By David L. Hudson Jr.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs alleging federal civil claims—in this case, violation of First Amendment expressive rights— for retaliatory prosecution must prove the absence of probable cause for the retaliation as an essential element of their claims.

Moore criticized postal service for not using his new technology

The case involved William G. Moore Jr., the chief executive officer of a company that offered multiple optical character readers that would enable the U.S. Postal Service to read and sort mail much quicker than with its standard single-line scanning machines. Moore had lobbied Congress, testified before committees, and engaged in other First Amendment–protected activity that criticized the postal service for not using the new technology.

Postal Service investigated Moore for criminal charges

The U.S. Postal Service eventually employed this new technology but entered into a contract with one of Moore’s competitors. Postal inspectors then investigated Moore to determine whether he had participated in a kickback scheme with a postal service governor. The postal inspectors urged that criminal charges be brought against Moore and his company, but after a six-week trial, a federal district court dismissed the charges, finding a “complete lack of direct evidence” linking Moore to criminal wrongdoing.

Moore claimed investigation was retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights

Moore then filed a federal civil claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971), alleging retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. He claimed that the prosecutor and postal inspectors had engineered the investigation because he had publicly criticized the U.S. Postal Service. A federal court granted the prosecutor immunity, but the claims against the postal inspectors continued. The inspectors contended that the claims against them must fail because Moore must prove a lack of probable cause. Moore countered that he need only show that a substantial factor in the decision to bring the unfounded criminal charges was retaliation for his protected activities.

Court said Moore had to show lack of probable cause for the investigation

By a 5-2 vote (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A.Alito Jr. did not participate), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff alleging retaliatory prosecution under Bivens or under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 must show a lack of probable cause. Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter explained, “Because showing an absence of probable cause will have high probative force, and can be made mandatory with little or no added cost,it makes sense to require such a showing as an element of a plaintiff’s case, and we hold that it must be pleaded and proven.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, dissented, noting that the record in the case showed that the postal inspectors engaged in “unusual prodding” of the prosecutor to institute criminal charges against Moore. Ginsburg reasoned that requiring a lack of probable cause will deter “only entirely baseless prosecutions” and allow “retaliators” to pursue many claims that should not be brought. She agreed with the federal appeals court standard that allows retaliatory prosecution claims where the plaintiff shows “strong motive evidence combine(d) with weak probable cause” and that the claim would not have been brought but for the retaliatory animus.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics.  He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018).  He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.​

cited https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/847/hartman-v-moore

Learn more about these sujects

• Malicious Prosecution
• Prosecutional Misconduct
• Vindictive Prosecution
• Retaliatory Prosecution
• Abuse of Process

Selected Issues in Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University

VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

What is Abuse of Process?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution?

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution

SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

National District Attorneys Association – National Prosecution Standards – NDDA

What Happens If Charges Are Dropped Before Trial?

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution 

Reichle v. Howards (2012) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –1st Amendment

People v. Superior Court (Greer) 5th & 8th Amendment – Bias / Malicious Persecutor

Hartman v. Moore (2006) –Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

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.

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16)  2023 – 2024 – Release of Records – Police officers

On September 2, 2021, the California Senate approved Senate Bill 16 (“SB 16”). Now on Governor Newsom’s desk, SB 16 reflects further efforts to increase transparency in law enforcement. In 2018, Governor Brown signed into effect legislation that significantly changed the confidential status of peace officer personnel files. SB 16 aims to expand on that change, making additional peace officer records admissible in court and accessible to the public as well as making it mandatory for agencies to review a lateral peace officer’s personnel file prior to employing that officer.

Admissibility of Peace Officer Personnel Files

Evidence Code section 1045 currently allows for relevant records of complaints, investigations of complaints, or discipline imposed related to an event in which the peace officer participated in or perceived to be admitted in court, with some exceptions. The court is required to exclude information related to complaints regarding conduct that occurred more than five years before the event that is the subject of the litigation.

SB 16 would amend Evidence Code section 1045 to remove the five year limit, allowing parties to introduce information related to complaints about conduct at any time, provided the court finds such information relevant to the matter at hand.

Accessibility of Peace Officer Personnel Files

In 2018, Governor Brown signed into effect sweeping changes to public access to peace officer personnel files. SB 16 would expand the categories of records accessible to the public pursuant to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to include records related to the following:

• Sustained findings involving complaints of unreasonable or excessive force
• Sustained findings that a peace officer failed to intervene against another officer using clearly unreasonable or excessive force
• Sustained findings of conduct involving prejudice or discrimination based on a protected classification (e.g. race, age, sex)
• Sustained findings of unlawful arrest or unlawful search

SB 16 would further expand the scope of accessible records by increasing the required record retention period from five to fifteen years where misconduct is sustained, and require the release of records for peace officers who resigned prior to the close of the investigation into their conduct.

SB 16 would also amend Penal Code section 832.7 to require law enforcement agencies to release records pursuant to a CPRA request within forty-five (45) days of the request, except as authorized by the section. Currently, there is no time limit to provide responsive records.

Law Enforcement Agency Review of Records

SB 16 would amend Penal Code section 832.12 making it mandatory for a law enforcement agency to request and review any record of investigation from a previous employing agency involving the lateral officer prior to employing that peace officer.

Conclusion

SB 16 reflects a further push to increase transparency in law enforcement, buoyed by the events that took place in the summer of 2020. Should SB 16 be signed into effect, law enforcement agencies must ensure their record retention policies and procedure for responding to CPRA requests comport with redefined scope of accessible records. Our office will continue to monitor SB 16 and provide updates on the status of the bill.

source

New Law Expands Public Access to Police Misconduct Records

SB 16 Signed Into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on September 30

California’s governor signed a package of public safety measures today, including SB 16, which clarifies and expands on the law requiring the disclosure of police records. The new law provides agencies with more specific guidance on how and when to disclose police personnel records.

The procedural changes to the law—like timing for disclosure and mandating certain retention periods—go into effect in 2022. More substantive changes—including expanding the scope of disclosures required by adding four new categories of records for release—will not be implemented until 2023. This delayed enactment gives local agencies a year to prepare for the disclosure of the backlog of police records that will surely be requested in light of this new law. A flurry of litigation may also ensue and disputes over the law’s application will garner substantial public interest.

As discussed in detail here, SB 16 will require disclosure when there is:

• a sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force;
• a sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive;
• a sustained finding made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings and gestures involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; or
• a sustained finding made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

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

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?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

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

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

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)

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

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

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

 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

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

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

Police BodyCam Footage Release

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.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Download Here this Recommended Citation

A Good Man Down; Hero Police officer killed early today in crash on 405 Freeway

Officer Chad Swans on 35 years old, a HERO of 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, just killed in crash on 405 Freeway

Deadly 405 Freeway crash in Carson under investigation

CARSON, Calif. – A Manhattan Beach Police Department motorcycle officer was killed Wednesday in a crash on the 405 Freeway in Carson.

The crash was reported about 5:15 a.m. at Del Amo Boulevard, according to the California Highway Patrol.

A preliminary investigation revealed a speeding vehicle made an unsafe lane change and collided with another vehicle. That second vehicle then collided into the motorcycle officer, identified as 35-year-old Officer Chad Swanson, who was ejected from his motor, authorities said.

