scheme. The complaint alleges that the three deputies—Billy Khounthavong, Benny Khounthavong, and Johnny Khounthavong—made false statements and reports to Flagstar Bank to purchase a 3,900-square-foot residence in Corona. The brothers then made additional false statements and reports to Bank of America in relation to another large residence they owned. The brothers walked away from—or “bailed” on—that home in which they were “under water,” meaning they owed substantially more than the residence was worth. As a result of the scheme, the brothers allegedly avoided more than $340,000 of unpaid mortgage debt. Benny Khounthavong and Johnny Khounthavong are assigned to LASD jail facilities. This case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Margaret.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
The five cases announced today are part of an ongoing investigation being conducted by the FBI.
This content has been reproduced from its original sourc
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
A body that monitors the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department released a report Thursday finding the department has made progress in how it handles discipline and inmate abuse allegations.
The Office of Independent Review (OIR), headed by Michael Gennaco, has issued annual reports on the sheriff’s department each year for the past decade. The reports generally focus on issues of discipline, transparency, and use-of-force by deputies.
In 2013, the OIR noted progress on a number of fronts, including the installation of security cameras in downtown L.A. jails. It comes after many hiccups, including a flooded storage room that destroyed months worth of video footage.
It also praised the ramping up of internal discipline in the department. In 2013, the sheriff’s department fired 93 employees, which is more than double the number fired in any recent year.
The report also contained some admonitions. The OIR said issues with alcohol related misconduct by off-duty sheriff’s personnel remains a significant issue, even though the amount of incidents has gone down. The report also highlighted sexual misconduct by employees, potentially preventable deputy-involved shootings, and the department’s policy of alerting defense attorneys to deputy misbehavior.
Here are some highlights from the report, which is posted, in full below.
Cameras in the jails
One of the biggest accomplishments in the past year is getting security camera systems functioning in Men’s Central Jail and Twin Towers Correctional Facility, both in downtown L.A., the OIR said. The cameras are playing a major role in both exonerating and disciplining deputies accused of abusing inmates.
“The Department now has a video record of 90% of force incidents in its downtown jails and is no longer completely reliant on ‘observations’ of inmates and jail deputies to try to figure out what has occurred,” the report said.
They add that while: “no system is perfect, the success of the cameras causes us to question why it took so long to heed our requests for this technology.”
The OIR recommended the department make installing video surveillance in the county’s other jails a top priority. They also recommend considering increasing the quality of the video surveillance from 10 frames per second to 20-30 frames per second.
Brady policy
In court, attorneys generally have the right to call the testimony of a witness into question by pointing out past behaviors that may discredit the witness. This applies to law enforcement witnesses as well. (The rule is based on a 1963 Supreme Court ruling in the case Brady v. Maryland.)
Different counties interpret this rule differently, but generally, any local jurisdiction will keep a “Brady list” of law enforcement officers that’s shared with prosecutors, who then report any witness on the list, if relevant to the case, to the defense team.
The OIR’s report says the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department’s Brady list should include more deputies. At the moment, it says, deputies who are disciplined internally through the administrative process for “founded allegations involving moral turpitude or dishonesty,” aren’t being automatically turned over to prosecutors and defense attorneys. The OIR says the sheriff’s department and the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office are working on a new policy.
Alcohol-related misconduct
The OIR reports that while a lot of progress has been made on getting DUI’s under control, there was an uptick in the number of employees arrested for DUI in 2012, after a five-year low in 2011. In 2013, for which the OIR has data through October, DUI’s are down to 13 (there were 34 by that time in 2012).
Treatment of jail visitors
This is a particularly sensitive issue after four deputies and one sergeant were indicted on federal charges for allegedly abusing visitors to Men’s Central Jail. The report declines to delve into the pending charges, but takes a look at changes to the visiting area since the alleged incidents occurred.
First, the OIR notes that since they became aware of a large number of visitors being arrested for having cell phones in a non-secure area of the jail, they pointed out the issue out to a jail captain and the arrests have stopped.
The captain also installed video surveillance cameras in the visiting area and there were no reports of use of force on jail visitors in 2013.
Deputy-involved shootings
After a spike in 2012, deputy-involved shootings declined somewhat in 2013. In 2012, there were 51; in 2013 there were 44.
The OIR looked closely at five deputy-involved shootings that while legal, resulted in discipline. Four involved foot pursuits where deputies made questionable tactical decisions. The fifth involved a mentally-ill woman and the deputy was taken off patrol pending training on how to deal with people in a mental health crisis.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Color of Law Violations
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
In 2014, FBI cases led to 72 indictments for color of law violations.
Excessive force;Sexual assaults;False arrest and fabrication of evidence;Deprivation of property; andFailure to keep from harm.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
In 2014, FBI cases lead to 72 indictments for violating color of law.
Filing a Complaint
To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI officeby telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:
All identifying information for the victim(s);As much identifying information as possible regarding the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;Date and time of incident;Location of incident;Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);A complete chronology of events; andAny report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.
You may also contact the United States Attorney’s Office in your district or send a written complaint to:
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.
Civil Applications
While the FBI does not investigate civil violations, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions;Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;Lack of, or improper training of, officers; andCitizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.
Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
Report Civil Rights Violations
Contact Your Local FBI OfficeSubmit a Tip
Visit Our Victim Assistance Site
Resources
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law StatutePrinciples for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)Addressing Police MisconductConduct of Law Enforcement Agencies
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
2 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:0 0 COME NOW MICHAEL RATHBUN ( Rathbun ) and JAMES SEXTON ( Sexton ) (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs ) who demand a jury trial, and seek monetary compensation against Defendants, as follows: I. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Competent subject matter jurisdiction and venue exist, in whole or in part, pursuant to the following federal statutes: A. U.S.C. ; B. Federal Civil Rights Jurisdiction: U.S.C. () – (); C. Federal Question Jurisdiction: U.S.C. ; D. Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction: U.S.C. (b); and E. Federal General Venue: U.S.C. (b).. Plaintiffs allege that compliance with California Government Code 00, et seq., is preempted by invocation of Federal Question Jurisdiction U.S.C., and application of Williams v. Horvath, Cal.rd (), and County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, Cal. App. th (00). Plaintiffs have alleged claims for relief arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.. At all times herein, Plaintiff MICHAEL RATHBUN was a resident of the State of California. At all times herein, Plaintiff JAMES SEXTON was a resident of the State of California. Plaintiffs addresses are confidential pursuant to the California Penal Code. Plaintiffs are peace officers with the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a component of defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.. At all times mentioned herein, defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (hereafter also COUNTY ) was a public entity duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.. On or about April,, Rathbun filed a government claim with the County of Los Angeles. A true and correct copy of the County s Government Claim is First Amended Complaint Page —
3 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 attached hereto as Exhibit “. On or about April,, Rathbun filed a government claim with the California Labor Commissioner. A true and correct copy of the Labor Commissioner s Government Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit “.. Similarly, on or about April,, Sexton filed a government claim with the County of Los Angeles. A true and correct copy of the County s Government Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit “. On or about April,, Sexton filed a government claim with the California Labor Commissioner. A true and correct copy of the Labor Commissioner s Government Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit “.. On or about April,, Rathbun filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing and received an immediate right to sue letter. A true and correct copy of the DFEH Complaint and Right to Sue Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “.. On or about April,, Sexton filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing and received an immediate right to sue letter. A true and correct copy of the DFEH Complaint and Right to Sue Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “. On or about August,, Sexton filed a supplemental complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing and received an immediate right to sue letter. A true and correct copy of the DFEH Complaint and Right to Sue Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “. II. PARTIES. At all times relevant herein, defendant LEROY BACA (hereafter also BACA ) was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, and Sheriff of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and an employee, agent and representative of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendant was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a sheriff, and/or policy maker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles. First Amended Complaint Page —
4 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0. At all times relevant herein, defendant PAUL TANAKA (hereafter also TANAKA ) was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, and Undersheriff of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and an employee, agent and representative of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendant was acting within the course and scope of his employment as an Undersheriff, and/or policy maker of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant GREG THOMPSON (hereafter also THOMPSON ), and DOES through were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, lieutenants, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant PERKINS (hereafter also PERKINS ), and DOES through were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, detectives, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles. First Amended Complaint Page —
5 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0. At all times relevant herein, defendant MICHAEL CAMACHO (hereafter also CAMACHO ) and DOES through, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, detectives, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant MATTHEW THOMPSON (hereafter also THOMPSON ) and DOES 0 through, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, detectives, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant MICKEY MANZO (hereafter also MANZO ) and DOES through, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, detectives, First Amended Complaint Page —
6 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant GERARD SMITH (hereafter also SMITH ) and DOES through, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, lieutenants, detectives, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department (hereinafter also LASD ) and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as deputies, detectives, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles.. At all times relevant herein, defendant LEROY BACA was Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department sheriff and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of BACA as alleged herein occurred during BACA s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department sheriff or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department sheriff or was made possible solely because of his position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputy.. At all times relevant herein, defendant PAUL TANAKA was Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department undersheriff and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of TANAKA as alleged herein occurred during TANAKA s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department Undersheriff or occurred under the First Amended Complaint Page —
7 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department Undersheriff or was made possible solely because of his position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputy. Plaintiff further alleges that TANAKA acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, and Sheriff Leroy Baca.. At all times relevant herein, defendant GREG THOMPSON, and DOES through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of THOMPSON, and DOES through as alleged herein occurred during THOMPSON s, and DOES through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that THOMPSON, and DOES through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, and Undersheriff Paul Tanaka.. At all times relevant herein, defendant PERKINS, and DOES through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department detectives and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of PERKINS, and DOES through as alleged herein occurred during PERKINS, and DOES through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department detectives or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department detectives or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s First Amended Complaint Page —
8 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that PERKINS, and DOES through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, and possibly Undersheriff Paul Tanaka.. At all times relevant herein, defendant MICHAEL CAMACHO, and DOES through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of CAMACHO, and DOES through as alleged herein occurred during CAMACHO s, and DOES through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that CAMACHO, and DOES through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, and possibly also Undersheriff Paul Tanaka.. At all times relevant herein, defendant MATTHEW THOMPSON, and DOES 0 through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of THOMPSON, and DOES 0 through as alleged herein occurred during THOMPSON s, and DOES 0 through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that First Amended Complaint Page —
9 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 THOMPSON, and DOES 0 through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, and Lt. Greg Thompson. Baca as the Sheriff is the ultimate decision maker.. At all times relevant herein, defendant MICKEY MANZO, and DOES through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of MANZO, and DOES through as alleged herein occurred during MANZO s, and DOES through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that MANZO, and DOES through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, and Lt. Greg Thompson.. At all times relevant herein, defendant GERARD SMITH, and DOES through were Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct and actions of SMITH, and DOES through as alleged herein occurred during SMITH s, and DOES through ‘s normal working hours as Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department deputies or occurred under the pretense that either was acting as a Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department lieutenants or were made possible solely because of their position as a Los Angeles First Amended Complaint Page —
10 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 Page ID #: 0 County Sheriff s Department deputies. Plaintiff further alleges that SMITH, and DOES through acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, Sheriff Leroy Baca, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, and Lt. Greg Thompson.. At all times relevant herein, defendants DOES through, were residents of the County of Los Angeles, and were Sheriff s deputies, sergeants, detectives, captains, lieutenants, sheriffs, and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department and employees, agents and representatives of the County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant hereto, said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as officers, sergeants, captains and sheriffs, policy makers, and/or civilian employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department, a department and subdivision of defendant County of Los Angeles. At all times relevant herein, said defendants were acting under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices and usages of defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, its sheriff s department and/or the State of California.. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOE defendants through, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff s injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by the acts and/or omissions of said fictitiously named defendants. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated First Amended Complaint Page -0-
11 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.. At all relevant times herein, Rathbun has been a deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department ( LASD ). Rathbun followed in his father s footsteps, a retired -year LASD veteran. 0. At all relevant times herein, Sexton has been a deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department ( LASD ). Sexton s father is presently a chief at LASD and a former sheriff in Alabama.. On or about October 0, Sexton was assigned to Operation Safe Jails ( OSJ ).. On or about July, Rathbun was assigned to Operation Safe Jails ( OSJ ).. The primary role of OSJ is gang intelligence gathering with the objective of preventing facility violence between rival gangs, inmates of different races, and the influence of prison gangs on the inmate population.. OSJ provides facility and division executives with updated information regarding ongoing trends which affect day-to-day operations of the facilities; thereby, allowing executives to make informed decision. OSJ is recognized as a leader in providing gang intelligence to the law enforcement community.. Specifically, Rathbun and Sexton turned inmates into informants, looking for tips on crimes and gang activity inside the nation’s largest jail system. Further, Rathbun and Sexton specialized in dealing with white supremacy jail gangs.. While at OSJ, the unit supervisor was Lt. Greg Thompson. Moreover, OSJ members were told that the unit was one of Assistant Sheriff/Undersheriff Paul Tanaka s operations. Thus, OSJ members were informed that if any issues ever arose, Tanaka s door was always open. On information and belief, Tanaka was kept abreast of all OSJ matters and operations. Baca as the Sheriff would oversee, approve, authorize and ratify any actions by Tanaka. First Amended Complaint Page —
12 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:00 0. On or about August, Lt. Thompson ordered Rathbun, Sexton, and other members of OSJ to transfer and hide a specific inmate, Anthony Brown.. Rathbun and Sexton learned that the inmate was being hidden from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Brown was an FBI informant, tasked with reporting misconduct and any wrongdoing by LASD in the jails. On information and belief, the order to hide Anthony Brown came from Sheriff Baca and Undersheriff Tanaka in an effort to obstruct a federal investigation. Based on information and belief, the actions of Tanaka were under the direction and command of Baca.. Increasingly, Thompson ordered OSJ to engage in activities meant to keep the FBI out of the jails. In fact, discussions were held about wiring interview rooms when FBI agents or informants were present. On information and belief, Thompson was carrying out the directives of Sheriff Baca and Undersheriff Tanaka. 0. During this period, Rathbun and Sexton were under significant emotional distress as they began to realize the LASD was attempting to thwart federal investigations, obstruct justice, and commit various violations of state and federal law.. To cope with the intense pressure, Rathbun began to develop a dependency on alcohol. In late, Rathbun informed his superiors about his problems. The OSJ superiors voiced their support for Rathbun, but failed to provide further intervention as would be common under the practices of the Sheriff s Department.. On or about February, an informant told Rathbun and Sexton that Deputy Joseph Britton, who was assigned to Men s Central Jail, was engaged in illegal behavior in association with a powerful white gang member (while on-duty and using his powers as a law enforcement official), who was in charge of illicit activity at MCJ. Rathbun and Sexton provided a confidential intelligence memorandum to Lt. Thompson. Moreover, Rathbun had the powerful white gang member moved to high-powered housing.. On the same day, Sexton provided Thompson with an analogous memorandum First Amended Complaint Page —
13 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:0 0 about another prison official, Remington Orr, and improper association with a prison gang.. A few days later, Rathbun followed up with Lt. Thompson about the memorandum. Thompson informed Rathbun that he showed the memorandum to Deputy Britton and inquired whether the allegations were true.. The memorandum was unredacted and thus, Britton was informed about Rathbun and Sexton s identities as well as the identity of the informant. Thompson had intentionally placed Rathbun, Sexton, and the informant in danger.. On information and belief, Thompson showed Britton the memorandum in order to intimidate, coerce and threaten Rathbun and Sexton as well as give Britton the heads up and thus, permit Britton to cover-up any illegal activity. Further, the defendants intended (based on information and belief for this to cause the plaintiffs threats, intimidation, or coercion in violation of Civ. Code,., subds. (a)-(b) and other State and Federal Civil Rights Statutes. The plaintiffs did suffer intimidation, coercion and threats and were harmed thereby. In contrast to established policy, procedures, rules and customs, Thompson forwarded the Orr memo to ICIB, which ensnared Orr in a narcotics sting. Subsequently, Orr was terminated.. Britton and Orr were treated completely different. While Orr is black, Britton is Caucasian. The disparate treatment of deputies within the unit based on protected characteristics was common. For instance, Deputy Manzo sent a racially derogatory email to all members of OSJ, which ridiculed African-Americans. Lt. Thompson did nothing and LASD swept the issue under the rug. The department had a policy, practice and custom of allowing racial comments and disparate treatment based on protected characteristics. Sheriff Baca told a television audience that when deputies complained about harassment, instead, they should man up. Baca also kept what Undersheriff Tanaka referred to as a hit list of officers that would not First Amended Complaint Page —
14 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:0 0 be promoted, based on characteristics such as age. Baca made a joke to many members of the command staff ridiculing older LASD employees. He made a joke about Latino s and he referred to the Hollywood Jew money when meeting with one of his Captains. (The Plaintiffs are both Jewish.) Defendants also have impliedly admitted discrimination based on race, national origin, age and other protected characteristics.. However, after Plaintiffs complained to insiders and outsiders about the incident, LASD decided to begin an investigation because of scrutiny. Nevertheless, Manzo and other LASD personnel harassed and retaliated against Plaintiffs. 0. News of Rathbun and Sexton s confidential memorandum was disseminated throughout the jail system by Thompson and other LASD personnel. Rathbun and Sexton were now referred to as snitches by LASD deputies and officials. Once again, referring to employees who complain as snitches is so common in the LASD as to constitute a pattern practice, custom and policy. Other Deputies who complained include Moffett who even had a gun pulled on him. Another deputy who complained had a picture of his face in a rat trap at the department. Deputies would have dines placed by their lockers to represent dropping a dime which referred to deputies that made a phone call to report wrong doing. Rats, snitches, stool pigeons and dropping the dime were all words for officers who broke the code of silence.. Additionally, LASD deputies and officials began to use inmates against Rathbun and Sexton. An inappropriate relationship exists between certain LASD personnel and various inmate jail gangs, especially white supremacist groups and the Mexican Mafia. LASD personnel use these jail gangs as proxies or agents to retaliate against other LASD deputies and inmates. Within these inappropriate alliances, the gangs are given certain privileges that they are otherwise legally precluded from. Similarly, the gangs provide LASD personnel with certain benefits, which include First Amended Complaint Page —
15 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:0 0 carrying out certain tasks on behalf of LASD personnel. Thus, these gangs often act under color of law because of powers delegated or provided by LASD.. In late February, Sexton was corned in the OSJ office. Two OSJ deputies told Sexton in an intimidate, coercive and threatening manner that he and Rathbun better shut up or else about the Britton matter. Both deputies were on-duty, and in department uniform. Officially, LASD deputies are not permitted to wear their firearms in certain parts of jail facilities. On information and belief, the deputies were following orders from Lt. Thompson, Sheriff Baca and/or Undersheriff Tanaka to intimidate and/or silence Sexton and Rathbun.. The OSJ team at Men s Central Jail refused to work or cooperate with Rathbun and Sexton. In fact, MCJ deputies accused Rathbun of fucking up their program by moving the powerful white gang member from MCJ. At all relevant times, certain members of OSJ associated with, and cooperated with, certain jail gangs, including partaking in illicit activities. Sheriff Baca and/or Undersheriff Tanaka knew or should have known about these improper relationships, but took no action to stop it and implicitly ratified the improper conduct. Based on information and belief, illegal activities involving gangs and deputies were reported to Baca directly who then took no action to discipline the deputies, pursue criminal charges or otherwise correct the situation.. Soon thereafter, Rathbun and Sexton s informant was moved without their consent. The informant was moved out of protective custody and into the general population. Consequently, the informant s life was placed in serious jeopardy. After Rathbun and Sexton interceded, the MCJ OSJ team had no answer as to why the informant was moved out of protective custody. Subsequently, Sexton was informed that Lt. Thompson ordered the move of the informant after Rathbun and Sexton s confidential memorandum. On information and belief, Thompson wanted to neutralize the informant by providing white First Amended Complaint Page —
16 Case :-cv-0-jfw-e Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #:0 0 supremacy gangs with access to him. Moreover, Thompson intended to send Rathbun and Sexton a message to intimidate, coerce and threaten the plaintiffs that bad things would happen (i.e., physical or bodily harm) if Rathbun and Sexton did not backtrack or drop the Britton matter. Sheriff Baca and/or Undersheriff Tanaka knew or should have known about Thompson s actions. On information and belief, Sheriff Baca and/or Undersheriff Tanaka supported and ratified Thompson s misconduct. Furthermore, Baca was provided with an email from a current commander through the chain of command (excluding Undersheriff Tanaka) which told him specifically of issues involving the plaintiffs.. On or about March, Sexton conducted an interview of a suspect at LASD custody facilities. Besides members of LASD and the inmate, no one else was present. The interview somehow ended up on YouTube. Sexton s identity was publicly disclosed and thus, his well-being placed in jeopardy. OSJ deputies are often at risk because jail gangs and connected outside criminal organizations target deputies for retribution. The reason for this was to threaten, coerce and intimidate the plaintiffs in retaliation for their whistleblowing activities.. Sexton asked Lt. Thompson to investigate the incident, but Thompson replied that Sexton should forget about it. Thompson took no action or any investigation about how an in-custody interview found its way on the internet. On information and belief, LASD personnel, including but not limited to Lt. Thompson, leaked the interview in order to further intimidate Rathbun and Sexton.. On or about April, Sexton received a phone call from the LA Times on a confidential work phone seeking information about Sexton, Rathbun, and various issues. Sexton reported the contact to Lt. Leavins, who headed a second unit involved in the Brown matter. Subsequently, Lt. Thompson learned that the LA Times was contacting Sexton. Thompson regularly interrogated Sexton about media contacts. Thompson informed Sexton that if either he or Rathbun spoke to the press, First Amended Complaint Page —
View again
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest Ave
Fullerton CA 92833
Famous Psychopaths
Society & Culture
72K+
216
Psychopaths have long been a greatly intriguing topic for many people across the world, regardless of their occupation. What makes them so interesting is that outwardly they seem like perfectly normal members of society, around whom others would feel comfortable and to whom may sometimes even be drawn to. However, deep within them rests the tendency to act out in unexpected ways that can often be aggressive and volatile. At times, such actions can also lead to criminal behavior, but this may not always be the case. Their unusual patterns of thinking are what make them so very diplomatic, calculating and dangerous at the same time.
However, when talking of psychopaths, it is important to avoid confusing and comparing them with people who exhibit antisocial behavior in general: the former category refers to people with a clinical problem. Unfortunately, though, they are typically unresponsive to most known treatment methodologies.
Ten Famous Psychopaths in History That Make You Scared
Here, we have prepared for you a list of psychopaths, including some of the most famous psychopaths in recorded history.
1Gary M. Heidnik (November 22, 1943 – July 6, 1999)
Gary M. Heidnik had a cellar where he held six young women captive. He would sexually abuse them and torture them in front of each another, or sometimes together. At night, he would throw them into a ditch and fill it with heavy sharp objects. During the day, he would take them out of the ditch and put them through horrific pain and abuse. He fed them dog food and eventually stored their limbs in a freezer, where he labeled them as dog food. It was also discovered that after killing a woman, he cooked her head and ribs.
2Jeffrey Dahmer (May 21, 1960 – November 20, 1994)
Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested by the police who found several human skulls and corpses in his house. He captured and killed 15 young men, some of whom he would rape and then store in containers filled with acid. It was also discovered that Jeffrey practiced cannibalism and would eat the flesh and organs of his victims. He was cleared as being sane and was thus found guilty of 15 murders. He was consequently sentenced to life imprisonment.
3Ted Bundy (November 24, 1946 – January 24, 1989)
Bundy is one of the first names mentioned whenever the topic of psychopaths arises. A handsome man with an attractive personality, it later turned out that he had killed at least 30 women by the time he was finally executed at 43 years of age. This was a sad case because Ted began his series of murders of young women immediately after he broke up with his girlfriend. Most of these women shared one thing in common: they resembled his ex-girlfriend in one way or another. Ted, too, was a necrophile who abused the bodies of his victims until they began to rot.
4Edward Theodore Gein (August 27, 1906 – July 26, 1984)
Edward Gein was an American man who the police suspected of having been involved in the murder of a woman named Bernice Worden. On searching through his house for any possible evidence, they made a startling discovery. They saw a woman’s body hung upside down and slashed right down the center. They later discovered that Edward would dig up freshly buried bodies to create disturbingly odd things from their skin and bones, such as clothing and furniture. He was put on trial and declared not guilty due to being mentally insane.
5Joseph Mengele (March 16, 1911 – February 7, 1979)
Joseph Mengele, a medical doctor by profession, is responsible for the death of possibly hundreds of thousands of men; he is commonly referred to as the “Angel of Death”. When he was working at Nazi concentration camps, he would order the killing of all those people who were unfit for labor. At the same time, he selected other victims for the purpose of performing inhumane medical experiments, which would more than often result in prisoners’ painful deaths.
6Albert Fish (May 19, 1870 – January 16, 1936)
Albert Fish is known by many names, including “The Bogey Man”, “The Brooklyn Vampire” and “Moon Maniac”. This is mostly because of his violent, sadistic behavior: he sexually assaulted young boys for twenty years before progressing on to serial killing sprees. Fish was a sadomasochist; he enjoyed inflicting and receiving pain for sexual excitement. He created many torture instruments, such as whips with sharp nails – a device that he called his “Instruments from Hell”. He preferred to put his victims through indescribably painful deaths, as opposed to killing them quickly.
7Earle Nelson (May 12, 1897 – January 13, 1928)
No list of famous psychopaths can be complete without Earle Nelson, who is also known as “The Gorilla Killer”. It is said that his behavior became immensely erratic after he was hit by a car at the age of ten when he sustained major injuries. It was in his twenties that he began exhibiting sexual violence towards women, and then he began strangling and killing women. He mostly targeted landladies by posing as a potential tenant. Once the victims were dead, he would indulge in necrophilia, discard the bodies in their houses and then disappear until he found a new victim.
8Bela Kiss (1877 – ?)
Bela Kiss is a slightly lesser known Hungarian serial killer who killed 24 young women. A search of his room revealed a private room that contained Kiss’ letters to 74 women and several books about poisoning and strangling people. Also found in his house were large containers in which tortured and strangled women were found in a pickling liquid.
9Micajah Harpe (1768? – August 1799) & Wiley Harpe (1770? – February 8, 1804)
The Harpe brothers are considered to be the first serial killers of America. Allegedly, they began their killing spree when they first murdered a man, cut him open, filled his insides with rocks, and then threw him into a river. The thing that distinguishes the Harpe brothers from other serial killers is that almost anything could set them off: their impulsivity was frightening. One of the brothers actually killed his own baby daughter by smashing her head into a tree trunk because her crying bothered him.
10Elizabeth Bathory (August 7, 1560 – August 21, 1614)
Elizabeth Bathory is perhaps amongst the most famous psychopaths as far as females go. She is notoriously known for the brutal serial killing of hundreds of girls and women. She was a countess that belonged to the Bathory noble family of Hungary during the late 1500s. Though unconfirmed, it is said that she killed up to 650 women, who she would also mutilate and torture, for that she believed that blood from virgin can keep her skin forever young. There were more than 300 witnesses who were willing to testify against her, but she remained safe due to the position and power that her family retained in society.
ANY IDEAS ABOUT THIS TOPIC?
Phil SpectorMay.24 06:25
Dude I think this is a list of some sick people that’s for sure….
TomApr.25 23:23
This is a list of famous serial killers, not necessarily psychopaths; sadomasochism, for example, is often distinct from psychopathy.
View All Comments /Add Comment
Related Articles
Top 10 Famous Vam…Famous OutlawsFamous SuicidesFamous SpiesSerial Killers
Lucas
Age:1014 Archangel
On EnkiVillage over 1 years
Too much color blinds the eye, Too much music deafens the ear, Too much taste dulls the palate, Too much play madd…
Author Profile
Hot Topics of the Week
How To Control Your Husband
183
How To Catch A Cheater
129
How To Choose Your Life Partner
78
Home
Terms Of Use
About EnkiVillage
How To Write
FOLLOW US :
All texts are contributed by our excellent writers. Powered by enkivillage.com.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Home • Stats & Services • Reports and Publications • Serial Murder
Serial Murder
View printable version (pdf)
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
Critical Incident Response Group
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Editor
Robert J. Morton
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Co-Editor
Mark A. Hilts
Unit Chief
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Contributors
Leonard G. Johns
Unit Chief
Behavioral Analysis Unit-3
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Timothy G. Keel
Major Case Specialist
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Steven F. Malkiewicz
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
James J. McNamara
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Kirk R. Mellecker
Major Case Specialist (Retired)
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mary Ellen O’Toole
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
David T. Resch
Unit Chief
Behavioral Analysis Unit-1
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mark Safarik
Supervisory Special Agent (Retired)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Armin A. Showalter
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Rhonda L. Trahern
Supervisory Special Agent
Behavioral Analysis Unit-2
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Table of Contents
Message from the Director
Acknowledgments
Foreword
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
I. Introduction
II. Definition of Serial Murder
III. Causality and the Serial Murderer
IV. Psychopathy and Serial Murder
V. Motivations and Types of Serial Murder: The Symposium Model
VI. Investigative Issues and Best Practices
VII. Forensic Issues in Serial Murder Cases
VIII. Prosecution of Serial Murder Cases
IX. Media Issues in Serial Murder Investigations
X. Issues Regarding Talking Heads in the Media
Epilogue
Appendix A: Symposium Agenda
Appendix B: Serial Murder Symposium Working Group
Appendix C: Symposium Attendees
Message from Director Mueller
Every day, law enforcement officers across America are called to respond to murders. Each homicide case is tragic, but there are few cases more heartrending and more difficult to understand than serial murder.
For years, law enforcement investigators, academics, mental health experts, and the media have studied serial murder, from Jack the Ripper in the late 1800s to the sniper killings in 2002, and from the “Zodiac Killer” in California to the “BTK Killer” in Kansas. These diverse groups have long attempted to understand the complex issues related to serial murder investigations. Until the Serial Murder Symposium, however, there had been few attempts to reach a consensus on some of these issues.
This monograph presents the findings and collective wisdom of a multidisciplinary group of experts, who brought their individual experience and insights to the same table. Our hope is that it will give you new ideas and new resources as you continue your important work.
The FBI is committed to contributing to the understanding of these horrific acts. The FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime stands ready to assist our state, local, and international partners. We believe the best way to combat any threat — be it terrorism, gang violence, or serialmurder — is to combine our knowledge and resources with those of our partners, and to work as a team. I am grateful for the partnerships that helped spur this symposium, and for the partnerships that were formed as a result.
I deeply appreciate the work that went into this publication. I would like to thank all those who participated for their willingness to share their dedication, time and expertise. I believe it will be invaluable to our collective ability to understand, respond to, and hopefully prevent, serial murder.
Robert S. Mueller, III
Acknowledgments
The NCAVC would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals, without whose efforts the Symposium and this monograph would not have been possible:
• The members of the Serial Murder Symposium Working Group, for their assistance in planning the Symposium. The names of these individuals are listed in Appendix B.
• The Symposium attendees, for their generous sharing of time and expertise in the area of serial murder. The names of these individuals are listed in Appendix C.
• Pamela Hairfield and Wilma Wulchak, Management and Program Analysts, FBI, NCAVC, for their skill, dedication, and perseverance in successfully handling the countless administrative tasks associated with the Symposium.
• Cristie Dobson, Management and Program Assistant, FBI, NCAVC, for her talent and time spent copyediting this document and for her work on the cover art.
• Assistant Director Michael J. Wolf (retired) and Executive Assistant Director J. Stephen Tidwell for their support of this project and for their willingness to dedicate the resources necessary for its successful completion.
Foreword
The topic of serial murder occupies a unique niche within the criminal justice community. In addition to the significant investigative challenges they bring to law enforcement, serial murder cases attract an over-abundance of attention from the media, mental health experts, academia, and the general public. While there has been significant, independent work conducted by a variety of experts to identify and analyze the many issues related to serial murder, there have been few efforts to reach a consensus between law enforcement and other experts, regarding these matters.
In an effort to bridge the gap between the many views of issues related toserial murder, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hosted a multi-disciplinary Symposium in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005. The goal of the Symposium was to bring together a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serialmurder.
A total of 135 subject matter experts attended the five-day event. These individuals included law enforcement officials who have successfully investigated and apprehended serial killers; mental health, academic, and other experts who have studied serial killers and shared their expertise through education and publication; officers of the court, who have judged, prosecuted, and defended serial killers; and members of the media, who inform and educate the public when serial killers strike. The attendees also reflected the international nature of the serial murder problem, as there were attendees from ten different countries on five continents.
The agenda encompassed a variety of topics related to serial murder including common myths, definitions, typologies, pathology and causality, forensics, the role of the media, prosecution issues, investigative task force organization, and major case management issues. Each day included panel discussions, case presentations, and discussion groups addressing a range of topics related to serial murder.
This monograph is a culmination of the input and discussion of the attendees on the major issues related to serial murder. The contents are based upon the notes taken during the presentations, panel discussions, and break-out group sessions. The goal in publishing this monograph is to outline the consensus views from a variety of disciplines on the causality, motivations, and characteristics of serial murderers, which will enable the criminal justice community to generate a more effective response in the identification, investigation, and adjudication of these cases.
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) is a component of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The primary mission of the NCAVC is to provide behaviorally-based, operational support to federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of unusual or repetitive violent crimes, communicated threats, terrorism, and other matters of interest to law enforcement.
The NCAVC is comprised of four units: Behavioral Analysis Unit-1 (Counterterrorism/Threat Assessment), Behavioral Analysis Unit-2 (Crimes Against Adults), Behavioral Analysis Unit-3 (Crimes Against Children), and the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP).
NCAVC staff members conduct detailed analyses of crimes from behavioral, forensic, and investigative perspectives. The goal of this analysis process is to provide law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the motivations and behaviors of offenders. The analysis is a tool that provides investigators with descriptive and behavioral characteristics of the most probable offender and advice regarding investigative techniques to help identify the offender.
The NCAVC also conducts research into violent crime from a law enforcement perspective. NCAVC research is designed to gain insight into criminal thought processes, motivations, and behaviors. Research findings are refined into innovative, investigative techniques that improve law enforcement’s effectiveness against violent criminals and are shared with law enforcement and other disciplines through publications, presentations, and training.
The Serial Murder Symposium was conceived, planned, and coordinated by the staff of the Behavioral Analysis Unit-2 (BAU-2). The resources of BAU-2 are focused on serial, mass, and other murders; sexual assaults; kidnappings; and other criminal acts targeting adult victims. BAU-2 staff members have developed significant expertise on the subject of serialmurder and regularly provide operational assistance, conduct research, and provide training on issues related to serial murder.
I. Introduction
Serial murder is neither a new phenomenon, nor is it uniquely American. Dating back to ancient times, serial murderers have been chronicled around the world. In 19th century Europe, Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing conducted some of the first documented research on violent, sexual offenders and the crimes they committed. Best known for his 1886 textbook Psychopathia Sexualis, Dr. Kraft-Ebing described numerous case studies of sexual homicide, serial murder, and other areas of sexual proclivity.
Serial murder is a relatively rare event, estimated to comprise less than one percent of all murders committed in any given year. However, there is a macabre interest in the topic that far exceeds its scope and has generated countless articles, books, and movies. This broad-based public fascination began in the late 1880s, after a series of unsolved prostitute murders occurred in the Whitechapel area of London. These murders were committed by an unknown individual who named himself “Jack the Ripper” and sent letters to the police claiming to be the killer.
Dear Boss
I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn’t you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight. My knife’s so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good luck.
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper
These murders and the nom de guerre “Jack the Ripper” have become synonymous with serial murder. This case spawned many legends concerning serial murder and the killers who commit it. In the 1970s and 1980s serial murder cases such as the Green River Killer, Ted Bundy, and BTK sparked a renewed public interest in serial murder, which blossomed in the 1990s after the release of films such as Silence of the Lambs.
Much of the general public’s knowledge concerning serial murder is a product of Hollywood productions. Story lines are created to heighten the interest of audiences, rather than to accurately portray serial murder. By focusing on the atrocities inflicted on victims by “deranged” offenders, the public is captivated by the criminals and their crimes. This only lends more confusion to the true dynamics of serial murder.
Law enforcement professionals are subject to the same misinformation from a different source: the use of anecdotal information. Professionals involved in serial murder cases, such as investigators, prosecutors, and pathologists may have limited exposure to serial murder. Their experience may be based upon a single murder series, and the factors in that case are extrapolated to other serial murders. As a result, certain stereotypes and misconceptions take root regarding the nature of serial murder and the characteristics of serial killers.
A growing trend that compounds the fallacies surrounding serial murder is the talking heads phenomenon. Given creditability by the media, these self-proclaimed authorities profess to have an expertise in serial murder. They appear frequently on television and in the print media and speculate on the motive for the murders and the characteristics of the possible offender, without being privy to the facts of the investigation. Unfortunately, inappropriate comments may perpetuate misperceptions concerning serialmurder and impair law enforcement’s investigative efforts. It was decided by a majority of the attendees to issue a formal statement of position regarding the media’s use of these types of individuals. (The position statement is included in Section X of this monograph.)
The relative rarity of serial murder combined with inaccurate, anecdotal information and fictional portrayals of serial killers has resulted in the following common myths and misconceptions regarding serial murder:
Myth: Serial killers are all dysfunctional loners.
The majority of serial killers are not reclusive, social misfits who live alone. They are not monsters and may not appear strange. Many serial killers hide in plain sight within their communities. Serial murderers often have families and homes, are gainfully employed, and appear to be normal members of the community. Because many serial murderers can blend in so effortlessly, they are oftentimes overlooked by law enforcement and the public.
• Robert Yates killed seventeen prostitutes in the Spokane, Washington area, during the 1990s. He was married with five children, lived in a middle class neighborhood, and was a decorated U.S. Army National Guard helicopter pilot. During the time period of the murders, Yates routinely patronized prostitutes, and several of his victims knew each other. Yates buried one of his victims in his yard, beneath his bedroom window. Yates was eventually arrested and pled guilty to thirteen of the murders.
• The Green River Killer, Gary Ridgeway, confessed to killing 48 women over a twenty-year time period in the Seattle, Washington area. He had been married three times and was still married at the time of his arrest. He was employed as a truck painter for thirty-two years. He attended church regularly, read the Bible at home and at work, and talked about religion with co-workers. Ridgeway also frequently picked up prostitutes and had sex with them throughout the time period in which he was killing.
• The BTK killer, Dennis Rader, killed ten victims in and around Wichita, Kansas. He sent sixteen written communications to the news media over a thirty-year period, taunting the police and the public. He was married with two children, was a Boy Scout leader, served honorably in the U.S. Air Force, was employed as a local government official, and was president of his church.
Myth: Serial killers are all white males.
Contrary to popular belief, serial killers span all racial groups. There are white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian serial killers. The racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population.
• Charles Ng, a native of Hong Kong, China, killed numerous victims in Northern California, in concert with Robert Lake.
• Derrick Todd Lee, an African-American, killed at least six women in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
• Coral Eugene Watts, an African-American, killed five victims in Michigan, fled the state to avoid detection, and murdered another 12 victims in Texas, before being apprehended.
• Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, a native of Mexico, murdered nine people in Kentucky, Texas, and Illinois, before turning himself in.
• Rory Conde, a Colombian native, was responsible for six prostitute homicides in the Miami, Florida area.
Myth: Serial killers are only motivated by sex.
All serial murders are not sexually-based. There are many other motivations for serial murders including anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.
• In the Washington, D.C. area serial sniper case, John Allen Muhammad, a former U.S. Army Staff Sergeant, and Lee Boyd Malvo killed primarily for anger and thrill motivations. They were able to terrorize the greater Washington, D.C. metro area for three weeks, shooting 13 victims, killing 10 of them. They communicated with the police by leaving notes, and they attempted to extort money to stop the shootings. They are suspected in a number of other shootings in seven other states.
• Dr. Michael Swango, a former U.S. Marine, ambulance worker, and physician, was a health care employee. He was convicted of only four murders in New York and Ohio, although he is suspected of having poisoned and killed 35 to 50 people throughout the United States and on the continent of Africa. Swango’s motivation for the killings was intrinsic and never fully identified. Interestingly, Swango kept a scrap book filled with newspaper and magazine clippings about natural disasters, in which many people were killed.
• Paul Reid killed at least seven people during fast food restaurant robberies in Tennessee. After gaining control of the victims, he either stabbed or shot them. The motivation for the murders was primarily witness elimination. Reid’s purpose in committing the robberies was financial gain, and some of the ill-gotten gains were used to purchase a car.
Myth: All serial murderers travel and operate interstate.
Most serial killers have very defined geographic areas of operation. They conduct their killings within comfort zones that are often defined by an anchor point (e.g. place of residence, employment, or residence of a relative). Serial murderers will, at times, spiral their activities outside of their comfort zone, when their confidence has grown through experience or to avoid detection. Very few serial murderers travel interstate to kill.
The few serial killers who do travel interstate to kill fall into a few categories:
• Itinerant individuals who move from place to place.
• Homeless individuals who are transients.
• Individuals whose employment lends itself to interstate or transnational travel, such as truck drivers or those in military service.
The difference between these types of offenders and other serial murderers is the nature of their traveling lifestyle, which provides them with many zones of comfort in which to operate.
Myth: Serial killers cannot stop killing.
It has been widely believed that once serial killers start killing, they cannot stop. There are, however, some serial killers who stop murdering altogether before being caught. In these instances, there are events or circumstances in offenders’ lives that inhibit them from pursuing more victims. These can include increased participation in family activities, sexual substitution, and other diversions.
• BTK killer, Dennis Rader, murdered ten victims from 1974 to 1991. He did not kill any other victims prior to being captured in 2005. During interviews conducted by law enforcement, Rader admitted to engaging in auto-erotic activities as a substitute for his killings.
• Jeffrey Gorton killed his first victim in 1986 and his next victim in 1991. He did not kill another victim and was captured in 2002. Gorton engaged in cross-dressing and masturbatory activities, as well as consensual sex with his wife in the interim.
Myth: All Serial killers are insane or are evil geniuses.
Another myth that exists is that serial killers have either a debilitating mental condition, or they are extremely clever and intelligent.
As a group, serial killers suffer from a variety of personality disorders, including psychopathy, anti-social personality, and others. Most, however, are not adjudicated as insane under the law.
The media has created a number of fictional serial killer “geniuses”, who outsmart law enforcement at every turn. Like other populations, however,serial killers range in intelligence from borderline to above average levels.
Myth: Serial
CLOSE
HOMEHEALTHNATURAL REMEDIESFOODRELATIONSHIPDIY TIPSMOST POPULAR
10 Most Famous Psychopaths In History
healthmental healthpsychologySep 30, 2014
10 Most Famous Psychopaths In History
10. Josef Mengele
In the psychopathic doctor category, Josef Mengele takes top honors. This Nazi concentration camp physician, known as “The Angel of Death”, not only personally sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths, he engaged in some of the most atrocious medical experiments in history.
9 Ivan The Terrible
This Russian Tsar’s name says it all. Ivan was a cruel and paranoid leader whose notorious reign over Russia in the 1500s sets a high bar for psychopaths.
