Sat. Dec 7th, 2024

La Habra Police Department LHPD Reviews

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

 

 

 

LA HABRA POLICE DEPARTMENT –

TO SETUP AND PROSECUTRE FRIVOLOUS CRIMES WE MAKE UP WHEN WE COMMIT CRIMES OURSELVES AND DON’T WANT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE

WE ARE THE FEW THE CONFUSED WE ARE DIRTY PIGS – PROFESSIONAL SETUP ARTISTS

IF THEY WERE POT HEADS THIS IS HOW THEY WOULD COP A BITCH!

WEAK MEN NEVER CHANGE THEIR STRIPES, ANY JOB OR CATEOGORY OR GROUP THEY CLAIM, THEY ALWAYS ACT THE SAME!

UNACCOUNTABLE, EASILY ANGERED, EASILY CONFUSED, EASILY DEFEATED INTERNALLY, WEAK NON CIVIC MINDED, LOW SELF ESTEEM, CONTROL FREAKS WITH NO CONTROL OF THEMSELVES. THE LA HABRA PD THE HIGHEST RATING OF CORRUPTION PER CAPITA! GUARANTEED. MIGHT AS WELL BE CALLED A GANG NOT POLICE. GANGS ATTACK WHEN THEY FEEL THREATENED, POLICE PROTECT SOCIETY AND HAVE THICK SKIN TO MAKE LOGICAL CIVIC MINDED DECISIONS.

 

YOU ALL ARE PUSSY LOSERS OF SOCIETY ABUSING YOUR POSITION BUT WAIT FOR THE TORT, WALMART STORE SHELF STOCKER COMING SOON TO YOUR LIST OF JOBS AND ABILITIES OFFICERS NO MORE SOON TO COME NEW JOB TITLES WILL BE HANDED TO YOU

 

TORTS COMING, NEW SUPREME COURT RULING 2021 OPENS YOUR PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS OPEN TO A LAWSUIT. TIMES ARE CHANGING THINGS ARE CHANGNING. YOUR TYPE WILL BE VETTED OUT AND SENT WHERE YOU BELONG……. CLEANING TOILETS, STOCKING SHELVES FOR THE RICH (WALTONS)!

 

THESE COPS ARE DUMBER THAN THE ROCKS DROPPED ON THEIR HEAD BY MAMA

THESE DUMB FUCKS STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME TO STOP CALLING ASKING FOR HELP

I HAVE RECORDED EACH AND EVERY CALL 🙂 

 

They even had they asshole Officer Huntleman who left a wanted fugitive sex offender around my child after he was shown the court order. Grandma gave it to him, i was in a across the block recording him from another vehicle

he witnessed and allowed a wanted fugitive of sex crimes that has a court order to be away from my minor victim son. he sent him back in the house. then this punk files 653 PC charges on me. bro you live in Los Angeles county your phone is registered to the 310 Los Angeles County Area, sorry you are out of your jurisdiction when you were filing charges against me, you still never told me to stop, you know i record you dumb fuck.  so i call you accept the call enjoy it because you dont tell me to stop, you then file charges outside of the jurisdiction with your corrupt orange county station you are employed at. you are scum so is the DA. fuck of you got nothing coming

STOP THE SEX OFFENDER AROUND MY SON THAT KEEPS COMING AND LIVING IN THE  HOME AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER

THE JUDGE MADE THE ORDER TO KEEP  MY SON SAFE AND YOU DUMB FUCKS CANT ARREST A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE FOR SEX CRIMES ……… WHEN I HAND HIM TO YOU

DUMB FUCKS SHOULD KILL YOURSELVES YOU ARE NOT LAW YOU ARE EVIL FUCKS THAT ARE LITTLE SKIN SKINNED IMMORRAL WEAK FUCKS WITH NO JUST JUSTICE IN YOU ONLY REVENGE AND ABUSE OF POWERS WHEN YOU WANKERS GET YOUR FEELINGS HURT. LIKE WEAK MEN THAT YOU ARE YOU CANT SOLVE A CRIME WHEN ITS HANDED TO YOU

FUCKING SHAME YOU ALLOW DANGER AND HARM TO CHILDREN

CONSIDER YOU PRIVACY GONE YOU NEVER HAD IT ILL MAKE SURE YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT EVER

 

ALL THIS GOES AWAY WHEN YOU ALL STOP

RETRACT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE

FIX THE FAKE SHIT YOU STUCK ON ME

ARREST THE PERPETRATOR SEX OFFENDER FOR PC 288 AND PC 288.2 FOR PUTTING HIS DICK PHOTOS ON MY SONS IPHONE

HE IS ALSO WANTED FOR 2 OTHER SEX CRIMES IN 2 OTHER COUNTIES

THEIR IS A COURT ORDER THAT DOES NOT WORK AND IT WAS SET IN PLACE TO PROTECT MY SON

REMEMBER THIS SITE WILL STAY UP UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THESE TASKS

YOU DO NOT INTIMIDATE ME YOU ARE WRONG AND WRONG IS WRONG

MAN UP DO THE RIGHT THING YOU CAN WAKE UP EACH DAY AND CHOSE TO DO RIGHT YET YOU CHOSE WRONG

SITE GOES DOWN WHEN YOU HAVE DONE YOU JOB TO PROTECT MY SON AND REMOVE SEX OFFENDER AND FIX YOU FUCKING OF ME ILLEGALLY BY MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

La Habra Police Department Reviews / LHPD Reviews

SINCE YOU GUYS HAVE FAILED MAYBE YOU NEED TRAINING
https://mandatedreporterca.com/

 

SINCE YOU GUYS HAVE FAILED MAYBE YOU NEED PHONE NUMBERS
 California Emergency Response Child Abuse Reporting Telephone Numbers

JUST IN CASE YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO DO YOU DUE DILLEGENCE HERE IS HOW YOU REPORT, YOU START WITH AN EDUCATION OF WHAT IT IS
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/mandated-reporter-laws/

 

JUST IN CASE YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO DO YOU DUE DILLEGENCE HERE IS HOW YOU REPORT… HINT, YOU HAVE TO FILE A FORM 🙂
Reporting Form for LEAs Who Use Alternative Training For Mandatory Reporting

