WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE
He knows he has NO 401 CASE …..but he still keeps them 401 charges on AGAINST HIS OWN WORDS on and adds the CHARGES he said he was going to add so he is compelled to add more 653(M) to violate my constitutional rights even more to become even more malicious by adding charges BUT ..NOT CORRECT HIS MALICIOUS PRESEUCTION OF 401pc LIKE HE SAID HERE IT IS
He abuses the process as well by requiring I pay for a bail warrant on crimes he admits he has to drop!
IMAGINE I AM A LEGAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS OWNER AND THEY USE MY TAX DOLLARS TO FRAME MY UP AND NOT EVEN FIX THEIR MISTAKES TRUE DOUCHE BAG IS A CRIMINAL NOT ME…. The PROSECUTOR, is the ignorant law violating DAMN CRIMINAL! He is not a prosecutor of criminals he is a criminal prosecuting innocent tax paying fathers seeking help for the sex offender this SHIT BAG OFFICE LEAVES with my son!! AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER AND THEY DONT DO THEIR JOB TO ENFORCE THE JUDGES ORDER OR PICKUP THIS WANTED SEX OFFENDER WITH 2 WARRANTS FOR SEX CRIMES LIVING AT MY SONS HOUSE AGAINST COURT ORDERS. WAY TO HELP OUT CAITLYN HARRINGTON AFTER SHE FAILED TO DUE HER JOB, YOU THEN HELP HER “FIX ME” FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUMB CUNTS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF LAW AND INTEGRITY TO THE CASE!
Attorneys Liabilities – Geragos v. Abelyan (2023)
Geragos v. Abelyan (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1005
But when does zealous advocacy exceed the bounds of the law and cross the line into actionable conduct such as extortion or perjury or even worse setting someone up with a fake crime? The Second District Court of Appeal recently examined this question again in the case of Geragos v. Abelyan (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1005.
“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach of duty, legal cause, and damages. (Friedman v. Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463.)”
Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action
Zamos v. Stroud
California Supreme Court, 2004
32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802
The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.
learn about how NOT TO violate your employers rights, after all civil servants work for the people, the tax payer. Got it DA Federal Civil Right$ $tatute$
20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022)
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.
DIRECT VIOLATION OF California Civil Code Section 52.1 AND THE US CONSTITUTION THE OC DA OFFICE HAS LIMITED OR TAKEN MY FREEDOMS BY BOOKING ME WITH FALSE FELONY CRIMES BY A LYING HOSTILE WITNESS THAT HAS COMMITED PERJURY IN OPEN COURT MULTIPLE TIMES,
THEIR STAR HOSTILE WITNESS HAS MISLEAD/MANIPULATED THE COURT OVER 20 TIMES, AND LIES DIRECTLY IN POLICE REPORTS WITH FACTS THE DA DID NOT CHECK :)
AND THEIR POLICE CAUGHT ON TAPE LYING... AND THEY FILE FALSE CHARGES THAT ARE PROVABLE!
PLEASE MAKE PEACE WITH YOU
(harassment by law for failure of them to uphold laws to protect my son) aka vindictive malicious prosecutionary misconduct with gross negligence and failure to protect a child by ignoring his orders completely and siding with a 22 wanted fugitive sex offender and his momma. call them in good faith to help and they refuse so you call them a few 1st amendment legal names and they book you. never once do they tell me to stop and how can they ? i am a citizen needing their help with a good faith phone call!)
Identifying Abuse of Process
As distinguished from extortion, abuse of process is the actual filing of a lawsuit or the taking of other legal action, to achieve a purpose unrelated to the substance or merits of the legal action. To prove an abuse of process, a plaintiff must show that the defendant entertained an ulterior motive in using the legal process, and committed a willful act in a wrongful manner. See Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792. “The gist of the tort is the misuse of the power of the court: It is an act done under the authority of the court for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice, i.e., a perversion of the judicial process to the accomplishment of an improper purpose. Younger v. Solomon (1974), 38 Cal.App.3d 289, 297.
HE DID NOT GIVE PETER HARDIN ALL THE EVIDENCE EITHER MANY CASES THAT WERE 653 WERE EMPTY ON THE USB AND WITH NO DATA
HE ALSO DID NOT HAND OVER OFFICER BRYAN HUNTELMANS BODY CAM FOOTAGE WHICH SHOWS HIM COMMITING CRIMES, LYING ON POLICE REPORTS AND FAILURE TO ARREST.