8. Adolf Hitler
One of the most evil leaders in human history, Adolf Hitler is “psychopath” defined. There isn’t much to say which has not already been said.
7. Zodiac Killer
With the Zodiac Killer, northern California was held hostage by a psychopath’s weird game. The Zodiac Killer murdered a series of women and enjoyed taunting the public with cryptic messages. The case remains unsolved.
Sponsored by Revcontent
How To Make A Man Sexually Obsessed With You
Language of Desire
1 Weird Trick Erases Teeth Stains
Health Report 247
6. Jack The Ripper
Every roster of history’s notorious psychopaths must note Jack the Ripper. In 1888, he terrorized London’s Whitechapel district by stalking and murdering a string of prostitutes under the cover of fog. This psychopath became famous, in large part, because his identity remains unknown.
5. Henry VIII
England’s Henry VII, who ruled the empire for half of the 1500s, was a highly successful psychopath. Despite beheading two wives and a host of other bloodthirsty acts, he pushed through significant government changes such as Divine Right, and led the Church of England’s secession from Rome.
4. Jeffrey Dahmer
No list of famous psychopaths would be complete with a cannibal. Eating other people is a definite sign someone has crossed into the darkside. 1980’s serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s crimes of cannibalism and torture were so disturbingly gross he will not soon be forgotten.
3. Vlad The Impaler
Going way back in time, we visit the ghost of Vlad The Impaler. In the 15th century, he was the last psychopath you would want to run across. A leader who ruled with terror, Vlad’s myth inspired the creation of literature’s psychopath Dracula.
2. Ed Gein
This infamous psychopath from Wisconsin is our number two pick. Inspiration for Texas Chainsaw Massacre, he lived in a ramshackled farm house. His serial murders were discovered in 1957. Gein created a bizarre collection of homemade relics fashioned from body parts of his countless female victims.
1. Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed
Topping our list our famous psychopaths is a Hungarian socialite who, seeking eternal beauty, bathed in the blood of her victims. Remembered as “The Bloody Countess”, she murdered over 600 girls and young women during her twenty year killing spree.
Sponsored by Revcontent
TRENDING NOW
How To Make A Man Sexually Obsessed With You
(Burn Fat While Sleeping) Do This 1 Trick Starting Tonight
Unbelievable. Simple Trick Melts Belly Fat Over Night (Try this Tonight)
62 Year Old Wife Get’s Makeover, Husband Cries Seeing Her
Herpes Breakthrough Leaves Doctors Speechless
Grandma Outsmarts Doctors With Her $4 Trick to a Wrinkle Free Face
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
10 Facts You Don’t Know About Your Farts
NEXT ARTICLE
10 Selfies From Your Favorite Celebs!
SIMILAR ARTICLES
THIS Can Predict How Much Proximity You’ll Have in Your Relationship
Jun 2, 2016
4 People Share Their Experiences of Lovemaking With Anxiety
Jun 1, 2016
PositivemedRussia/Позитивная Медицина:
PositivemedRussia/Позитивная Медицина
Sponsored by Revcontent
POPULAR
Women: How To Talk Dirty To A Man [Watch]
(Burn Fat While Sleeping) Do This 1 Trick Starting Tonight
Men, Viagra Hates This Trick. (Do This Once Daily and Cure Erectile Dysfunction)
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Mexico: Cartels Pay Corrupt Cops $100 Million a Month
PUERTO VALLARTA, Mexico – Mexican authorities said at a forum that drug-trafficking gangs pay around 1.27 billion pesos (some $100 million) a month in bribes to municipal police officers nationwide
Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna said that figure was calculated based on perceptions of municipal officers themselves and an analysis of a list of cops recruited by the cartels that was found during a police operation.
“Organized crime pays some 1.27 billion pesos a month to municipal police, because that’s the portion of the salary the government does not pay the officers so they can live with dignity,” the high-ranking official said Friday.
Speaking on the final day of a meeting of the Association of Mexican Municipalities, or Ammac, held in the western port city of Puerto Vallarta, Garcia Luna said that of the country’s 165,510 municipal officers nationwide, just over 20 percent earns less than 1,000 pesos ($79) a month, while 60.9 percent earns no more than 4,000 pesos ($317) monthly.
The secretary, who backs President’s Felipe Calderon’s proposal for a single police force per state, said municipal officers currently account for 38.73 percent of all police in the country, adding that rather than combat crime they merely comply with the guidelines of their jurisdictions.
Among those attending the gathering, titled “Toward a police model for the Mexico of the 21st century,” were public-safety experts from Spain and Chile and Mexican authorities from the different branches of government.
Attendees concurred that the country’s safety problems do not lie in the police forces themselves but rather in the law-enforcement personnel who make up those departments and who are in need of training and strict oversight.
“This situation makes it necessary to implement (a single police force) in each of the 32 administrative divisions,” Garcia Luna said, adding that that proposal is not some stubborn idea on his part but rather something that is for the good of the country.
Nevertheless, no consensus was reached at the end of the forum on the idea of a single police command.
During the two-day Ammac meeting, the mayors argued for the need to maintain the local police forces as the foundation for combating crime, while state and federal authorities insisted that a single police force was the only solution.
The mayor of Mexico’s second city, Guadalajara, and vice president of Ammac’s west region, Aristoteles Sandoval, said the creation of a single police command per state will not solve the country’s public safety problems and said the problem is a lack of resources, infrastructure and weapons.
Nearly 30,000 people have died in incidents blamed on organized-crime groups, mainly drug traffickers, in Mexico since late 2006, when newly inaugurated President Felipe Calderon deployed tens of thousands of soldiers and federal police to nearly a dozen states in a bid to stem the violence and root-out corruption in local law-enforcement agencies.
State and local police in Mexico are poorly paid and are often confronted with the choice known here as “plomo o plata” (lead or silver): accept a bribe for looking the other way or get killed for refusing.
During Calderon’s tenure, a total of 915 municipal police, 698 state police and 463 federal agents have been killed at the hands of criminal gangs, according to Public Safety Secretariat figures.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
BECOME A MEMBER
WHAT IS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OATH OF HONOR?
WHAT IS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OATH OF HONOR?Resolution • Presenting the Oath of Honor • Oath of Honor for Framing
( Adobe Acrobat File)
Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer.
A public affirmation of adhering to an Oath of Honor is a powerful vehicle demonstrating ethical standards. To be successful at enhancing integrity within an organization, leaders must ensure the oath is recited frequently and displayed throughout the organization as well as ensuring ethical mentoring and role modeling are consistent, frequent and visible. The following Law Enforcement Oath of Honor is recommended as by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as symbolic statement of commitment to ethical behavior:
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge1,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution2
my community3 and the agency I serve.
Before any officer takes the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, it is important that he/she understands what it means. An oath is a solemn pledge someone makes when he/she sincerely intends to do what he/she says.
Honor means that one’s word is given as a guarantee.
Betray is defined as breaking faith with the public trust.
Badge is the symbol of your office.
Integrity is being the same person in both private and public life.
Character means the qualities that distinguish an individual.
Public trust is a charge of duty imposed in faith toward those you serve.
Courage is having the strength to withstand unethical pressure, fear or danger.
Accountability means that you are answerable and responsible to your oath of office.
Community is the jurisdiction and citizens served.
The Oath of Honor’s brevity allows it to be constantly referred to and reinforced during conversations and ceremonies. In addition, it can also be
referred to by administrators while communicating with others;placed on the back of all academy students’ name cards, ensuring that they are looking at it all day;strategically and visibly placed in all police academies and law enforcement agencies;signed by each academy student, framed and hung on the wall;given at all official police ceremonies and gatherings;printed on labels that are placed on equipment; andused as a backdrop in citizens’ meetings and news media events.
In conclusion, it is strongly recommended by the IACP that all agencies adopt the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor. Having officers take an oath will reconfirm the significance of integrity within the agency and help bring the entire profession together to show that the vast majority of law enforcement officers not only are good, decent individuals, but also will step forward to stop unethical acts by any members of our profession.
The Law Enforcement Oath of Honor can be adjusted as appropriate for nations, countries or governments by inserting the appropriate terms. For example:
1 Insert appropriate term such as: badge; profession; country
2 Insert appropriate term such as: constitution, laws; monarch
3 Insert appropriate term such as: community; country; land; nation
CONNECT WITH US
Subscribe
CONTACT US44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314703.836.6767 or
1.800.THE IACP
Powered by Microsoft Azure
LATEST TWEETS
Members of the @TheIACP Juvenile Justice & Child Protection Committee are hard at work at their midyear meeting.https://t.co/a0YdHJlaC4
IACP websites: Cyber Center|Youth Focused Policing|IACP Net|DECP/DRE|Discover Policing|Center for Social Media|IACP Store
Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Law Officer Connect
Police Officer’s Oath
by Jim Heitmeyer
Mar 29, 2010
Police Officer
The Police officers Oath
I……………………DO SWEAR,, THAT – I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE – OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE – AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION – MALICE OR ILL-WILL – UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND
PRESERVED – AND THAT – I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST OF MY POWER – ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE – AND THAT – WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER – I WILL – TO THE BEST OF MY SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE – DISCHARGE ALL THE DUTIES THEREOF – FAITHFULLY – ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD.
(Sample Oath)
When any officer is hired or completes their police academy they are required to take an oath. Too often as time wears on the police officer has forgotten their oath but do continue doing the best job they can for the department they serve. Police officers in the past took their oath to heart and worked hard and long hours serving their community.
They didn’t ask for raises or promotions or a pat on the back, they did their job until the day arrived they were eligible for one position or another. The police stuck together as family back then as they do today.
Police officers today do an incredible job considering everything that is required of them. First, they must understand the law before they can enforce it. Society has given them the dirty job of policing people or areas they themselves wouldn’t do if given the responsibility.
Police are held accountable for all actions good or bad. Police have to respond to dangerous calls sometimes without knowing all of the facts or details of the incident they are rolling in on. A domestic may have started out with some arguing before a gun came into the picture. Police officers are trained at the police academy for such incidents and that
doesn’t necessarily prepare them for the unexpected that can occur. When these type incidents happen, it can mean the death of a police officer(s).
Anytime a person becomes a police officer they take on a great deal of responsibility. They sometimes must go where others fear and or engage in a life and death struggle with a suspect. Enough good cannot be written or said about the police officer. They are the force that protects us day and night 24/7 or prevents greater disasters from occurring when they can. Police officers have saved more lives than taking any and must always be prepared to do whatever is required of them by their agencies. Most officers participate in children and elderly programs. They help the elderly with programs that can keep them safe from harm, abuse or fraud. They help the children in recognizing the benefits of being good and staying away from gangs, drugs or what to do if abused. This time is usually donated at the officer’s expense and because they believe in helping our elderly, and our young ones to grow up morally and right.
The next time you see a police officer remember that they are only human, have taken their oath and that they are trying to do their best in making society a better and safer place for you and I to live.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
22018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Our Oath of Office
A Solemn Promise
By Jonathan L. Rudd, J.D.
Early in the morning, on their first full day at the FBI Academy, 50 new-agent trainees, dressed in conservative suits and more than a little anxious about their new careers, stand as instructed by the assistant director of the FBI and raise their right hands. In unison, the trainees repeat the following words as they are sworn in as employees of the federal government:
I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
At the end of their academy training, and as part of the official graduation ceremony, these same new-agent trainees once again will stand, raise their right hands, and repeat the same oath. This time, however, the oath will be administered by the director of the FBI, and the trainees will be sworn in as special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.1 Similar types of ceremonies are conducted in every state, by every law enforcement agency, for every officer across the country. And, each officer promises to do one fundamentally important thing—support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
All too often in our culture, we participate in ceremonies and follow instructions without taking the time to contemplate and understand the meaning and significance of our actions. This article attempts to shed some light on the purpose and history of the oath and to further enhance our understanding of the Constitution that we as law enforcement officers solemnly swear to uphold.
Origins of the Oath
The idea of taking an oath in support of a government, ruler, or cause was not new to the founding fathers. The practice stems from ancient times and was common in England and in the American colonies.
“During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging their fidelity to the United States.”2
When asked where the requirement that all law enforcement officers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution comes from, some have speculated that it is linked to the presidential oath found in the Constitution.3 They reason that because the president is the chief executive and law enforcement officers are generally seen as members of the executive branch of government, the requirement to take an oath is inferred from Article II of the Constitution. Others assume that it comes from statutes enacted by Congress and the various state legislatures. Most are surprised to learn that the requirement to take an oath is found in the Constitution itself. Article VI mandates that both federal and state officers of all three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
The Senators and Representatives […], and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution[…].4
“…in our culture, we participate in ceremonies and follow instructions without taking the time to contemplate and understand the meaning and significance of our actions.”
Special Agent Rudd is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.
Wording of the Oath
Unlike the presidential oath, the particular wording of this oath is not delineated in the Constitution, merely the requirement that an oath be taken. As suspected, the wording of the oath has been formulated by the federal and state legislatures.
The significance the founding generation placed on the requirement to take an oath as mandated in Article VI is highlighted by the fact that the very first act of the first Congress of the United States was to establish a simple 14-word oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”5
From the founding of our new government until the Civil War era, this simple oath adequately served its intended purpose. However, in April 1861, in light of the conflicts surrounding the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln demanded that all federal, executive branch employees take an expanded oath in support of the Union. Shortly thereafter, at an emergency session of Congress, legislation was enacted requiring all employees to take the expanded oath. By the end of the year, Congress had revised the expanded oath and added a new section, creating what came to be known as the Ironclad Test Oath or Test Oath.6 “The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required ‘every person elected or appointed to any office…under the Government of the United States…excepting the President of the United States’ to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct.”7
As early as 1868, Congress created an alternative oath for individuals unable to take the Test Oath “on account of their participation in the late rebellion.”8 Nearly two decades later, Congress repealed the Test Oath and mandated the federal oath of office we have today.9 This oath, taken by most federal employees, can be found in Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 3331.10
State officers, on the other hand, are required by federal statute to take the original oath first promulgated in 1789.11 In addition to this requirement, state constitutions and legislatures have generally added words and sentiments appropriate to their respective states. One obvious addition is the dual requirement to support and defend not only the federal Constitution but also the constitution and laws of the individual state.12
Meaning of the Oath
At the core of each of these oaths, whether the federal oath in its current form or the various state oaths with their additional obligations, lies the simple language put forth by our first Congress: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
A brief analysis of these words and their meanings may help to solidify their significance. “I…”—an individual, person, citizen, one member of the whole, officer; “do”— perform, accomplish, act, carry out, complete, achieve, execute; “solemnly”—somberly, gravely, seriously, earnestly, sincerely, firmly, fervently, with thought and ceremony; “swear (or affirm)13”—vow, pledge, promise, guarantee; “that I will”— a positive phrase confirming present and future action, momentum, determination, resolve, responsibility, willpower, and intention; “support”—uphold, bear, carry, sustain, maintain; “and defend”—protect, guard, preserve, secure, shield, look after; “the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution of the United States
It is significant that we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. This is true for the simple reason that the Constitution is based on lasting principles of sound government that provide balance, stability, and consistency through time. A government based on individuals—who are inconsistent, fallible, and often prone to error—too easily leads to tyranny on the one extreme or anarchy on the other. The founding fathers sought to avoid these extremes and create a balanced government based on constitutional principles.
The American colonists were all too familiar with the harmful effects of unbalanced government and oaths to individual rulers. For example, the English were required to swear loyalty to the crown, and many of the early colonial documents commanded oaths of allegiance to the king.14 The founding fathers saw that such a system was detrimental to the continued liberties of a free people. A study of both ancient and modern history illustrates this point. One fairly recent example can be seen in the oaths of Nazi Germany. On August 19, 1934, 90 percent of Germany voted for Hitler to assume complete power. The very next day, Hitler’s cabinet decreed the Law On the Allegiance of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces. This law abolished all former oaths and required that all soldiers and public servants declare an oath of unquestioned obedience to “Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and people.”15 Although many of the officers in Hitler’s regime came to realize the error of his plans, they were reluctant to stop him because of the oath of loyalty they had taken to the Fuhrer.16
The founding fathers diligently sought to avoid the mistakes of other nations and, for the first time in history, form a balanced government where freedom could reign. To appreciate this ideal, we first must acknowledge what some have called the preface or architectural blueprint to the Constitution—the Declaration of Independence.17 “While the Declaration of Independence, as promulgated on July 4, 1776, did not bring this nation into existence or establish the government of the United States of America, it magnificently enunciated the fundamental principles of republican or constitutional government—principals that are not stated explicitly in the Constitution itself.”18 The essence of these fundamental principles were memorialized when Thomas Jefferson penned the famous words
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….19
Once the colonists declared their independence from Great Britain, they knew they needed a form of government that would keep the 13 colonies united. However, many were skeptical of creating a central government that would destroy their independence as separate and sovereign states. The result was the creation of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which lasted only seven years. This document provided for a weak legislative body and no judicial or executive branch.
Although some have referred to the Articles of Confederation as America’s first constitution, it never was given that status by the colonists. American colonists were familiar with, and placed great emphasis on, the supremacy of written constitutions. Immediately following the Declaration of Independence, in addition to creating the Articles of Confederation, 11 of the 13 colonies drafted and ratified state constitutions. The inferiority of the Articles of Confederation can be seen by the fact that “[m]ost of the new state constitutions included elaborate oaths that tied allegiance to and provided a summary of the basic constitutional principles animating American constitutionalism. There was no oath in the Articles of Confederation.”20
The Articles of Confederation provided the Federal Government with too little authority to maintain law, order and equality among the new states. So America’s best minds came together once again in Philadelphia, where they had declared their independence from Britain 11 years before, and hammered together a far better government for themselves, creating a Constitution that has served Americans well for more than 200 years now.21
The Constitution was not miraculously formulated by ideas invented by the founding fathers during the Constitutional Convention. To the contrary, in the years preceding the “Miracle at Philadelphia,” Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Wythe, James Wilson, and others made every effort to study and comprehend the nature and politics of truly free government.22 During the Revolutionary War, John Adams wrote the following to his wife:
The science of government is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take [the] place of, indeed to exclude, in manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children the right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.23
Based on these studies and the collective wisdom of these men, the Constitution our founding fathers created was an amazingly concise, yet comprehensive, document. Comprising a mere seven articles, it embodies the fundamental principles of popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and federalism, allows for a process of amendment, and provides a system of checks and balances. A closer look at these principles and how they apply to law enforcement today may be instructive.
The Preamble and Popular Sovereignty
It has been said that the Preamble sets forth the goals or purposes of the Constitution.24 When read from the perspective of a law enforcement officer, the purposes described therein could be seen as a mission statement for today’s law enforcement community.
… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….
The opening and closing words of the Preamble—“We the people of the United States […] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”—embrace the idea of “popular sovereignty,” a government ordained and established by the consent of the people. From the outset, then, we see that this new government was to be different from any government then in existence. It was not a monarchy where the rule of one could easily lead to tyranny; it was not an aristocracy where the rule of a privileged few could descend into oligarchy, nor was it even to be a pure democracy where mob rule could slip into anarchy.25 The American dream was to be founded on a constitutional republic where elected representatives swear to uphold the Constitution as they serve at the will and by the consent of the people. This was something “[s]o rare that some historians maintain it has been accomplished only three times during all of human history: Old Testament Israel, the Golden Age of Greece, and the era of emergence of the United States of America.”26
Separation of Powers and Federalism
The structure of the Constitution itself emphasizes the principle of separation of powers. Article I established the legislative branch with the power to make laws; Article II, the executive branch with the authority to enforce the laws; and Article III, the judicial branch with jurisdiction over legal disputes. “It is important to note that the Constitution in no way granted the federal courts the power of judicial review, or an ultimate interpretive power over the constitutional issues. Modern federal courts possess this huge power thanks to a long series of precedents beginning with the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.”27 Under the doctrine of separation of powers, each branch of government specializes in its particular area of expertise with no one branch having ultimate power over the whole.
Another aspect of the separation of powers, which is of significance to law enforcement today, is the principle of federalism. Federalism is a legal and political system where the national or federal government shares power with the state governments while each maintains some degree of sovereignty.28 The Constitution helps to delineate the roles of the federal government by spelling out, to some degree, its limited powers, which are outlined in the first three Articles. Section 10 of Article I also places specific, limited restrictions on the states; however, these restrictions actually serve to emphasize the powers reserved exclusively to the federal government (e.g., the power to make treaties with other nations). Article IV delineates a few fundamental requirements incumbent upon state governments, as well as guaranteeing to each state a republican form of government. Other than the limited guidance given to the states, the Constitution does not direct the states on the establishment and functions of state governments. The idea is that there are certain limited activities the federal government is best situated to handle; there are other activities that are best left to the states; and still others best dealt with by counties, cities, families, and individuals.
Under this system of government, the founding fathers realized that conflicts between state and federal jurisdiction would arise. Accordingly, in Article VI of the Constitution, they designated the Constitution itself and other federal laws as “the supreme Law of the Land.”29 This clause (known as the supremacy clause) serves as a “conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law.”30
The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment
Although the federal government was intended to be a government of limited powers, there were many who feared the inevitable expansion of those powers, particularly in light of the supremacy clause. Without the promise of a Bill of Rights limiting the power of the federal government, the Constitution never would have been ratified. Accordingly, “a total of 189 suggested amendments were submitted to [the first] Congress. James Madison boiled these down to 17, but the Congress approved only 12 of them.”31 The states ended up ratifying 10 as amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights.
Included within the Bill of Rights are a number of provisions that have had a great impact on criminal law enforcement. In particular, the First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly; the Fourth Amendment restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions. The Bill of Rights, however, initially served only as a limitation on the federal government and did not apply to the states. While states had their own state constitutions with their own bills of rights, individual state officers were not bound to provide the protections afforded the people under the federal Constitution. This changed, however, with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War.32
Over time, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, the Supreme Court has selectively incorporated most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states, thereby unifying fundamental criminal procedure law throughout the United States.
Today, every law enforcement academy in America provides training in constitutional law, because virtually every aspect of an officer’s job touches that area where the authority of government and the liberty of the individual meet. Arrests, searches and seizures, investigative detentions, eyewitness identification, interrogations—all of these everyday law enforcement tasks, and more, are governed by the Federal Constitution. Under their own constitutions, the States may provide greater protections to their people; but by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, they cannot provide less.33
Due, in part, to major paradigm shifts regarding the rights and freedoms of individuals, which gained momentum during the Civil War, the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of its due process clause, and the many advances in the area of technology, communication, and transportation, the federalism that prevailed in the first half of our country’s existence is very different from the federalism of today. “Since the New Deal of the 1930s, more and more areas of American law, government, and life have crossed an invisible line from state responsibility into the federal domain.”34 While some lament the far-reaching power of today’s federal government, in the area of law enforcement, most of these changes have been welcome, particularly when they have allowed local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to pool their resources and fight crime, which itself continues to defy jurisdictional boundaries.
Checks and Balances
Finally, the founding fathers built a system of checks and balances into the Constitution, whereby the executive, legislative, and judiciary would check and balance each other and state governments would balance the federal while it, in turn, would maintain a check on the states.35 When considering our system of checks and balances, obvious examples surface, such as when the president (executive) nominates judges to serve on the Supreme Court (judicial) with the advice and consent of the Senate (legislative). However, nowhere is the use and effect of checks and balances more poignantly illustrated than in the everyday lives of today’s law enforcement officers. For example, when officers determine that they have enough probable cause to search a home or make an arrest, barring special limited circumstances, they do not execute the search or arrest of their own accord and based on their singular authority as members of the executive branch. To the contrary, they seek the review and approval of a neutral and detached magistrate—a member of the judicial branch. Even though they may not realize it, every time officers prepare an affidavit and request approval of a warrant, they are engaging in the process of checks and balances so painstakingly advanced by our founding fathers over two centuries ago.
While debates were raging among colonists over whether or not to ratify the Constitution, which had recently been adopted by the Constitutional Convention, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote the following insightful words:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place…. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.36
The most fundamental of the many checks and balances in our system of government is the power to control oneself. At no time is a commitment to this principle more eloquently expressed than when individual officers raise their hands and solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. May all of us do so with a firm understanding of the principles we have determined to defend and a clear recognition of the people we promise to protect.
Conclusion
We owe an incomparable debt of gratitude to the men and women who fought to bring us the Constitution, and those who have fought to preserve it to this day. In memory of the federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of this country, may we read the words of President Lincoln anew and rededicate our lives to the privilege of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.37
Endnotes
1 5 U.S.C. § 3331, infra at endnote 10. See also 5 U.S.C. § 2905(a) which leaves the decision of whether or not to renew the oath due to a change in status to the discretion of the head of the executive agency.
2 Edwin Meese III et al. eds., 2005, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Article VI, Oaths Clause by Matthew Spalding, 294-295.
3 U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 8, which states
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
(For insight regarding whether or not George Washington added the words so help me God to the end of the oath of office he took in 1789, see Forrester Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State, 2007, 445.).
4 U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 3.
5 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. I, Statute I, Chapter I, §§ 1-5, June 1, 1789, which, in pertinent part reads
STATUTE I.
Chapter I.—An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and [House of] Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” […]
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the members of the several State legislatures[…], and all executive and judicial officers of the several States, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall be chosen or appointed […] shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation[…].
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all officers appointed, or hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation[…].
6 Revised Statutes of the United States: First Session of the 43rd Congress, 1873-74, Part I, 1st Edition, 1875, Title XIX, Section 1756, which states the July 2, 1862, statute as follows:
Every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit, either in the civil, military, or naval service, excepting the President […], shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being entitled to any part of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought, nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority, or pretended authority, in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
7 U.S. Senate: Oath of Office (http:// http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/ common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm).
8 Revised Statutes of the United States: First Session of the 43rd Congress, 1873-74, Part I, 1st Edition, 1875, Title XIX, Section 1757, which states the July 11, 1868, statute as
Whenever any person who is not rendered ineligible to office by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is elected or appointed to any office of honor or trust under the Government of the United States, and is not able, on account of his participation in the late rebellion, to take the oath prescribed in the preceding section, he shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe in lieu of that oath the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
9 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 23, p. 22, Chapter 46, Sec. 2 (May 13, 1884).
10 5 U.S.C. § 3331, which states
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
11 4 U.S.C. § 101 (July 30, 1947), which states
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, AB, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
12 For example, see Constitution of Kentucky §228 Oath of Officers […] as ratified and revised 1891
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices […], shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _____ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted a person thus offending, so help me God.
13 The delegates to the first Congress allowed for the word affirm to be used instead of swear to appease those whose religious beliefs forbid them from taking oaths. See Heritage Guide, 295.
14 Heritage Guide, 294.
15 William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990, 226-230.
Service oath for soldiers of the armed forces: “I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.”
Service oath for public servants: “I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfil my official duties, so help me God.”
16 Id.
17 Mortimer J. Adler, We Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company (1987).
18 Id. at 7.
19 The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776).
20 Heritage Guide, 295.
21 The Making of America: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Nation, by the Editors of Time, vi.
22 W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, The National Center For Constitutional Studies (1986), 41.
23 W. Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World (1981, 2009), p. 146, quoting from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment, George Braziller, New York, 1965, 163.
24 “The Preamble was placed in the Constitution more or less as an afterthought. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the Constitution. Rather, Gouverneur Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania who as a member of the Committee of Style actually drafted the near-final text of the Constitution, composed it at the last moment. It was Morris who gave the considered purposes of the Constitution coherent shape, and the Preamble was the capstone of his expository gift. The Preamble did not, in itself, have any substantive legal meaning.” Heritage Guide, 43.
25 Referencing the teachings of the Greek Historian Polybius who lived from 204 to 122 B.C. as quoted in Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap, 142.
26 Floyd G. Cullop, The Constitution of the United States: An Introduction, Mentor (1999), preface to the third edition. (The United States is the oldest continuous government based on a written constitution in the world.)
27 Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror, Sentinel, Penguin Group (2004), 117.
28 Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law: An Introduction, Second Edition, W. W. Norton & Company (1998), 146.
29 U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.
30 Heritage Guide, 291.
31 Skousen, The Making of America, 673.
32 John C. Hall, “The Constitution and Criminal Procedure,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1986, 24-30.
33 Id. at 30.
34 Friedman, American Law, 160.
35 Id. at 161.
36 Charles R. Kesler ed., The Federalist Papers, No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments (Madison).
37 The Gettysburg Address, by President Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863.
September 2009 | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary
Search /Page tools
Word / ArticleStarts withEnds withText
A A A A
Language:
EnglishEspañolDeutschFrançaisItalianoالعربية中文简体PolskiPortuguêsNederlandsNorskΕλληνικήРусскийTürkçeאנגלית
Twitter
Get our app
Log inRegister
E-mail
Password
Facebook Twitter
Google+
Yahoo
Remember MeForgot password? Register
Get
our app
Obstruction of Justice
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Acronyms, Wikipedia.
Obstruction of Justice
A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
The integrity of the judicial system depends on the participants’ acting honestly and without fear of reprisals. Threatening a judge, trying to bribe a witness, or encouraging the destruction of evidence are examples of obstruction of justice. Federal and state laws make it a crime to obstruct justice.
Obstruction of justice in the federal courts is governed by a series of criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501–1517), which aim to protect the integrity of federal judicial proceedings as well as agency and congressional proceedings. Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.
Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding. In addition, section 1503 makes it illegal to attempt theBribery of an official to alter the outcome of a judicial proceeding.
Besides these specific prohibitions, section 1503 contains the Omnibus Clause, which states that a person who “corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. This clause offers broad protection to the “due administration of justice.” Federal courts have read this clause expansively to proscribe any conduct that interferes with the judicial process.
To obtain a conviction under section 1503, the government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
Two types of cases arise under the Omnibus Clause: the concealment, alteration, or destruction of documents; and the encouraging or rendering of false testimony. Actual obstruction is not needed as an element of proof to sustain a conviction. The defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient. “Endeavor” has been defined by the courts as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent. The courts have consistently held that “endeavor” constitutes a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal “attempt.”
Federal obstruction of justice statutes have been used to prosecute government officials who have sought to prevent the disclosure of damaging information. The Watergatescandal of the 1970s involving President richard m. nixon is a classic example of this type of obstruction. A number of Nixon’s top aides were convicted of obstruction of justice, including former attorney general john n. mitchell.A federalGrand Jury named Nixon himself as an unindicted coconspirator for the efforts to prevent disclosure of White House involvement in the 1972 Burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building complex in Washington, D.C.
Further readings
Roush, Corey, and Rishi Varma. 1996. “Obstruction of Justice.” American Criminal Law Review 33 (spring).
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
obstruction of justice
n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
See: misprision
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster’s page for free fun content.
Link to this page:
Facebook Twitter
Mentioned in?
accountingarticles of impeachmentClinton, William Jeffersonconspiracyconstitutional lawcontemptcontempt of courtCorporate Frauddeliberate omissiondisbarElection Campaign FinancingFederal Election CommissionGenerally Accepted Accounting PrinciplesGignoux, Edward ThaxterHigh Crimes and MisdemeanorsHoffman, Walter EdwardimpeachmentIndependent CounselJohnson, Andrew
References in periodicals archive?
undertook an action from which an obstruction of justicewas a
Obstruction of justice
Lying and obstruction of justice is not limited to the pariah tobacco industry.
Corporate perjury and obstruction of justice
The lawyers told Justice Department prosecutors, who began to investigate the company for obstruction of justice.
Ortho sentenced for obstruction of justice
Boucher, the assistant manager, was charged with accessory after the fact and obstruction of justice.
4 in court to answer charges of setting fire at Burger King
Former newspaper mogul Lord (Conrad) Black was last night indicted in the US on additional charges of racketeering and obstruction of justice.
More new fraud charges for Black
Libby, 55, was charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count ofobstruction of justice.
Presidential aide charged with leaking identity of US secret agent
Frank Quattrone, former head of technology investment banking at Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), was found guilty of two counts of obstruction and one count of witness tampering in his retrial for obstruction of justice.
Quattrone found guilty
Long before the Department of Justice criminally indicted Stewart for securities fraud and obstruction of justiceand the Securities and Exchange Commission charged her with insider trading, the American public had already convicted her of a long list of particulars.
Is Schadenfreude a good thing?
The verdict of guilt last month in the Arthur Andersen, LLPobstruction of justice trial was rapidly followed by the firm’s decision to discontinue its audit practice on or about Aug.
Andersen resigns from SECPS effective Aug. 31
Ray, states that “sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton” for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Clinton gets off lightly. (The Last Word)
Ironically, on the last two days of the bombardment the man who ordered the destruction in Iraq, William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Aggression and impeachment
The act amended the federal obstruction of justicestatute, greatly increasing the penalties for the criminal destruction, alteration, and falsification of records in certain circumstances.
Save Your Computer Files or Go to Jail?
More results ►
Legal browser?
▲obsessioobsessionobsessionalobsidioobsistereobsolescentobsoleteobsoletenessobsoletusobstacleobstinacyobstinateobstinatusobstreperousobstructobstruct actionobstruct by oppositionobstruct one’s visionobstruct the course of descentobstruct workobstructedobstructerObstructing processobstructioobstructionObstruction of Justiceobstruction to congressional actionobstructionismobstructionistobstructiveobstruentobstupefacereobsurationobtainobtain a mortgageobtain a returnobtain a victoryobtain againobtain by any meansobtain by course of lawobtain by forceobtain by reasoningobtain by searchobtain exclusive possessionobtain in an unlawful mannerobtain knowledge ofobtain medical recordsobtain money by false pretensesobtain money under false pretensesobtain paymentobtain the use of▼
Full browser?
▲obstructerobstructerobstructingobstructingobstructingobstructingObstructing processobstructing thrombusobstructing thrombusobstructing thrombusobstructing thrombusObstructing Trafficobstructioobstructionobstructionobstructionobstructionobstructionobstructionobstruction angleobstruction beaconobstruction buoyObstruction Identification Surfaceobstruction lightobstruction markerObstruction Marking & Lightingobstruction moraineObstruction of bile ductObstruction of bile ductObstruction of bile ductObstruction of JusticeObstruction of the Mechanical Valve ProthesisObstruction of the urinary flowObstruction of the urinary flowObstruction of the urinary tractObstruction of the urinary tractObstruction of urinary flowObstruction of urinary flowObstruction of urinary tractObstruction of urinary tractObstruction of urineObstruction of urineobstruction seriesobstruction to congressional actionobstruction to visionobstruction-clearance speedobstructionalobstructionalobstructionalobstructionalobstructionallyobstructionallyobstructionallyobstructionallyobstructionismobstructionismobstructionismobstructionistobstructionistobstructionistobstructionist▼
More fromLegal Dictionary
Free Tools
For surfers:Free toolbar & extensions Word of the Day Word Finder Help
For webmasters: Free content Linking Lookup box
Terms of Use Privacy policy Feedback Advertise with UsCopyright © 2003-2016 Farlex, Inc
Disclaimer
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.
A Mode Tend Parenting Partnership
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrestave
Fullerton California 92833
HOMESTATISTICSDATABASESMAPSSCHOLARSHIPABOUTCONTACT
As seen in…
The Economist
The Atlantic
Frontline
ABC News
Washington Post
Introduction To Police Misconduct – Part 1
October 18, 2009 @ 3:29 PM by David Packman
What Is Police Misconduct?
While most people automatically think of police brutality whenever the term “police misconduct” is brought up, brutality is but one subset of what we call police misconduct. In fact, there are several ways in which we generally categorize and classify police misconduct and, while this may seem to be complicated, it is important to first understand what police misconduct is and entails before we delve into what causes it and what can be done in response to it.
So, before we go any further, let’s start with a general definition and description of just what is meant by the terms “police officer” and “police misconduct”.
Police Officer – Any individual entrusted by a governmental agency with the legal authority to and granted special legal protections with the purpose of allowing that person to enact an arrest or use force in the course of enforcing established laws.
Police Misconduct – Any action performed by a law enforcement officer that is unethical, against established employment guidelines, unconstitutional, or criminal in nature.
Seems pretty broad, doesn’t it? In fact, it probably doesn’t seem to be much different than any other type of misconduct and it doesn’t really seem to explain much about police misconduct. Sure, this is certainly true in some part. But it just shows that the issue of police misconduct is a bit more involved than the basic definition implies and what most people understand about the issue.
Further Defining Police Misconduct
So, what does police misconduct really mean? Well, let’s start by explaining that law enforcement is a job not much unlike working as a bank teller, a dishwasher, or any other professional pursuit that one might engage in to earn a living. Just as with any job, there are rules and guidelines of behavior that one must follow and some jobs are more rigorous than others in what one may or may not do while employed in that profession.
When one acts outside of those established rules, whether the offense is a violation of your employee’s handbook or a criminal act, it is called employee misconduct and the penalties can range from an unpaid time off, demotions, job termination, or even jail time.
However, there is an important yet subtle difference between what you or I might do for a living and what a law enforcement officer is permitted to do as part of a police officer’s job function. Namely, while you or I probably cannot deprive our customers of their freedom or use deadly force against a customer, law enforcement officers are entrusted with those police powers on behalf of the people they serve, the community, and are often granted immunity from civil prosecution for harms caused by their actions in the course of their duties.
Because these police powers grant law enforcement officers the ability to impinge on the rights of others or cause physical harm, and because these powers grant them certain legal protections the rest of us lack, there are established rules and guidelines that are generally expected to limit how and when they may employ those enhanced rights.
Also, because law enforcement officers may use their powers of arrest while off duty and because of the harm that abusing these powers can cause to individuals and the community, police officers are supposed to be held to a higher standard of conduct, both on duty and off duty, than members of other occupations.
Therefore, perhaps a better way to define police misconduct would be to say:
Police Misconduct – Any action, on duty or off, by a person entrusted with police powers which would violate that trust to an extent that would cause those who entrusted the officer with said powers to reasonably question whether continuing that trust would expose the public safety to an unacceptable level of risk.
By this definition, police misconduct is more than just being late to the job a few times or having your shirt untucked, it’s something that would reasonably cause the community to question whether or not it was such a good idea to entrust a particular person with those police powers. Furthermore, it suggests that an act of police misconduct, while potentially legal and constitutional, may still be misconduct.
Classifying Police Misconduct
So, if police misconduct is more than just an issue of tardiness or falling asleep at your desk; what exactly does police misconduct entail? As the original definition I threw out there hints at, there are a few main classifications of police misconduct and then, beyond that, there are several types of police misconduct. Let’s talk about the classification first.
As the above Venn diagram shows, one way to classify police misconduct is to look at the different sets of rules and guidelines that cover police misconduct. Namely, police misconduct can involve:
A violation of departmental policies orA violation of constitutional protections orA violation of the law itself
However, there is a bit of overlap here in that, sometimes, an act of misconduct can be a violation of any combination of these three classifications. Also, generally, many departmental policies and guidelines are written expressly to address potential breaches of constitutional protections or legal guidelines but some may not meet that criteria.
For example, many departments have what is called a “use of force continuum” which establishes what type of force is permissible in response to specific actions that a suspect may perform. Furthermore, these policies differ from department to department. Some may permit officers to use force at the slightest sign of passive resistance yet others may specifically state that officers may not deploy certain types of force in response to passive resistance.
Now, since there are differences and, in some cases, a complete absence of policy, some departmental policies correlate to constitutional protections while others may not… in other words, just because a department has a policy it doesn’t mean that policy is constitutional and just because a police officer adheres to the letter of that department’s policy it doesn’t mean that a given departmentally permissible action is legal or constitutional.
In other words, an act of police misconduct may be permissible in a given law enforcement agency since that action is within their police guidelines, but that activity might still violate constitutional protections or even violate the law… This leads us to a second layer of distinction for police misconduct.
So, now we have five different classifications; procedural, civil, criminal, individual, and institutional. Institutional police misconduct can be described as law enforcement actions that are permissible via a law enforcement agency’s express or implied policies yet still unconstitutional, illegal, or just plain unethical by reasonable standards. Meanwhile, individual police misconduct is an action that is undertaken outside of the established or implied guidelines of a law enforcement agency.
This layer of distinction can help people understand why an act of police misconduct didn’t result in disciplinary action or even criminal charges against an officer, but still cost that department a civil rights lawsuit judgment or federal charges. These cases are sometimes referred to as “patterns and practices of police misconduct”.
But, even here, there is the potential of overlap, especially when we talk about whole units or even entire departments that undertake practices that are known to be illegal but are tolerated by the agency and/or local government for any number of reasons, such as in the Special Operations Section scandal in Chicago not too long ago where a whole unit was encouraged to act outside of departmental policies, and even the law, just because they got results.
Categorizing Police Misconduct
While the above helps define police misconduct a little better, it still doesn’t specifically spell out what types of police misconduct occur out in the real world. That’s where police misconduct categorization comes in.
Now, each state, and even each individual law enforcement agency, has their own set of terms for police misconduct types and their own unique terms to describe those types of misconduct just as they use different terms to describe criminal offenses. So the terminology employed here is not standardized, and can’t be because of these jurisdictional differences in terminology and criteria.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that an individual incident of misconduct can involve any number or combination of police misconduct types. For instance, a police officer who pulls over a minority based on the color of his skin but no other real infraction then hits that unarmed and otherwise innocent person in the head with a club for talking back and then arrests that person on false charges would entail cases of racial profiling, unnecessary force, and wrongful arrest… all within that single incident.
With that out of the way, what classifications are there specifically? Well, while the following doesn’t necessarily include all possible forms of police misconduct, it does help show just how complex and involved the issue of police misconduct can be.
Now, after looking this over a bit, you may find that some of these classifications don’t necessarily have clearly defined boundaries. For example, a case of using the threat of arrest to coerce sex from a suspect is actually a case involving multiple components of misconduct, color of law abuse, extortion, wrongful arrest, and sexual misconduct combined. How do we reconcile these fuzzy lines of distinction? Generally we look at what the ultimate desired outcome was for the officer who engaged in said misconduct or look at the most egregious violation.
So, as you can see, police misconduct involves a lot more than just police brutality. Because the very definition of police misconduct is more complicated than most people think, so too are the different causes and contributing agents of police misconduct. After all, as we’ll see next, the motivations that drive an officer to sexually assault a detainee are much different than an officer who conspires with others to run a shakedown extortion ring or an officer who snaps under pressure and beats a handcuffed detainee just because he said something the officer didn’t like.
After that, we’ll tie it all together by examining how, since the types, causes, and contributing factors of misconduct are different, it follows that the potential solutions to the problem of police misconduct need to be multifaceted as well.
(to be continued)
Categories: Politics | Tags: Police Misconduct 101 |Permalink
← Previous Post
Next Post →
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
FOLLOWTwitterFacebookRSSVIDEOS
Know Your Rights
Recording the Police
EXPLAINERS
Police Body CamerasTransparency in Law EnforcementCivilian Review BoardsCivil Asset Forfeiture
BOOKS
In the Name of Justice
Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America
Go Directly to Jail
Mugged by the State
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of A Doctrine
Have you seen a credible story about police misconduct that we missed?
Let us know.