 

MAYBE AS LAW MEN AND WOMEN YOU ARE INHERITNLY DONT CARE AND NOT BRUSHED UP ON LAW
Penal Code 288 PC – Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Minor Child

Penal Code 288.2 PC- Sending Harmful Material to Seduce a Minor

 

Child Abuse Reporting Guidelines
capc.sccgov.org/child-abuse-reporting-guidelines

 

Myths and Facts About Sexual Assault
meganslaw.ca.gov/mobile/Education_MythsAndFacts.aspx

 

Where to report child sexual abuse
d2l.org/reporting-child-abuse-california/

 

NOW THIS SEX OFFENDER IS MY SONS BROTHER, NO ONE WANTS HIM IN PRISON OR JAIL… THERE IS NO HELP FOR HIS ISSUES THERE! BUT WE DO WANT HIM BOOKED, ARRESTED, CHARGED AND THEN GET HELP IN A COMFORTABLE SETTING LIKE A HOSPITAL UNTIL A PSYCHOLOGIST IS WILLING TO PUT HIS DOCTORATE ON THE LINE AND SAY “NIGEL ROBERTSON IS SEXUALLY SAFE AROUND ALL CHILDREN” UNTIL THAT HAPPENS HE SHULD NOT BE AROUND MY SON! HE HAS A COURT ORDER THAT NO ONE LISTENS TOO! HE IS ORDERED OUT OF THAT HOUSE BY JUDGE JOHN FLYNN III YET NO ONE HONORS THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF MY MINOR SON, NOW A VICTIM

 

Sex Offenders in Orange County Loose

La Habra Polie Department Reviews better known as the LHPD are basically incompetant tax dollar waste.  They couldn’t solve a crime even when evidance lands on their desk with GPS, Photo ID, DICK in hand out in public parks, Etc.. Basically the LHPD is so stupid they cant file a crime report correctly so that the even slower Caitlin Elizabeth Harrington Orange County DA (sex crimes division) apparently both of their offices are either too dumb or they like sex offenders in Orange Coutny.  Sex offenders can easily progress into a more physical or more violent stage. signs of progression are prior arrests for sex crimes and still taking them weekly after arrest. But the OC DA and LHPD did NOT BOTHER to do a simple prior arrest search in their government database, i mean if anyone google GREGORY IGEL ROBERTSON you will find at least 2 case for sex crimes. one before father found photos and one arrest 6 months after father found and turned in photos only for the LHPD cops and  OCDA to do NOTHING. how can google find cases without the database their may be way more and a small search deeper yielded arson. totally lazy DA and LHPD and Technology INCOMPETANT

AFTER RETURNING BACK TO MOMS I FOUND THE DICK PICS ON THE CHILDS PHONE OF HIS ADULT MALE STEP BROTHER 22 YEAR OLD GREGORY NIGEL ROBERTSON TAKEN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN PUBLIC PARKS, AND THEN THE PHONE RETURNED BACK TO THE MINOR… THIS ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE OVER A 9 MONTH PERIOD AND OVER 3 COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA.  THE MAN NOW HAS 3 PENDING ARRESTS!!!!       NON OF THE ARRESTS ARE FOR THESE PHOTOS, ITS JUST HIS PROGRESSION AS A CRIMINAL, when will they protect this minor, arrest him for SEXTING and remove this minor from the home of the neglegent careless mother.  This mother is psychological trained, she is a psych nurse for Kaiser, She has been confronted bv father, grandma and grandpa and she has been texted them so has her attorney. they are well aware the CHILD IS NOT SAFE WITH A MOM who openely purgers herself in court and says nigel wont come over, following day hes over again, she cant be trusted to keep the minor safe as she has lied in court and is the mother of both!  here is her telling the judge she understanding MARCIA COMMIT PURGERY IN COURT 2ND TIME NO NIGEL PERVERT OVER.  YET HERE HE IS HERE

 

54 years old LHPD Detective who falsifies Restraining Order Paperwork should not be a police officer either 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ WHAT THE LA HABRA CA. POLICE ALLOWED A 22 YEAR OLD SEXUAL DEVIANT TO DO TO THEIR 9 YEAR  OLD VICTIM, YOU PAY TAXES FOR THEM TO ALLOW DICKS ON A 9 YEAR OLDS PHONE

 

DONT WORRY ADULT SEX DEVIANTS THE LA HABRA POLICE DON’T ARREST DICKS IN PARKS OR RESTRAINING ORDERS VIOLATIONS THAT ARE SET IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE MINOR VICTIM FROM THE ADULT VICTIM IN THE VIDEO 4 TIMES ABOVE 

CLICK BELOW TO READ THE FULL REPORT

GREGORY N ROBERTSON SURVEILLANCE REPORT 04-18-2021

 

NOW I KNOW WHY HE NEVER WANTED TO GO BACK TO MOMS!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

LA HABRA POLICE ALLOWS SEX OFFENDERS AROUND CHILDRENSATURDAY, APRIL 17TH, 2021 12:06am La Habra police LIED agent advised that there was a restraining order against Client’s  restricting him from 2321 Oakland Dr., La Habra, CA 90631. The police Incident #21-009473 4/18/21. Reporting Officer Drake Badge #634. 12:30am Surveillance was discontinued while Gregory Nigel Robertson a restrained individual stay comfortably in his mother’s house with the 9 year old he is supposed to be restrained from.  With a mother that is completly refuses to see the deviant in her adult son, even though he has multiple arrests and she has been confronted by police investigators, questioned by minor consel, and shown the naked photos in public parks Gregory Nigel Robertson took with the victims phone whom is only 9 years of age.  She is a typical weak mother, an enabler. Officer (Detective) Forgash a proven retard along with the DA left a nice email here it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ WHAT THE LHPD POLICE ALLOWED A 22 YEAR OLD SEXUAL DEVIANT TO DO TO THEIR 9 YEAR  OLD VICTIM, YOU PAY TAXES FOR THEM TO ALLOW DICKS ON A 9 YEAR OLDS PHONE

 

 

Guilty of Failure to protect a minor, Abuse of Power, Malicious Prosecution, Abuse Of Process, And False Arrest, Knowledge of abuse of a minor without reporting to the proper child protective services.