THIS IS A BRADY RULE VIOLATION HE KNOWS Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Matthew W Bradbury
He lives here, maybe the local community, through peaceful public assembly, should get together and let their Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bradbury to resign for his criminal activities and negligence
1481 Lance Dr
Tustin, CA 92780
(805) 551-1016
(805) 374-8384landline
MATT.BRADBURY1991@GMAIL.COM
mabradbu@lawnet.uci.edu
Matt.Bradbury@ocdapa.org
7211 Daybreak Pl
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
(909) 649-2318
83 Oval Rd # 2
Irvine, CA 92604
MATT.BRADBURY1991@GMAIL.COM
mabradbu@lawnet.uci.edu
Matt.Bradbury@ocdapa.org
(805) 551-1016
his previous addresses
83 Oval Rd
Irvine, CA 92604
Orange County
(Apr 2022 – Jul 2024)
69 Alicante Aisle
Irvine, CA 92614
Orange County
(Oct 2019 – Jul 2024)
4223 Patrice Rd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Orange County
(Jan 2019 – Jan 2022)
127 42nd St
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Orange County
(Mar 2018 – Oct 2019)
7665 Palmilla Dr #5219
San Diego, CA 92122
San Diego County
(Oct 2010 – May 2014)
2218 Olivewood Dr
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Ventura County
(Jun 2009 – Dec 2016)
608 Hodencamp Rd
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Ventura County
(Jun 2009 – Mar 2024)
Grandparent’s Suffer – Grandson Suffers
Daddy Son Suffer
9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship
What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?
Introducing the DA’s & Cops TEXTs & EMAIL as Digital Evidence
California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests
City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees
Employer$ Beware: La $upreme Court Open$ Line for Direct Negligence Claim$ from Employee Action$
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
New Supreme Court Ruling Makes it easier to Sue PROSECUTORS & POLICE
Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct
Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct
Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations
Information On Prosecutorial Discretion
Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves
FRAUD$ BY GOVERNMENT
McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit – and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) – includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. BURDEN OF PROOF ”
The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests.” citing Meier v. CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952) quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193 Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” Clearfield Doctrine “Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen…where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. … For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.”
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983.” Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 .Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
Juri$diction
[U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)] Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.
Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) “No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the juri$diction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.”
“Juri$diction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250
[U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)] In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack.
Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)
Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime
Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions
Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council
PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THE NEXT VIDEO REMEMBER SUGGESTING ME TO BE MADE A VEXATIOUS LITAGANT YOU PUNK FUCK
Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors
Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others
PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THE NEXT VIDEO
Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others
PAUL & Mathew TOEPEL LISTEN TO THE NEXT VIDEO
Model Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer
Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer
Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters
Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials
Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct
Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct
PAUL TOEPEL LISTEN TO THE NEXT VIDEO
ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application
Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment
ECONOMIC STATUS ATTACKS!
Attorney Ethics Rules – FOX 17 Know the Law
Evidence Locker Below – Access Denied
Click Photo if to Access only if you know you have access, all other clicks will be considered trespassing by US Government
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
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.
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
Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. California Civil Code Section 52.1 – Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights read here california-civil-code-section-52-1/
Civil Code Section 52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, authorizes suit against anyone who by threats, intimidation, or coercion interferes with the exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the state or federal Constitutions or laws without regard to whether the victim is a member of a protected class. (Civ. Code § 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 Angeles, 15 Cal. 4th 744 (1997), at least now there is a federal remedy for the police attempting to frame you; finally.
-
-
Caitlin E Harrington, Assistant District Attorney failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Matthew W Bradbury, Assistant District Attorney failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Orange County District Attorney’s Office failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Detective Montano failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Detective Jason Forgash failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
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
-
Olita Elementary School failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
The mother, a registered nurse failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Steven Dragna, state ordered minor council failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
Paul Toepel, mother’s council failed to protect my son and report child abuse by a known and wanted sex offender / arsonist
-
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).
To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below
Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)
Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here
To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here
Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse
ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)
It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below
You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file
Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….
$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$
Anti-SLAPP Law in California
Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right
Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS
We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address
We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment
We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment
Can You Annoy the Government? – 1st Amendment
Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here
Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech
We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment
We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment
Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton – Public Internet Posts & Public Criticisms – Bad Reviews – 1st Amendment
Learn More About True Threats Here below….
