Cal Bar # 133647 – email: gpp@jones-mayer.com

Attorney at Jones & Mayer Gregory Palmer is an Attorney at Jones & Mayer aka also LHPD Lawyer for the Criminals that work for the LHPD. 

 Co-Conspirator and Accessory to Criminal Actions of a La Habra Police OfficerGregory P Palmer wrote the following to the victims’ family member and also a victim herself

The body worn camera recordings you seek are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Government Code Sections 7923.600 through 7923.625. As a result of that, they are also exempt pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.000.

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.)”

finally the scum bag cannot mentally defend his reasoning for denial and finally admits that the LA HABRA POLICE DEPARTMENT (LHPD) just does not want to and he and them do not care about the law, they had no defense

Incident occurred over a year ago, steadily obstructing justice to protect a criminal perjurious officer!
What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California? https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-considered-obstruction-of-justice-in-california/

Under Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.625 paragraph (a) (1) clearly states may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident

 And Under Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.625 paragraph (a) (2) clearly states After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

You have provided nothing more than a delay and abuse of my civil rights and rights as a citizen to conduct an audit of a law enforcement encounter, I had that was completely misrepresented by the officer (officer Huntleman is a liar) under the freedom information act and all the laws regarding such requests. I have taken your answer and used your own answers against you. You have not demonstrated clear and convincing evidence in anyway shape or form. All you have done is just a copy and paste like every officer in LHPD Records. Your abuse of process is illegal and nothing more than a delay tactic to protect your lame duck lying officer, Criminal Bryan Huntelman.

In response to your weak unassuming lack of due diligence response

“ The body worn camera recordings you seek are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Government Code Sections 7923.600 through 7923.625. As a result of that, they are also exempt pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.000. “

The Incident occurred over a year ago, steadily obstructing justice to protect a criminal perjurious officer!
What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California? https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-considered-obstruction-of-justice-in-california/

Under Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.625 paragraph (a) (1) clearly states may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident

And Under Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.625 paragraph (a) (2) clearly states After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.

You have provided nothing more than a delay and abuse of my civil rights and rights as a citizen to conduct an audit of a law enforcement encounter, I had that was completely misrepresented by the officer (officer Huntleman is a liar) under the freedom information act and all the laws regarding such requests. I have taken your answer and used your own answers against you. You have not demonstrated clear and convincing evidence in anyway shape or form. All you have done is just a copy and paste like every officer in LHPD Records. Your abuse of process is illegal and nothing more than a delay tactic to protect your lame duck lying officer, Criminal Bryan Huntelman.

Bryan Huntelman has contributed to following:

1. failed to protect a minor – endangering a minor’s safety,
   What is Child Endangerment? – Penal Code 273a(a) PC
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-child-endangerment-penal-code-273aa-pc/

leaving a child around a man who has a stay away order from a judge is endangerment, this man is a wanted fugitive sex offender with multiple offenses not accounted for!

2. disobeying a judge’s order for removal of a sex offender, Nigel Robertson (who still has an active judge’s order not to be at 2321 Oakland dr or around my minor grandson Michael Lombardi
   Violating a Court Order in California – Penal Code 166 PC
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/violating-a-court-order-in-california-penal-code-166-pc/
3. Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-142-pc-peace-officer-refusing-to-arrest-or-receive-person-charged-with-criminal-offense/

When he failed to arrest a wanted fugitive sex offender Nigel Robertson, who was right in front of Bryan Huntelman and on the bodycam footage you don’t release.

4. lying on a police report he wrote and doctored which is a few things here:
   1. Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law
      https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-118-pc-california-penalty-of-perjury-law/
   2. 1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports
      https://goodshepherdmedia.net/118-1-pc-police-officers-filing-false-reports/
   3. Preparing Or Offering False Evidence: California PC 132 And PC 134
      https://goodshepherdmedia.net/preparing-or-offering-false-evidence-california-pc-132-and-pc-134/

1. Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-132-pc-offering-false-evidence/
2. Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-penal-code-134-pc-preparing-false-evidence/

• PC 127: Subornation of Perjury: Law, Sentence, & Defense: Persuading A Person to Commit Perjury (getting others to lie and keep up the lie for him)
  https://goodshepherdmedia.net/pc-127-subornation-of-perjury-law-sentence-defense-persuading-a-person-to-commit-perjury/
  when he gets his department and other employees to lie for him

