malicious DA Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/malicious-da/ Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social & Legal Free Speech News | Ⓒ2024 Good News Media LLC | Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming Sun, 08 Jan 2023 11:36:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Good-Shepherd-News-Logo-150x150.png malicious DA Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/malicious-da/ 32 32 Policy 814: Discovery Requests – Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department https://goodshepherdmedia.net/policy-814-discovery-requests-orange-county-sheriff-coroner-department/ Thu, 29 Dec 2022 21:53:08 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=7556 Policy 814: Discovery Requests – Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department

Policy 814 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department

Orange County SD Policy Manual

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/02/26, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department
Discovery Requests – 1

814.1 INTRODUCTION

Legal discovery is the investigative phase of the pre-trial process that allows opposing parties to obtain information to help them build their claims or defenses. Discovery often involves an order for “document production,” broadly defined as a request for records in paper or electronic formats. The United States Supreme Court has long held that evidence, which can possibly assist in the defense of an individual accused of a crime, must be disclosed to the attorney representing that individual. Failure to provide that information can result in the overturning of a conviction and for extreme violations of the rule, prosecution of violators of that rule. The duty to make disclosure rests primarily with the prosecuting attorneys, but the Supreme Court has also held that information known to law enforcement agencies but never disclosed by those agencies to the district attorney, must nevertheless be imputed to the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland (1963), Giglio v. United States (1972), and Penal Code section 1054.5(b).

814.2 DUTIES OF PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY

Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) personnel charged with responding to discovery requests from the District Attorney’s (DA) Office shall document and disclose all records that are requested, including potentially exculpatory information and witness credibility information, to the DA’s office within 15 days. The only exceptions to this disclosure are personnel records. A Pitchess motion is required for sworn Member’s personnel records unless the personnel records are subject to disclosure under Penal Code section 832.7(b) (see Policy 805). A subpoena is required for professional staff Member’s personnel records. County Counsel shall be consulted prior to the release of any personnel records pursuant to a Pitchess motion or subpoena. It is the role and responsibility of prosecutors and not OCSD personnel to reach conclusions regarding what shall be disclosed to a criminal defendant in the discovery process. However, OCSD personnel shall not, by either action or inaction, withhold material related to a case from a prosecutor responsible for that case.

814.3 USE OF DISCOVERY TRACKER APPLICATION

All discovery requests received from the DA’s office, in any format, must be processed using the Discovery Tracker application, located on OCSD’s Intranet, under Services. There are no exceptions.

you can download PDF section here cited

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below: 

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 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 FormRelease of Case Information – Click Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below 

Abuse & Neglect – The Reporters  (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting Law Click Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166 Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

 Mandated Reporter form Mandated Reporter FORM 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 files taken from

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

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

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

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

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

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

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

We also have the Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

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

 Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the  Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the 9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

We also have the California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

We also have a SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights

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

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

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case 

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Orange County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports, and all other available known requests for data below: 

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 FormRelease of Case Information – Click Here

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

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

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

 Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here

At issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain) Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction – SCOTUS RULINGS on Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct

 

 

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

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.

 

]]> Major ACLU report highlights injustices in the O.C. District Attorney’s office https://goodshepherdmedia.net/major-aclu-report-highlights-injustices-in-the-o-c-district-attorneys-office/ Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:54:50 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=8473 Major ACLU report highlights injustices in the O.C. District Attorney’s office

HUNTINGTON BEACH – Yesterday, the ACLU of Southern and Northern California published a comprehensive report titled “IN(JUSTICE) in ORANGE COUNTY: A Case for Change and Accountability.” The report studied the practices of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office finding a complete lack of transparency, severe racial disparities, absent police accountability, and the continued prioritization of low-level charges. A summary of the report can be found here.

“Transparency, equity, and accountability are integral to a functioning criminal justice system; their absence in Orange County under current District Attorney Todd Spitzer is frightening and detrimental to public safety,” said former Marine Judge Advocate Pete Hardin. “This report makes it clear that Todd Spitzer’s policies are making our communities less safe and exacerbating homelessness, all while failing to protect our most vulnerable communities from prejudice and injustice.”

“At a time when homicides have reached a 22-year high, hate crimes are skyrocketing, and other violent crimes are up double digits, DA Spitzer continues to prioritize low-level offenses that increase recidivism and lead to stark racial disparities. The racial disparities are especially concerning considering Spitzer’s record of racism including making unsolicited, derogatory comments about Black people when discussing high-profile cases with colleagues. Spitzer’s racism undermines public trust in our criminal justice system which reduces the likelihood that crimes will be reported to law enforcement. That presents a danger to us all.”

While Todd Spitzer ran on ending the “win-at-all-costs mentality” and ensuring the fair administration of justice, the ACLU report further found that, “All available evidence suggests that the office’s policies and practices have not shifted substantially under the current OCDA.” Furthermore, in contradiction to his campaign promises to clean up the practices that led to the informant scandal, DA Spitzer’s recent “cover up” of his racist remarks showcase his inability to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Current Orange County District Attorney Republican Todd Spitzer’s tenure has been defined by scandal. Most recently, Spitzer made racist remarks when discussing whether or not to seek the death penalty against a Black man. Four women in Spitzer’s office have filed claims asserting Spitzer promoted an employee and close friend despite having been made aware of the sexual harassment complaints against him. Spitzer later allowed the employee, who was the best man at his wedding, to retire with top flight benefits. Spitzer also attempted to drop sexual assault charges against high-profile defendants, leading a judge to remove him from the case. Survivors of the sexual assault survivors were “dragged through the mud” and “grossly mistreated” by Spitzer for two and a half years, leading two of them to abandon their case. source

Justice Department Finds Civil Rights Violations by OCDA and Sheriff’s Department – Click Here to learn more

 

]]>