 
 
 

Criminals themselves, and they have no crime skills only soft skin, americas soft future of soft skinned wannabe men who cant take the truth when they mandated reporters they do nothing and then they are told how stupid and ignorant they are. they then become malicous and book PC 653 cases on me.  Men of law that cannot take a good faith phone call that ends with them being called what they are LAZY DUMB PIGS, good cops are another breed!

 
 
Detective Jason Forgash (criminal himself)
Dbag – Detective Jason Forgash (criminal himself)

ORDER OF HOW IT HAPPENED

KING DEGENERATE LIAR DETECTIVE MONTANO WHO OPERATES CONFLICTING OF INTERESTS BY LYING SAYING HE SERVED MY EX GIRLFRIEND’S (MY 8 YEAR OLD VICTIM SONS MOM) RESTRAING ORDER AGAINST ME TO ME!

A LHPD OFFICER FROM ORANGE COUNTY CA, CLAIMS HE SERVED ME!

I LIVE IN SANTA CLARITA CA 2 HOURS ONE WAY, IN ANOTHER COUNTY CALLED LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

HOW DID THE OC OFFICER DRIVE ON GOVERNEMENT CLOCKED HOURS AND SERVE ME OUTSIDE HIS JURISDICTION. LETS SEE THE LOG AND LETS PULL UP CAMERA FOOTAGE FROM HIS BODY CAM AND MY HOME CAMS! LETS COMPARE STATEMENTS OF A PERJURER LYING PIG 

THIS LITTLE BITCH WHO HELPED THE MOTHER OF MY SON BY LYING ABOUT HER RESTRAINING ORDER HE SAID HE SERVERD ME

IT GETS EVEN BETTER…….. HE IS THE LEAD DETECTIVE HANDLING A SEX CRIME AGAINST MY 8 YEAR OLD SON AND HIS MOTHER FOR HELPING TO HIDE IT, WHERE THE MOTHER AND HE ADULT FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER LIVING IN THE HOUSE (WHO TOOK DICK PICS AND PUT THEM ON MY SONS PHONE)

THIS IS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST

THE MOTHER HAS FUCKED COPS IN THE PAST. PUT HER ON A LIE DETECTOR. ASK HER “HAVE YOU HAD RELATIONS THAT AT ANYTIME IN THEIR LIFE HAVE BEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS” IF SHE SAYS YES, THE TRUTH…. WILL HELP GUIDE YOU… SHE LOVES COPS (POWER / CONTROL) AND MEN OF WEALTH (ME) AND PRETTY BOYS, LOOK AT MY PHOTOS WHEN WE MET

IF SHE SAYS NO, THE LIE DETECTOR WILL GO OFF 🙂

WAIT HE SEX OFFENDER WITH WARRANTS AND A JUDGES ORDER TO STAY AWAY FROM MY SON IS SOMEHOW ALLOWING THIS SEX OFFENDER TO LIVE IN A HOME HE IS ORDERED OUT OF, ALONG WITH WARRANTS.

 

MAYBE THATS WHY THEY SENT OFFICER HUNTLEMAN  NEXT ANOTHER BUDDY OF MONTANO ALL WORKING TOGEHTER IN UNISION TO KEEP MY 8 YEAR OLD VICTIM MIXED BLACK SON AROUND A WANTED SEX OFFENDER AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER. THEN WHEN I COMPLAIN WITH GOOD FAITH PHONE CALLS THEY CHARGE ME WITH 653PC

 

PUNK FUCKS WHO CONDONE CHILD SEX CRIMES. I HOPE YOUR KIDS HAVE THE SAME HAPPEN YOU WORTHLESS SHIT BAG. WAIT FOR YOU TORT CLAIM, YOU STANDING TALL NOW, YOU WILL FACE THE MUSIC ONE DAY MONTANO AND YOU WILL HAVE YOUR BADGE TAKEN FROM YOU. WALMART HERE YOU COME HERE IS YOUR APPLICATION LINK TO YOUR FUTURE CAREER 

 

 

Victor Montano LHPD La Habra Police Sex Crime Detective (criminal himself)
Dbag – Victor Montano LHPD La Habra Police Sex Crime Detective (criminal himself)
 
 
 
 

 

WAIT FOR THE TORT!

20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022) – Suing the Government Officially Personally tapping into their financial life legally

 

 

In its landmark decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job conduct that violates the Constitution. Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government does in all three branches of government. Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders, addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the specter of personal liability.

California Civil Code Section 52.1

 

 

 

Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles – 12 Cal.3d 710 – Mon, 11_04_1974 

 

Prosecutorial Misconduct

“It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radicals who desperately don’t want me to have fair and adequate family law/law enforcement services. Especially based previous misconduct and dismissed PC 653 Annoying and harassing phone calls to a residence  (public office isn’t a residence either) against law enforcement (they were recorded and case was dismissed after blackmail was paid to the OC DA Victim Rape Victim Fund (click here to listen to to 2 calls taken over 1 year apart)  cases and the recent criminal malicious prosecution of me when I complain of their negligence and their own crimes they have committed against me and my son.”

DOJ on Prosecutorial Misconduct

Prosecutorial overreaching and misconduct distort the truth-finding process and taint the credibility of the criminal justice system, including the outcomes they generate. NACDL is dedicated to attaining meaningful, systemic reform to help prevent the insidious harm caused when a prosecutor carelessly, or purposefully, fails in his or her duties to us all. This page (click here) contains resources from the Department of Justice on the problem of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

Malicious Prosecution

Criminal prosecution is malicious if law enforcement pursues groundless charges. Examples of malicious prosecutions include situations in which law enforcement:

  • law enforcement:
    • charges a person with a crime to cover up police misconduct, such as excessive use of force or false imprisonment;
    • intends to punish a person by harassing them with criminal proceedings;
    • intends to ruin a person’s reputation by bringing unfounded criminal charges against them; or
    • charges a person with a crime to divert attention from the actual perpetrator.A private person who lies to the police, and causes law enforcement to file false criminal charges, may also be liable for malicious prosecution.