Swanson, a motor officer with the Manhattan Beach Police Department for the last 13 years, was taken to the hospital where he died from his injuries.

During a press conference, Lieutenant Kelly Benjamin said Swanson “loved riding his motor, but most importantly Chad loved his wife and three boys.”

“He had an infectious smile and was positive. He was a joy to work with, she added.

She noted that Swanson was in the crowd at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas when a gunman opened fire on the crowd from a nearby hotel. Benjamin said Swanson helped get people and shooting victims out of the area.

“The entire Manhattan Beach community is mourning the loss of an officer who dedicated his career to ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents,” Manhattan Beach Mayor Richard Montgomery said in a statement.

“His fearless contributions to our community and beyond were marked by bravery, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to duty,” Montgomery said.

Swanson is survived by his wife, three boys, mother, and father.

One other person involved in the crash was hospitalized with minor injuries.

At this time all traffic is being diverted off at Avalon. Authorities said the freeway will be closed until at least noon as the investigation continues. source

Police officer killed in crash on 405 Freeway

A Manhattan Beach Police Department motorcycle officer was killed today in a multi-vehicle crash on the northbound 405 Freeway in the Carson area.

The crash was reported at about 5:15 a.m. at Del Amo Boulevard, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Information was not immediately available on the identity of the officer, who died at a hospital, the CHP reported.

All northbound lanes were closed in the area while an investigation was conducted into the circumstances of the crash, and traffic was backed up for miles.

According to the CHP’s preliminary investigation:

• The crash that fatally injured the officer, who was believed to have been on duty, involved three other vehicles.

• One of those vehicles, which may have been speeding, made a lane change, hitting another vehicle that went out of control.

• The officer was knocked off the motorcycle by one of the vehicles.

• Another person was transported from the scene for treatment of minor injuries.

The other motorists remained at the scene and cooperated with investigators, the CHP reported. source

‘Chaos, pure chaos:’ 23 shot at Willowbrook Juneteenth party

WILLOWBROOK, Ill. (AP) – At least 23 people were shot, one fatally, early Sunday during a gathering in a suburban Chicago parking lot that drew hundreds of people to celebrate Juneteenth, authorities said.

TV news video showed the strip mall lot in Willowbrook filled with debris and police tape, about 20 miles (32.1 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. The DuPage County Sheriff’s Office described it as a “peaceful gathering” to celebrate Juneteenth that suddenly turned violent as a number of people fired multiple shots into the crowd.

We know of 22 victims injured and one victim killed by gunfire. Several other victims were also injured while attempting to flee the area,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement. Authorities didn’t immediately release the conditions of those injured.

A motive for the attack wasn’t immediately known, and no one was arrested by early afternoon. Sheriff’s spokesman Robert Carroll said authorities were interviewing “persons of interest” in the shooting, the Daily Herald reported.

Police were at the strip mall before the shooting to monitor the gathering, but were called away because of a nearby fight, the sheriff’s office said. “They heard gunshots and immediately returned to the scene,” the sheriff’s office said.

“We transported numerous victims from the scene. Others just walked into area hospitals,” said Eric Swanson, deputy chief at the sheriff’s office.

Rick Wagner, who lives nearby, said there were at least 300 people in the lot by 10:30 p.m. “We’ve had multiple conversations with police” about large groups meeting there, Wagner told the Daily Herald.

A witness, Markeshia Avery, said it was a Juneteenth celebration. Monday is the federal holiday commemorating the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, learned they had been freed — two years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

“We just started hearing shooting, so we dropped down until they stopped,” Avery told WLS-TV.

Another witness, Craig Lotcie, said: “Everybody ran, and it was chaos.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said in a statement that he was monitoring the investigation.

“Gathering for a holiday gathering should be a joyful occasion, not a time where gunfire erupts and families are forced to run for safety,” Pritzker said.

The White House released a statement Sunday afternoon, saying that the “President and First Lady are thinking of those killed and injured in the shooting in Illinois last night. We have reached out to offer assistance to state and local leaders in the wake of this tragedy at a community Juneteenth celebration.” source

---

At least 23 people were injured, one fatally, when gunfire erupted early Sunday at a Juneteenth celebration in suburban Chicago, authorities said.

The shooting unfolded about 12:30 a.m. in the parking lot of a strip mall in Willowbrook, about 23 miles west of Chicago, according to the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office.

The gunfire erupted during a large gathering of several hundred people to commemorate Juneteenth, Battalion Chief Joe Ostrander with the Tri-State Fire Protection District told ABC Chicago station WLS-TV.

Victims were taken to multiple area hospital with gunshot wounds, according to the sheriff’s office. One person was pronounced dead and at least two were in critical condition, Deputy Chief Eric Swanson of the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office said at a news conference.

No arrests have been announced.

A motive for the shooting is under investigation.

Sheriff’s deputies had been monitoring the annual Juneteenth celebration when they responded to a 911 call of a fight breaking out nearby, the sheriff’s department said. While deputies were investigating the report of the fight, they heard gunshots and immediately returned to the Juneteenth celebration, authorities said.

“An unknown number of suspects fired multiple rounds from multiple weapons into the crowd,” police said in a statement.

In addition to those shot, several victims were treated at area hospitals for injuries they suffered attempting to flee the area, according to the sheriff’s office.

Detectives were combing through security video and witness cellphone video Sunday afternoon in hopes of identifying suspects, authorities said.

Witnesses described a scene of panic with people scattering in all directions, seeking cover from the barrage of gunfire.

“It was supposed to be like a Juneteenth celebration; we just started hearing shooting, so we dropped down until they stopped. They just kept going. After that, we literally scattered away,” witness Markeshia Avery told WLS-TV. source

---

‘Chaos, pure chaos:’ 23 shot at Willowbrook Juneteenth party

One person was killed in the shooting at a holiday gathering in a parking lot in an unincorporated area outside the southwest suburb, officials said. No one is in custody.

David Struett/Sun-Times

A Juneteenth weekend gathering in a Willowbrook strip mall parking lot was becoming a yearly tradition among residents of the Hinsdale Lake Terrace apartments.

Barbecue chicken, a card table, plastic cups for drinking. Even DuPage County sheriff’s deputies stopped by the festivities as the party moved into the early hours of Sunday morning.

But the gathering turned violent as gunfire broke out in the crowd of several hundred people, killing one person and wounding 22 others, according to the sheriff’s office.

In a matter of seconds, shots flew across the parking lot near Route 83 and Honeysuckle Rose Lane.

“It was chaotic. Chaos, pure chaos,” said Nayetta Reed, 43, who was in the crowd but was unhurt.

Sheriff’s deputies in the area heard the gunfire just before 12:30 a.m. and responded, the sheriff’s office said.

The wounds ranged from grazes to serious injuries, Joe Ostrander, battalion chief of the Tri-State Fire Protection District, told reporters earlier in the day. He said two people were in critical condition.

Some of the victims were taken to hospitals in DuPage, Will and Cook counties, authorities said. Several got to hospitals on their own.

It was unclear what prompted the shooting or how many people were being sought. No one was in custody. Authorities did not disclose the age or conditions of the victims.

Before the shooting, there were two separate fights between teenage girls, Reed said. Sheriff’s deputies had intervened as well, witnesses told the Sun-Times. But Reed and other witnesses believed the shooting was unrelated to the previous fights.