NPMRP NEWSFEED
Cato Institute • 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. • Washington D.C 20001 • Attention: Police Misconduct Project
Top
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary
Search /Page tools
Word / ArticleStarts withEnds withText
A A A A
Language:
EnglishEspañolDeutschFrançaisItalianoالعربية中文简体PolskiPortuguêsNederlandsNorskΕλληνικήРусскийTürkçeאנגלית
Twitter
Get our app
Log inRegister
E-mail
Password
Facebook Twitter
Google+
Yahoo
Remember MeForgot password? Register
Get
our app
Police Corruption and Misconduct
Police Corruption and Misconduct
The violation of state and federal laws or the violation of individuals’ constitutional rights by police officers; also when police commit crimes for personal gain.
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses of police authority. Sometimes used interchangeably, the terms refer to a wide range of procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Misconduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is “procedural” when it refers to police who violate police department rules and regulations; “criminal” when it refers to police who violate state and federal laws; “unconstitutional” when it refers to police who violate a citizen’s Civil Rights; or any combination thereof. Common forms of misconduct are excessive use of physical orDeadly Force, discriminatory arrest, physical or verbal harassment, and selective enforcement of the law.
Police corruption is the abuse of police authority for personal gain. Corruption may involve profit or another type of material benefit gained illegally as a consequence of the officer’s authority. Typical forms of corruption includeBribery, Extortion, receiving or fencing stolen goods, and selling drugs. The term also refers to patterns of misconduct within a given police department or special unit, particularly where offenses are repeated with the acquiescence of superiors or through other ongoing failure to correct them.
Safeguards against police misconduct exist throughout the law. Police departments themselves establish codes of conduct, train new recruits, and investigate and discipline officers, sometimes in cooperation with civilian complaint review boards which are intended to provide independent evaluative and remedial advice. Protections are also found in state law, which permits victims to sue police for damages in civil actions. Typically, these actions are brought for claims such as the use of excessive force (“police brutality”), false arrest and imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, and Wrongful Death. State actions may be brought simultaneously with additional claims for constitutional violations.
Through both criminal and civil statutes, federal law specifically targets police misconduct. Federal law is applicable to all state, county, and local officers, including those who work in correctional facilities. The key federal criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone acting with police authority to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another statute, commonly referred to as the police misconduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or local police to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).
Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimination in police work. Any police department receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. These laws prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments to respond to discrimination complaints.
Because neither the federal criminal statute nor the civil police misconduct provision provides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal government may bring suit under these laws. Enforcement is the responsibility of theJustice Department. Criminal convictions are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Civil convictions are remedied through injunctive relief, a type of court order that requires a change in behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases force police departments to stop abusive practices, institute types of reform, or submit to court supervision.
Private litigation against police officers or departments is difficult. Besides time and expense, a significant hurdle to success is found in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since the late twentieth century, many court decisions have expanded the powers of police to perform routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the part of police; showing mere Negligence or other failure of due care by police officers often does not suffice in court.
Most problematically of all for plaintiffs, police are protected by the defense of immunity—an exemption from penalties and burdens that the law generally places on other citizens. This Immunity is limited, unlike the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In theory, the defense allows police to do their job without fear ofReprisal. In practice, however, it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to sue law enforcement officers for damages for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have continually asserted the general rule that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt that they acted lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties, a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).
History
Society has grappled with misconduct and corruption issues for as long as it has had police officers. Through the mid-to-late nineteenth century, private police forces were commonplace, and agents of Pinkerton’s and other forhire services became notorious as the muscle employers used to violently end strikes. Heavyhanded law enforcement as well as Vigilantism by groups such as the racist Ku Klux Klan spurred passage of the civil rights act of 1871, which criminalized acting under state law to deprive a person of constitutional or other rights under federal law. Section 1983 of the act remains a critical tool in the early 2000s for enforcing constitutional rights, with direct applicability to police misconduct cases.
The twentieth century saw multiple legal, administrative, and scholarly approaches to the problem. Some developments bore indirectly upon police misconduct, such as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave new protections to citizens who had long suffered discriminatory policing. Additionally, a string of landmark Supreme Court decisions during the era gave new force both to individual privacy rights as well as to curbs uponPolice Power: highly influential cases resulted in the strengthening of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable Search and Seizure, evidentiary rules forbidding the use at trial of evidence tainted by unconstitutional police actions, and the establishment of the so-called Miranda Warning requiring officers to advise detained suspects of their constitutional rights.
While these decisions profoundly shaped the legal and social landscape, renewed focus on police misconduct and corruption occurred in the latter part of the century. As the pioneering criminologist Herman Goldstein argued, traditional views were based on the assumption that police abuse reflected the moral failings of individual officers—the so-called “bad cop.” Public scandals began to shape a new view of the problem. In 1971, New York City organized the Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the extent of corruption in the city’s police department. Police officer Frank Serpico’s startling testimony against fellow officers not only revealed systemic corruption but highlighted a longstanding obstacle to investigating these abuses: the fraternal understanding among police officers known variously as “the Code of Silence” and “the Blue Curtain” under which officers regard testimony against a fellow officer as betrayal.
Broader recognition of the problem brought more ambitious reform efforts in the 1980s and 1990s. Spurred by the work of criminologists such as Goldstein and others, police departments sought to improve organizational rules, training, and prevention and control mechanisms. Such efforts are reflected in the publication of a code of police conduct by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, more rigorous training for officers, and experimented with so-called community policing programs to improve ties between officers and the public. Several cities established joint police and civilian complaint review boards to give citizens a larger role in what traditionally had been a closed, internal process by police departments.
Among the most dramatic examples of system-wide reform is New York City’s response to long-standing brutality, discrimination, and corruption within the New York City Police Department (NYPD). After flirting with civilian review of complaints against police in the 1960s, the city committed to it after public outcry over the videotaping of officers beating citizens who violated curfew in 1988. The city subsequently established its Civilian Complaint Review Board, which became an all-civilian agency in 1993. In 1992, responding to new complaints, Mayor David N. Dinkins appointed the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, known as the Mollen Commission. Two years later, the commission concluded that the city had alternated between cycles of corruption and reform. Afterwards, in 1995, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani established the full-time Commission to Combat Police Corruption (CCPC) as an entity independent from the police department. The CCPC monitors the NYPD anti-corruption policies and procedures, conducts audits, and issues public reports.
Contemporary Problems
Despite legal safeguards and well-intentioned reforms, police problems have continued to produce headlines. The exact scope of misconduct is unknown. Misconduct complaints can be quantified on a city-by-city basis, but these data are often subjective, and far more complaints are filed than ever are evaluated at trial. Corruption is even harder to measure. As the National Institute of Justice acknowledged in its May 2000 report, The Measurement of Police Integrity, most corruption incidents go unreported, and data that do exist “are best regarded as measures of a police agency’s anticorruption activity, not the actual level of corruption.”
During the late 1990s, highly-publicized cases in New York, New Jersey, Texas, Detroit, and Cleveland exposed an apparently new trend: police drug corruption. In the Cleveland case alone, the FBI arrested 42 officers from five law enforcement agencies in 1998 on charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In a 1998 report to U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) found evidence of growing police involvement in drug sales, theft of drugs and money from drug dealers, and perjured testimony about illegal searches. The GAO survey of police commission reports and academic research suggested a troubling new dimension previously not seen in studies of police corruption. Traditionally, police corruption had been understood to involve individuals acting alone, but the new trend revealed officers working in small groups to protect and assist each other.
In 1999, this pattern emerged in one of the worst police corruption scandals in U.S. history. The scandal involved the Los Angeles Police Department’s Rampart precinct and particularly its elite anti-gang unit, CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums). Following local and federal investigations, CRASH was dismantled, some 70 officers were investigated, and several either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of crimes ranging from drug theft and peddling to assault, fabricating arrests, and filing false reports.
The Rampart scandal bore heavy costs, financially as well as in human terms. Several dozen criminal convictions credited to the work of the corrupt officers were overturned. By 2003, the city had already paid $40 million to settle lawsuits. In a settlement with the federal government in 2000, the Los Angeles City Council accepted a Consent Decree that placed the city’s police department under the supervision of a federal judge for five years to implement and monitor reforms.
However, reform is no panacea. Even New York City’s extensive reforms were called into doubt by two high-profile police cases in the 1990s. Both highlighted the difficulties inherent in prosecuting even apparently clear-cut misconduct. The first, in 1997, involved Haitian immigrant Abner Louima, who was shockingly beaten in a police cruiser and sodomized in a bathroom with a broom handle by four NYPD officers. Louima ultimately settled a civil case against the department for $8.7 million in 2001, one of the highest police brutality settlements ever paid and the highest by New York City since paying a $3 million settlement in the choking death of Anthony Baez in 1994.
Yet, despite much public frustration, prosecution of the officers was less conclusive. Officer Justin Volpe pleaded guilty to leading the Sodomy assault and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, in 1999, his fellow three officers were acquitted on charges of assault in the police cruiser; one of them, officer Charles Schwarz, was convicted of violating Louima’s civil rights for holding him down during the bathroom assault. In 2000, all three were convicted of obstructing justice for their actions in covering up evidence of the attack, but these convictions were later overturned in United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002). Ordered a new trial on the civil rights charge, Schwarz reached a plea bargain in September 2002, agreeing to be sentenced to a 5-year prison term.
The second New York controversy involved the killing in 1999 of an unarmed man. Four undercover police officers shot Amadou Diallo 41 times after stopping the Guinean immigrant in the vestibule of his apartment building, where, they said, he reached into his back pocket. Large public protests attracted activists such as Susan Sarandon and former New York mayor David Dinkins, who argued that the department’s so-called Aggressive Street Crimes Unit was in fact far too aggressive. In 2000, the four officers were acquitted in a trial that supporters said vindicated them but which critics blamed on lax prosecution.
Outside the courts, mounting resentment over discriminatory misconduct by police officers has occasionally led to rioting. In contemporary experience, the Los Angeles riots in 1992 followed the acquittal of white police officers charged with the videotaped beating of black motorist rodney king. In April 2001, three days of rioting in Cincinnati followed the acquittal of a white police officer on charges of shooting Timothy Thomas, a 19-year old unarmed black man.
Cities, courts, police departments, and criminologists all continue to examine ways to bring meaningful reform to police departments. Some critics have argued that misconduct and corruption are age-old problems that resist all efforts at eradication; the best society can do, in this view, is monitor and correct. Others trace recent problems to public policy that emphasizes aggressive policing of drug, gang, and street crimes. Whatever the cause and the solution, until more efficacious remedies are found, some citizens will still require protection from the very people appointed to protect and serve them.
Further readings
Drug Policy Alliance. “Police Corruption.” Available online at (accessed August 23, 2003).
Howell, Ron. 2002. “Mother Hopes for Settlement.” Newsday(February 5).
Hurtado, Patricia. 2002. “Case Now Closed: Unusual Plea Deal Yields No Clear Win for Louima, Schwarz.” Newsday(September 23).
Kennedy, Rozella Floranz, ed. “Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual.” ACLU Department of Public Education. Available online at (accessed August 23, 2003).
Klockars, Carl B., et al. 2000. “The Measurement of Police Integrity.” Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
“Law Enforcement—Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption.” 1998. Government Accounting Office Report.Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office (June 29).
Manalili, Joseph, ed. “Chapter 5: Remedies and Legal Developments.” Revisiting Who Is Guarding the Guardians?Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Available online at (accessed August 23, 2003).
New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board. “History of the CCRB.” Available online at (accessed August 23, 2003).
“The Rampart Scandal.” FRONTLINE/PBS Online. Available online at (accessed September 5, 2003).U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Coordination, and Review Section. “Addressing Police Misconduct: Laws Enforced by the United States Department of Justice.” Available online at (accessed August 23, 2003).
Cross-references
Civil Rights; Conspiracy; Constitutional Law;Discrimination; Fourth Amendment; Immunity; Ku Klux Klan; Pinkerton Agents; Privacy.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster’s page for free fun content.
Link to this page:
Facebook Twitter
References in periodicals archive?
But it doesn’t mean that we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconductundermines justice, lets down the decent majority of officers and damages the public’s confidence in the police.
Police blacklist of fired officers
Bilek, “Winning Back the Support of the Public by SloppingPolice Corruption and Misconduct Before It Starts with Pre- Service Police Education,” paper presented to the Conference on Criminal Justice Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City, NY, October 20, 1995, 11.
The model precinct: issues involving police training
More results ►
Legal browser?
▲Pointspoints of comparisonpoisePoisonPoison Pillpoisonedpoisonouspokepoke fun atpolaritypolarizepolarizedpolepolemicpolemicalpolemicistpolemicspolemistpoles apartpolicePolice and Criminal EvidencePolice and Guards, Privatepolice clearance letter, employmentPolice Community Support Officerpolice constablePolice Corruption and Misconductpolice courtpolice enter a homePolice Federation of England and Walespolice forcePolice jurypolice officerpolice officer conduct rude and possibly illegalpolice officersPolice Powerpolice powersPolice questioningPolice random plate checkspolice tipperPolice took away auto for a balance owed on a credit cardpolicemanpolicewomanpolicypolicy of insurancepolicy-fixing meetingpolispolishpolishedpolitepolite actpolite regard▼
Full browser?
▲police commissionerpolice commissionerPolice Commissioners’ Policy Advisory GroupPolice Communications OfficerPolice Community Action TeamPolice Community Clubs of Great BritainPolice Community Consultative GroupPolice Community Partnership ForumPolice Community PrecinctPolice Community Relations CouncilPolice Community Relations GroupPolice Community Safety UnitPolice Community Support OfficerPolice Community Support OfficerPolice Community Support OfficersPolice Community Youth ClubsPolice Complaint Review BoardPolice Complaints AuthorityPolice Complaints CommissionPolice Conference of New York, Inc.police constablepolice constablepolice constablepolice constablepolice constablepolice constablespolice constablespolice constablespolice constablesPolice Control OfficePolice Corruption and Misconductpolice courtpolice courtpolice courtPolice Crime PreventionPolice Criminal Intelligence BranchPolice Crisis Intervention Trainingpolice cruiserPolice Cruiser Backup UnitPolice custodyPolice custodyPolice custodyPolice custodyPolice Customs Frontier GuardPolice Daily Activity ReportPolice de Bruxellespolice departmentpolice departmentpolice departmentpolice departmentPolice Department Identification NumberPolice Department Victim AdvocatePolice departmentsPolice departmentsPolice departmentspolice detectivepolice detectivePolice detectivesPolice detectivesPolice detentionPolice detention▼
More fromLegal Dictionary
Free Tools
For surfers:Free toolbar & extensions Word of the Day Word Finder Help
For webmasters: Free content Linking Lookup box
Terms of Use Privacy policy Feedback Advertise with UsCopyright © 2003-2016 Farlex, Inc
Disclaimer
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.
A Mode Tend Parenting Partnership
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Home
The Art of Complaining
How to File an Effective Complaint Against a Police Officer
(Created 10/3/08; last updated 10/5/08)
This page is dedicated to traffic enforcement officers, including, and especially, state troopers. Traffic cops are sort of likePlasmodium protozoa; they’re often blobby, definitely parasitic, and are strongly associated with an epidemic of societal proportions.
Introduction
A lot of citizens struggle with writing an effective complaint about a police officer. Often, the writer lets too much emotion enter into the complaint, and it then comes across as more driven by emotion than fact, more unreasonable than objective, or just generally easier for the police agency to minimize or ignore. (Indignation and outrage are good things to communicate, but name-calling should definitely be avoided.) Another common mistake is to draft a statement of the events without making it clear what the actual complaint is! In any case, I wanted to provide a few tips to maximize the impact of a complaint on behalf of the aspiring complainer.
What Do I Mean By “Effective?”
Well, effectiveness is a loaded term, and depends somewhat on the intent of your complaint. Fortunately, the same techniques apply whether your goal is merely to have a damning complaint sit permanently in the officer’s personnel file (and get noticed by the powers-that-be whenever the officer is up for a promotion), or whether you are seeking more serious disciplinary action and/or termination of the officer or deputy.
Definitions
A police complaint is formal allegation of misconduct. This should not be confused with a “service complaint,” which is a complaint about the service or policies of the agency, but not an allegation of misconduct against a specific employee of that agency. For the purposes of this guide, the “subject officer” is the officer you are complaining about. The “agency” is the police department, sheriff’s office, or other law enforcement agency with whom you are filing the complaint.
General guidelines: Effective Police Complaints…
Are written by you! Do not let another police officer write a complaint for you based on your verbal testimony. You must control the specific content of the complaint, or you’ve probably already failed in your efforts. If you’re asked to give your complaint orally to the on-duty supervisor, insist instead on sending a written complaint (certified, with return receipt requested) to Internal Affairs or other disciplinary authority. Remember that a written submission is much harder for an agency to minimize or bury!
Allege serious misconduct by the officer (see some of the possible applicable categories below; be aggressive about asserting the seriousness of the officer’s behavior in your complaint!), and contain an explicit request for a formal investigation. Wrap up your complaint with a sentence like: “Officer X has committed numerous, serious violations of departmental policy and the law, and for this reason, and for the safety of the community at large, complainant requests a formal investigation be undertaken immediately.”
Are timely. Many jurisdictions require that you file your complaint within 60 days for allegations of minor misconduct (e.g., officer was rude), or within 6 months for more serious allegations. If you can’t meet these deadlines, you should be able to show good cause as to why your complaint was late. (Note that these deadlines are often waived for allegations of violation of the law.)
Clearly allege a pattern of misconduct, if such a pattern exists. This makes it less likely the alleged misconduct will be dismissed as “minor.”
Have corroborating witnesses whose reports do not conflict with yours! If witnesses exist, you should ask each of them to write a separate account of the incident. It will also help if your witnesses are willing to answer additional follow-up questions the police agency might have.If your complaint cites evidence, the evidence should be produced when the police agency requests it (but make sure you get a receipt!) Referring to evidence without ever turning it over makes a case look weak, and is a red flag for the complaint to be disregarded.
Are carbon copied (“cc’d”) to a state representative or other local politician. This really turns up the heat and makes it harder for the law enforcement agency to bury the complaint without giving it due consideration!
Getting Started
Your first goal is to actually get your hands on a police complaint form. In some jurisdictions, this can be a challenge (see external link at the bottom of this page). Essentially, what you need to do is visit the police station or agency where the officer works (although if it’s a large organization, you might consider visiting a different branch or office) to pick up a complaint form which you will fill out, and mail in. If you expect a lack of professionalism or outright abuse on the part of the agency (or if you aren’t sure what to expect) then you should strongly consider bringing someone with you to the police station as a witness. If you’re really concerned, consider having that person keep a small tape recorder in their possession. Having a witness with you makes it far less likely you will be harassed or arrested. Having the tape recorder will help later if the officer at the front desk is abusive and/or refuses to give you a complaint form. Be sure to grab some duplicate forms while you’re at the police station, and stick them in a file cabinet at home — no sense having to come all the way back to the station and fight for another form if you lose the first form, or if the behavior you’re complaining about recurs!
The Basics: Categories of Police Misconduct
Minor misconduct: has minimal adverse impact on the operation or integrity of the agency. Not likely to result in formal disciplinary action (e.g., a lack of courtesy; although rudeness complaints may have a long-term effect on the officer, as described below, rudeness may also fall into the more serious “unnecessary force” category, also described below).
General misconduct: violates a policy that requires a fixed penalty (e.g., failure to attend court, failure to attend a scheduled training or qualification, etc.). Generally not relevant to citizen complaints.
Serious misconduct: violates policies, procedures, rules, or regulations that have an adverse impact on the operation or integrity of the agency, and which can result in formal disciplinary action (this includes violations of the law). Generally the kind of stuff that you want to allege, if at all possible.
Examples of serious misconduct include (names and definitions may vary a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; check your local police agency’s Operations Manual (it should be made available to the public online, or at the police agency office):
Aiding another (officer) to violate a ruleAltering information on official documentsAppropriating propertyCareless driving resulting in injury or death (note also that many jurisdictions require automatic testing of an officer for alcohol or drug influence after any car accident more severe than a fender bender that may have been caused by that officer; this can be a good thing to request under an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request – ***link coming soon!***)Compromising a criminal caseDeparting from the truth (a colorful euphemism for lying; good for alleging in the case of traffic tickets; see also False report)Destruction of reports or recordsDiscrimination (see also Racial or ethnic intimidation, below)Drinking on dutyFalse arrest (not to be confused with the tort of the same name)False report (see also Departing from the truth)Knowingly making a false report (good for alleging in the case of traffic tickets)Law violation(s), or conspiracy to commit law violation(s) (a.k.a. lack of conformance with the law)Overdriving (driving rapidly and/or aggressively) on the way to a minor call (very common in some jurisdictions)Racial or ethnic intimidationRough and careless handling of departmental equipmentSoliciting or accepting a bribeUnnecessary force (a.k.a. excessive force; this category includes not only unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest or in dealing with a prisoner, but also ridiculing, taunting, humiliating, or mentally abusing you)Filing the Complaint
As mentioned previously, make sure your complaint alleges at least one specific category of misconduct! (See examples above.) This serves two purposes. First, this makes it irrefutably clear what misconduct you are accusing the officer of, and thus helps to set the stage for your complaint to be appropriately reviewed and investigated. Secondly, and even more importantly, a specific allegation makes it tougher for the departmental employees handling the complaint to clear the officer without any substantial refutation of your allegations, and thus tougher for them to sweep it under the rug. It’s easier for an agency to dismiss a raw statement of facts which contains some misconduct buried deep within, than to dismiss a report which specifically names one or more official categories of misconduct. As such, try to pick the best few applicable policy violations and list them in a boldface heading at the top of your complaint. In addition to the serious offenses listed above, other categories of misconduct include:
Abuse of authorityAbuse of processConduct unbecoming a law enforcement officerLack of professionalismNeglect of dutyRetaliation (e.g., for a previous complaint you filed!)There is clearly a lot of overlap between categories, so you should be able to cite plenty of types of misconduct in your report. Don’t limit yourself to the items listed here; check your local police department operational manual or procedural handbook for additional categories!
Remember, if the incident about which you are complaining is part of a pattern of behavior by the subject officer(s), be sure to note this in your complaint!
Finally, make sure that you mail the complaint report using Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. That way, you’ll end up with a postcard that says who at the department signed for your complaint, and the department cannot later allege that they never received it.
Procedure
What happens after I file a complaint?
First, the intake stage. A sergeant (or higher ranking officer; this person will be known as the “intake officer”) will conduct a preliminary review the complaint and determine whether the allegations, if true, would constitute non-minor misconduct. Next, there are several other grounds for dismissal of the complaint besides the misconduct being categorized as minor. For example, a determination that your allegations are intentionally and materially false will lead to your complaint being dismissed. Trivial or frivolous complaints (i.e., those which allege minor technical violations of procedural rules which have negligible adverse effects on the public or the agency’s credibility, such as failure by the officer to wear the uniform hat) are also dismissed during intake. Grossly illogical or improbable complaints (e.g., that an officer took control of your mind and made you punch yourself in the face) are also dismissed at this stage. Note that if you have a “history of unfounded complaints” with the agency, you may receive “special handling.” This does not mean they can automatically dismiss your complaint, but rather, that they may require you to agree to an interview or other additional procedures.
If your allegations are perceived to be minor by the reviewing officer (or not part of a pattern), your complaint dies before it is ever seriously considered — this is why it’s so important for you to clearly allege and categorize serious misconduct by the officer!
Informal investigation
A categorization of minor misconduct by the intake officer will lead to an informal investigation; this is a dead end as far as you are concerned! An informal investigation consists of nothing more than debriefing the subject officer regarding your concerns about the officer.s actions or quality of service. Most importantly, informal investigations do not trigger any formal finding or the imposition of discipline. This is why it’s so important to explicitly allege serious misconduct by the officer, and to request a formal investigation in your complaint! If your complaint gets designated for informal investigation, write the department a letter underscoring the severity of your allegations, and demanding that a formal investigation be undertaken.
Formal Investigation
A formal investigation is generally performed by the subject officer’s chain of command (his supervisors), or by an Internal Affairs officer (or bureau of officers, in the case of larger, metropolitan police agencies). Depending on your jurisdiction, Internal Affairs involvement may be reserved for allegations of serious misconduct (and the officer’s superior is generally required to notify Internal Affairs of any such allegations). During a formal investigation, the subject officer and his or her representatives are prohibited from contacting or interviewing any witnesses or conducting any type of investigation into the allegations. As such, you should report any contact or attempts at contacting you by officers who are not specifically authorized to conduct the investigation!
The subject officer is not entitled to any legal representation during the investigation process since it is generally an internal matter and does not involve a court proceeding. During the investigation, officers who are known to have knowledge (either direct or indirect) of the alleged misconduct will be required by the agency to prepare and submit an individual report which is both complete and accurate.
Be forewarned that in a rural Sheriff’s Office or other small police agency, “Internal Affairs” may consist of a single officer who is closely acquainted with, or works closely with, the subject officer. This will probably make it harder to get your complaint the attention it deserves, but the techniques in this guide should help you overcome this disadvantage!
Criminal or civil suits against the officer
If criminal charges are expected against the officer, this may affect the scheduling and handling of the investigation. This is because in a criminal case, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” (that is, the jury must be roughly 90% certain that the crime occurred). In contrast, in most civil cases or in the handling of police complaints, the standard of proof is a “preponderance of evidence” (that is, roughly 51% certainty that the allegation is true, but this may not be true with some allegations such as False Arrest, which only has to meet an even lower, “probable cause” standard). So, in the case of criminal allegations, the investigating authorities will generally wait to handle complaints after the conclusion of the criminal matter, since the evidence and results of the trial may be definitive and save investigation time (unofficially, it also decreases the odds that the police agency sweeps something under the rug that later becomes embarrassing headline news). Note that if the officer has been charged with a felony by the District Attorney’s office, the police agency will generally be forced to indefinitely suspend him or her. The filing a civil suit against the agency may likewise change the dynamic of the complaint procedure, but generally will not halt the agency’s investigation.
In the case of very serious allegations (e.g., that the officer used force or deadly force), you should lobby the District Attorney’s office to initiate its own investigation. If an affirmative defense exists (e.g., the officer was acting in self defense), or if there is insufficient evidence to convict, the District Attorney will not prosecute the officer.
If the officer is found guilty of criminal charges, there may not be any administrative penalty, since the criminal penalty is believed to be more severe. If the officer is found not guilty in the criminal trial (remember, criminal cases use the “beyond a reasonable doubt” (90%+ certain) standard of proof), he or she could still be found guilty using the “preponderance of evidence” (51%+ certain) standard of proof, and so the investigation of the officer will resume in this case.
In some jurisdictions, an independent monitor from outside the police agency will be appointed whenever criminal charges have been filed against an officer. This independent monitor will often have the discretion to continue the investigation even if the criminal charges are dismissed, and can also recommend that the Internal Affairs department conduct additional investigation into a matter. Therefore, it is definitely worth your while to work with the independent monitor to make sure all relevant evidence is considered.
Mediation
Mediation is a voluntary process for resolving complaints, and it may involve you meeting with other community members, police officers, police administrators, and/or an independent monitor. You have the right to refuse mediation if it is offered. Also, you do not have the right to demand mediation. Whether or not mediation will help achieve your goals definitely depends on the facts of your case, and the professionalism of the agency with which you are dealing. If mediation is offered to you, it is worth tracking down a lawyer or other local insider with knowledge of the mediation process and its likely effect on the results of your complaint.
The outcome
Once a formal investigation is complete, the department is required to reach an official disposition as to your complaint. Findings in formal investigations use different terminology than criminal cases. Instead of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty,” police complaint investigations can result in a variety of outcomes. An “Unfounded” finding is one where the allegation was not found to be based on facts as shown by the investigation; that is, the alleged misconduct is believed not to have occurred by the police agency. An “Exonerated” finding means that the alleged action was found to have occurred, but the investigation revealed that the action was reasonable, lawful, and proper. A “Not Sustained” finding means that insufficient evidence was available to either prove or disprove the allegation (that is, 50% or less of the evidence suggested that the allegation was true). Finally, a “Sustained” finding means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to determine that the allegation was accurate. You may have noticed that we’ve got three varieties of “Not Guilty” verdicts here, and only one “Guilty” ; this provides some indication of how much the deck is stacked against the citizen making the complaint, especially when you supposedly only need 51% of the evidence to support your allegation to result in a “Sustained” outcome!
If the subject officer is cleared of wrongdoing, some departments will allow you to appeal the decision within the department. If this option does not exist, or is unsuccessful, you’ve got several options. The lowest cost course of action would be to complain to your state representative and/or the town or city governing body. Beyond this, your only real recourse for escalating the issue is a civil lawsuit, or pursuing criminal charges against the officer, both of which are beyond the scope of this article.
Short-term implications for the subject officer
Ideally, a disciplinary outcome will result from your complaint. In order of increasing severity, this could take the form of an oral reprimand (note that despite its verbal nature, this action will still be documented in writing), a written reprimand, fine, suspension, demotion, or dismissal. Also, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the subject officer may be allowed to remain in his or her usual assignment, allowed to remain on duty but reassigned, or relieved of duty.
In some jurisdictions, “Sustained” complaints with a sufficiently severe penalty are subject to review by a Disciplinary Review Board which includes citizens, and officers who are not directly involved in the case and not in the chain of command directly above the subject officer. In some jurisdictions, officers also have the option to appeal a “Sustained” complaint to a Civil Service Commission or similar municipal authority.
Longer-term implications for the subject officer
In addition to the short term consequences of your complaint (that is, the investigation and resolution described above), your complaint also has a more indirect and longer-term consequence for the subject officer. First of all, even “Not Sustained” complaints stay in the personnel file of the subject officer, and will be reviewed during the officer’s annual performance evaluation (all officers up to, and including, the rank of captain must typically undergo this type of yearly review). Past complaints will likewise come up whenever an officer is up for promotion or transfer. If the officer is on probationary status because they are a fairly recent hire, or because of a past disciplinary problem, such complaints will probably be weighed more heavily against the officer.
Secondly, a great many police agencies now use a “declining complaint system” to identify patterns of misconduct, and to weed out retaliatory complaints (that is, complaints which are believed to be filed simply to wreak vengeance on the officer by the citizen). Under the declining complaint system, the agency will not only look at the facts surrounding your complaint, but will use the number of complaints the officer has received in the past quarter year (or longer) to decide whether the officer is receiving an abnormally high number of complaints. If so, the agency is more likely to investigate further instead of ignoring the complaints. Many police agencies also use an “early warning” or “early intervention” system which endeavors to detect early warning signs that indicate incipient patterns of future misconduct.
Both systems review the officer on a quarterly basis to determine whether the officer’s statistics are out of line when compared with “similarly situated” officers. Ideally, this means that only officers with the same tenure, shift, and neighborhood are compared, but in the real world such “similarly situated” officers may be unavailable for comparison. An officer’s statistics are also normalized to adjust for the number of complaints versus the number of contacts or arrests during the period in question, the number of uses of force versus the number of contacts or arrests, the number of crashed cars, number of rudeness complaints, etc. Small or rural police departments may employ additional statistics due to the decreased number of contacts (e.g., number of sick days taken). If any of these metrics hits a certain threshold, counseling and mentoring are ordered for the officer (or in more serious cases, disciplinary proceedings).
How many complaints does it take to raise a red flag? For a variety of likely reasons, urban police officers typically receive more complaints than their rural counterparts. The “similarly situated” statistics notwithstanding, even five complaints in a quarter would be a very high number, even for an officer who makes a lot of arrests in an urban area. Obviously, a smaller number of complaints would likely raise a red flag in a suburban or rural police department.
What if I verbally antagonized the officer before he broke out the Taser?
Officially, the fact that you called the cop a “parasitic ass-clown” as he handed you the speeding ticket (a.k.a. “contempt for the officer”; note that this, and the oft-heard “disrespecting an officer” are not actually illegal) may be “taken into consideration” during the investigation, but is not supposed to actually be a mitigating circumstance for the officer. This is quite a nuanced guideline, but you can certainly use that to your advantage by owning up to your outburst in your complaint, and making it clear that this was still no excuse for the officer’s subsequent behavior. Likewise, if you begged, “Don’t taze me, bro!” beforehand, make that clear in your complaint as well.
What about off-duty officers?
You should be aware that off-duty officers in anyjurisdiction who are charged with misdemeanors, felonies, or local law violations involving use of force (e.g., assault) or threatened use of force are generally placed under formal investigation if their department is made aware of the violation. If you are involved in an incident with an off-duty officer, never assume that the officer’s agency will find out . the only way to be sure is to file a complaint which fully documents the incident. Note also that many departments require off-duty officers, while in uniform, to adhere to the same standards of conduct as if they were on duty!
What if I can’t identify the officer?
Police agencies must make a good faith effort to identify the officer on your behalf. Unless you’re going to sue the agency (and thus will have discovery or subpoena power), you won’t have much chance to identify the officer yourself. So, if the agency cannot or will not identify the officer, your best chance is to challenge whether the agency really lived up to its obligations and made a good faith effort; ask them to document what steps they took to identify the officer(s) in question!
What about third party complaints?
Third parties can make complaints. However, they must have a “reasonably direct relationship” to the incident if filing a minor complaint. A “reasonably direct relationship” generally means the third party was directly affected by the alleged misconduct (a first-hand source), witnessed the alleged misconduct (a second-hand source), or has special, professional, or organizational knowledge about the alleged misconduct (e.g., based on the party’s capacity as a lawyer, judge, etc.) The agency isn’t allowed to dismiss less serious third party complaints if there is a reasonable explanation why the “person with standing” (the victim) did not file the complaint (e.g., the victim was a minor, elderly, disabled, deceased, doesn’t speak English well, is not a citizen, is wanted on criminal charges, has been threatened, etc.)
Can I complain anonymously?
Anonymous complaints are usually dismissed unless they allege corruption or other very serious police misconduct.
Retaliation
If the subject officer or his cronies start giving you a hard time after you file the complaint, file an additional retaliation complaint after each occurrence! That way, each complaint makes the pattern of harassment more obvious, harder to deny, and increases the chances this behavior will stop.
What if I want to commend an officer for doing something good?
While “courtesy patrol” services such as helping a stranded motorist change a flat tire seem to be in steady decline (police agencies cite budgetary restrictions demanding retasking of officers; critics cite departmental greed causing deprioritization of such services in favor of revenue-generating activity like traffic enforcement), it is conceivable that you will have reason to thank an officer acting in this capacity. And indeed, you should . the increasing rarity of such occurrences makes it all the more important to reward officers for actually protecting and/or serving the community. You can submit a narrative the same way you would in the case of a complaint. The officer will likely receive a complimentary note from the Chief or other superior officer, and perhaps a mention in the agency’s newsletter. More significant positive deeds can result in a service award or citation, Officer of the Year award, or even a medal.
External links
To get an idea of how much professionalism you will be met with when making your complaint, see how your local police department rates on this police accountability website.
Reminder: All content on this site is automatically copyrighted by virtue of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Skip to main navigation
United States CourtsSkip to main content
Main contentCode of Conduct for United States Judges
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.
Introduction
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Applicable Date of Compliance
Introduction
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the “Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges.” See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11. Since then, the Judicial Conference has made the following changes to the Code:
March 1987: deleted the word “Judicial” from the name of the Code;September 1992: adopted substantial revisions to the Code;March 1996: revised part C of the Compliance section, immediately following the Code;September 1996: revised Canons 3C(3)(a) and 5C(4);September 1999: revised Canon 3C(1)(c);September 2000: clarified the Compliance section;March 2009: adopted substantial revisions to the Code.March 2014: revised part C of the Compliance section, which appears below, immediately following the Code.
This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.
The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies. Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct by email or as follows:
Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct
c/o General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100
Procedural questions may be addressed to:
Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
COMMENTARY
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.
The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office. It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364). Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
COMMENTARY
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Canon 2B. Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial. A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require. This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.
A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.
A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office. A judge should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request. Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship.
Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge’s membership in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practices prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety. In addition, it would be a violation of Canons 2 and 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to use such a club regularly. Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge’s knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A.
When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested. A judge may:
(a) initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;
(b) when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;
(c) obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or
(d) with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.
(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.
(B) Administrative Responsibilities.
(1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.
(2) A judge should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge.
(3) A judge should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, nepotism, and favoritism. A judge should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.
(4) A judge with supervisory authority over other judges should take reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their duties timely and effectively.
(5) A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.
(C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding; (e)the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.
(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.
(3) For the purposes of this section:
(a) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives;
(b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities;
(d) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.
(4) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.
(D) Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. The judge may participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate. The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
COMMENTARY
Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.
Canon 3A(4). The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding. A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.
A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.
Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.
Canon 3A(6). The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete. If the public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A. A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).
Canon 3B(3). A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection.
Canon 3B(5). Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program. Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.
Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.
Canon 3C(1)(c). In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy. A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).
Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.
(A) Law-related Activities.
(1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice
(2) Consultation. A judge may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official:
(a)on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;
(b)to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area; or
(c)when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.
(3) Organizations. A judge may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds. A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
(4) Arbitration and Mediation. A judge should not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the judge’s official duties unless expressly authorized by law.
(5) Practice of Law. A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.
(B) Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations:
(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
(2) A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.
(C) Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
(D) Financial Activities.
(1) A judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.
(2) A judge may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family. For this purpose, “members of the judge’s family” means persons related to the judge or the judge’s spouse within the third degree of relationship as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a), any other relative with whom the judge or the judge’s spouse maintains a close familial relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing.
(3) As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.
(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.
(5) A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.
(E) Fiduciary Activities. A judge may serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family as defined in Canon 4D(4). As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions:
(1) The judge should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the judge would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) While acting as a fiduciary, a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to the judge in a personal capacity.
(F) Governmental Appointments. A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or if appointment of a judge is required by federal statute. A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A judge may represent the judge’s country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities.
(G) Chambers, Resources, and Staff. A judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities permitted by this Canon.
(H) Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting. A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:
(1) Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.
(2) Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.
(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.
COMMENTARY
Canon 4. Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that the judge’s time permits and impartiality is not compromised, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law. Subject to the same limitations, judges may also engage in a wide range of non-law-related activities.
Within the boundaries of applicable law (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 953) a judge may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges anywhere in the world if the judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution is occasioned by conflict between the professional responsibilities of the persecuted judge or lawyer and the policies or practices of the relevant government.
A person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship should be considered a member of the judge’s family for purposes of legal assistance under Canon 4A(5), fund raising under Canon 4C, and family business activities under Canon 4D(2).
Canon 4A. Teaching and serving on the board of a law school are permissible, but in the case of a for-profit law school, board service is limited to a nongoverning advisory board.
Consistent with this Canon, a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.
Canon 4A(4). This Canon generally prohibits a judge from mediating a state court matter, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., when a judge is mediating a federal matter that cannot be resolved effectively without addressing the related state court matter).
Canon 4A(5). A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with governmental bodies. In so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family.
Canon 4B. The changing nature of some organizations and their exposure to litigation make it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if the judge’s continued association is appropriate. For example, in many jurisdictions, charitable hospitals are in court more often now than in the past.
Canon 4C. A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and designations are listed for others.
Canon 4D(1), (2), and (3). Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small. Canon 4D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Canon 4H requires a judge to report compensation received for activities outside the judicial office. A judge has the rights of an ordinary citizen with respect to financial affairs, except for limitations required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties. A judge’s participation in a closely held family business, while generally permissible, may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves. Owning and receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge’s duties.
Canon 4D(5). The restriction on using nonpublic information is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.
Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge’s household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge’s family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge’s family.
The Applicable Date of Compliance provision of this Code addresses continued service as a fiduciary.
A judge’s obligation under this Code and the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary may come into conflict. For example, a judge should resign as a trustee if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest holdings whose retention would require frequent disqualification of the judge in violation of Canon 4D(3).
Canon 4F. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Canon 4H. A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation. That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation. The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.
(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.
COMMENTARY
The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.
(A) Part-time Judge
A part-time judge is a judge who serves part-time, whether continuously or periodically, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time judge. A part-time judge:
(1) is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3);
(2) except as provided in the Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Part-time Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to that court’s appellate jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.
(B) Judge Pro Tempore
A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge or as a special master.
(1) While acting in this capacity, a judge pro tempore is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4D(3), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3); further, one who acts solely as a special master is not required to comply with Canons 4A(3), 4B, 4C, 4D(4), or 5.
(2) A person who has been a judge pro tempore should not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.
(C) Retired Judge
A judge who is retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a) (applicable to Article III judges), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d) (applicable to judges on the Court of Federal Claims), or who is recalled to judicial service, should comply with all the provisions of this Code except Canon 4F, but the judge should refrain from judicial service during the period of extrajudicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 4F. All other retired judges who are eligible for recall to judicial service (except those in U.S. territories and possessions) should comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges. However, bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges who are eligible for recall but who have notified the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall are not obligated to comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges. Such notification may be made at any time after retirement, and is irrevocable. A senior judge in the territories and possessions must comply with this Code as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 373(c)(5) and (d).
COMMENTARY
The 2014 amendment to the Compliance section, regarding retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges and exempting those judges from compliance with the Code as part-time judges if they notify the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall, was not intended to alter those judges’ statutory entitlements to annuities, cost-of-living adjustments, or any other retirement benefits.
Applicable Date of Compliance
Persons to whom this Code applies should arrange their financial and fiduciary affairs as soon as reasonably possible to comply with it and should do so in any event within one year after appointment. If, however, the demands on the person’s time and the possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial, such a person may continue to act, without compensation, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary for the estate or person of one who is not a member of the person’s family if terminating the relationship would unnecessarily jeopardize any substantial interest of the estate or person and if the judicial council of the circuit approves.
Last revised (Transmittal 02-016) March 20, 2014
Share This Page
Download the Policy
Code of Conduct for United States Judges(PDF, 171.13 KB)
Ethics Policy Updates
Subscribe to be notified when we update this policy.
Email Address
Related Policies
Code of Conduct for Judicial EmployeesJudicial Conference Regulations on GiftsOutside Earned Income, Honoraria, and Employment
RSS PRIVACY & SECURITY POLICY GLOSSARY OF LEGAL TERMS OPERATING STATUS DOWNLOAD PLUG-INS EMAIL UPDATES CONTACT US FAQS
This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.
What Is a Hemiplegic Migraine Headache?
There are several types of migraine. One major group is called migraine with aura. Hemiplegic migraine is a subtype of this group.
Migraine is a complex neurological disorder. It generally includes headaches, but not always. Before the actual headache pain of a migraine, you can have a host of other symptoms that serve as warning signs that a migraine is coming. These early symptoms, called auras, include temporary disturbances in one or more functions:
VisionMuscle control and body sensationsSpeech and languageHearing
For most migraine sufferers who have aura, the visual disturbances are the most common symptom. But for people with hemiplegic migraine, muscle weakness and paralysis can be so pronounced and extreme that they cause a temporary, stroke-like paralysis on one side of the body. This paralysis on one side of the body is called hemiplegia.