Malice is defined as the state of mind under which a person intentionally does a wrongful act with the intent to inflict injury. But courts focus on the lack of probable cause, and malice may be inferred from its absence. Under Ohio law, a plaintiff cannot sue for malicious prosecution unless the underlying process or legal action has been revolved in the accused’s favor.

Relationship to “Abuse of Process” and “False Arrest”

Another tort claim for litigation misconduct is abuse of process. Abuse of process differs from malicious prosecution in that a person can still sue for abuse of process where there were reasonable grounds to pursue the case, but the lawsuit was initiated with an improper or ulterior purpose. For example, trying to tie up property in a divorce proceeding for the purpose of getting the other spouse to agree to different child-visitation rights may constitute abuse of process. Abuse-of-process claims, however, are difficult to prove and rarely successful.

Other available claims include false arrest, which may lie where police arrest someone without probable cause. Probable cause requires that police have reasonable trustworthy information sufficient to warrant an officer of reasonable caution to believe the arrestee committed, or is in the process of committing, an offense. Typically, acting on a warrant is a complete defense to a false-arrest claim.

Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest as a Civil-Rights Violation

In addition to any state-law claims, both malicious (criminal) prosecution and false arrest are recognized as separate violations of a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, where malicious-prosecution claims involve an arrest or criminal proceeding, plaintiffs may be able to file in either state or federal court.

Proof of malice is not required to succeed on a claim of malicious criminal prosecution under the U.S. Constitution. But here a plaintiff must prove:

  • (a) criminal prosecution was initiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant made, influenced, or participated in the decision to prosecute;
  • (b)there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution;
  • (c) as a consequence of the legal proceeding, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty apart from the initial seizure; and
  • (d) the criminal proceeding was resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Bringing a “Malicious Prosecution” Claim in California

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penal Code §§ 146 [unlawful detention or arrest by peace officer] 149 [beating / torturing prisoners], 236 [false imprisonment], 192 [manslaughter], 187 [murder] and 245 [assault with deadly weapon / by means resulting in great bodily injury]), civil liability (i.e. federal civil remedy for violation of federal and statutory rights under color of state law [42 U.S.C. § 1983]), and California state law claims for battery, assault, false arrest / false imprisonment, wrongful death, violation of Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 (retaliation for exercise of, or in attempt to, dissuade prevent another from exercising Constitutional rights), or administrative discipline (i.e. reprimand, suspension, rank reduction, and termination.)

Notwithstanding the absurd and cruel creation of immunity for peace officers that went well beyond the literal wording  and clear meaning of Section 821.6 by the California Courts of Appeal, in 2061 in  Tort claims are typically matters of state law, raising no federal question. However, the conduct complained of may also violate the federal Constitution. In such a case, relief may be available in a federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes “constitutional torts”, by creating a private right of action in federal court (Congress even allowing federal claims in a state court), against any person who, “under color of [state law],” causes injuries by violating an individual’s federal Constitutional or statutory rights.  Section 1983, however, “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979.) Therefore, in order to bring a malicious prosecution claim under Section 1983, a malicious criminal prosecution must be deemed a deprivation of a right “secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMES TO THE RESCUE AND REFUSES TO FOLLOW THE CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL IN THEIR AD NAUSEUM EXPANSION OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 821.6.

On July 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit handed down the seminal case of Garmon v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2016), which rejected the California Court of Appeal’s ad nauseam expansion of Section 821.6 immunity and refused to immunize police officers pursuant to that section. In that Opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that they are only bound to follow state law on state law issues when either the highest court in a state (i.e. the California Supreme Court on California law) has decided that issue, or, when the state Courts of Appeals have decided an issue and the federal court finds that the state Supreme Court would have held otherwise. In reaching that holding that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court already interpreted [California Government Code] section 821.6 as ‘confining its reach to malicious prosecution actions.’ “Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal.3d 710, 117 Cal.Rptr. 241, 527 P.2d 865, 871 (1974), and that in their opinion, the California Supreme Court would adhere to Sullivan, notwithstanding many Opinions of the California Courts of Appeal holding otherwise. Accordingly, the state of the law is that if you have the same case with the same parties and your case is in a California state court, that Section 821.6 immunizes many actions of peace officers other than malicious prosecution, but if you are in federal court, Section 821.6 immunity only immunizes claims for malicious prosecution under California state law.

NOW, AS OF APRIL 4, 2022 YOU HAVE A RIGHT UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO SUE FOR YOUR MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

                   FEDERAL MALICIOUS PROSECUTION LAW FROM 1994 TO 2017

On the basis of dicta expressed by the plurality opinion in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), there has been a political and practical acceptance of a federal constitutional right to be free of a malicious criminal prosecution; a frame-up by state actors.

In Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that although a malicious criminal prosecution is not a 14th Amendment substantive due process violation, that is might be considered an unreasonable seizure of one’s person under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if the subsequent malicious prosecution was accompanied by the actual physical arrest of the person.

In reality, these words were crafted by the Supreme Court to permit persons who are falsely and maliciously accused of a crime by the police that resulted in a bogus criminal prosecution, to sue the police who attempted to frame them. It’s judicial “newspeak“.

If there is anything that would constitute what the courts call substantive due process (i.e. outrageous police conduct that shocks the conscience), attempting to frame an innocent is it. However, the Supreme Court could not agree on whether a malicious criminal prosecution was a substantive due process violation in Albright v. Oliver, but the Justices did not want to leave one who the police attempted to frame without a remedy.

Accordingly, in Manuel v. City,  of Joliett, 580 U.S. _____ (2017), the Supreme Court held that one who was physically arrested and confined in custody by way of the false arrest of a police officer, can obtain damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for that person’s continued confinement in jail, after the point in time when the District Attorney (prosecutor) formally filed criminal charges against the person. In other words, the accused person can collect damages for being kept in jail before trial, pursuant to criminal charges, filed by the prosecutor, that were procured by the arresting police officer having authored a false police report, that the prosecutor relied upon in  deciding to file the very criminal charges that kept the false accused person in jail before trial.

However, this still didn’t establish a Naked Constitutional Tort of a Malicious Criminal Prosecution; only a damages remedy for a false arrest, and for confinement in jail after the point in time when the prosecutor formally filed criminal charges against the confined person.