David Struett/Sun-Times

Several witnesses told the Sun-Times the gunfire came from the far south side of the lot, away from where people were gathering in front of BCD Liquors and Five Star Pantry.

Reed said she heard at least 100 shots in 10 or 15 seconds.

Residents of the nearby apartment complex had held similar Juneteenth parties in the same lot over the last two years, Reed said. It had always been peaceful, she said.

This year, though, the crowd size had become “excessive,” Reed said, estimating that there were between 200 and 300 people.

“Since Juneteenth has come about, we’ve been celebrating. And usually the sheriffs are out here with us. It’s very controlled, it’s peaceful,” Reed said. “I don’t know what happened. I really don’t know what happened last night. It just went left.

“We’ll probably never do another one,” she said.

Later Sunday morning, residents of the apartments looked over police tape as investigators placed dozens of evidence markers throughout the parking lot strewn with cups, shoes and a turned-over trash can.

Witnesses said they think the number of people shot is higher than officially reported. Some people with minor wounds have avoided going to the hospital, Reed said.

One man Sunday said he was shot in his lower leg and had gone to a hospital but left after waiting several hours to be seen by a doctor. He asked not to be named.

David Barnes, 25, said he ran from the crowd when the shooting started. The lot was filled with parked cars.

He said he noticed a lot of new people in the celebration, which had typically been attended by longtime residents of the nearby apartments.

“That’s how it had been. Everybody knew each other. That’s how it should’ve been,” he said. The party had started around 4 p.m., with grilling, Barnes said.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker said he was closely monitoring the investigation into the shooting.

“Gathering for a holiday celebration should be a joyful occasion, not a time where gunfire erupts and families are forced to run for safety,” Pritzker said in a statement. He said gun violence is a public health emergency and that he remained committed to banning “dangerous weapons.”

U.S. Rep. Sean Casten said he was heartbroken by the shooting.

“We live in a tragic reality where you cannot go to school, go to the grocery store, go to your place of worship, or celebrate holidays like the Fourth of July or Juneteenth without fear of being shot,” Casten said in a statement.

Sunday’s shooting is among at least 310 mass shootings in the U.S. this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

Almost a year ago, a mass shooting in north suburban Highland Park killed seven people and wounded nearly 50 others.

Police asked anyone with information about what happened to call (630) 407-2400.

source

---

Juneteenth holiday horror: Four people are shot dead and at least 42 others injured so far this weekend as gun violence erupts across the nation – from Illinois to Missouri

• At least 20 people were shot, one fatally, during a Juneteenth celebration early Sunday morning in Willowbrook, Illinois
• The gunfire erupted during an illegal street takeover attended by at least 300 people overnight outside of the Willowbrook shopping center  
• At least five people were killed and dozens injured in several other shootings across the country during the holiday weekend

  Five people were killed and at least 42 were injured in multiple shootings as violence erupted across the country over the holiday weekend.

  A shooting at a Juneteenth celebration in a suburban Illinois town left one person dead after at least 20 people were shot outside a shopping center overnight.

  It happened around 12:30 a.m. on Route 83 near Honeysuckle Lane in Willowbrook, Illinois, Battalion Chief Joe Ostrander with the Tri-State Fire Protection District told us.

Witnesses said the massive crowd of more than 300 people had gathered for a Juneteenth celebration that turned violent.

In an update later on Sunday morning, the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office said at least 20 people had been shot, one fatally. At least one person is in critical condition, while the others suffered ‘graze wounds.’

‘It was supposed to be like a Juneteenth celebration; we just started hearing shooting, so we dropped down until they stopped,’ witness Markeshia Avery said. ‘They just kept going. After that, we literally scattered away.’

Emergency services responded to the shooting outside the Willowbrook shopping center in Illinois after gunfire erupted during an illegal street takeover attended by at least 300 people overnight.

A massive police presence remained on the scene at 5:30 a.m. and are investigating. No arrests have been made and no further information has been released.

The sheriff’s office has asked that anyone with information call 630-407-2400.

The shooting in Illinois was just one of several overnight acts of violence on this holiday weekend just ahead of Father’s Day and Juneteenth on Monday.

One minor was killed after at least 10 people under the age of 18 were shot in St. Louis, Missouri early Sunday morning.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said the shooting happened in the area of Washington Avenue and 14th Street around 1:45 a.m., KMOV-TV reported.

Witnesses told the KMOV that the shooting took place inside a building.

One of the teens was pronounced dead at the scene. The names of the victims and the conditions of those wounded in the shooting were not immediately available.

Two dead, three injured in shooting near Washington state music festival; suspected gunman arrested

Two people were killed and three were injured in a shooting near a Washington state campground area hosting people attending a nearby music festival Saturday night, police said.

The Grant Count Sheriff’s Office received a report of a shooting shortly before 8:30 p.m. at the camping area near the small city of George, 149 miles east of Seattle. Officers pursued the suspect, who was then taken into custody.

The names and conditions of the victims were not immediately available.

Organizers of the Beyond Wonderland electronic music festival said on social media that Sunday’s events at the Gorge Amphitheatre were canceled.

The shooting occurred on the campgrounds adjacent to the concert stages, the sheriff’s office said. Concert organizers described the location as an ‘overflow camping area.’

KREM-TV reported the shooter was among the three injured. That was according to Kyle Foreman, public information officer with the Grant County Sheriff’s Office.

A state trooper and a suspect were killed Saturday afternoon in a shootout in central Pennsylvania, hours after the suspect seriously wounded another trooper, state police said.

Police in Juniata County said a man engaged troopers at about 12:45 p.m. near the Lewistown barracks and shot one trooper, who was taken to a hospital with serious injuries. Authorities found the man shortly before 3 p.m. in Walker Township.

The name of the trooper and the suspect who died and the name and condition of the wounded trooper were not immediately available.

Officials said Saturday evening there was no threat to the public.

Eight wounded in shooting during pool party at California home 

Eight people were injured in a shooting that unfolded during a pool part at a Southern California home on Saturday.

Police responded to the scene in Carson, south of Los Angeles shortly after midnight to find the victims ranging in ages from 16 to 24.

Five were found at the home with injuries to the head, back and upper and lower body areas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement.

The victims were taken to hospitals, and two were listed in critical condition.

Authorities said they received a call two minutes later after a vehicle crashed into a wall nearby. They found a 16-year-old boy suffering from a gunshot wound, the statement said. More than a dozen detectives are investigating, authorities said. source

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Officer NOT entitled to qualified immunity Warrant issued by biased police without probable cause, the need for a neutral magistrate to issue a warrant based on actual probable cause.

Opinion Summary

“The arrogance is disgusting”: Federal Way police officer Breanna Straus suspended for viral TikTok, internet left unconvinced

TikTok user and police officer Breanna Straus has left netizens disappointed in the police after speaking about her privileges.

In a video, Strauss was seen reminding viewers that she can speed without getting in trouble. She also said that officers can “find a reason” to pull drivers over if they stay in front of them long enough.

The video has led to a lengthy debate about police officers’ entitlement with people taking to Twitter to call her out. One Twitter user even said, “The arrogance is disgusting,” a sentiment that was echoed by a lot of other users.

~Pro Choice Bekka~

@LookItzBeka

@Imposter_Edits The arrogance is disgusting. What a way to encourage faith in law enforcement. Sad.