My diagnosis from a neurologist I’m prescribed 2 medications for it
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
What Are the Symptoms of Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches?
Hemiplegic migraine symptoms often start in childhood. Then for some people, they disappear in adulthood. The stroke-like symptoms can range from worrisome to debilitating. Migraines are unpredictable and unique to each person. You may have a hemiplegic migraine headache with extreme pain and minor paralysis one month. Then, the next attack might bring extreme paralysis without much headache pain at all.
Symptoms of hemiplegic migraine include:
Severe, throbbing pain, often on one side of your headA pins-and-needles feeling, often moving from your hand up your armNumbness on one side of your body, which can include your arm, leg, and/or one side of your faceWeakness or paralysis on one side of your bodyLoss of balance and coordinationVisual aura, such as seeing zigzag lines,double vision, or blind spotsLanguage difficulties, such as mixing words or trouble remembering a wordSlurred speechDizziness or vertigoNausea and vomitingExtreme sensitivity to light, sound, and smellConfusionDecreased consciousness or coma
Here’s the rest of it
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches
Hemiplegic migraine is a rare type of headache. It’s also one of the most serious and potentially debilitating migraine headaches.
What Is a Hemiplegic Migraine Headache?
There are several types of migraine. One major group is called migraine with aura. Hemiplegic migraine is a subtype of this group.
Migraine is a complex neurological disorder. It generally includes headaches, but not always. Before the actual headache pain of a migraine, you can have a host of other symptoms that serve as warning signs that a migraine is coming. These early symptoms, called auras, include temporary disturbances in one or more functions:
VisionMuscle control and body sensationsSpeech and languageHearing
For most migraine sufferers who have aura, the visual disturbances are the most common symptom. But for people with hemiplegic migraine, muscle weakness and paralysis can be so pronounced and extreme that they cause a temporary, stroke-like paralysis on one side of the body. This paralysis on one side of the body is called hemiplegia.
What Are the Symptoms of Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches?
Hemiplegic migraine symptoms often start in childhood. Then for some people, they disappear in adulthood. The stroke-like symptoms can range from worrisome to debilitating. Migraines are unpredictable and unique to each person. You may have a hemiplegic migraine headache with extreme pain and minor paralysis one month. Then, the next attack might bring extreme paralysis without much headache pain at all.
Symptoms of hemiplegic migraine include:
Severe, throbbing pain, often on one side of your headA pins-and-needles feeling, often moving from your hand up your armNumbness on one side of your body, which can include your arm, leg, and/or one side of your faceWeakness or paralysis on one side of your bodyLoss of balance and coordinationVisual aura, such as seeing zigzag lines,double vision, or blind spotsLanguage difficulties, such as mixing words or trouble remembering a wordSlurred speechDizziness or vertigoNausea and vomitingExtreme sensitivity to light, sound, and smellConfusionDecreased consciousness or coma
With hemiplegic migraine, the aura can be more severe and last longer than with other types ofmigraine with aura. Symptoms usually last from five minutes to one hour. It’s rare, but some people gradually develop long-lasting difficulty with movement and coordination.
What Causes Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches?
Researchers have now identified three genes linked with hemiplegic migraine.
The three genes linked with hemiplegic migraine are the CACNA1A, ATP1A2, and SCN1A genes. Defects, or mutations, in any of these three genes lead to a breakdown in the body’s ability to make a certain protein. That protein is needed for clear communication among nerve cells. Without that protein, nerve cells have trouble releasing or taking up neurotransmitters — the chemical messengers between nerve cells.
Most people with hemiplegic migraine have inherited the gene mutation from one parent who also had the condition.
What Medical Tests Are Used to Diagnose Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches?
If you have any of the symptoms of hemiplegic migraine, see your doctor for a full evaluation. This is a serious form of migraine and many of its symptoms are also signs of a stroke. Tests to look for signs of a stroke may include a CT scan orMRI of the head. An exam may also include tests of the heart and blood vessels in your neck to evaluate whether your symptoms may be caused by blood clots forming in the heart or bloodvessels in the neck.
Genetic testing is available for hemiplegic migraine. If you have a family member with similar symptoms, or if you test positive for one of the genetic defects linked to hemiplegic migraine, you maybe diagnosed with “familial” hemiplegic migraine. That means it runs in your family, and you most likely could pass it on to your children. If you don’t test positive, your condition is called sporadic hemiplegic migrain
How Are Hemiplegic Migraine Headaches Treated?
There is disagreement over how to treat hemiplegic migraines. There is also disagreement about the safety and effectiveness of standard migraine medications. Many doctors are feeling more comfortable using triptans in the treatment of hemiplegic migraines. But your doctor may prescribe other medications to treat severe attacks and prevent future episodes. Treatment may include:
Preventive medications. Your doctor may prescribe an anticonvulsant medication orcalcium channel blocker to help reduce the number and severity of future attacks.Acute medications. As noted above, many physicians now use triptans in the treatment of an acute attack.
Here’s the whole thing I’m diagnosis is by a neurologist I’m prescribed 2 medications for it and I’m working on it well take care
Sincerely andrespectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 170-170.9
170. A judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she is not disqualified. 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: (1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. (B) A judge shall be deemed to have personal knowledge within the meaning of this paragraph if the judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (2) (A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, or in any other proceeding involving the same issues he or she served as a lawyer for a party in the present proceeding or gave advice to a party in the present proceeding upon a matter involved in the action or proceeding. (B) A judge shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if within the past two years: (i) A party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party, was a client of the judge when the judge was in the private practice of law or a client of a lawyer with whom the judge was associated in the private practice of law. (ii) A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in the private practice of law with the judge. (C) A judge who served as a lawyer for, or officer of, a public agency that is a party to the proceeding shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if he or she personally advised or in any way represented the public agency concerning the factual or legal issues in the proceeding. (3) (A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding. (B) A judge shall be deemed to have a financial interest within the meaning of this paragraph if: (i) A spouse or minor child living in the household has a financial interest. (ii) The judge or the spouse of the judge is a fiduciary who has a financial interest. (C) A judge has a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform himself or herself about his or her personal and fiduciary interests and those of his or her spouse and the personal financial interests of children living in the household. (4) The judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee of a party. (5) A lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the spouse, former spouse, child, sibling, or parent of the judge or the judge’s spouse or if such a person is associated in the private practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding. (6) (A) For any reason: (i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice. (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial. (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial. (B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. (7) By reason of permanent or temporary physical impairment, the judge is unable to properly perceive the evidence or is unable to properly conduct the proceeding. (8) (A) The judge has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years has participated in, discussions regarding prospective employment or service as a dispute resolution neutral, or has been engaged in that employment or service, and any of the following applies: (i) The arrangement is, or the prior employment or discussion was, with a party to the proceeding. (ii) The matter before the judge includes issues relating to the enforcement of either an agreement to submit a dispute to an alternative dispute resolution process or an award or other final decision by a dispute resolution neutral. (iii) The judge directs the parties to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process in which the dispute resolution neutral will be an individual or entity with whom the judge has the arrangement, has previously been employed or served, or is discussing or has discussed the employment or service. (iv) The judge will select a dispute resolution neutral or entity to conduct an alternative dispute resolution process in the matter before the judge, and among those available for selection is an individual or entity with whom the judge has the arrangement, with whom the judge has previously been employed or served, or with whom the judge is discussing or has discussed the employment or service. (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, all of the following apply: (i) “Participating in discussions” or “has participated in discussion” means that the judge solicited or otherwise indicated an interest in accepting or negotiating possible employment or service as an alternative dispute resolution neutral, or responded to an unsolicited statement regarding, or an offer of, that employment or service by expressing an interest in that employment or service, making an inquiry regarding the employment or service, or encouraging the person making the statement or offer to provide additional information about that possible employment or service. If a judge’s response to an unsolicited statement regarding, a question about, or offer of, prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral is limited to responding negatively, declining the offer, or declining to discuss that employment or service, that response does not constitute participating in discussions. (ii) “Party” includes the parent, subsidiary, or other legal affiliate of any entity that is a party and is involved in the transaction, contract, or facts that gave rise to the issues subject to the proceeding. (iii) “Dispute resolution neutral” means an arbitrator, mediator, temporary judge appointed under Section 21 of Article VI of the California Constitution, referee appointed under Section 638 or 639, special master, neutral evaluator, settlement officer, or settlement facilitator. (9) (A) The judge has received a contribution in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1500) from a party or lawyer in the proceeding, and either of the following applies: (i) The contribution was received in support of the judge’s last election, if the last election was within the last six years. (ii) The contribution was received in anticipation of an upcoming election. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the judge shall be disqualified based on a contribution of a lesser amount if subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) applies. (C) The judge shall disclose any contribution from a party or lawyer in a matter that is before the court that is required to be reported under subdivision (f) of Section 84211 of the Government Code, even if the amount would not require disqualification under this paragraph. The manner of disclosure shall be the same as that provided in Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Ethics. (D) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 170.3, the disqualification required under this paragraph may be waived by the party that did not make the contribution unless there are other circumstances that would prohibit a waiver pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 170.3. (b) A judge before whom a proceeding was tried or heard shall be disqualified from participating in any appellate review of that proceeding. (c) At the request of a party or on its own motion an appellate court shall consider whether in the interests of justice it should direct that further proceedings be heard before a trial judge other than the judge whose judgment or order was reviewed by the appellate court. 170.2. It shall not be grounds for disqualification that the judge: (a) Is or is not a member of a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or similar group and the proceeding involves the rights of such a group. (b) Has in any capacity expressed a view on a legal or factual issue presented in the proceeding, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of, or subdivision (b) or (c) of, Section 170.1. (c) Has as a lawyer or public official participated in the drafting of laws or in the effort to pass or defeat laws, the meaning, effect or application of which is in issue in the proceeding unless the judge believes that his or her prior involvement was so well known as to raise a reasonable doubt in the public mind as to his or her capacity to be impartial. 170.3. (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b). (2) If the judge disqualifying himself or herself is the only judge or the presiding judge of the court, the notification shall be sent to the person having authority to assign another judge to replace the disqualified judge. (b) (1) A judge who determines himself or herself to be disqualified after disclosing the basis for his or her disqualification on the record may ask the parties and their attorneys whether they wish to waive the disqualification, except where the basis for disqualification is as provided in paragraph (2). A waiver of disqualification shall recite the basis for the disqualification, and is effective only when signed by all parties and their attorneys and filed in the record. (2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor is either of the following: (A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. (B) The judge served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or the judge has been a material witness concerning that matter. (3) The judge shall not seek to induce a waiver and shall avoid any effort to discover which lawyers or parties favored or opposed a waiver of disqualification. (4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but before the judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the disqualified judge. (c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place. (3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall notify the presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a replacement of his or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the party’s statement and setting forth any additional facts material or relevant to the question of disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge’s answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the action. (4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a). (5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification. (6) The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and any written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the matter for hearing as promptly as practicable. If a hearing is ordered, the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be disqualified to argue the question of disqualification and shall for good cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of fact. If the judge deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a). (d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the parties to the proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order determining the question of disqualification. If the notice of entry is served by mail, that time shall be extended as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1013. 170.4. (a) A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her disqualification may do any of the following: (1) Take any action or issue any order necessary to maintain the jurisdiction of the court pending the assignment of a judge not disqualified. (2) Request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place. (3) Hear and determine purely default matters. (4) Issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent domain proceedings. (5) Set proceedings for trial or hearing. (6) Conduct settlement conferences. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 170.3, if a statement of disqualification is untimely filed or if on its face it discloses no legal grounds for disqualification, the trial judge against whom it was filed may order it stricken. (c) (1) If a statement of disqualification is filed after a trial or hearing has commenced by the start of voir dire, by the swearing of the first witness or by the submission of a motion for decision, the judge whose impartiality has been questioned may order the trial or hearing to continue, notwithstanding the filing of the statement of disqualification. The issue of disqualification shall be referred to another judge for decision as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 170.3, and if it is determined that the judge is disqualified, all orders and rulings of the judge found to be disqualified made after the filing of the statement shall be vacated. (2) For the purposes of this subdivision, if (A) a proceeding is filed in a single judge court or has been assigned to a single judge for comprehensive disposition, and (B) the proceeding has been set for trial or hearing 30 or more days in advance before a judge whose name was known at the time, the trial or hearing shall be deemed to have commenced 10 days prior to the date scheduled for trial or hearing as to any grounds for disqualification known before that time. (3) A party may file no more than one statement of disqualification against a judge unless facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the first statement of disqualification was filed. Repetitive statements of disqualification not alleging facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification shall be stricken by the judge against whom they are filed. (d) Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined. 170.5. For the purposes of Sections 170 to 170.5, inclusive, the following definitions apply: (a) “Judge” means judges of the superior courts, and court commissioners and referees. (b) “Financial interest” means ownership of more than a 1 percent legal or equitable interest in a party, or a legal or equitable interest in a party of a fair market value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), or a relationship as director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except as follows: (1) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in those securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund. (2) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization. (3) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest. (c) “Officer of a public agency” does not include a Member of the Legislature or a state or local agency official acting in a legislative capacity. (d) The third degree of relationship shall be calculated according to the civil law system. (e) “Private practice of law” includes a fee for service, retainer, or salaried representation of private clients or public agencies, but excludes lawyers as full-time employees of public agencies or lawyers working exclusively for legal aid offices, public defender offices, or similar nonprofit entities whose clientele is by law restricted to the indigent. (f) “Proceeding” means the action, case, cause, motion, or special proceeding to be tried or heard by the judge. (g) “Fiduciary” includes any executor, trustee, guardian, or administrator. 170.6. (a) (1) A judge, court commissioner, or referee of a superior court of the State of California shall not try a civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it is established as provided in this section that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding. (2) A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is assigned, is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee. If the judge, other than a judge assigned to the case for all purposes, court commissioner, or referee assigned to, or who is scheduled to try, the cause or hear the matter is known at least 10 days before the date set for trial or hearing, the motion shall be made at least 5 days before that date. If directed to the trial of a cause with a master calendar, the motion shall be made to the judge supervising the master calendar not later than the time the cause is assigned for trial. If directed to the trial of a criminal cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 10 days after the appearance. If directed to the trial of a civil cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance. If the court in which the action is pending is authorized to have no more than one judge, and the motion claims that the duly elected or appointed judge of that court is prejudiced, the motion shall be made before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the first appearance in the action of the party who is making the motion or whose attorney is making the motion. In no event shall a judge, court commissioner, or referee entertain the motion if it is made after the drawing of the name of the first juror, or if there is no jury, after the making of an opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, or if there is no opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, then after swearing in the first witness or the giving of any evidence or after trial of the cause has otherwise commenced. If the motion is directed to a hearing, other than the trial of a cause, the motion shall be made not later than the commencement of the hearing. In the case of trials or hearings not specifically provided for in this paragraph, the procedure specified herein shall be followed as nearly as possible. The fact that a judge, court commissioner, or referee has presided at, or acted in connection with, a pretrial conference or other hearing, proceeding, or motion prior to trial, and not involving a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits, shall not preclude the later making of the motion provided for in this paragraph at the time and in the manner herein provided. A motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s decision, or following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s final judgment, if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter. Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the party who filed the appeal that resulted in the reversal of a final judgment of a trial court may make a motion under this section regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so. The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party’s attorney has been notified of the assignment. (3) A party to a civil action making that motion under this section shall serve notice on all parties no later than five days after making the motion. (4) If the motion is duly presented, and the affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, thereupon and without any further act or proof, the judge supervising the master calendar, if any, shall assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter. In other cases, the trial of the cause or the hearing of the matter shall be assigned or transferred to another judge, court commissioner, or referee of the court in which the trial or matter is pending or, if there is no other judge, court commissioner, or referee of the court in which the trial or matter is pending, the Chair of the Judicial Council shall assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter as promptly as possible. Except as provided in this section, no party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than one such motion in any one action or special proceeding pursuant to this section. In actions or special proceedings where there may be more than one plaintiff or similar party or more than one defendant or similar party appearing in the action or special proceeding, only one motion for each side may be made in any one action or special proceeding. (5) Unless required for the convenience of the court or unless good cause is shown, a continuance of the trial or hearing shall not be granted by reason of the making of a motion under this section. If a continuance is granted, the cause or matter shall be continued from day to day or for other limited periods upon the trial or other calendar and shall be reassigned or transferred for trial or hearing as promptly as possible. (6) Any affidavit filed pursuant to this section shall be in substantially the following form: (Here set forth court and cause) State of ss. PEREMPTORY California, CHALLENGE County of ___________ ____, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he or she is a party (or attorney for a party) to the within action (or special proceeding). That ____ the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the trial of the (or a hearing in the) action (or special proceeding) is pending (or to whom it is assigned) is prejudiced against the party (or his or her attorney) or the interest of the party (or his or her attorney) so that affiant cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of ______, 20__. (Clerk or notary public or other officer administering oath) (7) Any oral statement under oath or declaration under penalty of perjury made pursuant to this section shall include substantially the same contents as the affidavit above. (b) Nothing in this section shall affect or limit Section 170 or Title 4 (commencing with Section 392) of Part 2, and this section shall be construed as cumulative thereto. (c) If any provision of this section or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this section are declared to be severable. 170.7. Section 170.6 does not apply to a judge designated or assigned to serve on the appellate division of a superior court in the judge’s capacity as a judge of that division. 170.8. When there is no judge of a court qualified to hear an action or proceeding, the clerk shall forthwith notify the Chairman of the Judicial Council of that fact. The judge assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council shall hear the action or proceeding at the time fixed therefor or, if no time has been fixed or good cause appears for changing the time theretofore fixed, the judge shall fix a time for hearing in accordance with law and rules and hear the action or proceeding at the time so fixed. 170.9. (a) A judge shall not accept gifts from a single source in a calendar year with a total value of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). This section shall not be construed to authorize the receipt of gifts that would otherwise be prohibited by the Code of Judicial Ethics adopted by the California Supreme Court or any other law. (b) This section shall not prohibit or limit the following: (1) Payments, advances, or reimbursements for travel and related lodging and subsistence permitted by subdivision (e). (2) Wedding gifts and gifts exchanged between individuals on birthdays, holidays, and other similar occasions, if the gifts exchanged are not substantially disproportionate in value. (3) A gift, bequest, favor, or loan from a person whose preexisting relationship with a judge would prevent the judge from hearing a case involving that person, under the Code of Judicial Ethics adopted by the California Supreme Court. (c) For purposes of this section, “judge” includes all of the following: (1) Judges of the superior courts. (2) Justices of the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. (3) Subordinate judicial officers, as defined in Section 71601 of the Government Code. (d) The gift limitation amounts in this section shall be adjusted biennially by the Commission on Judicial Performance to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, rounded to the nearest ten dollars ($10). (e) Payments, advances, or reimbursements for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence that is reasonably related to a judicial or governmental purpose, or to an issue of state, national, or international public policy, are not prohibited or limited by this section if any of the following apply: (1) The travel is in connection with a speech, practice demonstration, or group or panel discussion given or participated in by the judge, the lodging and subsistence expenses are limited to the day immediately preceding, the day of, and the day immediately following the speech, demonstration, or discussion, and the travel is within the United States. (2) The travel is provided by a government, a governmental agency or authority, a foreign government, a foreign bar association, an international service organization, a bona fide public or private educational institution, as defined in Section 203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a nonprofit charitable or religious organization that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or by a person domiciled outside the United States who substantially satisfies the requirements for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. For purposes of this section, “foreign bar association” means an association of attorneys located outside the United States (A) that performs functions substantially equivalent to those performed by state or local bar associations in this state and (B) that permits membership by attorneys in that country representing various legal specialties and does not limit membership to attorneys generally representing one side or another in litigation. “International service organization” means a bona fide international service organization of which the judge is a member. A judge who accepts travel payments from an international service organization pursuant to this subdivision shall not preside over or participate in decisions affecting that organization, its state or local chapters, or its local members. (3) The travel is provided by a state or local bar association or judges professional association in connection with testimony before a governmental body or attendance at any professional function hosted by the bar association or judges professional association, the lodging and subsistence expenses are limited to the day immediately preceding, the day of, and the day immediately following the professional function. (f) Payments, advances, and reimbursements for travel not described in subdivision (e) are subject to the limit in subdivision (a). (g) No judge shall accept any honorarium. (h) “Honorarium” means a payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at a public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering. (i) “Honorarium” does not include earned income for personal services that are customarily provided in connection with the practice of a bona fide business, trade, or profession, such as teaching or writing for a publisher, and does not include fees or other things of value received pursuant to Section 94.5 of the Penal Code for performance of a marriage. For purposes of this section, “teaching” shall include presentations to impart educational information to lawyers in events qualifying for credit under mandatory continuing legal education, to students in bona fide educational institutions, and to associations or groups of judges. (j) Subdivisions (a) and (e) shall apply to all payments, advances, and reimbursements for travel and related lodging and subsistence. (k) This section does not apply to any honorarium that is not used and, within 30 days after receipt, is either returned to the donor or delivered to the Controller for deposit in the General Fund without being claimed as a deduction from income for tax purposes. (l) “Gift” means a payment to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business to members of the public without regard to official status. A person, other than a defendant in a criminal action, who claims that a payment is not a gift by reason of receipt of consideration has the burden of proving that the consideration received is of equal or greater value. However, the term “gift” does not include any of the following: (1) Informational material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, periodicals, cassettes and discs, or free or reduced-price admission, tuition, or registration, for informational conferences or seminars. No payment for travel or reimbursement for any expenses shall be deemed “informational material.” (2) Gifts that are not used and, within 30 days after receipt, are returned to the donor or delivered to a charitable organization without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes. (3) Gifts from a judge’s spouse, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, or first cousin or the spouse of any such person. However, a gift from any of those persons shall be considered a gift if the donor is acting as an agent or intermediary for a person not covered by this paragraph. (4) Campaign contributions required to be reported under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 84100) of Title 9 of the Government Code. (5) Any devise or inheritance. (6) Personalized plaques and trophies with an individual value of less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). (7) Admission to events hosted by state or local bar associations or judges professional associations, and provision of related food and beverages at those events, when attendance does not require “travel,” as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e). (m) The Commission on Judicial Performance shall enforce the prohibitions of this section with regard to judges of the superior courts and justices of the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. With regard to subordinate judicial officers, consistent with Section 18.1 of Article VI of the California Constitution, the court employing the subordinate judicial officer shall exercise initial jurisdiction to enforce the prohibitions of this section, and the Commission on Judicial Performance shall exercise discretionary jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement of the prohibitions of this section.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 2009-2015.6
2009. An affidavit may be used to verify a pleading or a paper in a special proceeding, to prove the service of a summons, notice, or other paper in an action or special proceeding, to obtain a provisional remedy, the examination of a witness, or a stay of proceedings, and in uncontested proceedings to establish a record of birth, or upon a motion, and in any other case expressly permitted by statute. 2010. Evidence of the publication of a document or notice required by law, or by an order of a Court or Judge, to be published in a newspaper, may be given by the affidavit of the printer of the newspaper, or his foreman or principal clerk, annexed to a copy of the document or notice, specifying the times when, and the paper in which, the publication was made. [2011.] Section Two Thousand and Eleven. If such affidavit be made in an action or special proceeding pending in a Court, it may be filed with the Court or a Clerk thereof. If not so made, it may be filed with the Clerk of the county where the newspaper is printed. In either case the original affidavit, or a copy thereof, certified by the Judge of the Court or Clerk having it in custody, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 2012. An affidavit to be used before any court, judge, or officer of this state may be taken before any officer authorized to administer oaths. [2013.] Section Two Thousand and Thirteen. An affidavit taken in another State of the United States, to be used in this State, may be taken before a Commissioner appointed by the Governor of this State to take affidavits and depositions in such other State, or before any Notary Public in another State, or before any Judge or Clerk of a Court of record having a seal. [2014.] Section Two Thousand and Fourteen. An affidavit taken in a foreign country to be used in this State, may be taken before an Embassador, Minister, Consul, Vice Consul, or Consular Agent of the United States, or before any Judge of a Court of record having a seal in such foreign country. 2015. When an affidavit is taken before a Judge or a Court in another State, or in a foreign country, the genuineness of the signature of the Judge, the existence of the Court, and the fact that such Judge is a member thereof, must be certified by the Clerk of the Court, under the seal thereof. 2015.3. The certificate of a sheriff, marshal, or the clerk of the superior court, has the same force and effect as his or her affidavit. 2015.5. Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form: (a) If executed within this state: “I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”: _____________ _________ (Date and Place) (Signature) (b) If executed at any place, within or without this state: “I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”: _____________ _________ (Date) (Signature) 2015.6. Whenever, under any law of this State or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to law, an oath is required to be taken by a person appointed to discharge specific duties in a particular action, proceeding or matter, whether or not pending in court, including but not limited to a person appointed as executor, administrator, guardian, conservator, appraiser, receiver, or elisor, an unsworn written affirmation may be made and executed, in lieu of such oath. Such affirmation shall commence “I solemnly affirm,” shall state the substance of the other matter required by the oath, the date and place of execution and shall be subscribed by him.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6 of Article XI, the County of Sacramento and all or any of the cities within the County of Sacramento may be consolidated as a charter city and county as provided by statute, with the approval of a majority of the electors of the county voting on the question of such consolidation and upon such other vote as the Legislature may prescribe in such statute. The charter City and County of Sacramento shall be a charter city and a charter county. Its charter city powers supersede conflicting charter county powers. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 1.5. The Legislature shall protect, by law, from forced sale a certain portion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 2. Except for tax exemptions provided in Article XIII, the rights, powers, privileges, and confirmations conferred by Sections 10 and 15 of Article IX in effect on January 1, 1973, relating to Stanford University and the Huntington Library and Art Gallery, are continued in effect. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti- tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: ________________________________________________________________ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________ ________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.” And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. “Public officer and employee” includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 4. The Legislature shall not pass any laws permitting the leasing or alienation of any franchise, so as to relieve the franchise or property held thereunder from the liabilities of the lessor or grantor, lessee, or grantee, contracted or incurred in the operation, use, or enjoyment of such franchise, or any of its privileges. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 5. All laws now in force in this State concerning corporations and all laws that may be hereafter passed pursuant to this section may be altered from time to time or repealed. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 6. Any legislator whose term of office is reduced by operation of the amendment to subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article IV adopted by the people in 1972 shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, be entitled to retirement benefits and compensation as if the term of office had not been so reduced. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 7. The limitations on the number of terms prescribed by Section 2 of Article IV, Sections 2 and 11 of Article V, Section 2 of Article IX, and Section 17 of Article XIII apply only to terms to which persons are elected or appointed on or after November 6, 1990, except that an incumbent Senator whose office is not on the ballot for the general election on that date may serve only one additional term. Those limitations shall not apply to any unexpired term to which a person is elected or appointed if the remainder of the term is less than half of the full term. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 22. The State of California, subject to the internal revenue laws of the United States, shall have the exclusive right and power to license and regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession and transportation of alcoholic beverages within the State, and subject to the laws of the United States regulating commerce between foreign nations and among the states shall have the exclusive right and power to regulate the importation into and exportation from the State, of alcoholic beverages. In the exercise of these rights and powers, the Legislature shall not constitute the State or any agency thereof a manufacturer or seller of alcoholic beverages. All alcoholic beverages may be bought, sold, served, consumed and otherwise disposed of in premises which shall be licensed as provided by the Legislature. In providing for the licensing of premises, the Legislature may provide for the issuance of, among other licenses, licenses for the following types of premises where the alcoholic beverages specified in the licenses may be sold and served for consumption upon the premises: (a) For bona fide public eating places, as defined by the Legislature. (b) For public premises in which food shall not be sold or served as in a bona fide public eating place, but upon which premises the Legislature may permit the sale or service of food products incidental to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages. No person under the age of 21 years shall be permitted to enter and remain in any such premises without lawful business therein. (c) For public premises for the sale and service of beers alone. (d) Under such conditions as the Legislature may impose, for railroad dining or club cars, passenger ships, common carriers by air, and bona fide clubs after such clubs have been lawfully operated for not less than one year. The sale, furnishing, giving, or causing to be sold, furnished, or giving away of any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 years is hereby prohibited, and no person shall sell, furnish, give, or cause to be sold, furnished, or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 years, and no person under the age of 21 years shall purchase any alcoholic beverage. The Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be the head of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, shall be appointed by the Governor subject to confirmation by a majority vote of all of the members elected to the Senate, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The director may be removed from office by the Governor, and the Legislature shall have the power, by a majority vote of all members elected to each house, to remove the director from office for dereliction of duty or corruption or incompetency. The director may appoint three persons who shall be exempt from civil service, in addition to the person he is authorized to appoint by Section 4 of Article XXIV. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall have the exclusive power, except as herein provided and in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature, to license the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in this State, and to collect license fees or occupation taxes on account thereof. The department shall have the power, in its discretion, to deny, suspend or revoke any specific alcoholic beverages license if it shall determine for good cause that the granting or continuance of such license would be contrary to public welfare or morals, or that a person seeking or holding a license has violated any law prohibiting conduct involving moral turpitude. It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensee of said department to manufacture, import or sell alcoholic beverages in this State. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board shall consist of three members appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of all of the members elected to the Senate. Each member, at the time of his initial appointment, shall be a resident of a different county from the one in which either of the other members resides. The members of the board may be removed from office by the Governor, and the Legislature shall have the power, by a majority vote of all members elected to each house, to remove any member from office for dereliction of duty or corruption or incompetency. When any person aggrieved thereby appeals from a decision of the department ordering any penalty assessment, issuing, denying, transferring, suspending or revoking any license for the manufacture, importation, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the board shall review the decision subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the Legislature. In such cases, the board shall not receive evidence in addition to that considered by the department. Review by the board of a decision of the department shall be limited to the questions whether the department has proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction, whether the department has proceeded in the manner required by law, whether the decision is supported by the findings, and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. In appeals where the board finds that there is relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or which was improperly excluded at the hearing before the department it may enter an order remanding the matter to the department for reconsideration in the light of such evidence. In all other appeals the board shall enter an order either affirming or reversing the decision of the department. When the order reverses the decision of the department, the board may direct the reconsideration of the matter in the light of its order and may direct the department to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the order shall not limit or control in any way the discretion vested by law in the department. Orders of the board shall be subject to judicial review upon petition of the director or any party aggrieved by such order. A concurrent resolution for the removal of either the director or any member of the board may be introduced in the Legislature only if five Members of the Senate, or 10 Members of the Assembly, join as authors. Until the Legislature shall otherwise provide, the privilege of keeping, buying, selling, serving, and otherwise disposing of alcoholic beverages in bona fide hotels, restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, railroad dining or club cars, passenger ships, and other public eating places, and in bona fide clubs after such clubs have been lawfully operated for not less than one year, and the privilege of keeping, buying, selling, serving, and otherwise disposing of beers on any premises open to the general public shall be licensed and regulated under the applicable provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions hereof, and excepting that the license fee to be charged bona fide hotels, restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, railroad dining or club cars, passenger ships, and other public eating places, and any bona fide clubs after such clubs have been lawfully operated for not less than one year, for the privilege of keeping, buying, selling, or otherwise disposing of alcoholic beverages, shall be the amounts prescribed as of the operative date hereof, subject to the power of the Legislature to change such fees. The State Board of Equalization shall assess and collect such excise taxes as are or may be imposed by the Legislature on account of the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic beverages in this State. The Legislature may authorize, subject to reasonable restrictions, the sale in retail stores of alcoholic beverages contained in the original packages, where such alcoholic beverages are not to be consumed on the premises where sold; and may provide for the issuance of all types of licenses necessary to carry on the activities referred to in the first paragraph of this section, including, but not limited to, licenses necessary for the manufacture, production, processing, importation, exportation, transportation, wholesaling, distribution, and sale of any and all kinds of alcoholic beverages. The Legislature shall provide for apportioning the amounts collected for license fees or occupation taxes under the provisions hereof between the State and the cities, counties and cities and counties of the State, in such manner as the Legislature may deem proper. All constitutional provisions and laws inconsistent with the provisions hereof are hereby repealed. The provisions of this section shall be self-executing, but nothing herein shall prohibit the Legislature from enacting laws implementing and not inconsistent with such provisions. This amendment shall become operative on January 1, 1957. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS SEC. 23. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the Speaker of the Assembly shall be an ex officio member, having equal rights and duties with the nonlegislative members, of any state agency created by the Legislature in the field of public higher education which is charged with the management, administration, and control of the State College System of California.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
CODE SECTION
Code: Select Code CONS BPC CIV CCP COM CORP EDC ELEC EVID FAM FIN FGC FAC GOV HNC HSC INS LAB MVC PEN PROB PCC PRC PUC RTC SHC UIC VEH WAT WIC Section:
Up^ <> cross-reference chaptered billsPDF | Add To My Favorites
CODE TEXT
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – CCP
PART 1. OF COURTS OF JUSTICE [35 – 286] ( Part 1 repealed and added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )
TITLE 2. JUDICIAL OFFICERS [165 – 187] ( Title 2 repealed and added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )
CHAPTER 3. Disqualifications of Judges [170 – 170.9] ( Chapter 3 added by Code Amendments 1880, Ch. 35. )
170.6.
(a) (1) A judge, court commissioner, or referee of a superior court of the State of California shall not try a civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it is established as provided in this section that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.
(2) A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is assigned, is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee. If the judge, other than a judge assigned to the case for all purposes, court commissioner, or referee assigned to, or who is scheduled to try, the cause or hear the matter is known at least 10 days before the date set for trial or hearing, the motion shall be made at least 5 days before that date. If directed to the trial of a cause with a master calendar, the motion shall be made to the judge supervising the master calendar not later than the time the cause is assigned for trial. If directed to the trial of a criminal cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 10 days after the appearance. If directed to the trial of a civil cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance. If the court in which the action is pending is authorized to have no more than one judge, and the motion claims that the duly elected or appointed judge of that court is prejudiced, the motion shall be made before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the first appearance in the action of the party who is making the motion or whose attorney is making the motion. In no event shall a judge, court commissioner, or referee entertain the motion if it is made after the drawing of the name of the first juror, or if there is no jury, after the making of an opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, or if there is no opening statement by counsel for plaintiff, then after swearing in the first witness or the giving of any evidence or after trial of the cause has otherwise commenced. If the motion is directed to a hearing, other than the trial of a cause, the motion shall be made not later than the commencement of the hearing. In the case of trials or hearings not specifically provided for in this paragraph, the procedure specified herein shall be followed as nearly as possible. The fact that a judge, court commissioner, or referee has presided at, or acted in connection with, a pretrial conference or other hearing, proceeding, or motion prior to trial, and not involving a determination of contested fact issues relating to the merits, shall not preclude the later making of the motion provided for in this paragraph at the time and in the manner herein provided.
A motion under this paragraph may be made following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s decision, or following reversal on appeal of a trial court’s final judgment, if the trial judge in the prior proceeding is assigned to conduct a new trial on the matter. Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the party who filed the appeal that resulted in the reversal of a final judgment of a trial court may make a motion under this section regardless of whether that party or side has previously done so. The motion shall be made within 60 days after the party or the party’s attorney has been notified of the assignment.
(3) A party to a civil action making that motion under this section shall serve notice on all parties no later than five days after making the motion.
(4) If the motion is duly presented, and the affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, thereupon and without any further act or proof, the judge supervising the master calendar, if any, shall assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter. In other cases, the trial of the cause or the hearing of the matter shall be assigned or transferred to another judge, court commissioner, or referee of the court in which the trial or matter is pending or, if there is no other judge, court commissioner, or referee of the court in which the trial or matter is pending, the Chair of the Judicial Council shall assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter as promptly as possible. Except as provided in this section, no party or attorney shall be permitted to make more than one such motion in any one action or special proceeding pursuant to this section. In actions or special proceedings where there may be more than one plaintiff or similar party or more than one defendant or similar party appearing in the action or special proceeding, only one motion for each side may be made in any one action or special proceeding.
(5) Unless required for the convenience of the court or unless good cause is shown, a continuance of the trial or hearing shall not be granted by reason of the making of a motion under this section. If a continuance is granted, the cause or matter shall be continued from day to day or for other limited periods upon the trial or other calendar and shall be reassigned or transferred for trial or hearing as promptly as possible.
(6) Any affidavit filed pursuant to this section shall be in substantially the following form:
(Here set forth court and cause)
State of California,
ss.
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
County of ____, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he or she is
a party (or attorney for a party) to the within action (or special proceeding). That ____ the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the trial of the (or a hearing in the) action (or special proceeding) is pending (or to whom it is assigned) is prejudiced against the party (or his or her attorney) or the interest of the party (or his or her attorney) so that affiant cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
______ day of ______, 20__.
(Clerk or notary public or other
officer administering oath)
(7) Any oral statement under oath or declaration under penalty of perjury made pursuant to this section shall include substantially the same contents as the affidavit above.
(b) Nothing in this section shall affect or limit Section 170 or Title 4 (commencing with Section 392) of Part 2, and this section shall be construed as cumulative thereto.
(c) If any provision of this section or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this section are declared to be severable.
(Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 131, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2011.)
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Skip to main content
Public Law Library of King County
ASK US
Search form
Search
Main menu
CatalogContactSeattle LibraryMRJC LibraryBoard of TrusteesMission StatementEmploymentPoliciesAnnual ReportServicesBorrow BooksDatabasesDoc. DeliveryComputersCopiersFaxes & ScansLegal ClinicsLibrary CatalogMeeting RoomsNotary ServicesOffice SuppliesVideo VisitsClassesFormsCriminalEstatesFamilyForm SetsSelf-HelpMore…GuidesResearch GuidesPodcastsLinksBy JurisdictionBy Topic
Section 1983 Civil Rights Actions Guide
This guide briefly discusses the background of federal laws related to Section 1983 civil rights actions and provides information about related books in our collection and web sites providing Section 1983 information. Visit either of the following web sites for definitions of the terms used here:
Legal Dictionary from Law.comWashington State Court’s Glossary of Terms
What is Section 1983?
“Section 1983” refers to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the federal statute that enables you to file a civil action for deprivation of constitutional and federal statutory rights by persons acting under “color of law.” Originally enacted in 1871, Section 1983 litigation experienced a period of dormancy, until 1961 and the landmark Supreme Court case,Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), which gave private litigants a federal court remedy as a first resort rather than only in default of (or after) state action. Today, Section 1983 actions most commonly involve 1st Amendment issues like freedom of speech; 4th Amendment issues like search and seizure or use of force; 8th Amendment issues like cruel and unusual punishment; and 14th Amendment claims of due process violations.
What Laws Govern Section 1983 Actions?
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, ch. 22, §1, 17 Stat. 13 is the larger act of which 42 U.S.C. §1983 is one part. The jurisdictional authority of 42 U.S.C. §1983 is prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §1343 (a)(3). Individual state statutes of limitation will generally apply to Section 1983 claims. In Washington State, RCW 4.16.080 defines actions limited to three years. A number of cases have noted that this three-year personal injury statute of limitations applies to Section 1983 actions, including RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045 (2002).
Sources of General Background Information
Section 1983 litigation in a nutshell by Michael G. Collins, shelved at KF 1325 .C58 C65 2011.Typical Section 1983 Claims (2008) by Maureen M. Middleton.
Sources for Specific Section 1983 Claims
Section 1983 actions can take many forms. The following sources offer general information about specific types of Section 1983 claims:
Police Misconduct:
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law (2008) by John J. Davis.
Failure to Act:
Failure to Train as a Theory of Section 1983 Liability in the 11th Circuit (2008) by Philip W. Savrin.
Education:
Liability Under Section 1983 (2003) by the Legal Services Department of the Orange County Department of Education.
Web Resources:
Section 1983 Outline (2011) by Kent Brintnall (2002), updated 2011 by Office of Staff Attorneys, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Section 1983 Litigation (1998) by Karen M. Blum and Kathryn R. Urbonya, Federal Judicial Center.
Civil Rights Division guide from the United States Department of Justice.
Links: 09.09.13
Topic: Civil RightsSection 1983Jurisdiction: FederalGeneral
Without access to information, there is no justice.
CATALOGCONTACTSeattle LibraryMRJC LibraryBoard of TrusteesMission StatementEmploymentPoliciesAnnual ReportSERVICESBorrow BooksDatabasesDoc. DeliveryComputersCopiersFaxes & ScansLegal ClinicsLibrary CatalogMeeting RoomsNotary ServicesOffice SuppliesVideo VisitsCLASSESFORMSCriminalEstatesFamilyForm SetsSelf-HelpMore…GUIDESResearch GuidesPodcastsLINKSBy JurisdictionBy Topic
© Copyright Public Law Library of King County | Login
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Last edited 4 years ago by PaulDiFoglio
42 U.S.C. § 1983Watch this page
42 U.S.C. § 1983, popularly known as “Section 1983,” is a federal law that allowslawsuits for violations of constitutional rights.
Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for any person who has been deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law. A plaintiff must prove that (1) the conduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) that as a result of this conduct plaintiff was deprived of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
The first requirement is known as the state action requirement. Plaintiff must prove that conduct was “fairly attributable to the state,” and attribution is limited because it “preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law and federal judicial powers.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 936 (1982).
In Monell v. Department of Social Services, theU.S. Supreme Court held that municipalities and local governments can be sued if the action was attributable to an official policy. They do not enjoy absolute immunity. But the defendant municipal officials must have had “final policymaking authority” to bind the municipality.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits Section 1983 claims against states and therefore state officials for money damages.
Section 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs who prevail under Section 1983. Defendants may obtain attorneys’ fees only if the action is frivolous.See Hughes v. Rowe (1980).
Supreme Court StandardStatutory LanguageElementsDefensesSection 1983References
Conservapedia MobileDesktopPrivacy
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Statutes Pertaining to Violations of Civil Rights
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Every person who, under color or any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State of Territory, subjects … any citizen of the United States … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Felony to Interfere With Civil Rights
Title 42 U.S.C § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duty. If two or more persons … conspire to prevent … any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties.
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; … or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1985 pertains to a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, (1) to prevent an officer from performing a duty; (2) obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror; (3) or depriving persons of rights or privileges.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented;
And such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Committing Massive Civil Rights Violations
To Block Exposing High-Level Corruption
In other pages are explained the massive civil rights violations perpetrated by people in government offices that had the duty to protect civil rights. Their civil rights violations were part of a scheme to halt former federal agent Rodney Stich and his coalition from reporting criminal activities involving people in key government positions. Sample links follows:
Legal schemes involving a hoard of lawyers and law firms, federal judges, California judges, and Department of Justice employees.
First sham lawsuit violating blocks of state and federal laws and constitutional protections.
Second sham lawsuit.
Third sham lawsuit.
Civil rights violations to block exposing corruption relating to a series of aviation disasters, including among the latest, the 9/11 hijackings, and blocking exposure of criminal activities involving key people in government.