(his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)

1. Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California
   (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-664-pc-attempted-crimes-in-california/
   he is attempting many crimes (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
2. Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-135-pc-destroying-or-concealing-evidence/
   he, his department and you are. (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
3. Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-141-pc-planting-or-tampering-with-evidence-in-california/
   he, his department and you are. (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
4. Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-182-pc-criminal-conspiracy-laws-penalties/
   he, his department and you are. (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
5. obstruction of justice
   What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-considered-obstruction-of-justice-in-california/
   he, his department and you are. (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
6. Penal Code 31 PC – California Aiding and Abetting Laws
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-31-pc-california-aiding-and-abetting-laws/
   he, his department and you are. (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer)
7. Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact
   https://goodshepherdmedia.net/penal-code-32-pc-accessory-after-the-fact/
   he, his department and you are. You now know the wanted fugitive sex offender is there and you leave him there even with the knowledge that there is a judges order for removal and stay away as well from a minor. You allow children to be endangered by being around a wanted fugitive sex offender with knowledge of his residence, yet he remains there, against a judges orders as well! (his and the departments, including your concealment after knowledge of a crime committed by your officer) 

Law Enforcement Misconduct

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/law-enforcement-misconduct/

You are not protected by immunity and you are involving yourself in this making yourself a viable defendant in a tort claim

What is Abuse of Process? When the Government Fails Us
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-abuse-of-process-when-the-government-fails-us/

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/42-us-code-1983-civil-action-for-deprivation-of-rights/

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/18-u-s-code-%c2%a7-241-conspiracy-against-rights/

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/what-is-a-fiduciary-duty-breach-of-fiduciary-duty/

Lawyers’ Obligation of Candor to Opposing Parties and Third Parties
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/lawyers-obligation-of-candor-to-opposing-parties-and-third-parties/

Punitive Damages – California Civil Code § 3294 – Breach of Fiduciary Duty
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-civil-code-%c2%a7-3294/

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/9-32-particular-rights-fourteenth-amendment-interference-with-parent-child-relationship/

California Civil Code Section 52.1
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-civil-code-section-52-1/

An attorney may not seek, accept or continue employment where it is not substantiated by probable cause,

 thus an attorney may not prosecute any case that is not well

– 1 Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1-400. 2 Id. 3 McKinnery State Bar, 62 Cal.2d 194, 196 (1964);

Culter v. State Bar of California, 71 Cal.2d 241, 249 (1969);

see also Coulello v. State of California, 45 Cal.2d 57 (1955);

Hallinan v. State Bar of California, 33 Cal.2d 246 (1948).

Clearly, this duty applies not only with reference to the client but also with regard to the court,

opposing counsel. 4 Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3 -200; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

• 6068(c). The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1 & 4.4, also impose a duty to the legal

system which requires both that the attorney bring only meritorious claims and that they not use inappropriate

means in the representation of their client that embarrass, bur den, delay or violate legal rights.

Barbara A. v. John G., 145 Cal.App.3d 369 (1983) (citing Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409, 483 (1937);

Bacon v. Soule, 19 Cal.App. 428, 434 (1912)

You keep helping a case that is constitutionally and legally wrong!

After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation

You have NOT demonstrated by any means that is clear and convincing

 You have a civic duty of as an employee for the government to obey the law

You are in violation of the law and abusing the process and protecting a criminal, one of your own, a dirty cop. By participating in the shenanigans you are actively participating

Police BodyCam Footage Release – California
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/police-bodycam-footage-release-california/
You have a clear duty to act under California Public Records Act GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270 and RIGHT TO INSPECT OR COPY PUBLIC RECORDS

We filed all the write documents and by law you must release the video

CPRA Request Report / BodyCam Release / Incident Report Request / Other Data from for Orange County California
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/cpra-request-report-bodycam-release-incident-report-request-other-data-from-for-orange-county-california/

Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/principles-of-ethical-conduct-for-government-officers-and-employees/

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act – On March 3, 2021, California’s Second District Court of Appeal broadened the public’s right to view police misconduct records under Senate Bill 1421. Signed into law on January 1, 2019, SB 1421 broadened public access to police misconduct files under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). SB 1421 expands access to records relating to officer involved shootings, serious use of force and sustained finds of sexual assault or serious dishonesty
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/senate-bill-no-1421/

 AB 1246 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/police-bodycam-footage-release-california#AB1246

Duty to Act vs Omission to Act
https://goodshepherdmedia.net/duty-to-act-vs-omission-to-act/

Let’s break down your reasoning for denial:

Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.600 Assistance in creating request

(a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.