169

5

Breanna Straus works with the Federal Way Police Department in Washington State. In the now viral video, she told viewers that the police are above and beyond the law and do not have the same rules as the citizens. This has led netizens to believe that Straus was abusing her power after she became an authoritarian figure.

The video, which has garnered massive traction on social media, has since been deleted from Breanna Straus’ profile. However, netizens were quick to screen record the video. One of these people was Reddit user u/Jaamac2025, who circulated it across social media platforms.

The video found its way to Twitter as well, where it amassed over 3.5 million views and more than 52.7k likes. The tweet read:

“I mean she just said it, the laws don’t apply to them, and they will “find a reason” to pull you over id they want to.”

Breanna Straus said in the video:

“If we’re driving on the freeway in our police car, get the f**k out of our way. Get the f**k out of the way. If you merge and we follow behind you and we merge too, you’re probably in trouble. Best way to find that out is to get the f**k out of the way. I can go 90 miles an hour, you can’t. You can’t do that. So get the f**k out of the way. If us officers stay behind you long enough we can find a reason to pull you over so you might as well get the f**k out of the way.”

_Imposter_

@Imposter_Edits

I mean she just said it, the laws don’t apply to them, and they will “find a reason” to pull you over if they want to.

52975

10671

Netizens react to Breanna Straus’ TikTok video

As mentioned earlier, netizens were not pleased to hear the officer’s “PSA” and many were disgusted by her tone and autarchic demeanor. Several internet reasons stated that her behavior of looking “untouchable” was a reason why they did not believe in the police system.

Additionally, when people learnt of Straus’ suspension of only 10 hours, they were left furious. Many called for the officer to be fired instead of being suspended for such a short duration of time.

What happened to Breanna Straus?

The infamous officer was sworn into the force in August 9, 2021. The Federal Way Police Department conducted an investigation into the video and looked into possible violations of standards. They also looked into the officer’s previous disciplinary issues.

Cmdr. Kurt Schwan from Federal Way told Seattle Weekly that the police officer did not have previous disciplinary issues. They went on to determine that Straus broke the department’s Code of Conduct when it came to their social media and personal conduct.

OBESE GLUTTON LYING SWORN OFFICER OF THE LAW WHO FAILS TO ARREST WANTED FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDERS AT YOUR SONS HOUSE AGAINST COURT ORDERS

HE COMMITS PERJURY, DELAYS & HIDES BODYCAM FOOTAGE, HE FAILES TO ARREST WHICH MEANS HE HIMSELF IS A CRIMINAL GUILTY OF PC 142 FAILURE TO ARREST AND HIS BODYCAM FOOTAGE HE FAILS TO TURN OVER PROVES THAT HIS NAME IS FAT PIG BRYAN HUNTELMAN (Brian huntleman) LHPD Scum

YOU ARE NOW A FELON THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROSECUTED YET FAT BOY LOSER. THIS FUCK WAD HAS ALSO A MILLION DOLLAR HOME AND A FILING FOR BANKRUPCY 

YOU DO THE MATH. ANOTHER DUMB FUCKING ABUSIVE PIG, NOT A COP, COPS ARE GOOD THEY STAND FOR GOOD, OFFICER HUNTELMAN IS A PIG FUCK A FAT BROKE LYING PIG FUCK WHO PROTECTS SEX OFFENDERS AND WANTED FUGITIVES 

HE LOOKS LIKE  A WEAK FAT TROLL

La Habra Police Offcer Bryan Huntelman A Criminal Hiding and Polluting the image of LHPD Officers and the OCDA office

The habra Police Department is willing to ruin their image to hide his bodycam footage. the footage is of his criminal activity part 1

La Habra Police Offcer Bryan Huntelman A Criminal at Large

Bryan Huntelman a criminal cop which is what a pig is. A pig is a filthy creature that is not to be eaten or touched, it plays in its own shit!

Offcer Bryan Huntelman is a dirty cop —— Cops doings crimes = Pig rolling in Shit

Numbers 32:23 KJV

But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.

Bryan Huntelman a criminal cop Who Abuse’s his Sworn Oath, The Law, and Constitutional Rights of Citizens and fails to pay debts too hes filed for bankruptcy so he does not keep his word as man of debt (debtor) the MONEY MEN (creditors)

 

DIRTY Officer acting at all PIG Huntleman aka CUNTLEMAN Lying Cocksucker Beta Bitch Male (cops do not lie they protect and serve citizens [their employers])

Officer Huntleman is so dumb he included his wife in his shenanigans 

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” 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 Officers Filing False Reports

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

Officer Huntleman committed PC 142 for failing to arrest

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 632 PC – Eavesdropping Law in California

wait for the audit LHPD stay cool LEARN THE US CONSTITUION or you will be sued and lose your job like Officer Bryan Huntelman
dont worry WALMART IS ALWAYS HIRING SHELF BOYS

this is coming to LHPD SOON SCORES OF PEOPLE ALL AT ONCE TO AUDIT YOU!

WE WILL WALK INTO YOUR LHPD LOT AND VIDEO TAPE ALL  YOUR CARS EVEN THE VISIBLE UNDERCOVERS, WE WILL VIDEO TAPE ALL STAFF CARS AND LICENSE PLATES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO THE TAX PAYER,
WE MIGHT EVEN TIE OUR SHOES ON  THE COP  CAR BUMPERS, ITS OUR CARS AS WELL AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL! SHOE HOLDERS EXPENSIVE SHOE HOLDERS

Officer Bryan Huntelman is a dishonest man who lies on police reports and literally imagines fake shit, puts it down as fact. i recorded Officer Bryan Huntelman lies. Officer Bryan Huntelman is a mentally ill dellusional man or a normal liar cock sucker you chose.Officer Bryan Huntelman is broke as a joke with a disaster for a house, and has filed for bankruptcy so we do know for a fact he is incompetent with his financials. Officer Bryan Huntelman  is DUMB WITH MONEY , MEANS DUMB, FLAT OUT DUMB! Officer Bryan Huntelman is 100% unfamiliar with the truth so he must be retarded and a shit back cocksucker. wait till the recordings speak the truth correctly and put you in your place for framing me you cocksucker. felony for lying on a police report multiple times

but you Officer Bryan Huntelman are gonna own up to this with our recordings shit bag!

“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.)”

 § 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution

Officer Bryan Huntelman – La Habra Police Department

LHPD – California – PEACEFUL ASSEBLY COMING SOON!