Counterman v. Colorado – Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment
We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment
CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment
We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment
We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment
We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment
We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment
Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you
We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment
We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment
Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$
Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney
What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The Attorney’s Sworn Oath
Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!
New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police
Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct
Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct
Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations
Information On Prosecutorial Discretion
Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves
Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here
Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor
Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here
The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence
ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF
Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF
Mi$Conduct – Judicial Mi$Conduct Judge$
Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$
Code of Conduct for United States Judge$
Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice
Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability
Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1 – Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge
l292 Disqualification of Judicial Officer – C.C.P. 170.6 Form
How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?
Commission on Judicial Performance – Judge Complaint Online Form
Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>
Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE
Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here
Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment
Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test
“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment
At the Intersection of Technology and Law
We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings
Right to Travel freely – When the Government Obstructs Your Movement – 14th Amendment & 5th Amendment
What is Probable Cause? and.. How is Probable Cause Established?
Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 – Crimes Against Public Justice – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment
What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?
Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment
Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process
What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?
ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!
Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California
Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
Federal Perjury – Definition by Law
Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
Crimes Against Public Justice
Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$
Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment
Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath
Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence
Lying Cop or Citizen – PC 129 – Preparing False Statement or Report Under Oath
Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California
Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense
PC 146 Penal Code – False Arrest
Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California
Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170
Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties
Penal Code § 236 PC – False Imprisonment
Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California
Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws
Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact
What is Abuse of Process?
What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment
What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?
Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises
The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)
Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here
Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$
Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim
Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$
Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit
How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)
Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law
What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court?
Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case
Anti-SLAPP Law in California
Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right
How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case
Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)
What is Tort?
Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation
Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.
See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.
Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)
Federal – Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us
California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us
Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF
Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source
WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States
How do I submit a request for information?
To submit a request send the request via mail, fax, or email to the agency. Some agencies list specific departments or people whose job it is to respond to PRA requests, so check their websites or call them for further info. Always keep a copy of your request so that you can show what you submitted and when.
Templates for Sample Requests
Incident Based Request: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
Officer Based Request: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF
or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.
Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records
Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence
First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here
Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider
Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case
CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings
Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss
WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence
Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here
Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here
California Motions in Limine – What is a Motion in Limine?
Petition for a Writ of Mandate or Writ of Mandamus (learn more…)
PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise
Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case
Pitchess Motion & the Public Inspection of Police Records
Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here
Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here
Orange County / LA County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below:
SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland
California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records
APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here
Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here
Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here
Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here
Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here
Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here
Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE: Authenticating Texts for California Courts
Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?
Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages
How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?
California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests
case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees
Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision
The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision
Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility
Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment
Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence
Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence
Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims
Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases
ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct
Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty
Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act
Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records
SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure
The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records
How Access to California Police Records
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records
SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records
California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request
Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings
CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here
Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here
Police BodyCam Footage Release
Cleaning Up Your Record
Tossing Out an Inferior Judgement – When the Judge Steps on Due Process – California Constitution Article VI – Judicial Section 13
Penal Code 851.8 PC – Certificate of Factual Innocence in California
Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult Arrest Records – Download the PC 851.8 BCIA 8270 Form Here
SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act – 851.87 – 851.92 & 1000.4 – 11105 – CARE ACT
Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC
How to Vacate a Criminal Conviction in California – Penal Code 1473.7 PC
Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record
Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)
Governor Pardons –What Does A Governor’s Pardon Do
How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California
How to Reduce a Felony to a Misdemeanor – Penal Code 17b PC Motion
PARENT CASE LAW
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$
YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK
Family Law Appeal – Learn about appealing a Family Court Decision Here
9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights“> – 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$
California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights
Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS
SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!
Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases
Are You From Out of State (California)? FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)
Learn More:Family Law Appeal
Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases
Can You Transfer Your Case to Another County or State With Family Law? – Challenges to Jurisdiction
Venue in Family Law Proceedings
GRANDPARENT CASE LAW
Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes
Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required
Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf
Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment
S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)
9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship
Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases
When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder
Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24
GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center
Motion to vacate an adverse judgment
Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder
When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?
Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848
Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099
Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242
S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)
Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards
Download Here this Recommended Citation
Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors
FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here
FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here
Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here
FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here
Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here
Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed
Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here
Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here
Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on
Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors
Please take time to learn new UPCOMING
The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.
The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.