Following both Albright v. Oliver and Manuel v. City of Joliet, most United States District Courts and the United States Courts of Appeals (the federal intermediate level appellate courts) permitted a Section 1983 remedy for a malicious criminal prosecution by a peace officer.  The First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits composed the “Tort Circuits,” wherein plaintiffs pleading malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983, were required to satisfy the common law elements of a malicious prosecution claim in addition to proving a constitutional violation. The “Constitutional Circuits”—the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth— concentrated on whether a constitutional violation exists.

Most of the Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, allowed for an aggrieved person the right to sue for being subjected to a malicious criminal prosecution, federal remedy for the same, via 42 U.S.C. §  1983. They did so, on various theories, since the right to be free from a malicious criminal prosecution is not described in the federal Constitution, but the pure evil and outrageousness of such government action compels appellate judges to find some Constitutional foundation for that right, in order to allow a person who the government attempted to frame, some sort of remedy.

Although sister circuits categorized the Third Circuit as a “Tort Circuit”, the Third Circuit more recently acknowledged that “[o]ur law on this issue is unclear”; however, it continued to encourage plaintiffs to address each common law element. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has avoided defining the required elements of a claim, although it appears to recognize a Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution and continued detention without probable cause.  The Ninth Circuit lies on both sides of the divide; seemingly turning on whether they want the malicious prosecution plaintiff to prevail.

In Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002.)  held that a malicious criminal prosecution was a naked constitutional tort, and was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the 4th Amendment. They just said it, basically out of thin air.

The Ninth Circuit also continued its pre-Galbraith malicious prosecution jurisprudence and held that in in addition to constituting a 4th Amendment violation, that one could sue for a malicious criminal prosecution if the prosecution was brought to deprive the innocent of some other constitutional right, such as attempting to frame an innocent in retaliation for protected exercise of First Amendment free speech, or, as a naked constitutional tort. See, Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1069–72 (9th Cir. 2004.) i

FEDERAL LAW NOW PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR A MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

In Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. _______ (April 4, 2022) for the first time in the history of the Americann Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court finally held that there is a Constitutional Tort of Malicious Criminal Prosecution. The Supreme Court also went on to hold that in order to sue for a Malicious Criminal Prosecution, that the underlying criminal action only need not result in a conviction of the accused for the accused (and  now plaintiff), for the underlying criminal case to be considered to be “favorably terminated”; a “favorable termination” of the underlying criminal case being a required element of that claim.

Although under California law you may not recover damages for your malicious criminal prosecution because of immunity provided in Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6  (See, Asgari v. City of Los Angeles15 Cal. 4th 744 (1997), at least now there is a federal remedy for the police attempting to frame you; finally.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.

 

when you are “A stupid” you get angry and feel insecure and hurt easy, so when you are confronted with any truth or you find your reality to be confusing, like the left, you become enraged with vengeance and become vindictive

good look being a happy person, you are too angry and trying to hurt other to every try and be helpful and do you job and to be helpful to my son, which legally they were and are required, but still fail!.  This 2 fucks helped Officer Huntleman, who also files fake charges in the wrong county, have helped a wanted FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER in my sons home AGAINST THE JUDGES ORDERS.  This report proves the guiltiness for failure to protect and malicious prosecution by OFFICER HUNTLEMAN. These officers in record are holding information i need and they are required to give, just to protect their fellow lying PIG who leaves my son alone with a wanted FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER in my sons home AGAINST THE JUDGES ORDERS.

she even tells me its not annoying or bothering her, and no where was she threatened, and she is required to be contacted by the annoyance, a good faith phone call to do your fucking job is not 653 pc and putting your publicly posted NON PRIVATE address up their, the site is not communicating with your honey, you had to come to it.

  1. Threat of injury
  2. not being constitutionally protected speech or good faith
  3. Advising its annoying and to communication, wait… good faith signifies constitutional protected speech smarty pants
  4. Harassment would need to make contact with you, you claim your a publicly available and posted property address being reposted on this site constitutes 653PC? , Why is the website it was originally found on not bothering you too ? but the address which is legally posted cannot communicate with you dear, its a site, you have to come to it.  Here is how a website works,
      1. you have to enter a URL or you have to search and find link to click – that means you are reaching out to the machine not vice versa
      2. the  machine which YOU are trying to communicate with sees your IP address, you see their IP address, handshake initiated and data pathway is set by YOU the WEB SURFER! 
  5. in order for a website to communicate a USER (STUPID MALICIOUS COP) visits site and requests to communicate

communication 1a : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior the function of pheromones in insect communication also : exchange of information.

 

Every officer at La Habra has done this to me, wait to the TORT CLAIM and CIVIL LAWSUITS happen, reputation is everything, you have showed the world you dont have law or civic minded thinking available to you only FUCK THIS GUY, I CANNOT BELIEVE HIM, WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS, LETS FOCUS ON HIM AND DESTROY HIM, INSTEAD OF DOING OUR JOB AND TAKING A WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDER DISOBEYING A JUDGES ORDER AWAY FROM A MINOR 8 YEAR OLD CHILD!

 

GREAT JOB WEAK VINDICTIVE LAWLESS ANIMALS

 

California Civil Code Section 52.1

 

 

 

 

 

Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles – 12 Cal.3d 710 – Mon, 11_04_1974 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022) – Suing the Government Officially Personally tapping into their financial life legally

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bringing a “Malicious Prosecution” Claim in California

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penal Code §§ 146 [unlawful detention or arrest by peace officer] 149 [beating / torturing prisoners], 236 [false imprisonment], 192 [manslaughter], 187 [murder] and 245 [assault with deadly weapon / by means resulting in great bodily injury]), civil liability (i.e. federal civil remedy for violation of federal and statutory rights under color of state law [42 U.S.C. § 1983]), and California state law claims for battery, assault, false arrest / false imprisonment, wrongful death, violation of Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 (retaliation for exercise of, or in attempt to, dissuade prevent another from exercising Constitutional rights), or administrative discipline (i.e. reprimand, suspension, rank reduction, and termination.)