WHAT TO KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS ? CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE LYING FUCK (BTW YOU CAUGHT)

THE PHOTO IS CLICK BAIT, COULD NOT FIND THIS SCUM BAG ON ANY OF LHPD COP POSTS,
LOOKS LIKE HE HAS NEVER BE SOCIAL OR HAVE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER COP FRIENDS THAT WANT TO BE SEEN WITH HIM.
HE IS INVISIBLE PHOTO WISE.
NOT EVEN ANOTHER COP WANTS TO BE NEXT TO THIS LYING PIG FUCK
MAYBE THERE ARE A FEW GOOD COPS LEFT THERE AT LHPD (WE WILL FIND OUT:) , GOOD COPS AND PIGS ARE LIKE OIL AND WATER THEY DO NOT MIX

THEY GIVE LYING DUMB STOOGES like Officer Bryan Huntelman GUNS NOW A DAYS, LAME PIG LIYING SETUP ARTIST, WAIT TILL YOU GET CAUGHT IN THE WEB

THIS COP, Officer Bryan Huntelman , IS ALSO BANKRUPT, HE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY 2020 COULD NOT DO MATH OR FINANCE CORRECTLY EITHER
BUT LYING IS SECOND NATURE. Remember his is a PIG so he has a set income, he cannot control make less than the set amount.  No skill or work ethic required, and with that set number and the possibility of tons of overtime he still could not get his math right. Now if he had a brain (BRAINLESS BRYAN [BORN EMPTY HEADED]) Officer Bryan Huntelman WOULD HAVE ARRANGED HIS FINANCES AROUND THE SET NUMBER AS HIS MAX SPENDING AFTER TAXES. BUT… HE IS A CLASS AAA LYING MORON LOSER WHO FEARS THE 1ST AMENDMENT AND MATH. DOES YOU WIFE KNOW YOU ARE THIS DUMB OR IS SHE YOUR EQUAL?

Bryan C Huntelman is an evil master manipulator –

meet and confer information below

Bryan C Huntelman

He lives here, maybe the local community should get together and let officer Bryan C Huntelman he should to resign and turn himself in for his criminal activities and negligence. We are going to be having a peaceful assembly soon, please email us to participate in your 1st amendment rights against tyrannical government. We are going to be holding a peaceful assembly in front of his home address to protest his illegal behavior and hand out leaflets and flyers. 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 THIS IS HOW A COP LIVES

PEACEFUL PROTEST INVOLVES BEING KIND HOLDING YOUR SIGN OR LEAFLETS AND GETTING YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. YOU CANNOT BLOCK SIDEWALK, SHE IS NOT BELOW. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BLOCK OTHERS MOVEMENT. SO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S WAY OF MOVEMENT AND BE CALM HOLD YOUR SIGN AND KEEP UP YOUR DOINGS !

“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.”

They even had a nice expensive run down house needing paint and lots of work, it looks like a drug addicts house.  There he is living in LA with his wifes LA Phone number and then file charges in Orange County where he actually works and NOT where the proposed event happened, and file illegally charges that he was called and annoyed and now tough old copper is victim but wait……  His phone number claimed that was called belongs to his wife whom also has a LA phone number living in LA with him not orange county. as a resident of LA  she was required to have filed charges with the local jurisdiction, which is LA.  instead her brave husband OFFICER HUNTLEMAN LA HABRA POLICE DEPARTMENT goes to work later that week (in another county as an OC POLICE OFFICER LHPD) and illegally lies to other officers in orange county above events that occurred and who the real victim was in this proposed crime.

This officer tells his work officers many false things grossly telling lies.
1. he (653 man) called me (officer) and harassed me (his wife was called on her cell)
2. he and his wife resided in LA, his wiles phone (the real person called) has an LA based number to match her LA address in LA county far from the OC county where he filed for her as himself being the victim
3. by law if your are feeling annoyed by communications you must clearly tell the other party to stop, the party must stop after
4. if you the victim (officer) call them back to speak with them then 653 does not apply when you call (653 guy) saying you want to talk
5. if your wife never told (653 guy) not to call but simply hangs up that is not clear communication to stop, this could me cell phone service failed or battery died calling back until told to stop is still legal

this man was told he was being recorded, he admits in the recording his wife was called not him he also admits never telling anyone to stop, and he is made aware of his lying reports to his work officers (LHPD) outside of the jurisdiction of where the supposed proposed crime occurred. he knows jurisdiction and what a victim is but lies about both

Sworn law enforcement officers are those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency’s jurisdiction. Sworn officers also have the responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of life of the communities they serve. The basic duties and types of sworn law enforcement officers are summarized below.

https://www.discoverpolicing.org/explore-the-field/types-of-sworn-law-enforcement/

HOME UNKEPT!   YARD UNKEPT! YET VALUED AT A MILLION, HE FELL FOR THE KEEPING UP WITH THE JONES LIFE, THE LOT IS SMALLER THAN MY HOUSE ITS BARELY 6200 sqft WHAT KIND OF MILLION DOLLAR HOME 1296SQFT??? THIS AINT BEVERLY HILLS ITS LOMITA, A CHEAP SHIT BAG LIFE OVER PAID AND WILL PAY FOR HIS LACK OF INTEGRITY AND STUPIDITY LONGER THAN HE KNOWS

THIS MAN IS GOING TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO KEEP A NICE BLOCK WHEN HE SETS THE EXAMPLE OF DISREGARDED GARBAGE

ASIDE FROM THAT HE LIES AND DOES NOT DO HIS JOB AND THEN BECOMES VENDICTIVE USES HIS POWER ILLEGALLY ABUSING IT AND FILES CHARGES AGAINST ME

THIS DUDE SO TRASH HIS WHOLE LOT IS SMALLER THAN MY HOUSE SMUCK FUCK POOR TRASH WHO BREAKS LAWS ABUSES HIS POWER FILES FAKE CHARGES AS A COP WOW GREAT SCUM HERE
VISIT HIS MILLION DOLLAR SHIT BAG HOME IN SCUM ASS LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CALL HIM TOO ITS AN LOS ANGELES NUMBER HE WONT CARE NEITHER WILL ANYONE ELES

HE IS A DIRTY PIGGY NOT A COP

COPS ARE GOOD NOBLE MEN, PROPER TEMPER, CIVIC MINDED AND ALWAYS TRUTHFUL AND UPHOLDS THE LAW, THIS DIRT BAG AINT THAT TYPE

HES THE TYPE THAT IS GOING TO WORK AT WALMART SOONER THAN HE KNOWS!

Watch a lying cop commit even more crimes as he 2x in one day commit 632PC which not only is against the law in California and the constituition

he had no right to record me not committing a crime, just because i am not committing a crime and you are engaged in conversation that you later turn in as harassment you are silly! never once in the course of any conversation did you tell me to stop calling the phone, how am i to know its annoying if you engage with me and even call me from blocked numbers many times, one of which i tell you i am recording an record you telling me you just want to talk, how you wanna talk after filing charges illegally for 653(a) ??

(by the way you turned them in as 653 against you , its your wifes number, she just handed it to you while you were in your bedroom located in LA county where you illegally 632pc eavesdropped on me to record me not committing any 653!)

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

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

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

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

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

FUCKING SHAME YOU ALLOW DANGER AND HARM TO CHILDREN

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

ALL THIS GOES AWAY WHEN YOU ALL STOP

RETRACT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, LIES, FRAMING A TAX PAYING CHRISTIAN FATHER WHO WANTS HIS KID  SAFE!

FIX THE FAKE SHIT YOU STUCK ON ME

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

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

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

REMEMBER THIS SITE WILL STAY UP UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THESE TASKS

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

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

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

THIS IS SITE IS A 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT I HAVE TO DISTRIBUTE TRUTHFUL NEWS, HANDOUT FLYERS AND LEAFLETS AND ORGANIZE A PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY!

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right​

LIKE THE VIDEO MORE HERE PIGS, COPS DONT WORRY WE LIKE COPS WE DONT LIKE PIGS, THATS ANOTHER STORY!