List of Documentary Books
On Endemic Corruption in the United States
Over a dozen highly detailed and documented books revealing a nation’s leaders as riddled with corruption with a history of resulting tragedies. These are heavily details books written by granddaddy of corruption-exposing whistleblower Rodney Stich with input from an unprecedented number of key personnel involved in covert and overt activities. They provide the material for a peaceful “Arab Spring” outrage among courageous Americans. (These books are available in print and digital format atwww.amazon.com; www.google.com; and other web sites. At each site, put “Rodney Stich” into the search box for a list of these books.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
(a)GenerallyThe Commission—
(1)shall investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation relating to deprivations—
(A)
because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; or
(B)
as a result of any pattern or practice of fraud;
of the right of citizens of the United States to vote and have votes counted; and
(2)shall—
(A)
study and collect information relating to;
(B)
make appraisals of the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to;
(C)
serve as a national clearinghouse for information relating to; and
(D)
prepare public service announcements and advertising campaigns to discourage;
discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution of the United States because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice.
(b)Limitations on investigatory duties
Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed as authorizing the Commission, its advisory committees, or any person under its supervision or control, to inquire into or investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or university fraternity or sorority, any private club, or any religious organization.
(c)Reports
(1)Annual report
The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress at least one report annually that monitors Federal civil rights enforcement efforts in the United States.
(2)Other reports generally
The Commission shall submit such other reports to the President and the Congress as the Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem appropriate.
(d)Advisory committees
The Commission may constitute such advisory committees as it deems advisable. The Commission shall establish at least one such committee in each State and the District of Columbia composed of citizens of that State or District.
(e)Hearings and ancillary matters
(1)Power to hold hearings
The Commission, or on the authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee of two or more members of the Commission, at least one of whom shall be of each major political party, may, for the purpose of carrying out this chapter, hold such hearings and act at such times and places as the Commission or such authorized subcommittee deems advisable. Each member of the Commission shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations in connection with the proceedings of the Commission. The holding of a hearing by the Commission or the appointment of a subcommittee to hold a hearing pursuant to this paragraph must be approved by a majority of the Commission, or by a majority of the members present at a meeting when a quorum is present.
(2)Power to issue subpoenas
The Commission may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of written or other matter. Such a subpoena may not require the presence of a witness more than 100 miles outside the place wherein the witness is found or resides or is domiciled or transacts business, or has appointed an agent for receipt of service of process. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena, the Attorney General may in a Federal court of appropriate jurisdiction obtain an appropriate order to enforce the subpoena.
(3)Witness fees
A witness attending any proceeding of the Commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.
(4)Depositions and interrogatories
The Commission may use depositions and written interrogatories to obtain information and testimony about matters that are the subject of a Commission hearing or report.
(f)Limitation relating to abortion
Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed as authorizing the Commission, its advisory committees, or any other person under its supervision or control to study and collect, make appraisals of, or serve as a clearinghouse for any information about laws and policies of the Federal Government or any other governmental authority in the United States, with respect to abortion.
(Pub. L. 98–183, § 3, Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1302; Pub. L. 102–167, § 5, Nov. 26, 1991,105 Stat. 1101; Pub. L. 103–419, § 2, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4339.)
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Skip to main content
5.1.A Express Causes of Action, Section 1983, Elements of the Claim
Updated 2013 by Robert P. Capistrano
The two principal statutes creating general causes of action for the enforcement of rights created by federal law are the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts,1 particularly Section 1983, and the Administrative Procedure Act.2Section 1983 authorizes a wide variety of suits against state and local governments and officials for deprivations of federal rights under color of state law, while other Reconstruction statutes authorize more limited claims against private parties who violate federal rights. The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes a narrower variety of suits against federal officials and agencies. Section 1983 litigation has vindicated constitutional and statutory rights in the context of health, welfare, education, housing, employment, and prison law in litigation against state, county, or municipal officials. The Administrative Procedure Act has vindicated similar rights by correcting federal agency action or by forcing specific federal agency action.
5.1.A. Section 1983
The Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts, enacted during the 1860s and 1870s, provide the right to bring an action in federal court for violations of federal civil rights by state or local officials, by private parties acting in concert with the state, or, in more limited situations, by private parties acting alone.3The most important of these statutes is Section 1983.4 Section 1983 creates no substantive rights. Rather, it creates a vehicle for enforcing existing federal rights. The statute provides in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The elements of a Section 1983 case are “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by a “person”5 acting “under color” of state law. The “laws” referred to include those statutes that confer individual rights on a class of persons that include the plaintiff.6Because the purpose of Section 1983 is to vindicate federal rights, a plaintiff suing under the statute is in most circumstances not required to exhaust state procedures or remedies which would be otherwise required prior to filing suit.7
A Section 1983 complaint filed in federal court must name a defendant who is not immune under the Eleventh Amendment and who is acting under color of state law, and must seek relief not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.8 If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a federal right,9 defendants may in certain circumstances avoid liability for damages by proving a qualified immunity.10
5.1.A.1. Finding a Federal Right
By its terms, Section 1983 can be used to remedy the deprivation of “rights” granted to the plaintiff under the Constitution, federal statutes, and regulations implementing these statutes. Constitutional provisions that are enforceable by a private party under Section 1983 consist of those which create personal rights and either explicitly apply to the states, or have been held to apply to the states by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.11 In contrast to the relatively straightforward expression of individual “rights” protected by the Constitution, whether a statutorily created “right” exists has posed something of a challenge to plaintiffs.
Under the separation of powers doctrine, only the legislative branch has the power to create statutory causes of action.12 Hence, the ability of a private party to successfully sue to enforce a statute depends on whether Congress, in enacting the statute, has given the plaintiff a “private right of action.” As noted, these rights are sometimes expressly granted by statute. All other rights are “implied,” and a court’s task is to discern the intent of Congress.13 The two avenues for enforcing implied rights of action are either to sue directly under the statute or to litigate using the vehicle provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In Cort v. Ash,14 the Supreme Court enunciated a four-part test to determine whether Congress intended to imply a right to sue directly under a federal statute. In general, a plaintiff asserting the right is required to show that (1) membership in the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, (2) evidence of Congress’ intent to confer a private remedy, (3) that a right to sue would be consistent with the statutory purpose, and (4) that the cause of action is not one traditionally relegated to the states to a degree that implying a right to sue would be inappropriate. In short, under this doctrine, the plaintiff must show that Congress intended to grant both a private right and a private remedy.15
In the years following Cort, the judiciary became less willing to find rights of action implied directly under a statute, and plaintiffs began turning to Section 1983–the alternative path for enforcing rights created by federal statute. In Maine v. Thiboutot,16 decided five years after Cort, the Supreme Court held for the first time that Section 1983 could be used to remedy the deprivation of rights created by a federal statute. Seven years later, in Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,17 it suggested that a regulation promulgated to interpret a federal statute could also be a “law” which could be enforced under Section 1983.18
Section 1983 generally provides a remedy so long as a right is shown to exist. The Supreme Court stated: “Once a plaintiff demonstrates that a statute confers an individual right, the right is presumptively enforceable by Section 1983.”19 However, not every federal law creates a “right” enforceable by a private plaintiff. As the Supreme Court became increasingly hostile to the use of Section 1983 to enforce federal statutes, it has continued to narrow its conception of the term. For this reason, one should understand the Court’s principal objections to the use of Section 1983 to enforce federal statutes.
The initial three-pronged test for finding a right enforceable under Section 1983 was set forth in Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association.20 It asks whether (1) Congress intended the particular statutory provision to benefit the plaintiff, (2) the provision is so vague or amorphous as to make judicial enforcement difficult or impractical, and (3) the statute imposes a binding obligation on the government.21 After these inquiries, a fourth arises: (4) did Congress create a comprehensive mechanism for enforcing the statute which implies that it intended to deny a private right of action?22 Each of these prongs emerged from a series of Supreme Court decisions, with the first element undergoing something of a metamorphosis as it rose in importance in comparison to the other prongs of the test. Indeed, resolution of this first inquiry—the extent to which the plaintiff is “benefited” by the statute—will usually be the key to whether Section 1983 can be invoked to enforce a federal statute.23
5.1.A.1.a. Did Congress intend the law to so directly benefit the plaintiff, such that those in his or her place are the “unmistakable focus” of the statute?
The seesaw battle between shifting Supreme Court majorities over what constitutes an enforceable right led to a greater focus on the relationship between the aim of the statute and its effect on the plaintiff. As formulated by Wilder, even if a statute imposes binding obligations on the state which are capable of judicial enforcement, Section 1983 cannot be invoked unless Congress intended the law to directly benefit the plaintiff. However, this only begins the inquiry. The plaintiff must also point to evidence that Congress intended that he or she—and not just the federal government—could sue to enforce the statute.
In years past, some courts understood theWilder test to allow private enforcement when the plaintiff was generally a beneficiary of the statute sought to be enforced. This made Section 1983 a friendlier avenue for enforcing a federal right than the implied right of action doctrine announced in Cort v. Ash. The erosion of this interpretation was first suggested in Blessing v. Freestone.Blessing involved a mandate requiring states receiving federal child-welfare funds to “substantially comply” with federal requirements aimed at ensuring timely payment of child support. The Court held that the mandate was not “an individual entitlement to services, … [but] simply a yardstick for the [federal government] to measure the systemwide performance of the State’s Title IV-D program.”24 Hence, parents who obviously benefited from the collection of child support were nevertheless unable to enforce the child support statute as a whole.25This is because, the Court held, the syntax used by Congress in enacting certain state compliance and reporting provisions evidenced a focus on the government’s interest in recouping public assistance benefits, rather than ensuring a continued income stream to specific families.
Blessing placed a cloud over the first prong, raising the prospect of denying enforcement rights to some people who had, at first glance, “benefited” under the statute. Indeed, a non- Section 1983 case, Alexander v. Sandoval, presaged the Court’s subsequent decision inGonzaga University v. Doe by placing great emphasis on the language used by Congress.26 “[S]tatutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected create ‘no implication of an intention to confer rights on a particular class of persons.’”27 This view was imported into Section 1983 jurisprudence when elements of the implied right of action test were fused with Wilder’s “benefits the plaintiffs” test inGonzaga.28
In Gonzaga, the transformation of the “benefits” prong became manifest when the Court clarified that Section 1983 cannot be invoked simply because “the plaintiff falls within the general zone of interest that the statute is intended to protect.”29 Instead, the Court now requires a showing that “an unambiguously conferred right” exists that is “phrased in terms of the persons benefited.”30 “[I]t is rights, not the broader or vaguer ‘benefits’ or ‘interests,’ that may be enforced” under Section 1983.31 In Gonzaga, the Court considered whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act conferred a right to sue on a student whose privacy had been violated by the unauthorized release of educational records.32 There, the Court dismissed statutory language that seemingly granted individual students protection from institutional invasions of privacy. It held instead that the statute was addressed more to the entity regulated than to the students benefited.
The Court cited several factors suggesting that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act did not confer an enforceable right upon students. First, the Court stated, “FERPA’s provisions speak only to the Secretary of Education, directing that ‘no funds shall be made available’ to any ‘educational agency or institution which has a prohibited ‘policy or practice’.”33 The Court approvingly quotedCannon v. University of Chicago, a non-Section 1983 decision which applied the Cort v. Ashtest to find a right of action implied under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act:
There would be far less reason to infer a private remedy in favor of individual persons if Congress, instead of drafting [the statute] with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class, had written it simply as a ban on [certain] conduct by recipients of federal funds or as a prohibition against the disbursement of public funds to … institutions engaged in [prohibited] practices.34
Second, because the statute barred the funding of institutions “which have a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records”, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act was said to “speak only in terms of institutional policy and practice, not individual instances of disclosure.”35 Citing Blessing v. Freestone, the Court found the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act provisions to have an “‘aggregate’ focus … not concerned with ‘whether the needs of any particular person have been satisfied,’ … and … cannot ‘give rise to individual rights.’”36 Conflating the previously separate inquiries under Section 1983 jurisprudence and the Cort v. Ash“implied rights” analysis, the Court concluded that “the initial inquiry [in a Section 1983 case] – determining whether a statute confers any right at all – is no different from the initial inquiry in an implied right of action case, the express purpose of which is to determine whether or not a statute ‘confers rights on a particular class of persons.’”37
An “unambiguously conferred right” that is “phrased in terms of the persons benefited” (rather than in terms of the person or agency regulated) is now a central factor determining a plaintiff’s ability to enforce a federal statute using Section 1983.38 Reviewing its past cases to illustrate the new standard, the GonzagaCourt noted that the rent ceiling provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937 construed in Wright, as well as the reimbursement provisions of the Medicaid Act interpreted in Wilder, “explicitly conferred specific monetary entitlements upon the plaintiffs.”39 After Gonzaga, a plaintiff must now find a similar or analogous individual “entitlement” expressed in the language of a statute sought to be enforced through Section 1983. Therefore, the first question a prospective plaintiff must answer is whether he or she is the “unmistakable focus” of the statute in question.40
With respect to a number of federal programs for low-income people, a strong argument can be made that Congress’ mandates are, inGonzaga’s terms, “phrased in terms of the persons protected.”41 However, since many of these statutes were enacted under the Constitution’s Spending Clause, specific provisions of the statutes are written in a form which directs a federal agency to spend money so long as the state or other recipient complies with Congress’ rules (e.g., “the state’s plan shall provide …”). Not surprisingly, government attorneys have argued with some success42 that such statutory provisions are “focus[ed] on the person regulated rather than the individuals protected” and hence, “create ‘no implication of an intention to confer rights on a particular class of persons.’”43 This sort of argument underscores the fact that advocates need to find language in the statutory provision sought to be enforced indicating that Congress “intended to confer individual rights upon a class of beneficiaries.”44 In addition, the advocate must research carefully how that provision has been interpreted both before and after Gonzaga.45 Given the Supreme Court’s tendency to restrict further the ability of private litigants to enforce federal laws, one should be very leery of the consequences of exploring new ground on this issue.
5.1.A.1.b. Is the alleged “right” so vague or amorphous as to make it unenforceable?
Assuming the statute unambiguously confers a right on plaintiffs, the second issue a prospective plaintiff must ask is whether the statute contains a standard by which to measure the state or local agency’s compliance with the law. In Suter v. Artist M., the Court found that the plaintiff could not enforce the requirement, found in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, that a state make “reasonable efforts” to avoid the removal of children from their parents’ homes.46 The Court held that the statute failed to set forth standards to judge the “reasonableness” of the state’s compliance with the law and was, therefore, too vague and amorphous to allow judicial enforcement.47
By comparison, in Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, plaintiffs prevailed in a Section 1983 claim that an inadequate public housing utility allowance violated rent ceilings imposed by the Brooke Amendment, even though the statute nowhere defined the components of “rent.” In response to arguments that the provision was vague and amorphous, the Court turned to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations to fill the gap, noting that the agency had defined “rent” to include a reasonable utility allowance.48 Similarly, inWilder,49 plaintiffs overcame a “vague and amorphous” argument in their challenge to a state’s failure to provide “reasonable” Medicaid reimbursement rates to providers. The Court found that definitions found elsewhere in the statute provided a standard for judicial enforcement.50
5.1.A.1.c. Does the statute create a binding obligation?
In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, the first decision to limit the use of Section 1983 to enforce a federal statute, the Supreme Court considered the ostensibly “rights producing” language found in the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.51 The Court ruled that congressional rhetoric about a disabled “bill of rights” found in the statute’s declaration of policy could not create enforceable rights since the law did not tie a state’s receipt of federal funding to the state’s compliance with the purported bill of rights. The statutory language was held to be “hortatory” rather than mandatory. Therefore, the third question a prospective plaintiff must consider is whether the statute sought to be enforced actually requires the state or local agency to do something.
5.1.A.1.d. Does the statute contain a comprehensive enforcement mechanism?
If the statute at issue passes muster under the prongs above, Section 1983 is presumed to provide a remedy unless the defendant shows that the enactment contains a “comprehensive enforcement mechanism” whose breadth or scope suggests that Congress viewed that mechanism as the sole means for statutory enforcement. InMiddlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association,52environmentalists sought to use Section 1983 to enforce both the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, by enjoining the dumping of waste in the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to providing a limited right to sue to private parties, these statutes provided an elaborate alternative mechanism to address the pollution problem. The Supreme Court pointed to those measures as indicating Congress’ intent to preclude enforcement of the legislation outside of the procedures set forth in these laws.
Following National Sea Clammers, the Court ruled that the existence of a comprehensive statutory remedy for aggrieved parties could also indicate Congress’ intent to preclude any other private remedies, including the invocation of Section 1983, which were based on the same “common nucleus of operative facts” giving rise to the statutory violation. Thus, in Smith v. Robinson,53 a disabled child who had claimed that he was not receiving an appropriate free education in violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause, won his Education for All Handicapped Children Act claim. He thereafter pointed to his alternative Section 1983 claim to seek attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Holding that EAHCA’s “comprehensive scheme” suggested Congress’ intent that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act be the exclusive vehicle for addressing an equal protection constitutional violation which was “virtually identical” to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act claim, the Court reasoned that Sections 1983 and 1988 were statutory remedies that Congress could implicitly repeal or replace with an alternate remedy.54
In City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, the Court found that, absent an explicit or implied indication that the statutory remedy was meant to complement other available remedies, the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s provision of a limited private remedy implied that a Section 1983 action was precluded.55 In Sea Clammers, Smith andRancho Palos Verdes, the statutes required the plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies or to comply with other procedures before bringing suit. As the Supreme Court subsequently explained in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee,56 to permit a plaintiff to bypass these procedures and to sue directly under § 1983 would have been incompatible with Congress’ interest in creating these procedures. In contrast, Title IX, at issue in Fitzgerald, had no similar enforcement scheme and a private right of action directly under the statute has been implied.57 Thus, in the absence of exhaustion or alternative remedial measures, the Court held that concurrent Title IX and § 1983 claims was permissible.58
The existence of developed enforcement mechanisms, moreover, is not enough to make them “comprehensive.” Thus, inWright, discussed earlier, the Court found that stringent federal oversight of public housing authorities, and the federal government’s power to cut off funding to non-complying agencies, did not preclude a Section 1983 remedy. On the one hand, the Court noted that the “[statutory provision] and its legislative history [are] devoid of any express indication that exclusive enforcement authority was vested in HUD”; on the other, “both congressional and agency actions indicat[e] that enforcement authority is not centralized and that private actions were anticipated.”59 Moreover, the Court observed, the statutory mandate that housing authorities provide a grievance procedure to tenants and the implementing regulation’s provision that the existence of a grievance procedure would not preclude judicial review suggested Congress’ intent to allow tenants to sue.60
5.1.A.1.e. Does the enactment of a statute by Congress under its Spending Power undermine the enforceability of the statute under Section 1983?
Defendants have argued that legislation enacted under Congress’ spending power, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, generally creates only voluntary programs which the states are free to reject. Consequently, a state’s decision to participate in such a program results only in contractual obligations that cannot rise to the level of being “the supreme law of the land.”61Although the issue has not come before the Supreme Court, two circuit courts of appeal have rejected this contention: Antrican v. Odom and Westside Mothers v. Haveman.62
In Westside Mothers v. Haveman, the later of the two decisions, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the obligations of the state under the Medicaid Act were more than a mere contract. It quoted Bennett v. Kentucky Department of Education, which stated that, “[u]nlike normal contractual undertakings, federal grant programs originate in and remain governed by statutory provisions expressing desirable public policy.”63Applying the three-prong Wilder/Blessing test–before the Gonzaga decision–the appellate court found the Medicaid Act provision enforceable under Section 1983.64
5.1.A.1.f. To what degree can a federal regulation create rights enforceable under Section 1983?
In Wright, the Supreme Court implied that a regulation implementing a rights-creating statute (defining “rent” as including a reasonable amount to cover housing authorities’ tenants utility costs) was a “law” that could be enforced under Section 1983.65Shortly thereafter, in Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association,66 it relied on the definition of “reasonable” contained in Medicaid regulations, to flesh out the statutory requirement that the “reasonable cost” of services be paid to providers. This blunted the argument that the statute was too vague or ambiguous to be enforced. Drawing on these decisions and the somewhat analogous case of Golden State Transit Corporation v. City of Los Angeles (Golden State II), it was generally believed that binding regulations could themselves create enforceable rights.67 Recent appellate court rulings, however, question this view, suggesting that the private enforceability of a particular regulation depends on (1) the extent to which the regulation directly implements congressional intent, and (2) whether Congress also intended the governing statute to create a “right” enforceable under Section 1983.
In Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Supreme Court ruled that “[i]f Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute.”68 Under this view, “a reviewing court has no business rejecting an agency’s exercise of its generally conferred authority to resolve a particular statutory ambiguity simply because the agency’s chosen resolution seems unwise, … but is obliged to accept the agency’s position if Congress has not previously spoken to the point at issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.”69
Nevertheless, Justice O’Connor posed the issue in her dissent in Wright: “it is necessary to ask whether administrative regulations alone could create such a right.”70 Under the separation of powers doctrine, the creation of causes of action is within the purview of Congress,71 and the debate in the Supreme Court has involved the extent to which the enactment of Section 1983 evidenced the legislature’s intent to generally make actionable any deprivation resulting from the violation of “the constitution and laws.” The Supreme Court’s recent decision concerning the Title VI “disparate impact” regulations strongly suggests that private enforceability of federal regulations is directly dependent on Congressional intent.
In Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court considered whether, outside of the Section 1983 context, “disparate impact” regulations issued by the federal government to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act could create an implied right of action.72 The Court held that they could not, reasoning that: (1) one section of the statute had been interpreted as banning only intentional discrimination; (2) a second section of the statute—allowing HUD to issue regulations to carry out the intent of Congress—went beyond the first section and banned “disparate impact” discrimination; hence (3) one could not infer an implied right of action to enforce the regulations, even though the court had earlier upheld the validity of the disparate impact regulations.73The Court reasoned that “language in a regulation may invoke a[n implied] private right of action that Congress through statutory text created, but it may not create a right that Congress has not.”74
Although Sandoval was an implied private right of action decision that essentially explored the contours of the first prong of theCort v. Ash test,75 the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzaga equated that prong with the first element of the Wilder/Blessing test for determining whether a statute creates rights enforceable under Section 1983: “[T]he initial inquiry [in a Section 1983 case] – determining whether a statute confers any right at all – is no different from the initial inquiry in an implied right of action case, the express purpose of which is to determine whether or not a statute ‘confers rights on a particular class of persons.’”76
Not surprisingly, several appellate decisions have anticipated the evolution of the Supreme Court majority’s thinking on the enforceability of federal regulations, creating a split in circuits. On the one hand, the pre-Sandoval/Gonzaga decision in Loschiavo v. City of Dearborn,77 and the even earlier case of Samuels v. District of Columbia,78interpreted Section 1983 in an expansive manner, holding that valid regulations were “laws” that could be enforced independent of whether the governing statute had actually addressed the subject of the regulation. CitingWright, the court in Loschiavo reasoned that because “federal regulations have the force of law, they likewise may create enforceable rights” if the regulations otherwise pass muster under the three-prong Wilder/Blessingtest.79
On the other hand, every recent appellate decision to address the issue has embraced the Sandoval analysis, essentially holding that regulations cannot independently create rights, and are enforceable under Section 1983 only to the extent that the regulations merely “flesh out” a statutory provision which itself creates the right. Thus, in Harris v. James, the Eleventh Circuit found that Medicaid regulations could not create a right to non-emergency transportation absent an explicit provision in the governing statute.80Similarly, in South Camden Citizens v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Third Circuit relied onSandoval to reject the private enforceability of Title VI disparate impact regulations under Section 1983.81 The First Circuit adopted this view in Rolland v. Romney, although went on to find that plaintiffs had an enforceable right to certain specialized services under the Medicaid Act.82 Most recently, the Ninth Circuit cited Gonzaga to buttress its holding inSave Our Valley v. Sound Transit that disparate impact regulations could not be enforced under Section 1983.83 The court found that the Wilder/Blessing test need not be invoked in the regulatory context until after the plaintiff had first established that the governing statute had created an enforceable right.84 Indeed, in Caswell v. City of Detroit, the 6th Circuit rejected its earlier ruling in Loshiavo to hold unenforceable HUD regulations interpreting statutory provisions unenforceable under the Gonzaga test.85
In light of Sandoval, Gonzaga, and the recent trend of appellate court decisions, an advocate seeking to enforce a regulation should argue, when possible, that the governing statute, in Gonzaga’s terms, grants an “unambiguously conferred right,” which is “phrased in terms of the persons benefited,” and is merely “fleshed out” by the regulation.86
In sum, after Gonzaga, a plaintiff seeking to enforce a federal statute using Section 1983 must be able to point to an “unambiguously conferred right” that is “phrased in terms of the persons benefited.” However, once this hurdle is overcome, Section 1983 is presumed to provide a remedy, absent a “comprehensive enforcement mechanism” or other evidence to suggest that Congress withdrew this avenue.
5.1.A.2. “Persons” Acting “Under Color of State Law” Under Section 1983
A Section 1983 action can be brought only against a person acting “under color of [state] law.”87 Liability lies against those “who carry a badge of authority of a State and represent it in some capacity, whether they act in accordance with their authority or misuse it.”88 Although the term “person” was originally thought to refer only to human beings, the concept was broadened in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services89 to include cities and local governments whose custom, policy or practice caused the deprivation.90 In any event, when the defendant is a government employee doing his or her job and acting under apparent government authority, she or he is very likely a “state actor.91 When a private actor is involved, as is increasingly the case with the trend towards “privatization” of government services, the waters are somewhat murkier.
5.1.A.2.a. Under Color of State Law
State and local officials can interfere with federal rights in two distinct ways. By enforcing state laws or policies that conflict with federal law, state and local officials deprive their victims of federal rights. In such a case, the public officials obviously act under “color of state law.”92 State and local officials can also interfere with federally-protected rights by misusing power entrusted to them under state law. In such a case, the official acts under color of state law only at those times he or she is “clothed with the authority of state law.”93 Thus, a sheriff who assaulted his wife did not act under color of state law even though he was a public official; his status as a public official was not the source of his power to act.94 In a closer case, the Eleventh Circuit held that a city manager, who investigated a citizen by traveling to another state with a city police officer to ask questions of various people, did not act as a state actor because his conduct did not require state authority; a private citizen could have undertaken the same activity.95
Although misuse of power cases occasionally present difficult questions, the vast majority involve defendants who were able to inflict injury only because they were clothed with state authority. In such cases, defendants act under color of state law and can be sued under Section 1983. Moreover, defendants who enforce invalid state laws and regulations always act under color of state law.96 Thus, the color of state law requirement ordinarily poses no problem in litigation against state and local officials, or against local governmental entities.
A more difficult question is presented when a private party is considered to be acting under color of state law so as to be suable under Section 1983.97 Although closely related to the Fourteenth Amendment’s state action requirement, Section 1983’s color of state law requirement is conceptually distinct. Conduct that is state action under the Fourteenth Amendment is always action under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983.98However, conduct under color of state law may not constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.99 Because Section 1983 claims against private actors ordinarily involve a claimed deprivation of a constitutional right flowing from the Fourteenth Amendment, it is almost always necessary to establish state action under the amendment to prevail under Section 1983. Therefore, the focus of this section will be Fourteenth Amendment state action cases.
5.1.A.2.b. Private Parties as State Actors
Since the early 1970s, the Supreme Court has substantially narrowed the range of private conduct that constitutes state action. In determining whether a private party has engaged in “state action,” a court must weigh “whether the claimed … deprivation resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority ” and “whether the private party charged with the deprivation could be described in all fairness as a state actor.”100 In doing so, a court looks at (1) the extent to which the actor relies on governmental assistance and benefits, (2) whether the actor is performing a traditional governmental function, and (3) whether the injury caused was aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of governmental authority.101 Because none of these factors is definitive, one can generalize that a deprivation of federal rights by a private party can constitute “state action” if the government has: (1) delegated its authority to the private actor, (2) participated in joint activity to a degree that the actions of one party can be attributed to the other, (3) created the legal framework necessary to carry out the private action, (4) compelled the private party to act in a certain way, (5) knowingly accepted the benefits of an unconstitutional practice, or (6) the private entity is carrying out a traditional “state function,” or (7) the government has created a “special relationship” with the plaintiff.
5.1.A.2.b.i. Delegation of a Traditional State Function
Delegation of a state responsibility to a private party can make the party a state actor, particularly if the function delegated is one traditionally performed by the state. This principle is illustrated by West v. Atkins, which rejected an agency’s claim that no state action was involved when the negligence of a private doctor, under contract to provide care for inmates, injured the plaintiff in violation of the state prison’s constitutional duty to avoid “deliberate indifference” to the medical needs of those in its custody.102
5.1.A.2.b.ii. Joint Activity and “Pervasive Entwinement”
Joint activity by a private party and a government agent can also transform the private party into a state actor, where the purpose of the collusion is to violate the federal rights of the plaintiff.103 Similarly, inDennis v. Sparks, the Court held that private parties who conspired with a judge to fix a case acted under color of law.104 A nominally private entity controlled by the state is also a state actor.105
However, in the absence of a conspiracy or governmental control, the applicability of the joint activity test to find state action is problematic, as illustrated by National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian.106 The case involved a private membership body of public and private colleges that regulated intercollegiate athletics. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) determined that a member state university had violated NCAA rules and required that the school suspend coach Tarkanian. When the school complied, the coach sued under Section 1983, claiming that his firing violated due process. The Court held that the school, a state actor, and the NCAA, a private party, were not joint participants in the suspension of the coach. The Court reasoned that the school was free to cancel its agreement with the NCAA, the disciplinary function had not been delegated to the NCAA by the state, and the NCAA was actually acting on behalf of all other NCAA members against the efforts of the state to forestall the suspension of its most successful coach.
Nevertheless, in Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, a case whose facts seem very much to parallel Tarkanian, the Court did find state action.107 In Brentwood Academy, a private association which regulated high school sports throughout the state was held to be a state actor because the overwhelming majority of its members were public schools, the association received some public funds from dues and game proceeds, its officers were drawn from public schools, association employees participated in the state retirement fund, and the association was seen to regulate sports activity instead of the state board of education. The Court stated that the “nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings.”108
5.1.A.2.b.iii. Governmental Creation of a Legal or Procedural Framework
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Law, Science & Public Health HomePublic HealthCoastal AdaptationTable of ContentsCoursesSearch
Suing the GovernmentComparing 42 USC 1983 and Tort Claims Acts
42 USC 1983
State and Federal Tort Claims Acts
Original Purpose
Prevent de facto discrimination and intimidation of ex-slaves by persons acting under state law
To compensate persons injured by ordinary negligence who would otherwise be barred from suing by sovereign immunity
Basic jurisdictional requirement
A violation of a constitutional right
By someone acting under state law (thus only against state and local government folks, not the feds)
Most violations look like torts, i.e., beatings, cruel and unusual punishment
A negligent injury by a government employee acting within course and scope of employment
Must file a claim for compensation with the government and wait for a stated period before filing a lawsuit.
The statute of limitations for the claim is often short.
Who do you sue?
Individual in his personal capacity
Individual in his official capacity – the employer also has to pay
No vicarious liability – You have to show the action was part of official policy or known behavior to make a 1983 claim against the governmental employer.
The individual and the governmental employer is substituted
Can also sue the agency
What can you get?
Money damages from local government entities and from individuals.
Injunctions to stop unconstitutional behavior by the state – no money damages because of the 11th amendment. Can be contempt of court fines for not correcting the enjoined conditions.
Money damages, subject to damage caps in the states. Often $500,000.
Limitations
Not for minor injuries.
Not for ordinary torts – must have a constitutional component.
Ordinary negligence will be covered by the state tort claims act.
Excludes intentional torts unless committed by law enforcement.
Excludes strict/products liability.
Excludes constitutional violations unless they are also covered torts. (SeeBivens)
Other exclusions
11th amendment
Only applies to the state and its agencies – includes universities.
Does not apply to cities and other non-state governmental entities
Can sue state officials in their personal capacity, but cannot sue them in their official capacity. Thus, in theory the state is not responsible for judgments against state employees under 1983, but all states indemnify them if it is in their official capacity.
States may waive 11th amendment immunity in several ways, including by buying insurance.
Waived by the tort claims statute, as well waiving soverign immunity.Defenses:
Personal Capacity Claims
Absolute immunity – legislators, judges, prosecutors (only for their direct prosecutorial duties).
Qualified immunity – everyone else: should they have known it was unconstitutional?
The federal or state government is substituted for the individual plaintiff – there is no personal liability under the FTCA.
Defenses:
Official Capacity Claims
The act leading to the injury was not done pursuant to a state policy. This leaves the individual liable.
The governmental employer may, but is not always required to indemnify the employee.
Discretionary authority: if the action was done pursuant to an agency policy or represents a policy choice.
Official policy is a defense to a tort claims act case, unless it violates some other law. The policy cannot violate the constitution, a statute binding on the agency, or a regulation binding on the agency.
The Law, Science & Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH – Webmaster
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Making the Law Easy to Understand Since 2006
Employment LawPersonal Injury
Search this site:
HOME / FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAWS / CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 & CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 – CRA – 42 U.S. CODE 21 §§1981, 1981A, 1983, & 1988
Civil Rights Act of 1866 & Civil Rights Act of 1871 – CRA – 42 U.S. Code 21 §§1981, 1981A, 1983, & 1988
TAGS:
RACE & NATIONAL ORIGIN
42 USC CHAPTER 21 – CIVIL RIGHTS TITLE 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21 – CIVIL RIGHTS Sec. 1981. Equal rights under the law. 1981a. Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights. Sec. 1981. Equal rights under the law (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. (c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law. Sec. 1981a. Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment (a) Right of recovery (1) Civil rights In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, 2000e-16] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under section 703, 704, or 717 of the Act [42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 2000e-3, 2000e-16], and provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent. (2) Disability In an action brought by a complaining party under the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, 2000e-16] (as provided in section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), and section 794a(a)(1) of title 29, respectively) against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) under section 791 of title 29 and the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29, or who violated the requirements of section 791 of title 29 or the regulations implementing section 791 of title 29 concerning the provision of a reasonable accommodation, or section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112), or committed a violation of section 102(b)(5) of the Act, against an individual, the complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of this section, in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the respondent. (3) Reasonable accommodation and good faith effort In cases where a discriminatory practice involves the provision of a reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 102(b)(5) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)] or regulations implementing section 791 of title 29, damages may not be awarded under this section where the covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts, in consultation with the person with the disability who has informed the covered entity that accommodation is needed, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation that would provide such individual with an equally effective opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business. (b) Compensatory and punitive damages (1) Determination of punitive damages A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. (2) Exclusions from compensatory damages Compensatory damages awarded under this section shall not include backpay, interest on backpay, or any other type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)]. (3) Limitations The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party – (A) in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000; (B) in the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000; and (C) in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 501 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000; and (D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000. (4) Construction Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the scope of, or the relief available under, section 1981 of this title. (c) Jury trial If a complaining party seeks compensatory or punitive damages under this section – (1) any party may demand a trial by jury; and (2) the court shall not inform the jury of the limitations described in subsection (b)(3) of this section. (d) Definitions As used in this section: (1) Complaining party The term “complaining party” means – (A) in the case of a person seeking to bring an action under subsection (a)(1) of this section, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, or a person who may bring an action or proceeding under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.); or (B) in the case of a person seeking to bring an action under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, a person who may bring an action or proceeding under section 794a(a)(1) of title 29, or a person who may bring an action or proceeding under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.]. (2) Discriminatory practice The term “discriminatory practice” means the discrimination described in paragraph (1), or the discrimination or the violation described in paragraph (2), of subsection (a) of this section. Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Sec. 1988. Proceedings in vindication of civil rights (a) Applicability of statutory and common law The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. (b) Attorney’s fees In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction. (c) Expert fees In awarding an attorney’s fee under subsection (b) of this section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.
‹ Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – ADA – 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126upCivil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21 ›
discriminationINemployment
To figure out if your discrimination situation is illegal you must determine:
1. If you are an employee protected from discrimination under the law.
2. If your employer is subject to anti-discrimination laws.
3. If your employer’s conduct is considered discriminatory under the law.
4. If the reason your employer discriminate against you violates the law.
findAlawyer
Find an Employment LawyerAsk an Employment Lawyer
findUSlaw
Federal Employment LawsEmployment DiscriminationAgeDisabilityRace & National OriginReligionMilitary StatusSex, Gender & PregnancyOvertime CompensationWhistleblower & RetaliationWorkers CompensationCalifornia Employment LawsEmployment DiscriminationAgeDisabilityRace & National OriginReligionSex, Gender & PregnancyOvertime CompensationWhistleblower & RetaliationWorkers CompensationEmployees’ Questions AnsweredNegotiating PayEmployment Discrimination QuestionsOvertime Compensation QuestionsEmployment Law Resources
followUSnow
listOFarticles
DECEMBER 2011 (9)
NOVEMBER 2011 (5)
OCTOBER 2011 (7)
SEPTEMBER 2011 (5)
AUGUST 2011 (5)
JULY 2011 (5)
JUNE 2011 (5)
Recent posts
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 – ADEA – 29 U.S. Code Chapter 14
Employment Law
Personal Injury
I Make $103,000 Per Year. Can I still get Overtime?
I Manage an Apartment Building, am I Exempt from Overtime?
Who is My Employer When A Temp Agency Has Placed Me In A Job Where I Had An Accident?
Is It Illegal To Discriminate in Public Notices and Advertisements?
Tags
overtime compensation (12) Age Discrimination Case Law (9)employment discrimination(28) Race & National Origin (8)Federal Employment Laws(16) Harassment – Gender, Sex & Pregnancy (11) Employment Discrimination (9) Disability Discrimination Case Law (10) Race & National Origin Discrimination Case Law (8) Harassment – Gender, Sex & Pregnancy Discrimination Case Law(9)
The information on findUSlaw does not constitute legal advice, that is tailored to your circumstances. No claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained or linked herein. Terms of Use Copyright 2014 FindUSLaw.com.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b)
Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c)With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1)
administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2)
any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, § 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004,118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
verdicts, sentences, or other important decisions on sworn testimony and signed documents. Statements given under oath and certain legal documents are presumed to be truthful, or at least made in good faith. But how do we know for sure that witnesses and other parties involved in a legal matter are telling the truth? We can’t always be certain, but those who are caught knowingly misleading a court face serious criminal charges of perjury.
To “perjure” yourself is to knowingly make false or misleading statements under oath or to sign a legal document you know to be false or misleading. This crime is taken very seriously because the foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. After all, just one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of justice and dramatically alter someone’s life.
Perjury is considered a crime against justice, since lying under oath compromises the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. Other crimes against justice include Criminal Contempt of Court, Probation Violation, and tampering with evidence.
Examples of Perjury
There are a number of different ways you could perjure yourself, but the crime is committed either in statements made under oath or in signed documents. Here are some examples:
While completing a sworn affidavit during child support proceedings in family court, John intentionally understates his monthly income by $2,000, signs the printed document, and files it with the judge’s clerk.Jill is sworn in and testifies at trial that her friend, Mary, was having lunch at her house when the crime with which Mary was charged occurred. However, credit card receipts and mobile phone records indicate otherwise.Frank intentionally omits $15,000 he won at a casino from his federal income tax return, which he signs and sends to the IRS.
In all of these examples, evidence of the crime typically comes to light when testimony or signed statements directly conflict with verifiable information. The man who understated his monthly income, for example, likely would be caught by authorities when his employer’s payroll records indicate a higher income.
But since witnesses and others involved in legal proceedings may unintentionally provide false testimony in good faith, prosecutors must be able to prove the intent to deceive or mislead. For example, a witness to a robbery testifies that the suspect had green eyes and a scar on his left cheek, but other evidence points to a suspect with blue eyes and a scar on his right cheek. Unless prosecutors can prove that the witness was trying to protect the assailant by knowingly lying about key facts, she has not perjured herself just because her memory of the incident is hazy.
Penalties
State and federal penalties for perjury include fines and/or prison terms upon conviction. Federal law (18 USC § 1621), for example, states that anyone found guilty of the crime will be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. Most state laws have similar provisions, but judges typically have discretion to use leniency (including probation in lieu of a prison sentence) where appropriate.
And if you are convicted, you may even lose your livelihood. If you work in a profession where truthfulness is valued, such as the legal profession, law enforcement, and some public service jobs, you could lose your professional license.
Perjury is considered a very serious crime against the integrity of the justice system. If you have been charged with the crime or have additional questions, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney.
– See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html#sthash.9ikKamxg.dpuf
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 93833
MenuSearch
Print
RCWs > Title 9A > Chapter 9A.72
Chapter 9A.72 RCW
PERJURY AND INTERFERENCE WITH OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Chapter Listing
Sections
9A.72.010
Definitions.
9A.72.020
Perjury in the first degree.
9A.72.030
Perjury in the second degree.
9A.72.040
False swearing.
9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
9A.72.060
Perjury and false swearing—Retraction.
9A.72.070
Perjury and false swearing—Irregularities no defense.
9A.72.080
Statement of what one does not know to be true.
9A.72.085
Unsworn statements, certification—Standards for subscribing to an unsworn statement.
9A.72.090
Bribing a witness.
9A.72.100
Bribe receiving by a witness.
9A.72.110
Intimidating a witness.
9A.72.120
Tampering with a witness.
9A.72.130
Intimidating a juror.
9A.72.140
Jury tampering.
9A.72.150
Tampering with physical evidence.
9A.72.160
Intimidating a judge.
NOTES:
Committal of witness committing perjury: RCW 9.72.090.
9A.72.010
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;
(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:
(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;
(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or
(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW9A.72.085.
(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;
(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;
(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;
(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.
[ 2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]
NOTES:
Purpose—2001 c 171: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, legislation relating to the crime of perjury, as amended in sections 30 and 31, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [ 2001 c 171 § 1.]
Effective date—2001 c 171: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2001].” [ 2001 c 171 § 4.]
Effective date—1995 c 285: See RCW48.30A.900.
9A.72.020
Perjury in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor’s mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 § 391; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.020.]
9A.72.030
Perjury in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if, in an examination under oath under the terms of a contract of insurance, or with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Perjury in the second degree is a class C felony.
[ 2001 c 171 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 31; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.030.]
NOTES:
Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 171: See notes following RCW 9A.72.010.
Effective date—1995 c 285: See RCW48.30A.900.
9A.72.040
False swearing.
(1) A person is guilty of false swearing if he or she makes a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) False swearing is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 392; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.040.]
9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
(1) Where, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance as set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing. For purposes of this section, no corroboration shall be required of either inconsistent statement.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.050.]
9A.72.060
Perjury and false swearing—Retraction.
No person shall be convicted of perjury or false swearing if he or she retracts his or her false statement in the course of the same proceeding in which it was made, if in fact he or she does so before it becomes manifest that the falsification is or will be exposed and before the falsification substantially affects the proceeding. Statements made in separate hearings at separate stages of the same trial, administrative, or other official proceeding shall be treated as if made in the course of the same proceeding.
[ 2011 c 336 § 393; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 16; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.060.]
NOTES:
Effective date—Severability—1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW9A.08.020.