Notwithstanding the absurd and cruel creation of immunity for peace officers that went well beyond the literal wording  and clear meaning of Section 821.6 by the California Courts of Appeal, in 2061 in  Tort claims are typically matters of state law, raising no federal question. However, the conduct complained of may also violate the federal Constitution. In such a case, relief may be available in a federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes “constitutional torts”, by creating a private right of action in federal court (Congress even allowing federal claims in a state court), against any person who, “under color of [state law],” causes injuries by violating an individual’s federal Constitutional or statutory rights.  Section 1983, however, “is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979.) Therefore, in order to bring a malicious prosecution claim under Section 1983, a malicious criminal prosecution must be deemed a deprivation of a right “secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMES TO THE RESCUE AND REFUSES TO FOLLOW THE CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL IN THEIR AD NAUSEUM EXPANSION OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 821.6.

On July 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit handed down the seminal case of Garmon v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2016), which rejected the California Court of Appeal’s ad nauseam expansion of Section 821.6 immunity and refused to immunize police officers pursuant to that section. In that Opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that they are only bound to follow state law on state law issues when either the highest court in a state (i.e. the California Supreme Court on California law) has decided that issue, or, when the state Courts of Appeals have decided an issue and the federal court finds that the state Supreme Court would have held otherwise. In reaching that holding that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court already interpreted [California Government Code] section 821.6 as ‘confining its reach to malicious prosecution actions.’ “Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles, 12 Cal.3d 710, 117 Cal.Rptr. 241, 527 P.2d 865, 871 (1974), and that in their opinion, the California Supreme Court would adhere to Sullivan, notwithstanding many Opinions of the California Courts of Appeal holding otherwise. Accordingly, the state of the law is that if you have the same case with the same parties and your case is in a California state court, that Section 821.6 immunizes many actions of peace officers other than malicious prosecution, but if you are in federal court, Section 821.6 immunity only immunizes claims for malicious prosecution under California state law.

NOW, AS OF APRIL 4, 2022 YOU HAVE A RIGHT UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO SUE FOR YOUR MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

                   FEDERAL MALICIOUS PROSECUTION LAW FROM 1994 TO 2017

On the basis of dicta expressed by the plurality opinion in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), there has been a political and practical acceptance of a federal constitutional right to be free of a malicious criminal prosecution; a frame-up by state actors.

In Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court held that although a malicious criminal prosecution is not a 14th Amendment substantive due process violation, that is might be considered an unreasonable seizure of one’s person under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if the subsequent malicious prosecution was accompanied by the actual physical arrest of the person.

In reality, these words were crafted by the Supreme Court to permit persons who are falsely and maliciously accused of a crime by the police that resulted in a bogus criminal prosecution, to sue the police who attempted to frame them. It’s judicial “newspeak“.

If there is anything that would constitute what the courts call substantive due process (i.e. outrageous police conduct that shocks the conscience), attempting to frame an innocent is it. However, the Supreme Court could not agree on whether a malicious criminal prosecution was a substantive due process violation in Albright v. Oliver, but the Justices did not want to leave one who the police attempted to frame without a remedy.

Accordingly, in Manuel v. City,  of Joliett, 580 U.S. _____ (2017), the Supreme Court held that one who was physically arrested and confined in custody by way of the false arrest of a police officer, can obtain damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for that person’s continued confinement in jail, after the point in time when the District Attorney (prosecutor) formally filed criminal charges against the person. In other words, the accused person can collect damages for being kept in jail before trial, pursuant to criminal charges, filed by the prosecutor, that were procured by the arresting police officer having authored a false police report, that the prosecutor relied upon in  deciding to file the very criminal charges that kept the false accused person in jail before trial.

However, this still didn’t establish a Naked Constitutional Tort of a Malicious Criminal Prosecution; only a damages remedy for a false arrest, and for confinement in jail after the point in time when the prosecutor formally filed criminal charges against the confined person.

Following both Albright v. Oliver and Manuel v. City of Joliet, most United States District Courts and the United States Courts of Appeals (the federal intermediate level appellate courts) permitted a Section 1983 remedy for a malicious criminal prosecution by a peace officer.  The First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits composed the “Tort Circuits,” wherein plaintiffs pleading malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983, were required to satisfy the common law elements of a malicious prosecution claim in addition to proving a constitutional violation. The “Constitutional Circuits”—the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth— concentrated on whether a constitutional violation exists.

Most of the Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, allowed for an aggrieved person the right to sue for being subjected to a malicious criminal prosecution, federal remedy for the same, via 42 U.S.C. §  1983. They did so, on various theories, since the right to be free from a malicious criminal prosecution is not described in the federal Constitution, but the pure evil and outrageousness of such government action compels appellate judges to find some Constitutional foundation for that right, in order to allow a person who the government attempted to frame, some sort of remedy.

Although sister circuits categorized the Third Circuit as a “Tort Circuit”, the Third Circuit more recently acknowledged that “[o]ur law on this issue is unclear”; however, it continued to encourage plaintiffs to address each common law element. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has avoided defining the required elements of a claim, although it appears to recognize a Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution and continued detention without probable cause.  The Ninth Circuit lies on both sides of the divide; seemingly turning on whether they want the malicious prosecution plaintiff to prevail.

In Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002.)  held that a malicious criminal prosecution was a naked constitutional tort, and was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the 4th Amendment. They just said it, basically out of thin air.

The Ninth Circuit also continued its pre-Galbraith malicious prosecution jurisprudence and held that in in addition to constituting a 4th Amendment violation, that one could sue for a malicious criminal prosecution if the prosecution was brought to deprive the innocent of some other constitutional right, such as attempting to frame an innocent in retaliation for protected exercise of First Amendment free speech, or, as a naked constitutional tort. See, Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1069–72 (9th Cir. 2004.) i

FEDERAL LAW NOW PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR A MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

In Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. _______ (April 4, 2022) for the first time in the history of the Americann Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court finally held that there is a Constitutional Tort of Malicious Criminal Prosecution. The Supreme Court also went on to hold that in order to sue for a Malicious Criminal Prosecution, that the underlying criminal action only need not result in a conviction of the accused for the accused (and  now plaintiff), for the underlying criminal case to be considered to be “favorably terminated”; a “favorable termination” of the underlying criminal case being a required element of that claim.

Although under California law you may not recover damages for your malicious criminal prosecution because of immunity provided in Cal. Gov’t Code § 821.6  (See, Asgari v. City of Los Angeles15 Cal. 4th 744 (1997), at least now there is a federal remedy for the police attempting to frame you; finally.