Police Gone Wild – Cops Bloopers Dirty Cops Bad Cops – BUSTED! Cops Owned LEARN HOW YOU TOO WILL LOSE YOUR CAREER PIG SHIT

MAYBE THIS LYING MANIPULATIVE DBAG NEEDS TO READ HIS DEPARTMENTS CODE OF CONDUCT FOR
LHPD – MISSION STATEMENT CODE OF CODUCT FOR THEIR OFFICERS  FOR YOU DBAG IS HERE

THEY NEVER RELEASE BODY CAM FOOTAGE WHICH SHOWS OFFICER HUNTLEMAN DOING THE FOLLOWING

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

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

YOU ARE WORTHLESS JEALOUS BUMBLING LYING MORONS INCAPABLE OF SURVIVAL WITHOUT A GOVERMENT JOB, TOO DUMB TO SURVIVE LIKE A CIVILLIAN 

YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE SHOULD USE CONTRACEPTIVES, THE ONLY REASON, YOU ARE NOT NEEDED, YOU LIE YOU  ARE DUMB AND CORRUPTED = USELESS!
TO SPARE THE INTELLEGENT FROM DEALING WITH YOUR INSANITY OF YOUR INCOMPETANCE AND BIAS 

YOUR PARENTS WOULD HAVE SAVED THE GOVERMENT FROM A TORT

YOU ARE GUILTY OF CAUSING LYING ABUSING YOUR POWER HARMING DISOBEYING A COURT ORDER AIDING AND ABETTING A FUGITIVE CHILD ENDANGERMENT AND HARM TOP MY CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSPIRACY TO HARM MY CIVIL RIGHTS

AND YOU ARE GUILTY ARE HARMING THE REALTIONSHIP TIME WITH MY SON. YOU HAVE HARMED THE REALTIONSHIP BETWEEN Daddy & Son  –  EACH ONE OF YOU WILL PAY $$ AND YOUR REPUTATION AND ACTIONS WILL BE FOREVER CEMENTED IN WEB HISTORY.

Daddy Son Suffer

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)

Maybe CIU should investigate SIU, LHPD, GGPD and the Head DA Todd Spitzer as he is the superior who through pecking order oversees the subordinates under his control.  DA Bradbury (subordinate noun/adjective/verb) subordination and subordinate control of my case has committed Malicious Prosecution, he is guilty too of not watching his subordinate as his elected office has duties he is clearly failing and other duties he clearly violates and does run pay to play games as well.

“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.” (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988). This ruling make DA Todd Spitzer Negligent and a conspirator 18 U.S. Code § 241 to the violation of my (42-us-code-1983-civil-action ) civil rights and is a violation of code 18 U.S. Code § 242

Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous. Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called ‘the tenderness of the law Page 11 of 48 for the rights of individuals’ [FN1] entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not ‘plainly and unmistakably’ within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S.  624, 628, 10 S. Ct. 625, 626, 33 L. Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S. Ct. 407, 61 L. Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37.

We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196 [26: 377, 386].
We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sancity of a man’s home, and the privacies of his life.
As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

“Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.”   In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

“All are presumed to know the law.”  San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107;  San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368.

“It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no one.”  Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

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.

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.”

NO IMMUNITY

“Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

[a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.

“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

“Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. “

Civil Rights Torts

Thompson v. Clark 2022 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTOR & OFFICER

Holding: Larry Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution; an affirmative indication of innocence is not needed.

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.

When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it $anction$ a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.“

Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles – 12 Cal.3d 710 – Mon, 11-04-1974 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTOR & OFFICER

Section 815.2 provides: "(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee
or his personal representative.

[8] Malicious prosecution "consists of initiating or procuring the arrest and prosecution of another under lawful process,
    but from malicious motives and without probable cause. ... [Italics in original.] The test is whether the defendant was
    actively instrumental in causing the prosecution." (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 242, pp. 2522-2523.)
    Cases dealing with actions for malicious prosecution against private persons require that the defendant has at least sought
    out the police or prosecutorial authorities and falsely reported facts to them indicating that plaintiff has committed a crime.
    (Rupp v. Summerfield (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 657, 663 [326 P.2d 912]; Centers v. Dollar Markets (1950) 99 Cal.App.2d 534, 544-545 [222 P.2d 136].)
    Similarly the suits against government employees or entities cited by the Senate Committee in commenting upon section 821.6
    all involve the government employees' acts in filing charges or swearing out affidavits of criminal activity against the plaintiff.
    fn. 9 No case has predicated a finding of malicious prosecution on the holding of a person in jail beyond his term or beyond the completion
    of all criminal proceedings against him.United States v. Wiltberger

cited https://goodshepherdmedia.net/sullivan-v-county-of-los-angeles/

Civil Rights

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley, “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) “It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.”

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)  “Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted “Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights… It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class. …And due process of law within the meaning of the (Fifth and Fourteenth) amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.”

Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885) “The rule of equality… requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances”.

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) “No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”

Olmstad v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438 “Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 “All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable.”

U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it.” “It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.”

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.“

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486 ,489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.“

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.”

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459.

“The ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U .S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.  “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”  16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).

It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used.   When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases.  We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power.  Cook vs Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

It is a fundamental principle in our institutions, indispensable to the preservation of public liberty, that one of the separate departments of government shall not usurp powers committed by the Constitution to another department.  Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 662.

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425.

“Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people’s rights are not derived from the government, but the government’s authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).

The US Constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state.   The constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind.  336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92;  Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.

“Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US, supra.

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”  Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA.

you spoiled my right to a relationship with my son by perjurious statements in court and scheming to irritate, detract and divert attention from the real problem and paint me into a problem you sir will be SUED IN A CIVIL COURT when you get SUED WITH A TORT CLAIM on your department and county because you conspired to deprive me of my rights , by depriving me of  9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent/Child Relationship

you will be held accountable I DO NOT CARE YOU ARE A COP, YOU WONT BE FOREVER YOU WILL PAY, BUT WALMART IS HIRING AFTER ALL THIS SO DONT WORRY YOU STILL HAVE A SHIT LIFE JUST AT A DIFFERENT PLACE, A PLACE THAT DOES NOT ALLOW A PERSON WITH TRUST & POWER TO CORRUPT!  YOU WILL BE A POWERLESS LOW PAID WORKER WHEN AS YOU AGE, YOU ARE A LYING CORRUPT ASS PIG YOU WILL PAY MONETARILY & REPUTATION WISE 

you harmed me, my son, his grandparents and his brother  (my other son)

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.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