9A.72.070
Perjury and false swearing—Irregularities no defense.
It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury or false swearing:
(1) That the oath was administered or taken in an irregular manner; or
(2) That the person administering the oath lacked authority to do so, if the taking of the oath was required or authorized by law.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.070.]
9A.72.080
Statement of what one does not know to be true.
Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he or she knows to be false.
[ 2011 c 336 § 394; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.080.]
9A.72.085
Unsworn statements, certification—Standards for subscribing to an unsworn statement.
(1) Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person’s sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:
(a) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;
(b) Is subscribed by the person;
(c) States the date and place of its execution; and
(d) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.
(2) The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct”:
. . . .
. . . .
(Date and Place)
(Signature)
(3) For purposes of this section, a person subscribes to an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate by:
(a) Affixing or placing his or her signature as defined in RCW 9A.04.110 on the document;
(b) Attaching or logically associating his or her digital signature or electronic signature as defined in RCW 19.34.020 to the document;
(c) Affixing or logically associating his or her signature in the manner described in general rule 30 to the document if he or she is a licensed attorney; or
(d) Affixing or logically associating his or her full name, department or agency, and badge or personnel number to any document that is electronically submitted to a court, a prosecutor, or a magistrate from an electronic device that is owned, issued, or maintained by a criminal justice agency if he or she is a law enforcement officer.
(4) This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgment, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.
[ 2014 c 93 § 4; 1981 c 187 § 3.]
NOTES:
Finding—Intent—2014 c 93: See note following RCW 2.20.030.
9A.72.090
Bribing a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, with intent to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person; or
(b) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify; or
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he or she has been legally summoned; or
(d) Induce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) Bribing a witness is a class B felony.
[ 1994 c 271 § 202; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 16;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.090.]
NOTES:
Finding—1994 c 271: “The legislature finds that witness intimidation and witness tampering serve to thwart both the effective prosecution of criminal conduct in the state of Washington and resolution of child dependencies.
Further, the legislature finds that intimidating persons who have information pertaining to a future proceeding serves to prevent both the bringing of a charge and prosecution of such future proceeding. The legislature finds that the period before a crime or child abuse or neglect is reported is when a victim is most vulnerable to influence, both from the defendant or from people acting on behalf of the defendant and a time when the defendant is most able to threaten, bribe, and/or persuade potential witnesses to leave the jurisdiction or withhold information from law enforcement agencies.
The legislature moreover finds that a criminal defendant’s admonishment or demand to a witness to “drop the charges” is intimidating to witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a criminal proceeding.
The legislature finds, therefore, that tampering with and/or intimidating witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a present or future criminal or child dependency proceeding are grave offenses which adversely impact the state’s ability to promote public safety and prosecute criminal behavior.” [ 1994 c 271 § 201.]
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.100
Bribe receiving by a witness.
(1) A witness or a person who has reason to believe he or she is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or that he or she may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child is guilty of bribe receiving by a witness if he or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that:
(a) The person’s testimony will thereby be influenced; or
(b) The person will attempt to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify; or
(c) The person will attempt to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he or she has been legally summoned; or
(d) The person will not report information he or she has relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) Bribe receiving by a witness is a class B felony.
[ 1994 c 271 § 203; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 17;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.100.]
NOTES:
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.110
Intimidating a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness’s role in an official proceeding.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) “Threat” means:
(i) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW9A.04.110(27).
(b) “Current or prospective witness” means:
(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or
(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(c) “Former witness” means:
(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or
(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
(5) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to intimidate a witness constitutes a separate offense.
[ 2011 c 165 § 2; 1997 c 29 § 1; 1994 c 271 § 204; 1985 c 327 § 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 18;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.110.]
NOTES:
*Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2011 c 166 § 2, changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
Intent—2011 c 165: “In response toState v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010), the legislature intends to clarify that each instance of an attempt to intimidate or tamper with a witness constitutes a separate violation for purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under the statutes governing tampering with a witness and intimidating a witness.” [ 2011 c 165 § 1.]
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.120
Tampering with a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if he or she attempts to induce a witness or person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to:
(a) Testify falsely or, without right or privilege to do so, to withhold any testimony; or
(b) Absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(c) Withhold from a law enforcement agency information which he or she has relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to the agency.
(2) Tampering with a witness is a class C felony.
(3) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to tamper with a witness constitutes a separate offense.
[ 2011 c 165 § 3; 1994 c 271 § 205; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 19; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.120.]
NOTES:
Intent—2011 c 165: See note following RCW 9A.72.110.
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.130
Intimidating a juror.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a juror if a person directs a threat to a former juror because of the juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a juror, or if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a juror.
(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.
(3) Intimidating a juror is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 § 395; 1985 c 327 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.130.]
9A.72.140
Jury tampering.
(1) A person is guilty of jury tampering if with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action in a case, he or she attempts to communicate directly or indirectly with a juror other than as part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.
(2) Jury tampering is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 396; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.140.]
9A.72.150
Tampering with physical evidence.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she:
(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding; or
(b) Knowingly presents or offers any false physical evidence.
(2) “Physical evidence” as used in this section includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.
(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 397; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.150.]
9A.72.160
Intimidating a judge.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a judge if a person directs a threat to a judge because of a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding, or if by use of a threat directed to a judge, a person attempts to influence a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding.
(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in *RCW9A.04.110(25).
(3) Intimidating a judge is a class B felony.
[ 1985 c 327 § 1.]
NOTES:
*Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2005 c 458 § 3, changing subsection (25) to subsection (26); was subsequently amended by 2007 c 79 § 3, changing subsection (26) to subsection (27); and was subsequently amended by 2011 c 166 § 2, changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
Inside the LegislatureLegislature HomeFind Your LegislatorSenateFind Your DistrictLaws and Agency RulesBill InformationAgendas, Schedules and CalendarsLegislative CommitteesMember InformationComing to the LegislatureLegislative AgenciesLegislative Information CenterSign Up for UpdatesTrack Bills
Outside the LegislatureGovernor’s WebsiteCongress – the Other WashingtonTVWWashington CourtsOFM Fiscal Note Website
Additional InformationHelpSearchHow to Comment on a BillCivic EducationReports to the LegislatureHistory of the State LegislatureGift CenterContact UsGlossary of TermsPrivacy NoticeAccessibility InformationDisclaimerComments about this site
Translate
Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdish (Kurmanji)KyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu
Powered by Translate
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary
Search /Page tools
Word / ArticleStarts withEnds withText
A A A A
Language:
EnglishEspañolDeutschFrançaisItalianoالعربية中文简体PolskiPortuguêsNederlandsNorskΕλληνικήРусскийTürkçeאנגלית
Twitter
Get our app
Log inRegister
E-mail
Password
Facebook Twitter
Google+
Yahoo
Remember MeForgot password? Register
Get
our app
embezzlement
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia,Wikipedia.
Embezzlement
The fraudulent conversion of another’s property by a person who is in a position of trust, such as an agent or employee.
Embezzlement is distinguished from swindling in that swindling involves wrongfully obtaining property by a false pretense, such as a lie or trick, at the time the property is transferred, which induces the victim to transfer to the wrongdoer title to the property.
Nature
There was no crime of embezzlement under the Common Law. It is a statutory crime that evolved from Larceny. Whereas larceny requires a felonious trespassory taking of property at the outset, embezzlement is a wrongful appropriation subsequent to an originally lawful taking. Embezzlement is, therefore, a modification of larceny designed to cover certain fraudulent acts that do not come within its scope. Although they are mutually exclusive crimes, larceny and embezzlement do overlap slightly under statutes in some states.
Embezzlement was created by the English legislature, which designated specific persons who might be liable for the offense. These were essentially persons entrusted with another’s property, such as agents, attorneys, bankers, and corporate officers.
The English definition of the offense is followed in the United States. Statutes do not usually list the persons who might be liable but, instead, generally describe the offender as a person entrusted with, or in possession of, another’s property.
Property
The type of property that must be converted is governed by statute. Generally, property is defined as including money, goods, chattels, or anything of value. Intangible Personal Property; Commercial Paper, such as checks, promissory notes, bonds, or stocks; and written documents, such as deeds or contracts, may also be the subject of embezzlement.
Under some statutes, property consists of anything that can be the subject of larceny. In other states, however, the property requirement for embezzlement is broader. For example, the statute might punish the conversion of both real and personal property.
In some states, the embezzlement of public property or public funds is a separate offense. The offense is characterized by the manner in which the money is received. A court clerk who receives bail money is a recipient of public money and the person can be liable if such money is wrongfully converted by him or her.
The property subject to embezzlement must have some value, even though value is not an element of the offense. Although a check without a required endorsement does not have value, the fact that the endorsement can be forged gives it sufficient value to make it a subject of embezzlement.
Elements
Statutes governing the offense vary widely throughout the states. To determine exactly what elements comprise the offense, it is necessary to examine the particular statute applicable.
Elements common to embezzlement are as follows: (1) the property must belong to a person other than the accused, such as an employer or principal; (2) the property must be converted subsequent to the defendant’s original and lawful possession of it; (3) the defendant must be in a position of trust, so that the property is held by him or her pursuant to some fiduciary duty; and (4) the defendant must have an intent to defraud the owner at the time of the conversion.Ownership The principal or employer must be the owner of the property embezzled by an agent or employee at the time the offense is committed. Under many statutes, the ownership requirement is expressed as the property of another. It is sufficient if any person, other than the defendant, owns the property and it does not matter who has title to it or that it is owned by more than one person.
Jurisdictions differ on the question of whether a person can embezzle funds belonging to a spouse. In states that retain the spousal privilege, a person can be prevented from testifying to a crime against a spouse; therefore, spousal embezzlement will not be prosecuted.
Unless a statute provides otherwise, coowners of property, such as joint tenants or tenants in common, cannot be guilty of the offense with respect to the property that is jointly owned. A co-owner who wrongfully transfers jointly owned property converts his or her own property as opposed to that of another; therefore, there is no conversion. If a person has any interest in property held jointly with another, the person cannot be convicted of the offense relating to that property. For example, a coowner of an automobile cannot be guilty of embezzling it if both owners have an equal right to possession. A number of states, however, have statutes punishing embezzlement by co-owners, such as partners who wrongfully convey partnership assets.
In most states, an agent authorized to collect money for his or her principal and to keep a certain amount as commission is guilty of embezzlement if he or she wrongfully transfers the entire sum collected.
Possession or Custody of Property Possession is the essential element for distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny. While larceny requires that the thief take the property out of the victim’s possession, the person must lawfully possess the property at the time that it is converted for embezzlement.
It is not necessary for the defendant to have physical or exclusive possession. It is sufficient if the person has constructive possession, a form of possession that is not actual but that gives the holder power to exercise control over the property either directly or through another person. Alternatively, mere custody is insufficient for embezzlement. If a master puts a servant in charge of property for purposes of guarding or caring for it, the master is considered to have constructive possession of such property while the servant has mere custody. A servant who wrongfully converts property over which he or she has custody may be guilty of larceny, but not embezzlement.
The fact that an accused person lawfully receives property at different times will not negate an embezzlement charge provided all other elements of the offense are met.
Trust Relationship Since the offense is aimed at punishing persons who convert property for their own use when possession is lawfully acquired, prosecution is limited to instances where the parties are in a fiduciary, or trust, relationship.
Generally, a debtor and a creditor, or an agent and a Broker, do not have a fiduciary relationship sufficient for the offense. There must be some further indication that one person has a duty to care for and exert some control over the other’s property. The most common type of trust relationships are those existing among corporate officers, partners, and employers and their employees.
Conversion of Property
Conversion is an act that interferes with an owner’s right of possession to his or her property. For purposes of embezzlement, conversion involves an unauthorized assumption of the right of ownership over another’s property. It may, for example, occur when a person is entrusted with property for one purpose and uses it for another purpose without the consent of the owner. Generally, any type of conversion that occurs after a person obtains lawful possession of property is sufficient.
Although a failure to return property is evidence of conversion, it does not necessarily constitute embezzlement—absent proof of criminal intent. However, if a statute imposes an absolute duty to return property, the failure to do so is embezzlement, provided all other elements are met.
In certain circumstances, a demand is required before a person can claim that his or her property has been converted. Usually, no demand is required if it would be futile, such as when an accused has fled the jurisdiction with the property. If, however, there is no definite time specified for the return of the property, a demand might be necessary. The demand is merely a request that the wrongdoer return the property. The request does not have to be formal, and there is no requirement that the worddemand be used.
When an agent is given authority to sell property and thereafter converts the proceeds of the sale, he or she is guilty of embezzlement of the proceeds, as distinguished from the property sold. A person with authority to cash a check but who converts the cash is, likewise, guilty of embezzlement of the cash and not of the check. The person, might, however, be guilty of embezzling the check if at the time of cashing it, the person has a fraudulent intent to convert it.
Intent In a majority of jurisdictions, a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his or her property is necessary for embezzlement. It is characterized as intent to willfully and corruptly use or misapply another’s property for purposes other than those for which the property is held. The defendant’s motive is not relevant to the intent element.
Although it is not essential that the intent exist at the time possession is first taken, it must be formed at the time the property is converted. The offense is not committed if there is an intent to return the specific property taken within a reasonable period of time. If, however, there is a fraudulent intent at the time the property is converted, a subsequently formed intent to return the property will not excuse the crime. An offer to restore the property will not bar a prosecution for embezzlement. Some courts have held, however, that an offer of restoration can be considered on the question of intent. A person who believes that the property to be transferred is his or hers is considered to act pursuant to a claim of right. The possibility that the belief is mistaken, or unreasonable, is not important. If one has aGood Faith belief that one has a right to withhold property or devote it to one’s own use, the conversion cannot be fraudulent, and there is no embezzlement.
The validity of a claim of right is a Question of Factdetermined from Circumstantial Evidence. It is not sufficient if the person merely states he or she acted honestly. If circumstances evince that there was a willful and knowingly wrongful taking, a claim of right defense will not succeed.
Persons Liable
One or more persons may be guilty of embezzlement. If there is a conspiracy to embezzle, parties to the agreement are liable as principals. A person who aids and abets in the conversion can also be guilty of the offense.
Punishment
Since the offense is defined differently in several jurisdictions, the punishment for embezzlement can vary. Generally, the penalty is a fine, imprisonment, or both.
Some states distinguish between grand embezzlement and petit embezzlement on the basis of the value of the property stolen. The former involves property of a greater value and is punishable as a felony, while the latter involves property of a lesser value and is punishable as a misdemeanor.
Further readings
Frazer, Douglas H. 2002. “To Catch a Thief: Civil Strategies for Handling Embezzlement Cases.” The Wisconsin Lawyer75 (February): 6
Johnson, J. A., Jr. 2000. Thief: The Bizarre Story of Fugitive Financier Martin Frankel. New York: Lebhar-Friedman.
Kahl, Leah A., and Peter C. Ismay. 1998. “Exceptions to Discharge for Fiduciary Fraud, Larceny, and Embezzlement.”Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice 7 (January-February): 119–60.
McClintick, David. 1982. Indecent Exposure: A True Story of Hollywood and Wall Street. New York: William Morrow.
Cross-references
Fiduciary; Fraud; Joint Tenancy; Larceny; Tenancy in Common.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
embezzlement
n. the crime of stealing the funds or property of an employer, company, or government or misappropriating money or assets held in trust. (See: embezzler, theft)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
embezzlementnoun appropriation, breach of trust, cheating, defalcation, fraud, fraudulent appropriation, fraudulent appropriation of money, fraudulent conversion, larceny, malversation,misappropriation, peculation, stealing, swindle, theft, theft of money ennrusted to one’s care, theft of money entrusted to one’s management, thievery, wrongful appropriation
Associated concepts: conversion, corporate embezzlement, embezzlement of public funds, larceny,misappropriation, theft by means of embezzlementSee also: conversion, larceny, misappropriation, theft
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
embezzlement in England, the crime of fraudulent appropriation by a clerk or servant to his own use of property delivered to or taken into possession of account of his employer. Since the Theft Act 1968 it is no longer an offence with a name of its own. The equivalent offence remains in Scotland and by this name.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
EMBEZZLEMENT, crim. law. The fraudulently removing and secreting of personal property, with which the party has been entrusted, for the purpose of applying it to his own use.
2. The Act of April 30, 1790, s. 16, 1 Story, L. U. S. 86, provides, that if any person, within any of the laces under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas, shall take and carry away, with an intent to steal or purloin, the personal goods of another; or if any person or persons, having, at any time hereafter, the charge or custody of any arms, ordnance, munition, shot, powder, or habiliments of war, belonging to the. United States, or of any victuals provided for the victualling of any soldiers, gunners, marines, or pioneers, shall, for any lucre or gain, or wittingly, advisedly, and of purpose to hinder or impede the service of the United States, embezzle, purloin, or convey away, any of the said arms, ordnance, munition, shot or powder, habiliments of war, or victuals, that then, and in every of the cases aforesaid, the persons so offending, their counsellors, aiders and abettors, (knowing of, and privy to the offences aforesaid,) shall, on conviction, be fined, not exceeding the fourfold value of the property so stolen, embezzled or purloined the one moiety to be paid to the owner of the goods, or the United States, as the case may be, and the other moiety to the informer and prosecutor, and be publicly whipped, not exceeding thirty-nine stripes.
3. The Act of April 20, 1818, 3 Story, 1715, directs that wines and distilled spirits shall, in certain cases, be deposited in the public warehouses of the United States, and then it is enacted, s. 5, that if any wines, or other spirits, deposited under the provisions of this act, shall be embezzled, or fraudulently hid or removed, from any store or place wherein they shall have been deposited, they shall be forfeited, and the person or persons so embezzling, hiding, or removing the same, or aiding or assisting therein, shall be liable to the same pains and penalties as if such wines or spirits had been fraudulently unshipped or landed without payment of duty.
4. By the 21st section of the act to reduce into one the several acts establishing and regulating the post-office, passed March 3, 1825, 3 Story, 1991, the offence of embezzling letters is punished with fine and imprisonment. Vide Letter.
5. The act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, passed March 3, 1825, s. 24, 3 Story, 2006, enacts, that if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the mint of the United States, shall be debased, or made worse, as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be, pursuant to the several acts relative thereto, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise, with a fraudulent intent and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall, at any time, be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined; or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined, at the said mint; every such officer, or person who shall commit any, or either, of the said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor for a term not less than one year, nor more than ten years, and shall be fined in a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
6. When an embezzlement of a part of the cargo takes place on board of a ship, either from the fault, fraud, connivance or negligence of any of the crow, they are bound to contribute to the reparation of the loss, in proportion to their wages. When the embezzlement is fixed on any individual, he is solely responsible; when it is made by the crew, or some of the crew, but the particular offender is unknown, and from the circumstances of the case, strong presumptions of guilt apply to the whole crew, all must contribute. The presumption of innocence is always in favor of the crew, and the guilt of the parties must be established, beyond all reasonable doubt, before they can be required to contribute. 1 Mason’s R. 104; 4 B. & P. 347; 3 Johns. Rep. 17; 1 Marsh. Ins. 241; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.; Wesk. Ins. 194; 3 Kent, Com., 151; Hardin, 529.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster’s page for free fun content.
Link to this page:
Facebook Twitter
Mentioned in?
AbstractionappropriationBackground check for work, arrest warrantBanks and Bankingbreach of trustCan embezzlement charges settle?causecharacter evidencecheatingcomputer crimeconversionCorporate FraudCriminal LawDefalcationdetentionembezzlement accusationsembezzlerForensic Accountingfraud
References in periodicals archive?
Federal employee embezzlement cases by industry (median loss/percent of sample)
It’s understandable that employee theft comes most often from financial services firms, at 21 percent of federal employee embezzlement cases, but the highest loss on a case-by-case basis actually comes from the retail industry
The embezzlement of a large amount was noticed in the reimbursement of compensation for Sherdil affectees in the initial inquiry, the source said.
Rs500m fraud in IDPs compensation fund feared
Earlier, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has arrested other accused Syed Mussarat Abbas Shah Naqvi , Additional Secretary Senate of Pakistan and Mohammad Akram in Senate Secretariat Employees Cooperative Housing Society Islamabad on charges of corruption and corrupt practices / cheating public at large (misutilization and embezzlement of the funds of the society).
NAB arrests Shaheen Ahmed Satti in Senate Secretariat Employees Cooperative Housing Society scam
Earlier, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has arrested other accused Syed Musarrat Abbas Shah Naqvi , Additional Secretary Senate of Pakistan and Mohammad Akram in Senate Secretariat Employees Cooperative Housing Society Islamabad on charges of corruption and corrupt practices / cheating public at large (misutilization and embezzlement of the funds of the society).
NAB arrests Shaheen Ahmed Satti for alleged embezzlement in funds of housing society
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s finance minister called Monday for a comprehensive investigation into corruption at the country’s main postal company, after an employee was accused of embezzlement and fraud.
Khalil wants investigation into LibanPost corruption
The embezzlement scheme allegedly occurred in April 2013, according to Mississippi authorities.
Robertson Charged With $484K Credit Union Embezzlement
Reeve, Ross, Emily and Jim discuss the political landscape now that early voting has begun, the latest in the state’s fight against the Ebola virus, the significance of falling oil prices and a guilty plea for embezzlement.
Audio: TribCast: Early Voting, Oil Prices and Embezzlement
Database searches turned up a large number of newspaper stories reporting on cases of embezzlementand corruption in a 30-day span.
A month of embezzlement stories
WORCESTER — A 54-year-old city man was resentenced to 4 to 5 years in state prison Wednesday for what a jury determined was his role in the 2002 embezzlement of more than $200,000 from a Grafton Street credit union where his wife worked.
Man gets 4-5 years for theft; $210,000 stolen from credit union
Summary: Lawyer contacts investigating judge who confirms embezzlement charges relating to when Jabeur worked for Tunisian railways.
Tunisia Jabeur Mejri faces ’embezzlement’ charges after pardon
THE Football League will meet tomorrow to decide whether the convicted fraudster Massimo Cellino, currently facing embezzlement charges in Italy, is a fit and proper person to run Leeds United.
Leeds put in charm’s way
Muscat: The Sohar Court of Appeals pronounced an orphanage employee guilty of embezzlement of funds and handed him five-year prison term as well as fine of 881,979 Omani riyals.
Oman: Man jailed for embezzlement
More results ►
Legal browser?
▲Emancipation ProclamationemasculateemasculatedemasculatingemasculationembankmentembarembargoEmbargo Actembargoed goodsembarkembark onembark uponembarkationembarrassembarrassedembarrassed circumstancesembarrassmentembassageembassyembedembellishembellishedembellishmentembezzleembezzlementembezzlement accusationsembezzlerembitterembitteredembitteringemblazeemblazonemblememblematicemblementsembodiedembodied termsembodimentembodyembodyingemboldenemboliumembossembowelemboxembraceembrace an offerembrace an opinionembracedembracement▼
Full browser?
▲Emberiza hortulanaEmberiza hortulanaEmberiza schoeniclusEmberiza schoeniclusEmberiza sulphurataEmberiza sulphurataEmberizidaeEmberizidaeEmberizidaeembersembersembersEmbertideEmbertideEMBETEmbetterembezzleembezzleembezzleembezzleembezzleembezzleembezzle fromembezzledembezzledembezzledembezzledembezzledembezzledlyembezzledlyembezzlementembezzlement accusationsEmbezzlement or Misappropriationembezzlementsembezzlementsembezzlementsembezzlementsembezzlerembezzlerembezzlerembezzlerembezzlersembezzlers
Sincerely And respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Legal Dictionary
SHOW SIDEBAR
PRICE GOUGING
Price gouging is a term that refers to the practice of raising the price of goods, services, or commodities, to an unreasonable or unfair level. Such an increase in price is often a result of a sudden increase of demand and shortage of goods, such as in the event of a natural disaster or other crisis, and it is illegal in most jurisdictions. To explore this concept, consider the following price gouging definition.
Definition of Price Gouging
Noun
The practice of raising prices on certain types of goods and services to an unfair level, especially during a state of emergency.What is Price Gouging
Throughout history, enterprising people have recognized the advantage of having certain supplies or products, or being able to provide certain services, in times of upheaval. For instance, when a hurricane makes all of the water in a given area undrinkable, a shopkeeper who has a large supply of bottled water might make a very good profit. It is this taking advantage of a bad situation, raising prices for much-needed supplies or services to an unfair, or even unethical level, that is considered price gouging.
The most common items used in price gouging include food, water, gasoline, and medications. Services such as plumbing repair, heating repair, roofing repair, and other services desperately needed by many in a state of emergency, are also subject to price gouging. Price gouging is against the law, though the laws vary by state.
Example of Price Gouging in Natural Disaster
A hurricane is about to strike the coast of Alabama, and the power is expected to be out in many cities and towns up and down the coast. Packages of “C” batteries, which are commonly needed to power flashlights, emergency radios, and other devices, usually run about $5.00.
With so many people heading into local stores to stock up on emergency supplies, some merchants hoist their prices, charging $10.00 per package of “C” batteries. In this example of price gouging, the 100% increase in price during a declared emergency would be considered illegal in many states.
Price Gouging Laws
While many states have price gouging laws to protect consumers, there are no federal laws regulating this practice. Price gouging laws have, however, been held as constitutional, as law enforcement authorities and local governments have the authority to preserve order, and protect the common good during an emergency.
In most states with price gouging laws, the act is defined by the presence of three criteria:
Emergency or Crisis Situation – applies to abrupt price increases during a time of disaster or other emergencyEssential Items or Services – applies exclusively to items or services that are essential to survivalPrice Limit – sets a limit on the price that can be charged for essential goods or services
As of 2016, 34 states have enacted price gouging laws. A handful of states impose criminal charges on top of civil liability when a business is found guilty of price gouging, though most give prosecutors broad discretion whether to pursue such criminal charges. Penalties for price gouging also vary widely, depending on the jurisdiction.
People who support price gouging laws make the point that taking advantage of people during a disaster or crises is morally wrong, and that those guilty of the practice should face criminal charges. Those opposing such laws argue that, if consumers are willing to pay the price asked for goods or services, the business cannot be blamed.
Sampling of State Price Gouging LawsStateProhibited ActPenaltyAlabamaProhibits “unconscionable prices” for sale or rental of any commodities or rental facilities during a declared state of emergency.$1,000 per violation, not to exceed $25,000 per 24 hour periodArkansasProhibits “excessive and unjustified” increases in prices of essential consumer goods and services (including gasoline) during a federal, state, or local declared emergency or “red condition” declared by the federal or state Departments of Homeland Security.Criminal penalties under Arkansas consumer protection statuteCaliforniaProhibits sales of consumer goods and services (including fuel) at a price of more than 10% above the price charged for those goods and services immediately prior to a federal, state, or local declared emergency.$2500 per violation plusinjunctionand/orrestitution. Criminal penalties also available.ConnecticutProhibits price increases for any item during a federal or state declared disaster.$5,000 per violationD.C.Prohibits charging “more than the normal average price” for anymerchandise or service during a natural disaster or declared state of emergency.$1000 maximum fine plus revocationof license and/or permit.IdahoProhibits “excessive or exorbitant” prices for consumer fuel, food, pharmaceuticals, or water during a state declared emergency.$5000 per violation plus restitution and injunctive reliefKansasProhibits “unjustifiably” increasing prices for any necessary property or service during a time of disaster.$10,000 per violation.
Increased by $5000 if committed against elderly or disabledMaineProhibits “profiteering in necessities.” Prohibits willful destruction or permitting preventable waste in the production, manufacture, storage or distribution of necessities with the intent to enhance the price or restrict the supply of necessities. Also prohibits any “unjust or unreasonable profit” in the sale or exchange of necessities, including anycontract, combination, conspiracy, or aiding and/or abetting the sameCivil penalties of $10,000.
Criminal penalties availableGas Price Gouging
One of the most needed and pricey commodities during a disaster or other state of emergency is gasoline. Gas price gouging remains a controversial practice, in which consumers face rapidly increasing prices at the pump, and wondering whether there will be some relief. Determining whether gas price gouging is taking place can be challenging, as there are many reasons gas prices increase. These include such occurrences as:
Increased price of crude oilIncreased cost of processing crude oil into gasolineIncreased cost to transport fuelIncreased federal, state, and local taxes
Information about the changing prices of gasoline, as well as other consumer issues, may be obtained by visitingUSA.gov, a federal interagency effort to provide up-to-date information on a variety of issues.
Price Gouging During Actual Emergencies
Price gouging is most common during actual emergencies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, widespread fires, and other natural disasters. As the demand for certain items increases, sellers are more likely to engage in price gouging.
Gas Price Gouging in Oklahoma
In December, 2008, after the state of Oklahoma had been battered by a monstrous ice storm, convenience store and gas state owner Mohammed Mannan raised the price of gas at his pumps 60 cents per gallon. This was a clear violation of Oklahoma’s Emergency Price Stabilization Act, and Manna was charged with price gouging. By law, Mannan could have raised his gas prices as much as 10%, but his price hike amounted to about 22%.
Mannan pled no contest to threemisdemeanor counts of price gouging, and was sentenced to a six month suspended sentence, given a $1,500 fine, plus court costs, and ordered to give a refund to all customers who had paid the inflated price.
Hotel Price Gouging in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy
Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast of the United States on October 22, 2012 and it lasted over a week prompting the Governor of New Jersey to declare a state of emergency. Prior to the declaration of a state of emergency the Econo Lodge in Egg Harbor Township charged $79.99 per night for lodging in one of its rooms. On the day the state of emergency was declared, however, the hotel raised its rates to $199.99, an increase of 250%, keeping the inflated rate through November 5, 2015.
In December, the state began investigating complaints of price gouging in the wake of Sandy’s destruction. Investigators found the Econo Lodge to have committed 545 instances of price gouging, and filed an official complaint against its owners, Amy Hotels. In settlement, the owners agreed to pay $25,000 in refunds to wronged customers, the state attorney’s fees, and costs of the investigation.
Additionally, company would be held liable for any civil penalties resulting from successful civil lawsuits filed by customers. In total, 27 lawsuits were filed, 23 of which were resolved for a total payout of more than $1 million. New Jersey’s Attorney General made a statement, telling the press that they hoped the victory would deter other businesses from engaging in the practice of price gouging in the future.
Hurricane Sandy Gas Station Price Gouging
Before Hurricane Sandy hit the New Jersey coast in October 2012, the state’s governor declared a state of emergency, putting into motion emergency services in preparation for, rather than in response to, the storm. Immediately after the state of emergency had been declared, the owners of George’s Service Center in Clifton, New Jersey, raised the station’s price for gasoline by 34%. Another gas station, Lukoil in Piscataway, raised its gas prices by 17.5%.
When state investigators investigated complaints of the two companies’ hefty price increases, the Attorney General filed lawsuits against both. George’s Service Center was ordered to pay fines in the amount of $26,000, and Lukoil was ordered to pay $20,000. Both companies were also ordered to pay the state’s attorney fees, and held liable for civil penalties resulting from successful lawsuits filed by customers.
Related Legal Terms and IssuesCivil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.Criminal Charge – A formal accusation by a prosecuting authority that an individual has committed a crime.Defendant – Control or advantage held by one entity over the commercial market in any specific geographical region.Jurisdiction – The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.Misdemeanor – A criminal offense less serious than a felony
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Skip to Main Content
U.S. SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Fast Answers
Ponzi SchemesWhat is a Ponzi scheme?
Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?
How did Ponzi schemes get their name?
What are some Ponzi scheme “red flags”?
What steps can I take to avoid Ponzi schemes and other investment frauds?
What are some of the similarities and differences between Ponzi and pyramid schemes?What is a Ponzi scheme
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.
Why do Ponzi schemes collapse
With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.
How did Ponzi schemes get their name
The schemes are named after Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. At a time when the annual interest rate for bank accounts was five percent, Ponzi promised investors that he could provide a 50% return in just 90 days. Ponzi initially bought a small number of international mail coupons in support of his scheme, but quickly switched to using incoming funds from new investors to pay purported returns to earlier investors.
What are some Ponzi scheme “red flags”
Many Ponzi schemes share common characteristics. Look for these warning signs:
High investment returns with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and investments yielding higher returns typically involve more risk. Be highly suspicious of any “guaranteed” investment opportunity.Overly consistent returns. Investment values tend to go up and down over time, especially those offering potentially high returns. Be suspect of an investment that continues to generate regular, positive returns regardless of overall market conditions.Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC or with state regulators. Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company’s management, products, services, and finances.Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms to be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms.Secretive and/or complex strategies. Avoiding investments you do not understand, or for which you cannot get complete information, is a good rule of thumb.Issues with paperwork. Do not accept excuses regarding why you cannot review information about an investment in writing. Also, account statement errors and inconsistencies may be signs that funds are not being invested as promised.Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you do not receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters routinely encourage participants to “roll over” investments and sometimes promise returns offering even higher returns on the amount rolled over.
If you are aware of an investment opportunity that might be a Ponzi scheme, contact the SEC by phone at (800) 732-0330 or submit a tip online at sec.gov/complaint/tipscomplaint.shtml.
What steps can I take to avoid Ponzi schemes and other investment frauds?
Whether you are a first-time investor or have been investing for many years, there are some basic questions you should always ask before you commit your hard-earned money to an investment.
The SEC sees too many investors who might have avoided trouble and losses if they had asked questions from the start and verified the answers with information from independent sources.
When you consider your next investment opportunity, start with these five questions:
Is the seller licensed?Is the investment registered?How do the risks compare with the potential rewards?Do I understand the investment?Where can I turn for help?
For more information, check out these resources: SEC Enforcement Actions Against Ponzi Schemes; Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies; Ask Questions;Avoiding Fraud; Affinity Fraud; Social Media and Investing – Avoiding Fraud.
What are some of the similarities and differences between Ponzi and pyramid schemes?
Ponzi and pyramid schemes are closely related because they both involve paying longer-standing members with money from new participants, instead of actual profits from investing or selling products to the public. Here are some common differences:
Pyramid Scheme
Ponzi Scheme
Typical “hook”
Earn high profits by making one payment and finding others to become distributors of a product. The scheme typically does not involve a genuine product. The purported product may not exist or it may be “sold” only to other people who also become distributors.
Earn high investment returns with little or no risk by simply handing over your money; often the investment does not exist or only a small percentage of incoming funds are actually invested.
Payments
Must pay a one-time or recurring participation fee and recruit new distributors to receive payments.
No recruiting necessary to receive payments.
Interaction with original promoter
Sometimes none. New participants may enter the pyramid scheme at different levels.
Promoter generally interacts directly with all participants.
How the scheme works
Funds from new participants are used to pay recruiting commissions to earlier participants.
Funds from new investors are used to pay purported returns to earlier investors.
Collapse
Fast. An exponential increase in the number of participants is required at each level.
May be relatively slow if existing participants reinvest money.
For more information regarding pyramid schemes, please read Beware of Pyramid Schemes Posing as Multi-Level Marketing Programs.
Modified: Oct. 9, 2013
STAY CONNECTED
Site Map | Accessibility | Contracts | Privacy |Inspector General | Agency Financial Report |Budget & Performance | Careers | Contact | FOIA |No FEAR Act & EEO Data | Whistleblower Protection |Votes | Open Government | Plain Writing | Links |Investor.gov | USA.gov
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Investor Information
Investor Alerts and BulletinsFast AnswersInvestor Reports/PublicationsTools and CalculatorsEducation ResourcesInformación en EspañolContact
Search SEC.gov
COMPANY FILINGS | MORE SEARCH OPTIONS
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
MenuSearch
Print
RCWs > Title 9A > Chapter 9A.72
Chapter 9A.72 RCW
PERJURY AND INTERFERENCE WITH OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Chapter Listing
Sections
9A.72.010
Definitions.
9A.72.020
Perjury in the first degree.
9A.72.030
Perjury in the second degree.
9A.72.040
False swearing.
9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
9A.72.060
Perjury and false swearing—Retraction.
9A.72.070
Perjury and false swearing—Irregularities no defense.
9A.72.080
Statement of what one does not know to be true.
9A.72.085
Unsworn statements, certification—Standards for subscribing to an unsworn statement.
9A.72.090
Bribing a witness.
9A.72.100
Bribe receiving by a witness.
9A.72.110
Intimidating a witness.
9A.72.120
Tampering with a witness.
9A.72.130
Intimidating a juror.
9A.72.140
Jury tampering.
9A.72.150
Tampering with physical evidence.
9A.72.160
Intimidating a judge.
NOTES:
Committal of witness committing perjury: RCW 9.72.090.
9A.72.010
Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Materially false statement” means any false statement oral or written, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding; whether a false statement is material shall be determined by the court as a matter of law;
(2) “Oath” includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated; in this chapter, written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if:
(a) The statement was made on or pursuant to instructions on an official form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;
(b) The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he or she made the statement, intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto; or
(c) It is a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, made within or outside the state of Washington, which is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury as provided in RCW9A.72.085.
(3) An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths;
(4) “Official proceeding” means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions;
(5) “Juror” means any person who is a member of any jury, including a grand jury, impaneled by any court of this state or by any public servant authorized by law to impanel a jury; the term juror also includes any person who has been drawn or summoned to attend as a prospective juror;
(6) “Testimony” includes oral or written statements, documents, or any other material that may be offered by a witness in an official proceeding.
[ 2001 c 171 § 2. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 30; 1981 c 187 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.010.]
NOTES:
Purpose—2001 c 171: “The purpose of this act is to respond to State v. Thomas, 103 Wn. App. 800, by reenacting, without changes, legislation relating to the crime of perjury, as amended in sections 30 and 31, chapter 285, Laws of 1995.” [ 2001 c 171 § 1.]
Effective date—2001 c 171: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2001].” [ 2001 c 171 § 4.]
Effective date—1995 c 285: See RCW48.30A.900.
9A.72.020
Perjury in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he or she makes a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the actor’s mistaken belief that his or her statement was not material is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.
(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 § 391; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.020.]
9A.72.030
Perjury in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if, in an examination under oath under the terms of a contract of insurance, or with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) Perjury in the second degree is a class C felony.
[ 2001 c 171 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 31; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.030.]
NOTES:
Purpose—Effective date—2001 c 171: See notes following RCW 9A.72.010.
Effective date—1995 c 285: See RCW48.30A.900.
9A.72.040
False swearing.
(1) A person is guilty of false swearing if he or she makes a false statement, which he or she knows to be false, under an oath required or authorized by law.
(2) False swearing is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 392; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.040.]
9A.72.050
Perjury and false swearing—Inconsistent statements—Degree of crime.
(1) Where, in the course of one or more official proceedings, a person makes inconsistent material statements under oath, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which material statement was false but only that one or the other was false and known by the defendant to be false.
(2) The highest offense of which a person may be convicted in such an instance as set forth in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by hypothetically assuming each statement to be false. If perjury of different degrees would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of the lesser degree. If perjury or false swearing would be established by the making of the two statements, the person may only be convicted of false swearing. For purposes of this section, no corroboration shall be required of either inconsistent statement.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.050.]
9A.72.060
Perjury and false swearing—Retraction.
No person shall be convicted of perjury or false swearing if he or she retracts his or her false statement in the course of the same proceeding in which it was made, if in fact he or she does so before it becomes manifest that the falsification is or will be exposed and before the falsification substantially affects the proceeding. Statements made in separate hearings at separate stages of the same trial, administrative, or other official proceeding shall be treated as if made in the course of the same proceeding.
[ 2011 c 336 § 393; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 16; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.060.]
NOTES:
Effective date—Severability—1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 38: See notes following RCW9A.08.020.
9A.72.070
Perjury and false swearing—Irregularities no defense.
It is no defense to a prosecution for perjury or false swearing:
(1) That the oath was administered or taken in an irregular manner; or
(2) That the person administering the oath lacked authority to do so, if the taking of the oath was required or authorized by law.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.070.]
9A.72.080
Statement of what one does not know to be true.
Every unqualified statement of that which one does not know to be true is equivalent to a statement of that which he or she knows to be false.
[ 2011 c 336 § 394; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.080.]
9A.72.085
Unsworn statements, certification—Standards for subscribing to an unsworn statement.
(1) Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person’s sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:
(a) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;
(b) Is subscribed by the person;
(c) States the date and place of its execution; and
(d) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.
(2) The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct”:
. . . .
. . . .
(Date and Place)
(Signature)
(3) For purposes of this section, a person subscribes to an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate by:
(a) Affixing or placing his or her signature as defined in RCW 9A.04.110 on the document;
(b) Attaching or logically associating his or her digital signature or electronic signature as defined in RCW 19.34.020 to the document;
(c) Affixing or logically associating his or her signature in the manner described in general rule 30 to the document if he or she is a licensed attorney; or
(d) Affixing or logically associating his or her full name, department or agency, and badge or personnel number to any document that is electronically submitted to a court, a prosecutor, or a magistrate from an electronic device that is owned, issued, or maintained by a criminal justice agency if he or she is a law enforcement officer.
(4) This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgment, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.
[ 2014 c 93 § 4; 1981 c 187 § 3.]
NOTES:
Finding—Intent—2014 c 93: See note following RCW 2.20.030.
9A.72.090
Bribing a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or upon a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, with intent to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person; or
(b) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify; or
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he or she has been legally summoned; or
(d) Induce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) Bribing a witness is a class B felony.
[ 1994 c 271 § 202; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 16;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.090.]
NOTES:
Finding—1994 c 271: “The legislature finds that witness intimidation and witness tampering serve to thwart both the effective prosecution of criminal conduct in the state of Washington and resolution of child dependencies.
Further, the legislature finds that intimidating persons who have information pertaining to a future proceeding serves to prevent both the bringing of a charge and prosecution of such future proceeding. The legislature finds that the period before a crime or child abuse or neglect is reported is when a victim is most vulnerable to influence, both from the defendant or from people acting on behalf of the defendant and a time when the defendant is most able to threaten, bribe, and/or persuade potential witnesses to leave the jurisdiction or withhold information from law enforcement agencies.
The legislature moreover finds that a criminal defendant’s admonishment or demand to a witness to “drop the charges” is intimidating to witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a criminal proceeding.
The legislature finds, therefore, that tampering with and/or intimidating witnesses or other persons with information relevant to a present or future criminal or child dependency proceeding are grave offenses which adversely impact the state’s ability to promote public safety and prosecute criminal behavior.” [ 1994 c 271 § 201.]
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.100
Bribe receiving by a witness.
(1) A witness or a person who has reason to believe he or she is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or that he or she may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child is guilty of bribe receiving by a witness if he or she requests, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit pursuant to an agreement or understanding that:
(a) The person’s testimony will thereby be influenced; or
(b) The person will attempt to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify; or
(c) The person will attempt to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he or she has been legally summoned; or
(d) The person will not report information he or she has relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) Bribe receiving by a witness is a class B felony.
[ 1994 c 271 § 203; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 17;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.100.]