(2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.

(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.

(b) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the public agency is unable to identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that will help identify the record or records.

(c) The requirements of subdivision (a) are in addition to any action required of a public agency by Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) or Article 2 (commencing with Section 7922.525).

Ca. Gov. Code § 7922.600

Added by Stats 2021 ch 614 (AB 473),s 2, eff. 1/1/2022.

Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.625 Video or audio recordings

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subdivision (e), may be withheld only as follows:

(a)

(1) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this section, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.
(2) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.

(b)

(1) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer’s ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in paragraph (1) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in paragraph (1) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:

(A) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or the subject’s authorized representative.

(B) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(C) If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected.

(3) If disclosure pursuant to paragraph (2) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

(c) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this section.

(d) For purposes of this section, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

(e) For purposes of this section, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:

(1) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.

(2) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.

(f) This section does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as described in subdivision (e).

Ca. Gov. Code § 7923.625

Added by Stats 2021 ch 614 (AB 473),s 2, eff. 1/1/2022.

Assembly Bill 748

Assembly Bill 748 will require the release of recordings from body-worn cameras within 45 days of an incident, including if officers fired shots or if a use-of-force causes death or great bodily harm.

Cal. Gov. Code § 6252

Cal. Gov. Code § 6252 (e) “Public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.

Article I, California Constitution

Constitution of the State of California 

“(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

California Public Records Act GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270 

California Public Records Act (PRA)Overview

• 10 day response time among the shortest
• No formal appeals process, requiring a lawsuit
• “Purely personal” exemption can limit access to agency records

Seeing as that the federal Freedom of Information Act was largely the result of efforts by Congressman John Moss of California, it should come as no surprise that the state was one of the first to enact a state-level public records law. It should come as a bit of surprise, however, that the law is a frustrating combination of good ideas with no enforcement.

Agencies are required to “comply” with a 10 day time frame, which puts it among the speediest states – assuming you get a clerk who knows the law and is interested in following it. A lack of any formal appeals process means an agency faces no consequences for a violation, unless you’re willing to sue. Fortunately, California does offer the opportunity to recoup attorney’s fees if the requester succeeds on “any significant issue.”

While that’s fairly straightforward in cases where a agency hasn’t responded in the allotted time frame, the law’s unclear language makes that more difficult when fighting an exemption. Rather than extend towards all records created by an agency, the law stipulates that the records must be “relating to the conduct of the public’s business,” and exempts “purely personal” information that happens to be on a public account. Though an agency must cite their reasoning, a broad “outweighing the public interest” catchall makes it tough to build a convincing case.

Despite these challenges (and due to the lack of any alternative), public records lawsuits are common – in fact, in 2013, citing the “tens of millions” the state was spending on the law annually, in 2013 the legislature added a measure to the budget that would gut the law entirely, turning it into “best practices.” Thanks to a massive outcry by journalists, the measure was defeated.

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

 Recoverable Damages Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

MEET MR. PALMER

Friends, here’s a fun post from two-and-a-half years ago he harrassed someone else besides the people that we wrote about above, this man has history! Here is an introduction you to the egregious Gregory Palmer, Esq., who is employed to hassle citizens, ignore legal PRA requests, and most importantly, to investigate and stop kinky sex in the municipality that employ Dick Jones as City Attorney. Enjoy. 

Apart from his alleged expertise dealing with “sexually-oriented business,” – whatever that means, this bit caught my eye:

Mr. Palmer has handled several high profile cases. In 1997, he prosecuted the First Southern Baptist Church and its pastor for illegally housing the homeless on its grounds.  

So Mr. Palmer and Dick Jones actually brag about about shutting down a church engaged in an act of Christian charity. TRUE SCUM!

He has a history  source

Cal. Gov. Code Section § 7922.000

An agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2021/code-gov/title-1/division-10/part-2/chapter-3/article-1/section-7922-000/#:~:text=An%20agency%20shall%20justify%20withholding,by%20disclosure%20of%20the%20record.