MALICIOU$ PRO$ECUTOR$ = OCDA OFFICE THE WHOLE THING IS OFF

CHILD ENDANGERMENT, FAILURE TO ACT MALICIOUS  PROSECUTION AS WELL

Never helping Me or My son with a bonified Child Sex Crime of PC 288 and PC 288.2 

i still have the APPLE BACKUP OF THE DEVICE WHICH CLEARLY HAS ALL THE PHONE CALLS AND TEXTS BETWEEN ME AND MY SON ON HIS PRIMARY COMMUNICATION DEVICE THAT I ALSO FOUND HIS ADULT BROTHER DICK ALL OVER THAT WERE TAKEN IN PUBLIC PARKS. CAITLYN IS SO DUMB OF A CUNT SHE THOUGHT I WAS REPORTING THE CRIME OF DICK PICS IN A PARK! WOW DUMB CUNT YOU WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE DICK PICS ON MY SON’S PHONE THE LOCATION TAKEN DOES NOT MATTER, THAT CRIME WOULD HAVE BEEN INDECENT EXPOSURE REQUIRING A VICTIM IN THE PARK TO REPORT THAT MISDEMEANOR. I WAS NOT REPORTING THAT DUMB CUNT! I WAS REPORTING THE FACT THE PHOTOS WERE FOUND ON MY SONS PHONE, HE DOES NOT NEED TO SEE THEM WITH HIS EYES FOR THE CRIME TO HAVE BEEN COMITTED. THE MERE TAKING OF MY SONS PRIMARY COMMUNITCATION DEVICE , TAKING SAID BORROWED/STOLEN PHONE AS AN ADULT TO A PARK TO PHOTO HIS COCK AND DO THIS OVER A MULTITUDE OF TIMES, DAYS, AND LOCATIONS WOULD, MEANWHILE MY SON HAS RECEIVED THE PHONE BACK MANY TIMES WHERE HE PROCEEDS TO TEXT, CALL ME AND USE THE PHOTO APP FOR HIS POWN PHOTOS WHERE I CAN SEE HIS PHOTOS IN BETWEEN ADULT DICK PHOTOS

YOU FAILED TO PROTECT MY MINOR SON, THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED Never helping Me or My son with a bonified Child Sex Crime of PC 288 and PC 288.2 

YOU THEN BECAME A VINDICTIVE CUNT AS ALL WORTHLESS DUMB WOMEN ALWAYS DO, THEN YOU GOT SOME LOW BALL BETA MALE TO HELP YOU PUT A CASE ON ME AND YOUR CLUCK WAS BRADBURY THE BETA BITCH MALICOUS IDIOT WHO IS CAPTAIN SAVE A BLONDE DUMB CUNT HOE!

DA Caitlyn Harrington & Detective Jason Forgash  & Officer Montano & a Watch commander (all recorded by me) did this to me! She is the “dumb worthless young wet behind the ear cunt” I called her, SHE IS SO DUMB she puts it in her 653(m)  vindictive prosecution of me that she never answered my complaint of Gregory and his dick pics on my sons phone because their office is now vindictively  prosecuting me for Montano the lying pig that not only put a temporary restraining order for Marcia (baby mama) he lied and said he served me, but he did not, i never lived with Marcia. I lived at the time in Santa Clarita. Then this Dbag Montano is one of the same officers sent to investigate DICK PICS ON MY SONS PHONE, which as him  being in officer in both instances one for the mother one against the mother and no help to me is proof of bias as well. read all their reports….! Marcia ask LHPD to let her know if I call them (LHPD) to report anything at which in the report the officer in one of Marcia’s complaints has a “We told her we would notify her” wow so she gets warnings calls from LHPD when I call to report her violating the court order and allowing the sex offender in the home. Huntleman can’t even honor Judge’s stay away orders protecting my son from a wanted sex offender.  He also does not arrest sex offenders with fugitve bench warrants as he is too insubordinate and incapable of being able and apt to carry out his duty as a sworn officer of the constitution first, then federal law, the state law

424 F.2d 1021 US v.  Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. . United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.April 1970 Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct… If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”

OFFICER HUNTLEMAN WONT BE A COP LONG. HE IS A LIAR, A FRAMER, AND A CONSTITUTINOAL RIGHTS VIOLATOR. HE IS A POOR BANKRUPT CRIMINAL NOT A COP BUT A PIG WALMART IS ALWAYS HIRING BRYAN, YOU WILL BE ADDRESS BY A FIRST NAME NAMECARD AS WALMART EMPLOYEE, THEY HAVE RETIREMENT PLANS, ALBEIT NOT AS GOOD AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

WHEN THE LAST TIME YOU ROAMED THE OCEAN ON YOUR BOAT WITH YOUR KID?
WHEN THE LAST TIME YOU HAD YOUR KID DRIVE IN YOUR LAMBO?
WHEN THE LAST TIME YOUR FLEW A HELICOPTER?
AND BESIDE MONEY WHICH I TRUMP YOUR PUNK BROKE BANKRUPT ASS IN… MONEY MEANS NOTHING TO ME

MONEY IS A TOOL FOR LIVING, YOU NEED IT, I DO NOT!

GOD HAS BLESSED ME FOR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION AND PREACHING HIS WORD.
GOD WORKS ON THOSE WHO WORK FOR HIM

YOU KNONW WHY? GOD IS TAUGHT IN MY HOME FROM DAY 1

I HAVE THE RESEPCT AND LOVE OF MY SON AND NOT TO MANY FATHERS CAN SAY THAT

YOU INTERUPTED AND PARTICIPATED IN DESTRUCTION OF A FAMILY UNIT AND LETTING EVIL AROUND A CHILD MY CHILD, LAWS WERE SET IN PLACE AND YOU IGNORED BOTH THE WARRANT AND JUDGES ORDER TO NOT HAVE THE SEX OFFENDER THERE! YOU ARE A FUCK WAD AND FINISHED IN LAW, GO TO WALMART SIGNUP EARLY YOU WILL NEED PLAN B NOW!@

YOU HAVE FUCKED UP

TIME FOR GETTING A NEW CARRER AFTER YOU ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Immunity Fail – 1st & 4th Amendment

Mike Callahan – The Objectively Reasonable Officer

Jury trial required to determine liability for mass arrest, alleged excessive force and supervisory indifference

No qualified immunity for officers in ‘kettling’ case

Kate Halloran

Police officers who orchestrated an allegedly violent mass arrest of peaceful protestors and innocent bystanders in St. Louis, Mo., are not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging they violated a man’s constitutional rights, the Eighth Circuit has ruled. (Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2022).)

Baude brought claims against the city and its police department under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also stated in his complaint that many of the people in the kettle were not protesters—they were local residents, business owners, journalists, and others who were rounded up indiscriminately and herded into the kettle, where they were arrested en masse. The plaintiff also alleged that he observed officers acting indiscriminately and using force—including deploying pepper spray and kicking, beating, and dragging—against people in the kettle who were not behaving violently or aggressively.

The district court rejected the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. They filed an interlocutory appeal with the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed.

The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff met his burden to state a plausible claim that the defendants’ actions violated his clearly established constitutional rights and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. On the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim, the plaintiff alleged that the officers did not warn him or the others that they were going to be confined to an area and arrested en masse. Even though a mass arrest can be legal under the Fourth Amendment, the court explained, it requires that police “have grounds to believe all arrested persons were a part of the unit observed violating the law.” This can include innocent bystanders whom police incorrectly believe are part of the unit violating the law, but video from the incident that showed people milling about freely and moving in and out of the kettle area even after the police purportedly ordered the crowd to disperse raised questions of fact. The court noted that the video did not “show any real sense of urgency or confrontation visible in the crowd” and that the officers could not rely on the earlier actions of a small group of people whom they claimed were acting violently to justify a mass arrest.

On the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the court stated that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of his arrest—one of the two requirements of the test for qualified immunity. Thus, the plaintiff needed to prove only that the force used against him—pepper spraying him and zip tying his hands—was objectively unreasonable. Again referencing video evidence from the incident, the court concluded that it “paint[ed] a picture of a compliant individual among a generally peaceful and compliant crowd who was boxed into an intersection by police, pepper sprayed, and forcefully arrested” and that this was sufficient at the pleading stage to call into question whether the officers acted reasonably.