NOTES:
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.110
Intimidating a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a witness if a person, by use of a threat against a current or prospective witness, attempts to:
(a) Influence the testimony of that person;
(b) Induce that person to elude legal process summoning him or her to testify;
(c) Induce that person to absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(d) Induce that person not to report the information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child, not to have the crime or the abuse or neglect of a minor child prosecuted, or not to give truthful or complete information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(2) A person also is guilty of intimidating a witness if the person directs a threat to a former witness because of the witness’s role in an official proceeding.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) “Threat” means:
(i) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(ii) Threat as defined in *RCW9A.04.110(27).
(b) “Current or prospective witness” means:
(i) A person endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person whom the actor believes may be called as a witness in any official proceeding; or
(iii) A person whom the actor has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(c) “Former witness” means:
(i) A person who testified in an official proceeding;
(ii) A person who was endorsed as a witness in an official proceeding;
(iii) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have been called as a witness if a hearing or trial had been held; or
(iv) A person whom the actor knew or believed may have provided information related to a criminal investigation or an investigation into the abuse or neglect of a minor child.
(4) Intimidating a witness is a class B felony.
(5) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to intimidate a witness constitutes a separate offense.
[ 2011 c 165 § 2; 1997 c 29 § 1; 1994 c 271 § 204; 1985 c 327 § 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 18;1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.110.]
NOTES:
*Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2011 c 166 § 2, changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
Intent—2011 c 165: “In response toState v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010), the legislature intends to clarify that each instance of an attempt to intimidate or tamper with a witness constitutes a separate violation for purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under the statutes governing tampering with a witness and intimidating a witness.” [ 2011 c 165 § 1.]
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.120
Tampering with a witness.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if he or she attempts to induce a witness or person he or she has reason to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to:
(a) Testify falsely or, without right or privilege to do so, to withhold any testimony; or
(b) Absent himself or herself from such proceedings; or
(c) Withhold from a law enforcement agency information which he or she has relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child to the agency.
(2) Tampering with a witness is a class C felony.
(3) For purposes of this section, each instance of an attempt to tamper with a witness constitutes a separate offense.
[ 2011 c 165 § 3; 1994 c 271 § 205; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 19; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.120.]
NOTES:
Intent—2011 c 165: See note following RCW 9A.72.110.
Finding—1994 c 271: See note following RCW 9A.72.090.
Purpose—Severability—1994 c 271:See notes following RCW 9A.28.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47:See note following RCW 9.41.190.
9A.72.130
Intimidating a juror.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a juror if a person directs a threat to a former juror because of the juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a juror, or if, by use of a threat, he or she attempts to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action as a juror.
(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in RCW 9A.04.110.
(3) Intimidating a juror is a class B felony.
[ 2011 c 336 § 395; 1985 c 327 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.130.]
9A.72.140
Jury tampering.
(1) A person is guilty of jury tampering if with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other official action in a case, he or she attempts to communicate directly or indirectly with a juror other than as part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.
(2) Jury tampering is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 396; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.140.]
9A.72.150
Tampering with physical evidence.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence if, having reason to believe that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he or she:
(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its appearance, character, or availability in such pending or prospective official proceeding; or
(b) Knowingly presents or offers any false physical evidence.
(2) “Physical evidence” as used in this section includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.
(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a gross misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 § 397; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.72.150.]
9A.72.160
Intimidating a judge.
(1) A person is guilty of intimidating a judge if a person directs a threat to a judge because of a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding, or if by use of a threat directed to a judge, a person attempts to influence a ruling or decision of the judge in any official proceeding.
(2) “Threat” as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
(b) Threats as defined in *RCW9A.04.110(25).
(3) Intimidating a judge is a class B felony.
[ 1985 c 327 § 1.]
NOTES:
*Reviser’s note: RCW 9A.04.110 was amended by 2005 c 458 § 3, changing subsection (25) to subsection (26); was subsequently amended by 2007 c 79 § 3, changing subsection (26) to subsection (27); and was subsequently amended by 2011 c 166 § 2, changing subsection (27) to subsection (28).
Inside the LegislatureLegislature HomeFind Your LegislatorSenateFind Your DistrictLaws and Agency RulesBill InformationAgendas, Schedules and CalendarsLegislative CommitteesMember InformationComing to the LegislatureLegislative AgenciesLegislative Information CenterSign Up for UpdatesTrack Bills
Outside the LegislatureGovernor’s WebsiteCongress – the Other WashingtonTVWWashington CourtsOFM Fiscal Note Website
Additional InformationHelpSearchHow to Comment on a BillCivic EducationReports to the LegislatureHistory of the State LegislatureGift CenterContact UsGlossary of TermsPrivacy NoticeAccessibility InformationDisclaimerComments about this site
Translate
Select LanguageAfrikaansAlbanianAmharicArabicArmenianAzerbaijaniBasqueBelarusianBengaliBosnianBulgarianCatalanCebuanoChichewaChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CorsicanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEsperantoEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrisianGalicianGeorgianGermanGreekGujaratiHaitian CreoleHausaHawaiianHebrewHindiHmongHungarianIcelandicIgboIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseJavaneseKannadaKazakhKhmerKoreanKurdish (Kurmanji)KyrgyzLaoLatinLatvianLithuanianLuxembourgishMacedonianMalagasyMalayMalayalamMalteseMaoriMarathiMongolianMyanmar (Burmese)NepaliNorwegianPashtoPersianPolishPortuguesePunjabiRomanianRussianSamoanScots GaelicSerbianSesothoShonaSindhiSinhalaSlovakSlovenianSomaliSpanishSundaneseSwahiliSwedishTajikTamilTeluguThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduUzbekVietnameseWelshXhosaYiddishYorubaZulu
Powered by Translate
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
image: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/the-free-thought-project-style-book-460.png
Obama Administration Caught Conspiring to Destroy Key 9/11 Evidence in Trial at Gitmo
Home / Badge Abuse / Entire Florida Police Dept Busted Laundering Tens of Millions for International Drug Cartels
Entire Florida Police Dept Busted Laundering Tens of Millions for International Drug Cartels
Justin Gardner December 31, 2015 0 Comments
c?1:0};var n;a:{var p=b.navigator;if(p){var q=p.userAgent;if(q){n=q;break a}}n=””};var r=-1!=n.indexOf(“Opera”),t=-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”),u=-1!=n.indexOf(“Edge”),v=-1!=n.indexOf(“Gecko”)&&!(-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”))&&!(-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”))&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),w=-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),x=function(){var a=b.document;return a?a.documentMode:void 0},y;a:{var z=””,A=function(){var a=n;if(v)return/rv\:([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(u)return/Edge\/([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(t)return/\b(?:MSIE|rv)[: ]([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(w)return/WebKit\/(\S+)/.exec(a);if(r)return/(?:Version)[ \/]?(\S+)/.exec(a)}();A&&(z=A?A[1]:””);if(t){var B=x();if(null!=B&&B>parseFloat(z)){y=String(B);break a}}y=z}var C=y,D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var c=0,d=f(String(C)).split(“.”),e=f(String(a)).split(“.”),k=Math.max(d.length,e.length),l=0;0==c&&le)d=a+”&nm=”+d;else var e=e+4,k=a.indexOf(“&”,e),d=0 0) {var c = a.href.substring(0, bi+6); var d = a.href.substring(bi+6, a.href.length);var ei = d.indexOf(“&”);var r = ”;if (ei >= 0)r = d.substring(ei, d.length);a.href = c + t + r; } else {a.href += “&clkt=” + t;}}}(function(){var b=this,f=Date.now||function(){return+new Date};var m=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,””)},n=function(a,d){return ad?1:0};var p;a:{var q=b.navigator;if(q){var r=q.userAgent;if(r){p=r;break a}}p=””};var t=-1!=p.indexOf(“Opera”),u=-1!=p.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=p.indexOf(“MSIE”),v=-1!=p.indexOf(“Edge”),w=-1!=p.indexOf(“Gecko”)&&!(-1!=p.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==p.indexOf(“Edge”))&&!(-1!=p.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=p.indexOf(“MSIE”))&&-1==p.indexOf(“Edge”),x=-1!=p.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==p.indexOf(“Edge”),y=function(){var a=b.document;return a?a.documentMode:void 0},z;a:{var A=””,B=function(){var a=p;if(w)return/rv\:([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(v)return/Edge\/([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(u)return/\b(?:MSIE|rv)[: ]([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(x)return/WebKit\/(\S+)/.exec(a);if(t)return/(?:Version)[ \/]?(\S+)/.exec(a)}();B&&(A=B?B[1]:””);if(u){var C=y();if(null!=C&&C>parseFloat(A)){z=String(C);break a}}z=A}var D=z,E={},F=function(a){if(!E[a]){for(var d=0,c=m(String(D)).split(“.”),e=m(String(a)).split(“.”),k=Math.max(c.length,e.length),l=0;0==d&&le)c=a+”&mdd=”+c;else{var e=e+5,k=a.indexOf(“&”,e);c=0b?1:0};var n;a:{var p=d.navigator;if(p){var q=p.userAgent;if(q){n=q;break a}}n=””};var r=-1!=n.indexOf(“Opera”),t=-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”),u=-1!=n.indexOf(“Edge”),v=-1!=n.indexOf(“Gecko”)&&!(-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”))&&!(-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”))&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),w=-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),x=function(){var a=d.document;return a?a.documentMode:void 0},y;a:{var z=””,A=function(){var a=n;if(v)return/rv\:([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(u)return/Edge\/([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(t)return/\b(?:MSIE|rv)[: ]([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(w)return/WebKit\/(\S+)/.exec(a);if(r)return/(?:Version)[ \/]?(\S+)/.exec(a)}();A&&(z=A?A[1]:””);if(t){var B=x();if(null!=B&&B>parseFloat(z)){y=String(B);break a}}y=z}var C=y,D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var b=0,c=g(String(C)).split(“.”),e=g(String(a)).split(“.”),f=Math.max(c.length,e.length),l=0;0==b&&lc?e=b+f+e:(c+=f.length,f=b.indexOf(“&”,c),e=0b?1:0};var n;a:{var p=d.navigator;if(p){var q=p.userAgent;if(q){n=q;break a}}n=””};var r=-1!=n.indexOf(“Opera”),t=-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”),u=-1!=n.indexOf(“Edge”),v=-1!=n.indexOf(“Gecko”)&&!(-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”))&&!(-1!=n.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=n.indexOf(“MSIE”))&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),w=-1!=n.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==n.indexOf(“Edge”),x=function(){var a=d.document;return a?a.documentMode:void 0},y;a:{var z=””,A=function(){var a=n;if(v)return/rv\:([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(u)return/Edge\/([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(t)return/\b(?:MSIE|rv)[: ]([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(w)return/WebKit\/(\S+)/.exec(a);if(r)return/(?:Version)[ \/]?(\S+)/.exec(a)}();A&&(z=A?A[1]:””);if(t){var B=x();if(null!=B&&B>parseFloat(z)){y=String(B);break a}}y=z}var C=y,D={},E=function(a){if(!D[a]){for(var b=0,c=f(String(C)).split(“.”),e=f(String(a)).split(“.”),k=Math.max(c.length,e.length),l=0;0==b&&le)c=b+”&mb=”+c;else{var e=e+4,k=b.indexOf(“&”,e);c=0 c?1:0};var m;a:{var r=b.navigator;if(r){var t=r.userAgent;if(t){m=t;break a}}m=””};var u=-1!=m.indexOf(“Opera”),w=-1!=m.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=m.indexOf(“MSIE”),x=-1!=m.indexOf(“Edge”),y=-1!=m.indexOf(“Gecko”)&&!(-1!=m.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==m.indexOf(“Edge”))&&!(-1!=m.indexOf(“Trident”)||-1!=m.indexOf(“MSIE”))&&-1==m.indexOf(“Edge”),z=-1!=m.toLowerCase().indexOf(“webkit”)&&-1==m.indexOf(“Edge”),A=function(){var a=b.document;return a?a.documentMode:void 0},B;a:{var C=””,D=function(){var a=m;if(y)return/rv\:([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(x)return/Edge\/([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(w)return/\b(?:MSIE|rv)[: ]([^\);]+)(\)|;)/.exec(a);if(z)return/WebKit\/(\S+)/.exec(a);if(u)return/(?:Version)[ \/]?(\S+)/.exec(a)}();D&&(C=D?D[1]:””);if(w){var E=A();if(null!=E&&E>parseFloat(C)){B=String(E);break a}}B=C}var F=B,G={},H=function(a){if(!G[a]){for(var c=0,d=k(String(F)).split(“.”),n=k(String(a)).split(“.”),v=Math.max(d.length,n.length),e=0;0==c&&e
div,ul,li{margin:0;padding:0;}.abgcp{height:15px;padding-right: 0;padding-top: 0;padding-left: 10px;padding-bottom: 10px;right:0px;top:0;position:absolute;width:31px;z-index:9020;}.abgc{height:15px;overflow:hidden;position:absolute;right:0px;text-rendering:geometricPrecision;top:0;width:31px;z-index:9020;}.abgb{height:15px;width:15px;}.abgc{cursor:pointer;}.cbb{background-image: url(‘https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/images/x_button_blue2.svg’);background-repeat: no-repeat;background-position: top right;cursor:pointer;height:15px;width:15px;z-index:9020;}.abgb{position:absolute;right:16px;top:0;}.cbb{position:absolute;right:0;top:0;}.abgc img{display:block;}.abgc svg{display:block;}.abgs{display:none;height:100%;}.abgl{text-decoration:none;}.abgi{fill-opacity:1.0;fill:#00aecd;stroke:none;}.abgbg{fill-opacity:1.0;fill:#cdcccc;stroke:none;}.abgtxt{fill:black;font-family:’Arial’;font-size:100px;overflow:visible;stroke:none;}
var abgp={elp:document.getElementById(‘abgcp’),el:document.getElementById(‘abgc’),ael:document.getElementById(‘abgs’),iel:document.getElementById(‘abgb’),hw:15,sw:75,hh:15,sh:15,himg:’https://tpc.googlesyndication.com’+’/pagead/images/adchoices/icon.png’,simg:’https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/pagead/images/adchoices/en.png’,alt:’AdChoices’,t:’AdChoices’,tw:53,t2:”,t2w:0,tbo:0,popuptext:”,att:’adchoices’,ff:”,halign:’right’,fe:false,iba:false,lttp:true,umd:false,uic:true,uit:false,ict:document.getElementById(‘cbb’),icd:{“creatives”:[],”height”:250,”width”:300,”attribution”:{“user_feedback_data”:{“ad_feedback_text”:”Stop seeing this ad”,”mute_icon_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/images/mtad/x_blue.png”,”pub_feedback_text”:”Ad covers the page”,”pub_feedback_icon_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/images/mtad/x_blue.png”,”conversion_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/conversion/?ai=CzXB5OWtUV778MNLFBYK1gcAMiOj6sESljuqI5AKd0ras_wMQASDU7t0kYMne6IbIo5AZoAGzlKfaA8gBAuACAKgDAcgDmQSqBJ8CT9CMWdG1NsO5f5DhlBUbUmo-0iLFEe0tW7XhfMZoDn0ZP5PVfuptWPh5hrTXvsIQ-_6fWrvaaeurSLlKbMKLnjrN9Di_sp8a0wAYH0hskvJw8M4Si38neoT5t0SVoWcCOh3sDAj3jcGsMEy8JVi0ZLwwkTR9SsFZvw9DXdRCJLTMsUrowXmqUTOgYWbokNlhIgR4CS2sH-KgItWfadSc5lcxBuQPXzIkiSFScJD7gADg-XO4rJmfEsj_EQQSP7hdWJzvzVeqLanuTAr3mA3hMWtFXID8hygEuJqVc1GCJ0UTd6IhCzcQ_cxxAC1sV5dIUAJKBafh7rMcBQNhQ7hjNvsYynEcXfidwgqr4Ih7QnJ9bhyE1IOVlgReDJhWs47gBAGIBgGgBgLYBgKAB7Xr2CWoB6a-G9gHAQ\u0026sigh=zHRSAE3v0sU”,”close_button_token”:”K03OLmKxBeEIpY7qiOQCEI3D5LIBGOWEwCYiGnd3dy5oY2NhLWluZm8ub3JnL3Jlc2VhcmNoMgcIBRMY5xYUQhdjYS1wdWItNDU5MjYxMzk1ODMzNTYwOUgFWAJwAQ”,”interaction_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_menu_interaction”,”label_instance”:””,”include_close_button_token”:false},”mute_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_menu_option”,”label_instance”:”1″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”mute_undo_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_undo”,”label_instance”:”1″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”pub_feedback_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_menu_option”,”label_instance”:”3″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”pub_feedback_undo_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_undo”,”label_instance”:”3″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”survey_header”:”What was wrong with this ad?”,”survey_options”:[{“text”:”Repetitive”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”2″,”include_close_button_token”:true}},{“text”:”Inappropriate”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”8″,”include_close_button_token”:true}},{“text”:”Irrelevant”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”7″,”include_close_button_token”:true}}],”back_icon_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/images/mtad/back_blue.png”,”mute_confirmation_header”:”Thanks for the feedback!”,”mute_confirmation_text”:”We’ll review this ad to improve your experience in the future.”,”pub_feedback_confirmation_header”:”Thanks for the feedback!”,”pub_feedback_confirmation_text”:”We’ll use your feedback to review ads on this site.”,”encoded_cookie”:”CAASEuRoGYHB9ENvcN7ZBamACkd8eQ”,”undo_text”:”Undo”,”closing_countdown_text”:”Closing ad: %1$d”,”attribution_text”:”AdChoices”,”attribution_icon_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/images/mtad/ad_choices_blue.png”,”attribution_destination_url”:”https://www.google.com/url?ct=abg\u0026q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://thefreethoughtproject.com/small-town-cops-set-giant-international-money-laundering-scheme-rake-millions-illegally/%26gl%3DUS%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-4592613958335609%26ai0%3DCzXB5OWtUV778MNLFBYK1gcAMiOj6sESljuqI5AKd0ras_wMQASDU7t0kYMne6IbIo5AZoAGzlKfaA8gBAuACAKgDAcgDmQSqBJ8CT9CMWdG1NsO5f5DhlBUbUmo-0iLFEe0tW7XhfMZoDn0ZP5PVfuptWPh5hrTXvsIQ-_6fWrvaaeurSLlKbMKLnjrN9Di_sp8a0wAYH0hskvJw8M4Si38neoT5t0SVoWcCOh3sDAj3jcGsMEy8JVi0ZLwwkTR9SsFZvw9DXdRCJLTMsUrowXmqUTOgYWbokNlhIgR4CS2sH-KgItWfadSc5lcxBuQPXzIkiSFScJD7gADg-XO4rJmfEsj_EQQSP7hdWJzvzVeqLanuTAr3mA3hMWtFXID8hygEuJqVc1GCJ0UTd6IhCzcQ_cxxAC1sV5dIUAJKBafh7rMcBQNhQ7hjNvsYynEcXfidwgqr4Ih7QnJ9bhyE1IOVlgReDJhWs47gBAGIBgGgBgLYBgKAB7Xr2CWoB6a-G9gHAQ\u0026usg=AFQjCNF3P5wHysiq6bBFh8jTyVFUa-eUag”,”ad_feedback_icon_url”:”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/images/mtad/x_blue.png”,”is_rtl_language”:false,”feedback_options”:[{“text”:”Ad covers the page”,”conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_menu_option”,”label_instance”:”3″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”undo_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_undo”,”label_instance”:”3″,”include_close_button_token”:true}},{“text”:”Stop seeing this ad”,”conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_menu_option”,”label_instance”:”1″,”include_close_button_token”:true},”survey”:{“header”:”What was wrong with this ad?”,”options”:[{“text”:”Repetitive”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”2″,”include_close_button_token”:true}},{“text”:”Not interested”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”12″,”include_close_button_token”:true}},{“text”:”Already purchased”,”conversion”:{“label”:”mute_survey_option”,”label_instance”:”11″,”include_close_button_token”:true}}]},”undo_conversion”:{“label”:”user_feedback_undo”,”label_instance”:”1″,”include_close_button_token”:true}}],”mute_panel_data”:{}}},”flags”:[]},uaal:true,opi: false};
buildAdSlot([[[1,0,300,250,”http://www.hcca-info.org/research”,”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/conversion/?ai=CzXB5OWtUV778MNLFBYK1gcAMiOj6sESljuqI5AKd0ras_wMQASDU7t0kYMne6IbIo5AZoAGzlKfaA8gBAuACAKgDAcgDmQSqBJ8CT9CMWdG1NsO5f5DhlBUbUmo-0iLFEe0tW7XhfMZoDn0ZP5PVfuptWPh5hrTXvsIQ-_6fWrvaaeurSLlKbMKLnjrN9Di_sp8a0wAYH0hskvJw8M4Si38neoT5t0SVoWcCOh3sDAj3jcGsMEy8JVi0ZLwwkTR9SsFZvw9DXdRCJLTMsUrowXmqUTOgYWbokNlhIgR4CS2sH-KgItWfadSc5lcxBuQPXzIkiSFScJD7gADg-XO4rJmfEsj_EQQSP7hdWJzvzVeqLanuTAr3mA3hMWtFXID8hygEuJqVc1GCJ0UTd6IhCzcQ_cxxAC1sV5dIUAJKBafh7rMcBQNhQ7hjNvsYynEcXfidwgqr4Ih7QnJ9bhyE1IOVlgReDJhWs47gBAGIBgGgBgLYBgKAB7Xr2CWoB6a-G9gHAQ\u0026sigh=zHRSAE3v0sU”]],300,250,1,0,null,”CP78iom-kc0CFdJiAQodgloAyA”,””,[null,null,null,null,null,1,[[[null,0,9,2,4],[“0,0,0,0″,null,9,2]]]],”ca-pub-4592613958335609″,300,250,0,”_blank”,null,null,0,”https://tpc.googlesyndication.com”,null,0,0,3137517,null,null,null,[0.9,0,10,0,[0,0,0],1000,0,””,-1,-1,300,0],null,null,null,null,null,null,null,3]);(function(_){_.Pb.prototype.In=_.p(26,function(){return null!=this.g[0]});var ij=function(a){this.g=a||[]};ij.prototype.In=function(){return null!=this.g[1]};ij.prototype.getDuration=function(){var a=this.g[1];return null!=a?a:0};var jj=function(a){a=a.g[2];return null!=a?a:0},kj=function(a){a=a.g[3];return null!=a?a:1};ij.prototype.Kh=function(){var a=this.g[4];return null!=a?a:1};ij.prototype.pn=function(){var a=this.g[5];return null!=a?a:0};var lj=function(a){this.g=a||[]},mj=function(a){this.A=a;this.ca=null;this.Tk=_.$d(this.A,”data-ifc”);this.rv={};this.fi=[];this.rp=[];this.Uc={};this.op=this.Qk=this.fC=null;this.$b=!!window.osdlamrc;for(a=0;ar.clientX||0>r.clientY||0>n||0>J)m=!1;else{if(r=null!=y.Ka.g[0])r=y.Ka.g[0],r=pj(null!=r?r:””),r=!(n>=r.left&&J>=r.top&&m-n>=r.right&&k-J>=r.bottom);r||null==y.Ka.g[6]||(y=y.Ka.g[6],y=pj(null!=y?y:””),y.top*=k/100,y.bottom*=k/100,y.left*=m/100,y.right*=m/100,r=!(n>=y.left&&J>=y.top&&m-n>=y.right&&k-J>=y.bottom));r&&this.ca&&this.ca.creativeConversionUrl()&&(m=this.ca.creativeConversionUrl()+”&label=blocked_border_click”,_.sd(_.O,m,void 0));m=r}n=!m}n||(c=g,b=kj(g.Ka),d=jj(g.Ka))}else e[g.Gf]=!1}if(c){switch(kj(c.Ka)){case 2:_.Md(a);break;case 3:this.A.fireOnObject(“common_show_15overlay”,a);this.ca&&this.ca.creativeConversionUrl()&&(d=this.ca.creativeConversionUrl()+”&label=onepointfiveclick_first_click”,_.sd(_.O,d,void 0));_.Md(a);break;case 4:this.A.fireOnObject(“should_expand_action_button”,a),_.Md(a)}if(a=null!=c.Ka.g[7])a=++c.jx,d=c.Ka.g[7],a=a>=(null!=d?d:0);a&&(c.Ej=!0)}!this.Uc[5]||void 0!=b&&1!==b||this.xi(5)};var oj=function(a,b){var c=b.Ka.Kh(),d,e=!1;if(3===c||6===c)if(e=!0,null===a.op||3E3=d+b.Ka.getDuration())return-1=this.fi.length){var b=a[7];if(b!==this.fC)for(var b=0==b?0:Math.floor(20*b)+1,c=(0,_.C)(),d=this.fi.length;dinit_dom_intentful_click(adSlot);(function(){var g,k=this,aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if(“object”==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return”array”;if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if(“[object Window]”==c)return”object”;if(“[object Array]”==c||”number”==typeof a.length&&”undefined”!=typeof a.splice&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“splice”))return”array”;if(“[object Function]”==c||”undefined”!=typeof a.call&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“call”))return”function”}else return”null”;else if(“function”==b&&”undefined”==typeof a.call)return”object”;return b},l=function(a){var b=aa(a);return”array”==b||”object”==b&&”number”==typeof a.length},m=function(a){return”string”==typeof a},ba=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},ca=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2b?1:0};var fa=Array.prototype.forEach?function(a,b,c){Array.prototype.forEach.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=m(a)?a.split(“”):a,f=0;fparseFloat(x)){w=String(z);break a}}w=x}var ra=w,sa={},ta=function(a){if(!sa[a]){for(var b=0,c=ea(String(ra)).split(“.”),d=ea(String(a)).split(“.”),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f2*this.h&&I(this),!0):!1};var I=function(a){if(a.h!=a.i.length){for(var b=0,c=0;b=d.i.length)throw za;var e=d.i[b++];return a?e:d.o[e]};return e};var J=function(a,b){return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,b)};var Ba=function(a){if(a.m&&”function”==typeof a.m)return a.m();if(m(a))return a.split(“”);if(l(a)){for(var b=[],c=a.length,d=0;db)throw Error(“Bad port number “+b);a.F=b}else a.F=null},Da=function(a,b,c){M(a);b instanceof P?(a.v=b,a.v.O(a.l)):(c||(b=Q(b,Ia)),a.v=new P(b,0,a.l))},M=function(a){if(a.ba)throw Error(“Tried to modify a read-only Uri”);};K.prototype.O=function(a){this.l=a;this.v&&this.v.O(a);return this};var O=function(a,b){return a?b?decodeURI(a.replace(/%25/g,”%2525″)):decodeURIComponent(a):””},Q=function(a,b,c){return m(a)?(a=encodeURI(a).replace(b,Ja),c&&(a=a.replace(/%25([0-9a-fA-F]{2})/g,”%$1″)),a):null},Ja=function(a){a=a.charCodeAt(0);return”%”+(a>>4&15).toString(16)+(a&15).toString(16)},Ea=/[#\/\?@]/g,Ga=/[\#\?:]/g,Fa=/[\#\?]/g,Ia=/[\#\?@]/g,Ha=/#/g,P=function(a,b,c){this.h=this.g=null;this.j=a||null;this.l=!!c},R=function(a){a.g||(a.g=new H,a.h=0,a.j&&ya(a.j,function(b,c){a.add(decodeURIComponent(b.replace(/\+/g,” “)),c)}))};g=P.prototype;g.add=function(a,b){R(this);this.j=null;a=S(this,a);var c=this.g.get(a);c||this.g.set(a,c=[]);c.push(b);this.h+=1;return this};g.remove=function(a){R(this);a=S(this,a);return this.g.G(a)?(this.j=null,this.h-=this.g.get(a).length,this.g.remove(a)):!1};g.clear=function(){this.g=this.j=null;this.h=0};g.G=function(a){R(this);a=S(this,a);return this.g.G(a)};g.w=function(){R(this);for(var a=this.g.m(),b=this.g.w(),c=[],d=0;d(function(){var k=this,aa=function(a){var b=typeof a;if(“object”==b)if(a){if(a instanceof Array)return”array”;if(a instanceof Object)return b;var c=Object.prototype.toString.call(a);if(“[object Window]”==c)return”object”;if(“[object Array]”==c||”number”==typeof a.length&&”undefined”!=typeof a.splice&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“splice”))return”array”;if(“[object Function]”==c||”undefined”!=typeof a.call&&”undefined”!=typeof a.propertyIsEnumerable&&!a.propertyIsEnumerable(“call”))return”function”}else return”null”;else if(“function”==b&&”undefined”==typeof a.call)return”object”;return b},l=function(a){return”string”==typeof a},ba=function(a,b){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){var b=c.slice();b.push.apply(b,arguments);return a.apply(this,b)}},q=Date.now||function(){return+new Date},r=function(a,b){var c=a.split(“.”),d=k;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript(“var “+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift());)c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b};var ca=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(e)c=a+(“&”+b+”=”+c);else{var f=”&”+b+”=”,g=a.indexOf(f);0>g?c=a+f+c:(g+=f.length,f=a.indexOf(“&”,g),c=0b?1:0};var ha=Array.prototype.indexOf?function(a,b,c){return Array.prototype.indexOf.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){c=null==c?0:0>c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(l(a))return l(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;cb?null:l(a)?a.charAt(b):a[b]]||””}var b=v;if(pa())return qa(b);var b=oa(b),c={};ia(b,function(a){c[a[0]]=a[1]});var d=ba(la,c);return w(“Opera”)?a([“Version”,”Opera”]):w(“Edge”)?a([“Edge”]):x()?a([“Chrome”,”CriOS”]):(b=b[2])&&b[1]||””},qa=function(a){var b=/rv: *([\d\.]*)/.exec(a);if(b&&b[1])return b[1];var b=””,c=/MSIE +([\d\.]+)/.exec(a);if(c&&c[1])if(a=/Trident\/(\d.\d)/.exec(a),”7.0″==c[1])if(a&&a[1])switch(a[1]){case “4.0”:b=”8.0″;break;case “5.0”:b=”9.0″;break;case “6.0”:b=”10.0″;break;case “7.0”:b=”11.0″}else b=”7.0″;else b=c[1];return b};var ta=function(a){ta[” “](a);return a};ta[” “]=function(){};var ua=function(a,b){for(var c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(void 0,a[c],c,a)},wa=function(){var a=va;if(!a)return””;var b=/.*[&#?]google_debug(=[^&]*)?(&.*)?$/;try{var c=b.exec(decodeURIComponent(a));if(c)return c[1]&&1e?c[1]=”?”:e==d.length-1&&(c[1]=void 0)}return c.join(“”)};var Aa=function(a,b){this.v=a;this.w=b},Ba=function(a){this.url=a;this.m=!1;this.depth=null};var Ca=function(a,b,c,d){a.addEventListener?a.addEventListener(b,c,d||!1):a.attachEvent&&a.attachEvent(“on”+b,c)};var Da=function(a,b,c,d,e){this.o=c||4E3;this.g=a||”&”;this.G=b||”,$”;this.h=void 0!==d?d:”trn”;this.P=e||null;this.l=!1;this.f={};this.L=0;this.c=[]},Ea=function(a,b){var c={};c[a]=b;return[c]},y=function(a,b,c,d){a.c.push(b);a.f[b]=Ea(c,d)},Ha=function(a,b,c,d){b=b+”//”+c+d;var e=Fa(a)-d.length-0;if(0>e)return””;a.c.sort(function(a,b){return a-b});d=null;c=””;for(var f=0;f=n.length){e-=n.length;b+=n;c=a.g;break}else a.l&&(c=e,n[c-1]==a.g&&–c,b+=n.substr(0,c),c=a.g,e=0);d=null==d?g:d}}f=””;a.h&&null!=d&&(f=c+a.h+”=”+(a.P||d));return b+f+””},Fa=function(a){if(!a.h)return a.o;var b=1,c;for(c in a.f)b=c.length>b?c.length:b;return a.o-a.h.length-b-a.g.length-1},Ga=function(a,b,c,d,e){var f=[];ua(a,function(a,h){var m=Ia(a,b,c,d,e);m&&f.push(h+”=”+m)});return f.join(b)},Ia=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(null==a)return””;b=b||”&”;c=c||”,$”;”string”==typeof c&&(c=c.split(“”));if(a instanceof Array){if(d=d||0,de?encodeURIComponent(Ga(a,b,c,d,e+1)):”…”;return encodeURIComponent(String(a))};var Ja=function(a,b,c,d,e){try{var f;c instanceof Da?f=c:(f=new Da,ua(c,function(a,b){var c=f,d=c.L++,e=Ea(b,a);c.c.push(d);c.f[d]=e}));if((d?a.O:Math.random())parseFloat(Wa)){Va=String(Ya);break a}}Va=Wa}var Za=Va,$a={},D=function(a){return $a[a]||($a[a]=0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db;){try{if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c}catch(e){}try{if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0}catch(e){}b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}return null},sb=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e=”true”==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:case 20:case 21:case 22:case 23:case 24:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if(“function”==aa(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(h){throw Error(“Error: URI malformed: “+e);}break;case 17:e=ja(decodeURIComponent(e).split(“,”),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new N(b[4],b[12]),O&&O.match(c))){for(c=0;cX&&!U&&2==Y&&mc(t,”osd2″,”hs=”+X)},oc=function(){var a={};mb(O,a);a[0]=”goog_dom_content_loaded”;var b=ob(a);try{lb(function(){tb(b)},10,”osd_listener::ldcl_int”)}catch(c){}},pc=function(){var a={};mb(O,a);a[0]=”goog_creative_loaded”;var b=ob(a);lb(function(){tb(b)},10,”osd_listener::lcel_int”);ac=!0},qc=function(a){if(l(a)){a=a.split(“&”);for(var b=a.length-1;0if (window.top && window.top.postMessage) {window.top.postMessage(‘{“googMsgType”: “adpnt”}’, ‘*’);}var ad = buildImageAd(adSlot, 0);adSlot.addAd(ad);adSlot.finalize(‘google_image_div’);(function(_){var im=function(){this.yi=[];this.Up={}};im.prototype.report=function(){for(var a=[],b=0;bregisterAd(ad, ‘aw0’); {“uid”:1,”hostPeerName”:”http://thefreethoughtproject.com”,”initialGeometry”:”{\”windowCoords_t\”:0,\”windowCoords_r\”:360,\”windowCoords_b\”:615,\”windowCoords_l\”:0,\”frameCoords_t\”:370,\”frameCoords_r\”:329.984375,\”frameCoords_b\”:620,\”frameCoords_l\”:29.984375,\”styleZIndex\”:\”auto\”,\”allowedExpansion_t\”:370,\”allowedExpansion_r\”:30.015625,\”allowedExpansion_b\”:0,\”allowedExpansion_l\”:29.984375,\”xInView\”:1,\”yInView\”:0.98}”,”permissions”:”{\”expandByOverlay\”:false,\”expandByPush\”:false,\”readCookie\”:false,\”writeCookie\”:false}”,”metadata”:”{\”shared\”:{\”sf_ver\”:\”1-0-2\”,\”ck_on\”:1,\”flash_ver\”:\”0\”}}”,”reportCreativeGeometry”:false}” scrolling=”no” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ width=”300″ height=”250″ data-is-safeframe=”true” style=”padding: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; list-style: none; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: bottom;”>
88.4KShare 1.9K 18 41Reddit 202Tweet 70Email
Bal Harbour, FL – The village of Bal Harbour, population 2,513, may have a tiny footprint on the northern tip of Miami Beach, but its police department had grand aspirations of going after international drug traffickers, and making a few million dollars while they were at it.
The Bal Harbour PD and the Glades County Sheriff’s Office set up a giant money laundering scheme with the purported goal of busting drug cartels and stemming the surge of drug dealing going on in the area. But it all fell apart when federal investigators and the Miami-Herald found strange things going on.
The two-year operation, which took in more than $55 million from criminal groups, resulted in zero arrests but netted $2.4 million for the police posing as money launderers. Members of the 12-person task force traveled far and wide to carry out their deals, from Los Angeles to New York to Puerto Rico.
Along the way, the small-town cops got a taste of luxury as they used the money for first-class flights, luxury hotels, Mac computers and submachine guns. Meanwhile, the Bal Harbour PD and Glades County Sheriffs were buying all sorts of fancy new equipment.
Besides these “official” uses of the money, confidential records obtained by the Miami-Herald show that officers withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars with no record of where the money went.
“They were like bank robbers with badges,” said Dennis Fitzgerald, an attorney and former Drug Enforcement Administration agent who taught undercover tactics for the U.S. State Department. “It had no law enforcement objective. The objective was to make money.”
The operation, which was not fully reported to federal authorities, funneled millions of dollars to overseas criminals and interfered with investigations being carried out on known money launderers.
The latest revelations show that at least 20 people in Venezuela were sent drug money from the Florida cops. Four Venezuelan criminals and smugglers were major recipients of the millions being wired from the Bal Harbour PD and Glades County Sheriff’s Office, including a figure tied to one of the largest drug cartels in the hemisphere.
These actions violated strict federal bans on sending illegal money overseas, and the Florida cops never investigated the backgrounds of the people receiving their laundered drug money.
“I can’t think of a more podunk town than Bal Harbour — not in a bad way. But in the sense that these cops would have otherwise been stopping traffic or shooting radar,” said Ruben Oliva, who has represented alleged narco-traffickers since the 1980s. “In reality they were being launderers. The minute they started doing busts, it would have been over.
“This is like a movie. You’ve got these guys and they’re flying all over. They’re saying, ‘Hey, I’m in the big leagues.’ I’ve seen every kind of
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
mendment to the U.S. Constitution, individuals convicted of a crime have the right to be free of “cruel and unusual” punishment while in jail or prison. This means that after a criminal defendant is convicted and sentenced, the Constitution still acts to guarantee his or her fundamental rights concerning conditions of confinement and treatment by corrections personnel. Inmates’ Eighth Amendment challenges to punishment and confinement conditions are typically brought in connection with federal civil rights laws, including 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
What is “Cruel and Unusual” Punishment?
No universal definition exists, but any punishment that is clearly inhumane or that violates basic human dignity may be deemed “cruel and unusual.” For example, in 1995, a federal court in Massachusetts found that inmates’ rights were violated when they were held in a 150-year-old prison that lacked toilets, and was fraught with vermin and fire hazards.
Challenging Confinement Conditions: What Must be Shown?
When challenging conditions of confinement, such as a corrections institution’s procedure for providing food or medical services, a prisoner usually must show that the institution’s officials or officers acted with “deliberate indifference” to the prisoner’s constitutional rights. This means that:
The institution’s employees were aware of some danger or risk of harm to an inmate; and
The employees chose not to take any steps to remedy the problem; and
The inmate’s fundamental rights were violated as a result.
Deliberate indifference is a fairly high standard to meet, because the inmate must show more than mere negligent behavior on the part of corrections personnel.
– See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/cruel-and-unusual-punishment.html#sthash.dNB42ul3.dpuf
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Skip to main navigation
United States CourtsSkip to main content
Main contentJudicial Conduct & Disability
Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, anyone can file a complaint in federal court alleging that a federal judge has engaged in misconduct or become disabled.
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint in federal court alleging that a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or has become, by reason of a temporary or permanent condition, “unable to discharge the duties” of the judicial office. This process cannot be used as a means to collaterally attack a judge’s rulings. An attorney can explain any rights you have as a litigant to seek review of a judicial decision.
Judicial Conduct & Disability Resources
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364(link is external)
Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice (pdf)
Filing a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Judicial Disability Against a Federal Judge (pdf)
Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings,
as amended September 17, 2015 (pdf)
Circuit Resources
Each judicial circuit’s website provides access to rules explaining how and where to file a complaint, as well as the form required for these complaints.
First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico)Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington)Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia)District of Columbia Circuit (District of Columbia)United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitOpinions of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and DisabilityNo. 93-372-001 (November 2, 1993) (pdf) No. 94-372-001 (September 29, 1994)(pdf)C.C.D. No. 06-01 (April 28, 2006) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 08-01 (January 14, 2008) (pdf) C.C.D. No. 08-02 (January 14, 2008) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 09-01 (October 26, 2009) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 10-01 (April 12, 2010) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 11-01 (December 1, 2011) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 13-01 (January 17, 2014) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 13-02 (January 17, 2014) (pdf)C.C.D. No. 14-01 (February 19, 2015) (pdf)
Share This Page
Judicial Conduct & Disability Act Policy Updates
Subscribe to be notified when we update this policy.
Email Address
Related Links
Code of Conduct
RSS PRIVACY & SECURITY POLICY GLOSSARY OF LEGAL TERMS OPERATING STATUS DOWNLOAD PLUG-INS EMAIL UPDATES CONTACT US FAQS
This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Jump to Navigation
NESRI – National Economic & Social Rights Initiative
Support | Events | Take Action | Sign up | Contact
☰
HomeAboutMissionPartners & AlliesBoard of DirectorsOur TeamJob, Volunteer & Internship OpportunitiesHuman RightsHuman Rights: A Global VisionHuman Rights in the United StatesEconomic and Social RightsVision for ChangeEconomic & Social Rights PlatformPublic GoodsEquity & JusticeBuilding PowerInitiativesAdvancing Dignity in SchoolsCampaigning for the Human Right to Health CareHuman Rights BudgetingHuman Rights Organizing ProjectInjured & Ill Workers’ RightsRights-based Urban DevelopmentWorker-driven Social ResponsibilityWorkers’ Human Rights in IllinoisResourcesMediaBlogPhotosPodcastsPress RoomVideos
← Go to Campaigning for the Human Right to Health Care
What is the Human Right to Health and Health Care?
The human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which includes access to all medical services, sanitation, adequate food, decent housing, healthy working conditions, and a clean environment.
The human right to health guarantees a system of health protection for all.Everyone has the right to the health care they need, and to living conditions that enable us to be healthy, such as adequate food, housing, and a healthy environment.Health care must be provided as a public good for all, financed publicly and equitably.
The human right to health care means that hospitals, clinics, medicines, and doctors’ services must be accessible, available, acceptable, and of good quality for everyone, on an equitable basis, where and when needed. The design of a health care system must be guided by the following key human rights standards:
Universal Access: Access to health care must be universal, guaranteed for all on an equitable basis. Health care must be affordable and comprehensive for everyone, and physically accessible where and when needed.
Availability: Adequate health care infrastructure (e.g. hospitals, community health facilities, trained health care professionals), goods (e.g. drugs, equipment), and services (e.g. primary care, mental health) must be available in all geographical areas and to all communities.
Acceptability and Dignity: Health care institutions and providers must respect dignity, provide culturally appropriate care, be responsive to needs based on gender, age, culture, language, and different ways of life and abilities. They must respect medical ethics and protect confidentiality.
Quality: All health care must be medically appropriate and of good quality, guided by quality standards and control mechanisms, and provided in a timely, safe, and patient-centered manner.
The human right to health also entails the following procedural principles, which apply to all human rights:
Non-Discrimination: Health care must be accessible and provided without discrimination (in intent or effect) based on health status, race, ethnicity, age, sex, sexuality, disability, language, religion, national origin, income, or social status.
Transparency: Health information must be easily accessible for everyone, enabling people to protect their health and claim quality health services. Institutions that organize, finance or deliver health care must operate in a transparent way.