 

 

 

 

 

    1. Caitlin E Harrington, Assistant District Attorney failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    2. Matthew W Bradbury, Assistant District Attorney failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    3. Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    4. Orange County District Attorney’s Office failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    5. Detective Montano failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist   

    6. Detective Jason Forgash failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    7. La Habra Police Department as a whole was notified via email and is also failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    8. Olita Elementary School failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist

    9. The mother, a registered nurse failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist 

    10. Steven Dragna, state ordered minor council failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist 

    11. Paul Toepel, mother’s council failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist 

    12. Dr. W. Russell Johnson, Ph.D. PSY7140, state ordered minor psychologist failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist 

 
 

found on my 8 year olds phone is his adult brother a wanted sex offender / arsonist with multiple charges but
he is still not been arrested or charged with 288 (2) or 288.2 which is how my minor son ended up with his sex offender brother dick picks on his phone.  This is far more than indecent exposure. This is a child sex crime to place these photos on a child’s primary communication device/ gaming device

 

as required by law 

 
 

PENAL CODE – PEN

PART 4. PREVENTION OF CRIMES AND APPREHENSION OF CRIMINALS [11006 – 14315]

  ( Part 4 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1385. )

TITLE 1. INVESTIGATION AND CONTROL OF CRIMES AND CRIMINALS [11006 – 11482]

  ( Title 1 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 1385. )

CHAPTER 2. Control of Crimes and Criminals [11150 – 11199.5]

  ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1953, Ch. 70. )

 

ARTICLE 2.5. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act [11164 – 11174.3]

  ( Heading of Article 2.5 amended by Stats. 1987, Ch. 1444, Sec. 1. )

 

11165.7   

(a) As used in this article, “mandated reporter” is defined as any of the following:

(1) A teacher.

(2) An instructional aide.

(3) A teacher’s aide or teacher’s assistant employed by a public or private school.

(4) A classified employee of a public school.

(5) An administrative officer or supervisor of child welfare and attendance, or a certificated pupil personnel employee of a public or private school.

(6) An administrator of a public or private day camp.

(7) An administrator or employee of a public or private youth center, youth recreation program, or youth organization.

(8) An administrator, board member, or employee of a public or private organization whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children, including a foster family agency.

(9) An employee of a county office of education or the State Department of Education whose duties bring the employee into contact with children on a regular basis.

(10) A licensee, an administrator, or an employee of a licensed community care or child daycare facility.

(11) A Head Start program teacher.

(12) A licensing worker or licensing evaluator employed by a licensing agency, as defined in Section 11165.11.

(13) A public assistance worker.

(14) An employee of a childcare institution, including, but not limited to, foster parents, group home personnel, and personnel of residential care facilities.

(15) A social worker, probation officer, or parole officer.

(16) An employee of a school district police or security department.

(17) A person who is an administrator or presenter of, or a counselor in, a child abuse prevention program in a public or private school.

(18) A district attorney investigator, inspector, or local child support agency caseworker, unless the investigator, inspector, or caseworker is working with an attorney appointed pursuant to Section 317 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to represent a minor.

(19) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who is not otherwise described in this section.

(20) A firefighter, except for volunteer firefighters.

(21) A physician and surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist, marriage and family therapist, clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, or any other person who is currently licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code.

(22) An emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic, or other person certified pursuant to Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code.

(23) A psychological assistant registered pursuant to Section 2913 of the Business and Professions Code.

(24) A marriage and family therapist trainee, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 4980.03 of the Business and Professions Code.

(25) An unlicensed associate marriage and family therapist registered under Section 4980.44 of the Business and Professions Code.

(26) A state or county public health employee who treats a minor for venereal disease or any other condition.

(27) A coroner.

(28) A medical examiner or other person who performs autopsies.

(29) A commercial film and photographic print or image processor as specified in subdivision (e) of Section 11166. As used in this article, “commercial film and photographic print or image processor” means a person who develops exposed photographic film into negatives, slides, or prints, or who makes prints from negatives or slides, or who prepares, publishes, produces, develops, duplicates, or prints any representation of information, data, or an image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disk, data storage medium, CD-ROM, computer-generated equipment, or computer-generated image, for compensation. The term includes any employee of that person; it does not include a person who develops film or makes prints or images for a public agency.

(30) A child visitation monitor. As used in this article, “child visitation monitor” means a person who, for financial compensation, acts as a monitor of a visit between a child and another person when the monitoring of that visit has been ordered by a court of law.

(31) An animal control officer or humane society officer. For the purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:

(A) “Animal control officer” means a person employed by a city, county, or city and county for the purpose of enforcing animal control laws or regulations.

(B) “Humane society officer” means a person appointed or employed by a public or private entity as a humane officer who is qualified pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code.

(32) A clergy member, as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11166. As used in this article, “clergy member” means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.

(33) Any custodian of records of a clergy member, as specified in this section and subdivision (d) of Section 11166.

(34) An employee of any police department, county sheriff’s department, county probation department, or county welfare department.

(35) An employee or volunteer of a Court Appointed Special Advocate program, as defined in Rule 5.655 of the California Rules of Court.

(36) A custodial officer, as defined in Section 831.5.

(37) A person providing services to a minor child under Section 12300 or 12300.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(38) An alcohol and drug counselor. As used in this article, an “alcohol and drug counselor” is a person providing counseling, therapy, or other clinical services for a state licensed or certified drug, alcohol, or drug and alcohol treatment program. However, alcohol or drug abuse, or both alcohol and drug abuse, is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for reporting child abuse or neglect.

(39) A clinical counselor trainee, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 4999.12 of the Business and Professions Code.

(40) An associate professional clinical counselor registered under Section 4999.42 of the Business and Professions Code.

(41) An employee or administrator of a public or private postsecondary educational institution, whose duties bring the administrator or employee into contact with children on a regular basis, or who supervises those whose duties bring the administrator or employee into contact with children on a regular basis, as to child abuse or neglect occurring on that institution’s premises or at an official activity of, or program conducted by, the institution. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as altering the lawyer-client privilege as set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code.