Learn more about the Sigma Males …..

Alpha vs Sigma: The Dominant Sigma Male

What Sigma Men Hate! – The Ultimate Guide to Sigma Males

How To Become A High Value Man

Why is a sigma male so irresistible to women?

The Sigma Male Explained: Understanding the Lone Wolf

Sigma Males Destroy Controlling and Manipulative People

Learn More About on Stoicism – The Stoic Man An Unstoppable Force to Reckon With…..

Want An Unconquerable Mind? Try Stoic Philosophy

What is Stoicism? A Definition & Stoic Exercises To Get You Started

9 Principles of Stoicism which will Improve your Life

A Complete Guide to Stoicism: How You Can Use this Ancient Philosophy to Live a Better Life

Stoicism, Virtue, and Mental Health

The Stoic Man – Indifference is a power – Stoicism 101

What is Stoicism and How Can it Turn your Life to Solid Gold?

Stoic Quotes on Control – The Absolute Man

Gregory Paul Palmer

address for assembly info

Gregory Paul Palmer

PEACEFUL ASSEBLY IN PUBLIC ON PUBLIC AREAS NOT BLOCKING ROADS AND PATHWAYS IS THE AMERICAN WAY TO DISAGREE WITH CROOKED EVIL LYING CRIMINAL GOVERNEMENT OFFICIALS

WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS US CITIZENS TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE QUIETLY AND NOT TRESPASS NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO ANY ROAD OR PATHWAY AND HAND OUT LEAFLETS OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION THAT CONTAINS NEWS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR TRUTHFUL ACTIONS, JUST LIKE FOX NEWS 11 AND THE BIDEN LAPTOP. BUT STILL PLEASE DONT BOTHER ANYONE HERE AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE  

WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT?

In 1968, the California Legislature enacted the California Public Records Act (CPRA) under Government Code (GC) sections 6250-6270. In its findings and declarations, mindful of the right of individuals’ privacy, the Legislature declared it was the public’s right to access information concerning the people’s business.

WHAT IS A PUBLIC RECORD?

As defined in the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6252 “public records include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”

WHO CAN MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST?

Any person can make a Public Records request.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST

Pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(A)-(C) and the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et seq., or the “CPRA”) these records are now available for public review unless a legal exemption preventing disclosure applies.

Once a Public Records Act coordinator receives a request for public records, they should make an initial determination of whether the requested records are subject to public disclosure. The CDCR must respond to the requester within 10 calendar days of receiving the request with CDCR’s determination whether it has responsive records. With written notice to the requester, this deadline may be extended by up to an additional 14 days to accommodate unusual circumstances. A list of these circumstances can be found in Government Code section 6253(c)(1)-(4). Additionally, CDCR staff should redact all exempt information with the records and then promptly send the public records to the requester. If some or all requested records are withheld from release, the responsible CDCR staff must explain why in a written response.

This is for Orange County only everything in orange!

The parasites charge even though all supplies are paid for by us US taxpayers, just another way to slow poor people down as OCSD is pure tyrants to anyone who questions their incompetence and lack of authority
Per Board resolution, copies are $0.15 per page. Bring pennies and make them count them! there is no law stating you have to count the money infront of them. count it at home, hand it to them, it is legal tender in the US,  make sure it is out of the wrappers so they have to think, count, stack, and do some work, lazy incomps hate that

To make a CPRA request to the Sheriff’s Department you may:

• Send an e-mail to: prarequests@ocsheriff.gov
• Mail a written request to: 320 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703, ATTN: CPRA
• In person, visit the Public Counter click here for directions
• Fax a request to: (714) 834-5466, ATTN: CPRA
• Telephone : (714) 834-6781 or (714) 834-4497

cited and cited

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT FORM & INSTRUCTIONS Orange County District Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions – PRA Request Click Here

OCDAPRASubmissions@da.ocgov.com

You will receive a response to your PRA within 10 days of OCDA’s receipt of your request. In some cases, additional time may be needed to procure requested documents.

i suggest avoid the PURE SCUM LIARS AND TRAMPLERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY OCSD OCDA OFFICE JUST GO HERE

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

PUBLIC RECORDS