The court also held that the plaintiff’s claims against supervisory officers of the St. Louis police department could proceed. The court rejected the officers’ contention that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not participate in the use of force against the plaintiff and that they had no obligation to intervene in the mass arrest if they believed their subordinate officers were acting reasonably. The court explained that Eighth Circuit precedent at the time of the incident clearly established that supervisory officers who fail to intervene when they have knowledge of subordinate officers’ actions that create a “substantial risk of serious harm” can be liable for a Fourth Amendment violation. Because the plaintiff’s allegations and the video evidence raise factual questions on this issue, it is for a fact-finder to decide, the court concluded.

“When the Eighth Circuit saw the video, it ruled that it matched our allegations and that there’s no basis to give qualified immunity to these arguments,” said St. Louis attorney Javad Khazaeli, who represents Baude. “We would hope, at some point, that the city of St. Louis, after being told repeatedly by district court judges and Eighth Circuit appellate judges that what its officers did was wrong that it would finally hold somebody accountable.” Khazaeli noted that more than a dozen other cases and a class action are pending against the defendants for what happened that night.

Police “Kettling” And Keeping The Peace

Baude v. Leyshock from the Eighth Circuit has a lot of legal issues that we have discussed and a new term that we have not, which is “kettling.” First let’s start with what we have discussed before: our case today brings to question excessive use of force during a protest. As a reminder, a court evaluates the reasonableness of the force by examining the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. This case also highlights the duty to intervene and the claim from the plaintiff that supervisory officers did not do so: Officers have an affirmative duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. To hold an officer liable for failure to intervene it must be shown that the officer knew a person’s rights were being violated, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.

The one new term that we have not discussed is “kettling.” The court brings up this term and states that “kettling” may be considered excessive during protests if there is no need for it. “Kettling” (also known as containment or corralling) is a police tactic for controlling large crowds during demonstrations or protests. It involves the formation of large barricades of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area.

On September 17, 2017, between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., a “handful” of individuals protesting the acquittal of a police officer charged with murder broke windows and destroyed flowerpots on Olive Street in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. Twice before 9:00 p.m., a police officer gave dispersal orders to the small number of protestors who were present. Over the next two hours, police officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department began blocking roads and directing civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard, an area containing condominiums, apartment buildings, and businesses, including restaurants and bars.

Brian Baude, who lived near the intersection, saw reports on social media that protesters had destroyed property in the area, so he decided to investigate. He left his home around 9:30 p.m., unaware of the earlier dispersal orders. According to Baude, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Leyshock approved a plan in which St. Louis Metropolitan officers would prohibit anyone from leaving the vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard and arrest everyone present. Afterwards, officers surrounded, squeezed, and eventually blocked anyone from leaving the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard using a technique Baude described as “kettling.” When Baude saw the police herding the bystanders into a confined space, he asked to leave the intersection but was informed by officers that it was too late. In addition to Baude, those being contained by the SLMPD officers included downtown residents, business patrons, protesters, observers, and members of the press. Video evidence documented multiple citizens approaching officers and requesting permission to leave, which was denied. After Baude was herded into the intersection by SLMPD officers, he was pepper-sprayed by an officer and arrested as part of a mass arrest. Baude claimed that, during the course of his arrest and detention, his hands were zip-tied and he was transported to the City Justice Center, where he was searched and held for 14 hours. Baude was eventually released, and charges against him were dismissed.

Baude sued Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Leyshock and several other SLMPD supervisory and subordinate officers for violating his constitutional rights. First, Baude claimed that the subordinate officers unlawfully seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment by arresting him without probable cause that he had committed a crime.

Second, Baude claimed that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force when they “kettled” him, pepper-sprayed him, and zip-tied his hands.

Third, Baude claimed that supervisory officers either observed the excessive use of force by subordinate officers or intended for subordinate officers to use excessive force and subsequently did not intervene to stop it. After the district court denied the officers qualified immunity, they appealed.

Eighth Circuit Court Opinion

Concerning Baude’s unreasonable seizure claim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it was undisputed that Baude was seized when the officers indiscriminately encircled all individuals in the area, including protestors, observers, business patrons, and residents who were simply walking by, and then refused to allow anyone to leave voluntarily. Specifically, Baude alleged that the officers failed to warn him and the allegedly peaceful group that they were about to be surrounded, herded into a confined area, and arrested. Baude also alleged that, even though he was at all times peaceful, the officers denied his request to leave the area and then arrested him without probable cause.

After being seized, Baude alleged that subordinate officers relayed information about the crowd to their supervisors, who directed the subordinate officers to arrest Baude without probable cause that he had committed a criminal offense. The court noted that the subordinate officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because his claim that he was just following his superiors’ allegedly lawful orders to arrest Baude was contradicted by Baude’s allegations regarding his own conduct.

The court stated that it was required to consider Baude’s allegations and accompanying exhibits as true and view them in Baude’s favor. As a result, the court concluded that Baude’s allegations and the accompanying video of the encounter stated a “plausible claim” that the officers’ conduct constituted an unlawful arrest; therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Regarding Baude’s excessive force claim, the court found that Baude’s allegations and the video evidence submitted established that Baude was a compliant individual among a generally peaceful and compliant crowd who was boxed into an intersection by police, pepper-sprayed, and forcefully arrested. The court added that, at this stage of the proceedings, some specific questions such as whether “kettling” a crowd was in-and-of itself excessive force, whether the application of zip-ties caused any injury, or whether Baude was actually compliant could not be determined. Consequently, the court held that when viewing the alleged facts in a light most favorable to Baude, which it was required to do, the court could not conclude that the use of force against Baude was objectively reasonable.

Concerning Baude’s claim that the officers failed to intervene, Baude alleged that it was the coordinated actions of the officers in surrounding the assembly and using chemical agents that made it clear that these tactics were planned and that senior officials of the SLMPD not only had notice of, but actually sanctioned the conduct of the officers. Although the officers disputed these allegations, the court noted that at this stage of the proceedings, it was required to accept as true all facts pleaded by Baude. Therefore, the court held that the supervisory officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on Baude’s failure to intervene claim.

Takeaways

The recent years have seen an increase in protests and the use of social media has made it easy for crowds to gather quickly. In this case, the officers only informed the original protesters about the dispersal orders. Just because a crowd had formed earlier to protest something, it does not mean that those who are passing through later should be corralled. The officers in this situation indiscriminately encircled all individuals in the area, including protestors, observers, business patrons, and residents who were simply walking by, and then refused to allow anyone to leave voluntarily. This type of conduct is unacceptable for officers. Their role is to keep the peace and protect the community, not to impose unnecessary sanctions. In this situation, the supervisors had a responsibility to intervene and prevent this kind of conduct. Under no circumstances should officers prevent residents from leaving an area if there is no credible safety concern.

source

Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2022)

Here is Just another Tarnished DUMB COP Below no respect for her position
Florida Orange County Shelby Abramson

NO RESPECT FOR HER ROLE AS A ROLE MODEL JUST ANOTHER PIG TEACHING LADIES TO ACT LIKE SILLY HOES

Orange County Sheriff’s Office Deputy suspended for posting dancing videos to TikTok