(42) An athletic coach, athletic administrator, or athletic director employed by any public or private school that provides any combination of instruction for kindergarten, or grades 1 to 12, inclusive.

(43) (A) A commercial computer technician as specified in subdivision (e) of Section 11166. As used in this article, “commercial computer technician” means a person who works for a company that is in the business of repairing, installing, or otherwise servicing a computer or computer component, including, but not limited to, a computer part, device, memory storage or recording mechanism, auxiliary storage recording or memory capacity, or any other material relating to the operation and maintenance of a computer or computer network system, for a fee. An employer who provides an electronic communications service or a remote computing service to the public shall be deemed to comply with this article if that employer complies with Section 2258A of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(B) An employer of a commercial computer technician may implement internal procedures for facilitating reporting consistent with this article. These procedures may direct employees who are mandated reporters under this paragraph to report materials described in subdivision (e) of Section 11166 to an employee who is designated by the employer to receive the reports. An employee who is designated to receive reports under this subparagraph shall be a commercial computer technician for purposes of this article. A commercial computer technician who makes a report to the designated employee pursuant to this subparagraph shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this article and shall be subject to the protections afforded to mandated reporters, including, but not limited to, those protections afforded by Section 11172.

(44) Any athletic coach, including, but not limited to, an assistant coach or a graduate assistant involved in coaching, at public or private postsecondary educational institutions.

(45) An individual certified by a licensed foster family agency as a certified family home, as defined in Section 1506 of the Health and Safety Code.

(46) An individual approved as a resource family, as defined in Section 1517 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 16519.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(47) A qualified autism service provider, a qualified autism service professional, or a qualified autism service paraprofessional, as defined in Section 1374.73 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 10144.51 of the Insurance Code.

(48) A human resource employee of a business subject to Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code that employs minors. For purposes of this section, a “human resource employee” is the employee or employees designated by the employer to accept any complaints of misconduct as required by Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12940) of Part 2.8 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(49) An adult person whose duties require direct contact with and supervision of minors in the performance of the minors’ duties in the workplace of a business subject to Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code is a mandated reporter of sexual abuse, as defined in Section 11165.1. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to modify or limit the person’s duty to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect when the person is acting in some other capacity that would otherwise make the person a mandated reporter.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (35) of subdivision (a), volunteers of public or private organizations whose duties require direct contact with and supervision of children are not mandated reporters but are encouraged to obtain training in the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect and are further encouraged to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect to an agency specified in Section 11165.9.

(c) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d) and paragraph (2), employers are strongly encouraged to provide their employees who are mandated reporters with training in the duties imposed by this article. This training shall include training in child abuse and neglect identification and training in child abuse and neglect reporting. Whether or not employers provide their employees with training in child abuse and neglect identification and reporting, the employers shall provide their employees who are mandated reporters with the statement required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11166.5.

(2) Employers subject to paragraphs (48) and (49) of subdivision (a) shall provide their employees who are mandated reporters with training in the duties imposed by this article. This training shall include training in child abuse and neglect identification and training in child abuse and neglect reporting. The training requirement may be met by completing the general online training for mandated reporters offered by the Office of Child Abuse Prevention in the State Department of Social Services.

(d) Pursuant to Section 44691 of the Education Code, school districts, county offices of education, state special schools and diagnostic centers operated by the State Department of Education, and charter schools shall annually train their employees and persons working on their behalf specified in subdivision (a) in the duties of mandated reporters under the child abuse reporting laws. The training shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, training in child abuse and neglect identification and child abuse and neglect reporting.

(e) (1) On and after January 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 1596.8662 of the Health and Safety Code, a childcare licensee applicant shall take training in the duties of mandated reporters under the child abuse reporting laws as a condition of licensure, and a childcare administrator or an employee of a licensed child daycare facility shall take training in the duties of mandated reporters during the first 90 days when that administrator or employee is employed by the facility.

(2) A person specified in paragraph (1) who becomes a licensee, administrator, or employee of a licensed child daycare facility shall take renewal mandated reporter training every two years following the date on which that person completed the initial mandated reporter training. The training shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, training in child abuse and neglect identification and child abuse and neglect reporting.

(f) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the absence of training shall not excuse a mandated reporter from the duties imposed by this article.

(g) Public and private organizations are encouraged to provide their volunteers whose duties require direct contact with and supervision of children with training in the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect.

(Amended by Stats. 2020, Ch. 243, Sec. 1. (AB 1963) Effective January 1, 2021.)

 

 

 

PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN, PUBLIC TRUST, PUBLIC DUTY AND IGNORANCE IS:

Consequences of Failing to Report
A person who fails to make a required report is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine (California Penal Code Section 11166[c]).

 

Mandated Reporter Laws Failure to Report Laws

 

Failure to Report Citation: Penal Code §§ 11166(c); 11166.01 Any mandated reporter who fails to report an incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in a county jail or by a fine of $1,000, or both. If a mandated reporter intentionally conceals his or her failure to report an incident known by the mandated reporter to be abuse or severe neglect, the failure to report is a continuing offense until an agency specified in § 11165.9 discovers the offense. Any supervisor or administrator who violates § 11166(1) (that prohibits impeding others from making a report), shall be punished by not more than 6 months in a county jail or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. Any mandated reporter who willfully fails to report abuse or neglect, or any person who impedes or inhibits a report of abuse or neglect, where that abuse or neglect results in death or great bodily injury, shall be punished by not more than 1 year in a county jail or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. False Reporting Citation: Penal Code § 11172(a) Any person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect shall not incur civil or criminal liability as a result of any report, unless it can be proven that a false report was made and the person knew that the report was false or was made with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report. Any person who makes a report of child abuse or neglect known to be false or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report is liable for any damages caused.

 

Failing to report sexual offences against children

The law is being strengthened to improve the protection of children from offences of a sexual nature.Currently only certain adults have legal obligations to report suspected harm to children (including suspected sexual abuse).

wow they actually say they don’t like sex offenders in parks but that was 12 years ago, different DA in charge check it out below

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/orange-county-proposes-new-law-to-keep-registered-sex-offenders-out-of-parks-and-playgrounds/

error: Content is protected !!