Participation: Individuals and communities must be able to take an active role in decisions that affect their health, including in the organization and implementation of health care services.
Accountability: Private companies and public agencies must be held accountable for protecting the right to health care through enforceable standards, regulations, and independent compliance monitoring.
Healthcare Is a Human Right campaigns now exist in several U.S. states, inspired by the example of Vermont, which in 2011 became the first state to pass a law for a universal, publicly financed health care system. All of these campaigns have translated the human rights standards listed above into clear human rights principles that guide their actions and policy positions:
Universality: Everyone must have access to equal high-quality and comprehensive health care.Equity: Resources and services must be distributed and accessed according to people’s needs. We get what we need and give what we can.Accountability: The health care system must be accountable to the people it serves.Transparency: The health care system must be open with regard to information, decision-making, and management.Participation: The health care system must enable meaningful public participation in all decisions affecting people’s right to health care.
The Human Right to Health is protected in:
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticel 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsArticle 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the ChildArticle 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationArticles 12 & 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WomenArticle XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of ManArticle 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
United Nations committees (“treaty bodies”), comprised of independent experts, oversee the implementation of particular human rights treaties. These committees oversee the treaties by, among other things, receiving government and civil society reports on the implementation of the treaties, making comments to the government reports, and issuing general comments about the treaties or specific right contained therein. With regard to the human right to health, in the year 2000 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued legal guidance for implementation of this right:
General Comment 14 is now a key source for advocates seeking to apply human rights standards to their own national, state or local context.
Further Resources
To download our one page fact sheet, click here. We also have a two page fact sheet on the human right to health, as well as a two page fact sheet on health care. For a general fact sheet on human rights, click here.
To see all NESRI publications on the human right to health and health care click here.
For information on how NESRI is supporting the movement for the human right to health care in the United States, visit the initiatives on our Program page.
LATEST UPDATES
Who Lives and Who Dies: Paul Farmer on the Inequities of Health Care Funding
January 29, 2015 | Blog
Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision Denies Women’s Human Rights
July 1, 2014 | Blog
From Celebration to Solidarity: An Evening in Honor of Vermont Human Rights Leader Peg Franzen
December 12, 2013 | Blog | News
Pennsylvania Joins the Movement for the Human Right to Health Care
November 8, 2013 | Blog
Supreme Court Ruling on Health Reform Points to Public, Tax-Funded Health Care Solution
June 29, 2012 | News | Blog
1 of 7 next ›
RESOURCES
more resources »
General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health – UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
August 11, 2000
National Trends and Developments in Workers’ Compensation
October 8, 2014
Human Rights and Public Goods
January 1, 2013
People of Color and the Human Right to Health Care: A Perspective on the Federal Health Reform Law
October 18, 2010
Immigrants and the Human Right to Health Care: A Perspective on the Federal Health Reform Law
June 29, 2010
Women and the Human Right to Health Care: A Perspective on the Federal Health Reform Law
June 29, 2010
Human Right to Health and Health Care
August 1, 2009
A Human Rights Assessment of Single Payer Plans
June 4, 2009
Human Rights Principles for Financing Health Care
March 17, 2009
Human Right to Health Care
February 1, 2008
,
Human Right to Health
January 1, 2008
General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health – UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
August 11, 2000
National Trends and Developments in Workers’ Compensation
October 8, 2014
«»
MEDIA COVERAGE
Why Universal Health Care Is Essential for a More Equitable Society
April 2nd, 2015 | Huffington Post
Op-Ed: Lives Depend on Health Care Accountability
March 18th, 2015 | VT Digger
The Medicine for America’s Healthcare Headache Lies in Vermont
May 1st, 2014 | Alternet
“Small Place Close to Home”: Toward a Health and Human Rights Strategy for the US
December 2nd, 2013 | Health And Human Rights Journal
Beyond the Market: Why We Must Treat Health Care as a Public Good
April 18th, 2011 | Times Argus/Rutland Herald
1 of 2 next ›
Make a
donation
today!»
Sign up for our e-newsletter
In partnership with communities, NESRI works to build a broad movement for economic & social rights, including health, housing, education and work with dignity. Based on the principle that fundamental human needs create human rights obligations on the part of government and the private sector, NESRI advocates for public policies that guarantee the universal and equitable fulfillment of these rights in the United States.
Contact | Search | Sign up | Site by Refresh and Engine Industries
OUR SOCIAL NETWORKS
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
A member of law enforcement who also engages in murder. This person’s motivations may range anywhere from monetary gain toexacting a form of street justice. Either way, expect this person to be much more dangerous than your average killer.
Note that despite the name, the Killer Cop isn’t always an actual police officer. He (or she) may also be a civilian employee, such as a forensics expert or something. Also, if the Killer Cop is an officer, their murders are obviously committed for a reason other than to maintain a cover identity. (Well, at least one hopes an undercover officer doesn’t go to those lengths.)
If the Killer Cop is a Serial Killer, the observant viewer may recognize the following signs:
The crime scenes are jarringly devoid of any incriminating evidence. Either the killer is a forensics expert and cleaned up so thoroughly that they got rid of the evidence or they are a savvy police officer who has investigated many crime scenes and knows how to avoid leaving evidence in the first place. Note: This is not always a given, as a Serial Killer who isn’t a member of law enforcement can avoid leaving evidence as well.If the killer is suspected to be copying the methods of another killer, the copy will be exactly like the original, even down the details that only a member of law enforcement would know.If the killer is attempting to frame someone else for their crimes, the frame-up will be suspiciously thorough. Theamount of evidence against the person will likely lead the viewer to two conclusions:That a calculating TV Serial Killerwouldn’t be stupid enough to leave that much evidence against themselves, meaning the suspect isn’t the killer andThe real killer has such intimate knowledge of evidence and police work that they must be a member of law enforcement. Like the first sign, this isn’t a given, as it is possible to research forensics.
In Crime Dramas, this may be used as a Twist Ending, especially if the cop is the protagonist.
See also Detective Mole. The inverse of a Cop Killer, although the two tropes sometimes overlap. Often a subtrope of The Bad Guys Are Cops.
Please observe the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment when listing Real Life examples.
Note: A character can qualify for this even if they don’t use their position or expertise to help with their murders. However, if they appear in a murder mystery, they probably will.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Office
Misconduct in Public OfficePrincipleScope of the offencePolicyDefinition of the offenceA public officerActing as suchWilful neglect or misconductNature of the neglect or misconductMeaning of ‘wilful’Abuse of the public’s trustSeriousness of the neglect or misconductConsequencesMotiveWithout reasonable excuse or justificationCharging PracticeGeneral principlesLevel of misconduct requiredBreaches of dutyDishonesty or corruptionUseful linksPrincipleScope of the offence
Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the offence should be strictly confined. It can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues. Prosecutors should therefore consider seeking the advice of the Principal Legal Advisor to resolve any uncertainty as to whether it would be appropriate to bring a prosecution for such an offence.
Policy
Where there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case, with the ‘public office’ element being put forward as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 does not go so far as to prohibit the use of misconduct in public office where there is a statutory offence available. There is, however, earlier authority for preferring the use of statutory offences over common law ones. In R v Hall (1891) 1 QB 747 the court held that where a statute creates (or recreates) a duty and prescribes a particular penalty for a wilful neglect of that duty the remedy by indictment is excluded.
In R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL63 at paragraph 30 the House of Lords confirmed this approach, saying:
good practice and respect for the primacy of statuterequire that conduct falling within the terms of a specific statutory provision should be prosecuted under that provision unless there is good reason for doing otherwise.
The use of the common law offence should therefore be limited to the following situations:
Where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal;Where there is a statutory offence but it would be difficult or inappropriate to use it. This might arise because of evidential difficulties in proving the statutory offence in the particular circumstances;because the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct.
Top of page
Definition of the offence
The elements of the offence are summarised in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868. The offence is committed when:
a public officer acting as suchwilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holderwithout reasonable excuse or justificationA Public Officer
The prosecution must have evidence to show that the suspect is a ‘public officer’. There is no simple definition and each case must be assessed individually, taking into account the nature of the role, the duties carried out and the level of public trust involved.
The courts have been reluctant to provide a detailed definition of a public officer. The case-law contains an element of circularity, in that the cases tend to define a public officer as a person who carries out a public duty or has an office of trust. What may constitute a public duty or an office of trust must therefore be inferred from the facts of particular cases.
The judgment of Lord Mansfield in R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32 refers to a public officer having:
‘ an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit … by whomever and in whatever way the officer is appointed’.
It does not seem that the person concerned must be the holder of an ‘office’ in a narrow or technical sense. The authorities suggest that it is the nature of the duties and the level of public trust involved that are relevant, rather than the manner or nature of appointment.
In R v Whitaker (1914) KB 1283 the court said:
‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’
This approach was followed in a series of cases from other common law jurisdictions: R v Williams (1986) 39 WIR 129; R v Sacks [1943] SALR 413;R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386.
In R v Dytham (1979) 1 QB 723 Lord Widgery CJ talked of ‘a public officer who has an obligation to perform a duty’.
Remuneration is a significant factor, but not an essential element. In R v Belton [2010] WLR (D) 283 the defendant was an unpaid voluntary member of the Independent Monitoring Board. The Court of Appeal held that remuneration was not an indispensable requirement for the holding of a public office, or for liability to prosecution for the offence of misconduct in a public office.
The fact that an individual was a volunteer might have a bearing on whether there had been wilful misconduct, but was only indicative rather than determinative of whether an individual held a public office.
The court in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 referred to the unfairness that could arise where people who carry out similar duties may or may not be liable to prosecution depending on whether they can be defined as ‘public officers’. What were once purely public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment. An example is the role of the court security officer.
The court declined to define a public officer, however, but said:
‘This potential unfairness adds weight, in our view, to the conclusion that the offence should be strictly confined but we do not propose to develop the point or to consider further the question of what, for present purposes, constitutes a public office.’
The following have been accepted as holding a public office by the courts over several centuries:
Coroner (1675) R v Parker 2 Lev 140Constable (1703) R v Wyatt 1 Salk 380Accountant in the office of the Paymaster General (1783) R v Bembridge 3 Doug K.B. 32Justice of the Peace (1791) R v Sainsbury 4 T.R 451Executive or ministerial officer (1819) R v Friar 1 Chit.Rep (KB) 702Gaoler (1827) R v Cope 6 A%E 226Mayor or burgess (1828) Henly v Mayor of Lyme 5 Bing 91Overseer of the poor (1891) R v Hall 1 QB 747Army officer (1914) R v Whitaker 10 Cr.App.R.245County Court registrar (district judge) (1968) R v Llewellyn-Jones 1 Q.B.429Police officer (1979) R v Dytham 69 Cr.App.R.387Council maintenance officer (1995) R v Bowden 4 All E.R 505Local councillor (2004) R v Speechley [2004] EWCA Crim 3067Member of the Independent Monitoring Board for prisons (2010) R v Belton R v Belton [2010] EWCA Crim 2857
This list is illustrative only of the roles or functions that have been accepted by the courts over the years as falling within the definition of public officer. Each case must be taken on its own facts. The comments of the Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA Crim 868 must be borne in mind concerning potential unfairness. The court took into account the fact that public functions are now frequently carried out by employees in private employment, for example those concerned with security at courts and the transport of defendants. There was the potential for unfairness if those holding a public office, such as police officers, were to be liable to a sanction not applicable to those in private employment who do similar work.
It is extremely difficult to extract from the cases any general identifying features of public officers in a contemporary context. A person may fall within the meaning of a public officer where one or more of the following characteristics applies to a role or function that they exercise with respect to the public at large:
Judicial or quasi-judicial RegulatoryPunitiveCoerciveInvestigativeRepresentative (of the public at large)Responsibility for public funds
This list is not exhaustive and cannot be determinative of whether a person is properly described as a public officer, when acting in a particular capacity. The characteristics should be treated only as a guide and considered in the context of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The suspect must not only be a ‘public officer’; the misconduct must also occur when acting in that capacity.
It is not sufficient that the person is a public officer and has engaged in some form of misconduct. The mere fact that a person is carrying out general duties as a public officer at the time of the alleged misconduct does not mean he or she is necessarily acting as a public officer in respect of the misconduct.
There must be a direct link between the misconduct and an abuse, misuse or breach of the specific powers and duties of the office or position.
The offence would also not normally apply to the actions of a public officer outside that role, unless the misconduct involved improper use of the public officer’s specific powers or duties arising from the public office.
A deliberate misuse by an off-duty police officer of the powers of a constable, for example, may mean that the officer is ‘acting as such’ by virtue of his or her assumption of the powers of the office. Such a situation might arise if an off-duty police officer arrested an innocent man with whom he had a personal dispute or took steps in order to prevent or frustrate an enquiry.
The principles involved apply equally to holders of all public offices. In the case of a school governor or a local authority official or other such member of a public body, for example, it will be necessary to show that the misconduct was closely connected with exercising (or failing to exercise) the relevant public function.
Wilful neglect or misconductNature of the neglect or misconduct
The wilful neglect or misconduct can be the result of a positive act or a failure to act. In the case of R v Dytham [1979] QB 722, for example, a police officer was held to have been correctly convicted when he made no move to intervene during a disturbance in which a man was kicked to death.
There must also be an element of knowledge or at least recklessness about the way in which the duty is carried out or neglected. The test is a subjective one and the public officer must be aware that his/her behaviour is capable of being misconduct.
In Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 the court approved the definition of ‘wilful’ as ‘deliberately doing something which is wrong knowing it to be wrong or with reckless indifference as to whether it is wrong or not’.
In R v G [2003] UK HL 50 Lord Bingham said with respect to inadvertence:
It is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another. But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one genuinely does not perceive the risk. Such a person may fairly be accused of stupidity or lack of imagination, but neither of those failings should expose him to conviction of serious crime or the risk of punishment.
Lord Steyn added:
the stronger the objective indications of risk, the more difficult it will be for defendants to repel the conclusion that they must have known. (R v G[2003] UK HL 50)
Abuse of the public’s trust
Public officers carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole. If they neglect or misconduct themselves in the course of those duties this may lead to a breach or abuse of the public’s trust.
Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct
The behaviour must be serious enough to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder. In R v Dytham, Lord Widgery said that the element of culpability:
must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment.
In Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 the court said that the misconduct must amount to:
“…an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder”.
The likely consequences of any wilful neglect or misconduct are relevant when deciding whether the conduct falls below the standard expected:
“It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence. The conduct cannot be considered in a vacuum: the consequences likely to follow from it, viewed subjectively …will often influence the decision as to whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust in the officer”. (Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003).
Whilst there is no need to prove any particular consequences flowing from the misconduct, it must be proved that the defendant was reckless not just as to the legality of his behaviour, but also as to its likely consequences.
The consequences must be likely ones, as viewed subjectively by the defendant. Although the authorities do not say so, likely can probably be taken to mean at the very least ‘reasonably foreseeable’; it is arguable that likely may mean ‘probable’ in this context.
In order to establish whether the behaviour is sufficiently serious to amount to the offence, the officer’s motive is also relevant:
“…the question has always been, not whether the act done might, upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive, or corrupt motive, under which description, fear and favour may generally be included, or from mistake or error…”
“To punish as a criminal any person who, in the gratuitous exercise of a public trust, may have fallen into error or mistake belongs only to the despotic ruler of an enslaved people, and is wholly abhorrent from the jurisprudence of this kingdom”.
(R v Borron [1820] 3 B&Ald 432: Abbott CJ, at page 434.)
At its highest the motive may be malice or bad faith but they are not prerequisites. Reckless indifference would be sufficient
Without reasonable excuse or justification
It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a reasonable excuse or justification, although the nature of the prosecution evidence should in practice negate any such element.
The defendant may advance evidence of a reasonable excuse or justification. It is for the jury to determine whether the evidence reveals the necessary culpability.
Top of page
Charging PracticeGeneral principles
Where there is clear evidence of one or more statutory offences, they should usually form the basis of the case, provided the offences give the court adequate sentencing powers. The ‘public office’ element can be put forward as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
A comparison may be made with charges of perverting the course of justice. In R v Sookoo (2002) EWCA Crim 800 the Court of Appeal held that adding a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice along with counts for the principal offence or offences was only appropriate where a case had serious aggravating features (such as wasted police time and resources or detention of members of the public following false implication of them in the offence by the accused).
Similar reasoning should apply to the charging of misconduct in public office. When charging such an offence the prosecutor should provide a detailed review note of the reasons for doing so in the particular case. The note should make reference to any relevant factors referred to in this guidance, particularly where a statutory offence covering the behaviour in question is either charged or could have been charged.
For example an assault by a police officer committed on duty should not automatically be considered as misconduct in public office. A charge of assault would normally provide the court with adequate sentencing powers and the ability to take into account the breach of trust by the officer as an aggravating factor. See R v Dunn (2003) 2 Cr.App.R.(S).
Similarly, prosecutions for unauthorised access to or use of computer or other data systems should normally be conducted using the specific offence provided in section 55 Data Protection Act 1998. Only where the circumstances are such that a fine would not be an appropriate or sufficient penalty should a prosecution for misconduct in public office be considered.
Misconduct in public office should be considered only where:
there is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct (such as a serious breach of or neglect of a public duty that is not in itself a criminal offence); there was serious misconduct or a deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious potential or actual consequences for the public;the facts are so serious that the court’s sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate Level of misconduct required
The offence is, in essence, one of abuse of the power or responsibilities of the office held.
Misconduct in public office should be used for serious examples of misconduct when there is no appropriate statutory offence that would adequately describe the nature of the misconduct or give the court adequate sentencing powers.
The third element of the definition of the offence provides an important test when deciding whether to proceed with an offence of misconduct in public office. Unless the misconduct in question amounts to such an abuse of trust, a prosecution for misconduct in public office should not be considered.
The culpability ‘must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment’ (R v Dytham 1979 QB 722).
The fact that a public officer has acted in a way that is in breach of his or her duties, or which might expose him/her to disciplinary proceedings, is not in itself enough to constitute the offence.
Examples of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include:
wilful excesses of official authority;’malicious’ exercises of official authority;wilful neglect of a public duty;intentional infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person; frauds and deceits.Breaches of duty
Some of the most difficult cases involve breaches of public duty that do not involve dishonesty or corruption.
In all cases, however, the following matters should be addressed:Was there a breach of a duty owed to the public (not merely an employment duty or a general duty of care)?Was the breach more than merely negligent or attributable to incompetence or a mistake (even a serious one)?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of a duty to act or subjective recklessness as to the existence of a duty?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness that the action or omission might be unlawful?Did the defendant have a subjective awareness of the likely consequences of the action or omission.Did the officer realise (subjective test) that there was a risk not only that his or her conduct was unlawful but also a risk that the consequences of that behaviour would occur?Were those consequences ‘likely’ as viewed subjectively by the defendant? Did the officer realise that those consequences were ‘likely’ and yet went on to take the risk?Regard must be had to motive.Dishonesty or corruption
Dishonesty or corrupt behaviour are not essential elements of the offence of misconduct in public office.
If, however, an allegation of misconduct in public office arises from circumstances involving the acquisition of property by theft or fraud, or where the holder of a public office is alleged to have made improper claims for public funds in circumstances said to be criminal, an essential ingredient of the offence is proof that the defendant was dishonest.
In R v W [2010] EWCA 372, a police officer used an official credit card for personal purchases. The Court of Appeal held that an essential ingredient of the offence of misconduct in public office in such circumstances was that the defendant was dishonest, and had not merely flagrantly broken the rules governing the use of the card.
When the allegation does involve the acquisition of property by theft or fraud, any misconduct should normally be prosecuted using appropriate statutory offences on the basis that an appropriate statutory offence should always be used where available in accordance with R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005] UKHL63. (See Policy above). The fact that the offence was committed in the course of a public office is an aggravating element.
Top of page
Archbold 25-381
Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003 [2004] EWCA 868
R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug KB 32
R v Whitaker (1914) KB 1283
R v Williams (1986) 39 WIR 129
R v Sacks (1943) SALR 413;
R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386.
R v Dytham (1979) 1 QB 723
R v W (2010) EWCA 372
R v G (2003) UK HL 50
R v Borron (1820) 3 B&Ald 432
R v Dunn (2003) 2 Cr.App.R.(S)
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Vice President Joe Biden swears in CIA Director John Brennan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, March 8, 2013.
Official White House Photo by David Lienemann
John Brennan’s swearing-in ceremony as director of the CIA has angered conservatives over Brennan’s decision to take the oath by placing his hand on the Constitution and not the Bible, as most most politicians do. During a private ceremony in the Roosevelt Room, Vice President Joe Biden swore Brennan in with his right hand raised and left hand placed “on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787,” according to White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, as he told reporters at their daily briefing.
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest elaborated.
A conservative blog, which The Weekly Standard linked to, pointed out that the version of the Constitution Brennan took the oath under does not include the Bill of Rights, invalidating Brennan’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution. “That means, when Brennan vowed to protect and defend the Constitution, he was swearing on one that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments—or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.”
Another conservative outlet, Glenn Beck’sThe Blaze, suggested an irony of Brennan’s document selection, although Brennan hasn’t explained his reasons for using an early version (if indeed he was making a statement in his choice): “The irony of the document selection given the current controversy surrounding the federal government’s drone program is noteworthy regardless. The Bill of Rights includes the right to due process (Fifth Amendment) and the right to trial by jury (Sixth Amendment), both key issues in the heated debate over drone strikes.”
The government’s drone program and its use in the fight against terrorists were a contentious concern for Republicans, especially Senator Rand Paul, during Brennan’s Senate confirmation. After Senator Paul’s nearly 13-hour-long filibuster on Wednesday to obtain an answer from the Obama administration on whether the executive branch has the authority to issue a drone strike on a non-combatant American citizen inside the U.S., the White House and Attorney Eric Holder sent a concise letter to Paul, reiterating his answer on the drone question.
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
After voting against Brennan, Paul stated, “We worked very hard on a constitutional question to get an answer from the president. It may have been a littler harder than we wish it had been, but in the end I think it was a good healthy debate for the country to finally get an answer that the Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans.”
The Constitution does not require a president to take the oath of office by swearing on a Bible, and several past presidents have not used a Bible for their swearing-in ceremonies. According to official records kept by the Architect of the Capitol, Teddy Roosevelt, during a rushed oath of office after William McKinley’s assassination, did not use a Bible. Lyndon B. Johnson was informally sworn in using a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after President Kennedy was assassinated. John Quincy Adams also placed his hand on a constitutional law volume instead of a Bible and Franklin Pierce “affirmed” over swearing his oath on the Bible due to a loss of faith after his son’s death. As for the earlier presidents, it is still unknown if Bibles were used for inaugural ceremonies.
Article VI of the Constitution also ensures that Americans of any faith can hold public office. Paragraph states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The same provision also states that such oaths vow support of the Constitution.
Historically, most CIA directors have taken their oaths on the Bible.
msnbc’s Lawrence O’Donnell stated after President Obama’s second inauguration that all presidents should theoretically “accept all of the teachings of the Bible” as they place their hand on the book. But O’Donnell said that because “there are no literal followers of the world of God as presented in the Bible left on Earth,” reciting the oath of office with a hand on the book makes the pledge “one of our most absurdist traditions in the government that invented the separation of church and state.” President Obama was sworn in with two Bibles–one owned by Abraham Lincoln and the other owned by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Explore:
Civil Liberties, Religion,Republicans and Society
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2028 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
CIA.gov HomeContact Us
EnglishMenuSearch
About CIA
CIA Vision, Mission, Ethos & Challenges
Vision
CIA’s information, insights, and actions consistently provide tactical and strategic advantage for the United States.
Mission
Preempt threats and further US national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters, producing objective all-source analysis, conducting effective covert action as directed by the President, and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe.
Ethos
The officers of the CIA are guided by a professional ethos that is the sum of our abiding principles, core values, and highest aspirations. This ethos holds us on course as we exercise the extraordinary influence and authorities with which we have been entrusted to protect the Nation and advance its interests. CIA’s ethos has many dimensions, including:
Service. We put Nation first, Agency before unit, and mission before self. We take pride in being diverse, inclusive, agile, responsive, and consequential.Integrity. We uphold the highest standards of lawful conduct. We are truthful and forthright, and we provide information and analysis without institutional or political bias. We maintain the Nation’s trust through accountability and oversight.Excellence. We bring the best of our diverse backgrounds and expertise to everything we do. We are self-aware, reflecting on our performance and learning from it. We strive to give all officers the tools, experiences, and leadership they need to excel.Courage. We accomplish difficult, high-stakes, often dangerous tasks. In executing mission, we carefully manage risk but we do not shy away from it. We value sacrifice and honor our fallen.Teamwork. We stand by and behind one another. Collaboration, both internal and external, underpins our best outcomes. Diversity and inclusion are mission imperatives.Stewardship. We preserve our ability to obtain secrets by protecting sources and methods from the moment we enter on duty until our last breath.Key ChallengesClose intelligence gaps with enhanced collection and analysis on the countries, non-state actors, and issues most critical to the President and senior national security team.Fulfill our global mission to give customers decision advantage as they confront an unprecedented volume and diversity of worldwide developments that affect US interests.Leverage technological advances for better performance in all mission areas—collection, analysis, covert action, and counterintelligence—while protecting against technological threats to the security of our information, operations, and officers.Improve the ways we attract, develop, and retain talentto maximize each CIA officer’s potential to contribute to achieving mission.Better manage Agency resources during a period offiscal austerity.
Posted: Apr 04, 2007 03:54 PM
Last Updated: Mar 24, 2016 12:17 PM
ABOUT CIA
Headquarters Tour
Take a look inside the CIA.
Interactive Timeline
Experience more than 60 years of CIA history.
Learn More About CIACONNECT WITH CIA
current tab:
TWITTER FEED
View @CIA Twitter Feed
Footer NavigationPrivacyCopyrightSite PoliciesUSA.govFOIADNI.govNoFEAR ActInspector GeneralContact CIASite Map
Top of Page
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT
The Office of the Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93), as a one-person part-time position. The Act specified that the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law,” with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments.”
However, the workload quickly became too much for one person, necessitating the hiring of several assistants for the Attorney General. As the work steadily increased along with the size of the new nation, private attorneys were retained to work on cases.
By 1870, after the end of the Civil War, the increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States had required the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice (ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162), creating “an executive department of the government of the United States” with the Attorney General as its head.
Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice was empowered to handle all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. To assist the Attorney General, the 1870 Act also created the Office of the Solicitor General, who represents the interests of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 1870 Act remains the foundation for the Department’s authority, but the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the offices of Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and the formation of various components, offices, boards and divisions. From its beginning as a one-man, part-time position, the Department of Justice has evolved into the world’s largest law office and the chief enforcer of federal laws.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted
Buddy george
2018 w Woodcrest ave
Fullerton California 92833
Our Mission
The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.
With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.
Three key concepts form the foundation of our national homeland security strategy designed to achieve this vision:
Security,
Resilience, and
Customs and Exchange.
In turn, these key concepts drive broad areas of activity that the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) process defines as homeland security missions. These missions are enterprise-wide, and not limited to the Department of Homeland Security. These missions and their associated goals and objectives tell us in detail what it means to prevent, to protect, to respond, and to recover, as well as to build in security, to ensure resilience, and to facilitate customs and exchange.
Hundreds of thousands of people from across the federal government, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, the private sector, and other nongovernmental organizations are responsible for executing these missions. These are the people who regularly interact with the public, who are responsible for public safety and security, who own and operate our nation’s critical infrastructures and services, who perform research and develop technology, and who keep watch, prepare for, and respond to emerging threats and disasters. These homeland security professionals must have a clear sense of what it takes to achieve the overarching vision articulated above.
The Core Missions
Last Published Date: May 11, 2016
Sincerely
Buddy george
2018 w woodcrest ave
Fullerton ca 92833
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.
CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.
CDC’s Role
CDC 24-7 logoDetecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
Taking the health pulse of our nation
CDC in the 21st Century
On the cutting edge of health security – confronting global disease threats through advanced computing and lab analysis of huge amounts of data to quickly find solutions.
Putting science into action – tracking disease and finding out what is making people sick and the most effective ways to prevent it.
Helping medical care – bringing new knowledge to individual health care and community health to save more lives and reduce waste.
Fighting diseases before they reach our borders – detecting and confronting new germs and diseases around the globe to increase our national security.
Nurturing public health – building on our significant contribution to have strong, well-resourced public health leaders and capabilities at national, state and local levels to protect Americans from health threats.
Pledge to the American People
Be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to our agency
Provide an environment for intellectual and personal growth and integrity
Base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively
Place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution
Treat all persons with dignity, honesty, and respect
Sincerely
Buddy george
2018 w woodcrest ave
Fullerton ca 92833
Contact: Shrita Sterlin-Hernandez, media@cbcfinc.org
Washington—A. Shuanise Washington, president and chief executive officer of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Incorporated (CBCF) today released the following statement on President Obama’s nomination for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
“We are delighted with President Obama’s choice for the next Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
“Loretta Lynch has an impeccable record of fighting corruption and defending civil rights. Her service as a main legal advisor to the government makes her an exceptional choice to lead the Department of Justice. She is an experienced, fair and highly esteemed litigator, who has demonstrated her commitment to rooting out crime and injustice.
“Ms. Lynch, when confirmed, will become the first African-American female to serve as the U.S. Attorney General and only the second United States attorney appointed directly to attorney general in our nation’s history.
“An accomplished federal prosecutor and Harvard graduate, Loretta Lynch’s nomination is a significant step toward the realization of the CBCF’s vision. She represents a level of progress for both women and African Americans that until now, many believed unattainable.”
###
Sincerely
Buddy George
2018 w woodcrest ave
Fullerton.ca 92833
MENU
HOME FACULTY PROFILES
FACULTY
JAMES A. BAKER
Lecturer on Law
Fall 2015
jbaker@law.harvard.edu
Biography
Mr. Baker has worked on numerous national security matters during his career. A former federal prosecutor, he worked on all aspects of national security investigations and prosecutions, including in particular the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), during his 17 year career at the U.S. Department of Justice. From 2001-2007, Mr. Baker served as Counsel for Intelligence Policy at the Justice Department, where he was head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. In that position, he was responsible for developing, coordinating, and implementing national security policy with regard to intelligence and counterintelligence matters for the department. Mr. Baker provided the Attorney General, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the White House with legal and policy advice on a range of national security issues for many years, and also conducted oversight of the Intelligence Community, including the FBI, on behalf of the Attorney General. In 2006, Mr. Baker received the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence in Counterterrorism, the CIA’s highest award for counterterrorism achievement. In 2007, Mr. Baker received NSA’s Intelligence Under Law Award, the NSA Director’s Distinguished Service Medal, and the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the Justice Department’s highest award. Also in 2007, Mr. Baker was a Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Mr. Baker was Associate General Counsel with Bridgewater Associates, LP from 2012-2014. He is currently the General Counsel of the FBI.
ABOUT
APPLY
ACADEMICS
ALUMNI
ADMINISTRATION
CAMPUS
PUBLICATIONS
GENERAL
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
News RSS Feed
Privacy Statement Trademark Notice Contact Us © 2016 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Sincerely
Buddy George
2018 w woodcrest ave
Fullerton.ca 92833
Today’s FBI: Ensuring Accountability and Compliance
“The greatness of an institution can be measured by the strength of its internal investigations.”
Robert S. Mueller, III
Robert S. Mueller, III
Annual Inspections
All FBI offices and programs are subject to regular inspections by the FBI’s Inspection Division to ensure they are performing effectively, economically, and in effective compliance with objectives, governing laws, rules, regulations, and policies. These reviews also ensure that FBI personnel conduct the organization’s activities in a proper and professional manner. The Division conducts organizational streamlining studies, program evaluations, and process-reengineering and improvement projects. The Inspection Division also ensures compliance with instructions and recommendations issued as a result of the inspection of field offices, Legats, and Headquarters to facilitate the resolution of instructions or recommendations and is responsible for the coordination and processing of Intelligence Oversight Board matters.
Office of Professional Responsibility
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is the component in the FBI (part of the Office of the Director) charged with ensuring that Bureau employees conduct themselves with the highest level of integrity and professionalism by serving as the primary arbiter for adjudication matters. In addition, OPR is responsible for setting policy and establishing procedures regarding the disciplinary process and for monitoring its effectiveness to ensure that the ability of the FBI to perform its law enforcement and national security functions is not impaired.
OPR works closely with the Inspection Division to address any allegations of employee misconduct or criminality—both internal disciplinary actions as well as public conduct.
When an allegation of misconduct is made, the Inspection Division conducts an investigation to determine whether the allegations have been substantiated, making written findings and recommendations regarding what, if any, disciplinary action is appropriate. If adjudication is deemed necessary, OPR will pick up the case and administer discipline based on investigations conducted by the Inspection Division.
Office of Integrity and Compliance
Integrity
Compliance is “doing the right things, the right way.” With national security at the forefront of our mission, FBI employees are now, more then ever, under tremendous pressures to maximize the intelligence derived from investigations. Such pressures, however, can never be an excuse to take short-cuts that can compromise our institutional integrity. Our “business” demands strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Each employee has the responsibility to uphold the FBI’s core values of integrity and accountability so that the Bureau maintains the public’s trust.
The Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) was created in 2007 to ensure that there are processes and procedures in place that promote FBI compliance with both the letter and the spirit of applicable laws, regulations, rules, and policies. An essential element of the FBI Integrity and Compliance Program is communication—both from the OIC to FBI employees and from FBI employees to the OIC. In order for the Integrity and Compliance Program to succeed, it is important that FBI employees raise concerns and ask questions about potential or actual violations of law, regulations, and policies so that these issues can be examined and resolved. There will be times when compliance issues overlap with other issues such as employee misconduct or performance issues. The OIC will work with the Inspection Division, the Ombudsman’s Office, Human Resources Division, and DOJ OIG to ensure that issues are referred to the appropriate entity for handling.
OIC also plays a vital role conducting ethics training of all FBI employees throughout their careers.
The Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), established by the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988, is an independent entity within the Department of Justice that reports to both the Attorney General and the Congress on issues that affect the Department’s personnel or mission. The OIG is responsible for finding and discouraging waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct among DOJ employees and its programs, and also promoting integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its operations. The OIG also enforces criminal and civil laws, regulations, and ethical standards within DOJ by investigating individuals and organizations that allegedly are involved in financial, contractual, or criminal misconduct in DOJ programs and operations. This year, the OIG will devote significant resources to reviewing DOJ programs and operations that affect its ability to respond to the threat of terrorism.
The current Inspector General is Glenn A. Fine, who was confirmed on December 15, 2000. Inspector General Fine is a Harvard-trained attorney, experienced prosecutor, and long-time civil servant. For more information on Glenn Fine or OIG go to http://www.usdoj.gov/oig.
The Office of the General Counsel
Justice
The FBI’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) provides comprehensive legal advice to the Director, other FBI officials and divisions, and field offices on a wide array of investigative and administrative operations. This includes legal training, litigation counsel and support, and handling all general and national security law matters.
In October 2006, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit (PCLU) was established within the General Law and Legal Training Branch of OGC. The PCLU provides legal advice on privacy and civil liberties matters across all FBI investigative and intelligence collection programs and exercises a central role in the FBI’s privacy/civil liberties compliance efforts.
The Security Division
Security Division
The FBI’s Security Division works to ensure a safe and secure work environment for FBI employees and others with access to FBI facilities and to prevent the compromise of national security and FBI information. It works to prevent espionage and to protect personnel, facilities, and information from both external and internal threats.
The Security Division is responsible for ensuring the integrity and reliability of the Bureau’s workforce. It uses the product of personnel security investigations to determine whether someone can be trusted to properly protect sensitive or classified FBI information. It performs polygraph examinations to help determine trustworthiness and to support criminal investigations.
The Security Division manages programs to protect staff, contractors, and Bureau visitors. These programs include force protection, facility access control, incident reporting and management, and continuity of operations planning. The division also conducts security training to help prepare staff and contractor personnel to execute their general and specific security responsibilities.
The Security Division manages programs, techniques, and processes to protect and defend information and information systems by assuring their integrity, authentication, availability, non-repudiation, and confidentiality. For documents in an electronic format, this is accomplished through information systems certification and accreditation, access control and need-to-know, intrusion detection, as well as encryption and secure messaging. For hard-copy documents, the division sets policy that governs protection of sensitive and classified documents.
On a Daily Basis the FBI…
Investigates approximately 7,000 terrorist leads within the United States
Produces more than 40 intelligence reports for the Intelligence Community
Searches for 12,000 fugitives from justice
Processes more than 70,000 fingerprint submissions
Checks over 74,000 names in the national database
Handles roughly 5.5 million NCIC transactions
Investigates 30 fraud allegations relating to Hurricane Katrina
Investigates approximately 450 pending environmental crimes cases—roughly half of which are Clean Water Act cases.
Acknowledgements
This site was prepared by the FBI Office of Public Affairs (OPA).
Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI
John J. Miller, Assistant Director, OPA, FBI
Michael P. Kortan, Deputy Assistant Director, OPA, FBI
Nina A. Mrose, Section Chief, OPA, FBI
Michael F. Seelman, Unit Chief, Employee Communications Unit, OPA, FBI
Brian Hale, Writer / Editor, OPA, FBI
Scott Carmine, Web Design, OPA, FBI
Gail Bolton Paggi, Graphic Design, OPA, FBI
Tamara R. Harrison, Editor, OPA, FBI
Fact & Figures home
Sincerely
Buddy George
2018 w woodcrest ave
Fullerton.ca 92833
Thanks for finally writing about >SHERIFF LEROY D.
BACA congratulates ISFFH | International Student Film Festival
Hollywood <Liked it!
It’s an amazing article designed for all the web people; they
will take benefit from it I am sure.
I see you don’t monetize your blog, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra bucks every month because you’ve got high
quality content. If you want to know how to make extra bucks,
search for: Mrdalekjd methods for $$$
Hi, i feel that we observed people visited my blog site بلیط هواپیما, خرید بلیط هواپیما,ایران چارتر,قیمت بلیط هواپیما,خرید اینترنتی بلیط هواپیما, 24تیکت,بلیت هواپیما,خرید اینترنتی بلیت هواپیما, بلیت چارتر, رزرو بلیط هواپیما, قیمت بلیط هواپیما, خرید اینترنتی بلیط هواپیما خارجی, پرواز چارتر, بلیط هواپیما چارتر, هواپیمایی ماهان, ایران ایر,بلیط ارزان هواپیما, فروش بلیط هواپیما, بلیط هواپیما مشهد therefore i stumbled on return a choose? . My business is seeking circumstances to strengthen my web site! I assume its sufficient to train on a number of the principles!
Do you need an affordable notary in Houston? Toni’s Notary Public offers mobile loan signing services with affordable prices and friendly services.
you might have an important weblog right here! would you wish to make some invite posts on my weblog?
Can I simply say what a reduction to find someone who really knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know tips on how to convey an issue to gentle and make it important. More folks need to read this and perceive this facet of the story. I cant imagine youre not more popular since you undoubtedly have the gift.
You need to take part in a contest for among the best blogs on the web. I’ll recommend this web site!
Hello admin, i’ve been reading your website for some time and
I really like coming back here. I can see that you probably don’t make
money on your site. I know one simple method of earning money,
I think you will like it. Search google for: dracko’s
tricks
There are actually a number of details like that to take into consideration. That could be a nice point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as common inspiration however clearly there are questions like the one you carry up where the most important thing will likely be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged around things like that, however I am certain that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Both boys and girls really feel the affect of only a moment’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.
I have noticed you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic,
you can earn extra bucks every month. You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they approve all websites), for more info simply
search in gooogle: boorfe’s tips monetize your website
The Beef and Vegetable Stir Fry recipe is among
the best healthy recipes to lose weight at home.
Would it mean gaining or losing weight then being more active, physically or socially.
Each day, set goals to the kinds of foods you’ll adhere to and
any exercise you may incorporate into the routine.
Thanks in favor of sharing such a nice opinion, paragraph is good,
thats why i have read it completely
What you said was actually very logical. But, think on this,
what if you were to create a awesome title?
I mean, I don’t wish to tell you how to run your website, however
suppose you added a title that grabbed people’s attention? I
mean SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA congratulates ISFFH | International Student Film Festival Hollywood is a little boring.
You ought to glance at Yahoo’s home page and watch how they write news headlines to get viewers to open the links.
You might add a related video or a pic or two to
get readers interested about what you’ve written. In my
opinion, it could bring your blog a little bit more interesting.
I used to be recommended this website via my cousin. I’m not positive whether or not this submit is written by way of him as nobody else understand
such certain approximately my problem. You’re incredible!
Thank you!
Howdy!
You Need Leads, Sales, Conversions, Traffic for isffhollywood.org ?
I Will Findet…
Don’t believe me? Since you’re reading this message then you’re living proof that contact form advertising works!
We can send your ad to people via their Website Contact Form.
I WILL SEND 5 MILLION MESSAGES VIA WEBSITE CONTACT FORM
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, Contact us => lisaf2zw526@gmail.com
Regards,
Meacham
You need to be a part of a contest for one of the finest blogs on the internet. I will highly recommend this web site!
I see you don’t monetize isffhollywood.org, don’t waste
your traffic, you can earn extra bucks every month with new monetization method.
This is the best adsense alternative for any type
of website (they approve all websites), for more info
simply search in gooogle: murgrabia’s tools
Dang, this must have taken you a bit of time to write.
thanks for adding value to the internet (instead of adding junk
like so much of the garbage I’ve been reading these days…)
I go to see daily a few blogs and sites to read posts,
except this website offers quality based content.
It’s remarkable to pay a quick visit this website and reading the
views of all mates regarding this paragraph, while I am also keen of getting know-how.
Is anyone able to recommend good Aviaries International Sales Leads? Thank you 😀
Great articles and great layout. Your blog post deserves all of the positive feedback it’s been getting.
Yes! Finally someone writes about Theory outlet，promo code，online，theory，coupons，store，near me，sale，locations，com，clothing outlet，dress outlet，is
the same as theory，nyc，nj，clothing，vs outlet，coat，stores，camarillo，student discount，dresses，coupon code，discount code，coupon，carlsbad，quality，customer
service.
A winning $1 million ticket was sold att a Shell station on Gaither Road in Rockville, andd two $50,000 winners hhad been sold
– one in Bethesda and one particular in Pasadena.
Look att my blog post Visit this link
delta county co housing authority section 8 application
asdf
Many thanks for the insightful post. It was very enlightening and delivered great insights. If you’re keen on how to boost your real estate business online, make sure to visit https://www.elevenviral.com for additional insights.
You actually revealed that really well!
Номер телефона горячей линии букмекерской конторы олимп бет для связи с операторами и решения возможных вопросов.
Информация о букмекерской конторе 1win: обзор сервисов, преимущества использования, особенности ставок и акции для игроков.
Seriously a lot of beneficial tips!
Kudos! Quite a lot of facts.
Thanks a lot, Helpful information!
Thank you! I enjoy this!
Amazing lots of great material.