The Edict of public Corruption: Identifying “integrity swapping.” A quantitative analysis of the lowest common denominator branch of local government. A focus on unlawful “ad hoc,” arbitrary government abuse ; America’s Dirty Little Secret; The Cause, Major premise; The Effect, Minor Premise; The Conclusion, a substantial Solution!
By Chilled Writer.
First of All, if Samuel Clemens can do it, then so can I. I am Chilled Writer, call me Chill! I am a happy-go-lucky thick-skinned individual who is a pacifist! In the last six years mentally ill people have shot my truck, shot my dog, violated restraining orders, threatened my wife, interfered with commerce, assaulted me with pickup trucks, threatened to murder me and my wife, and employees. As well as a judge found guilty of similar color of law stalking and obstructing a grand jury investigation (listen) ) through blackmail and extortion using illegal arrest threats by a criminal judge, who did get found guilty, but served no time. We were shocked that the local D.A. and Sheriff found humor in our predicament.
Yet, we were not too disillusioned until we compared notes with John O’Sullivan’s widow’s information, and others who suffered worse fate for reporting crime committed by old good buddies of El Dorado County. So just in case something happens to us, like it did with John O'Sullivan, this is the story of how we escaped his same fate.
We are the lucky ones! But then again we are not grateful. Dialing 911 to report crime in El Dorado County might inadvertently point the finger at one of their more colorful friends or family, who may have stopped taking their meds or just fly off the handle. Seeking the protection of law enforcement here can be deadly act for you and your family. Unfortunately you find out when it’s too late. It’s like a perversion of the State Lottery, but this ticket can be deadly. Just ask Mrs. O’Sullivan!
Undaunted, we still remain pacifists, and believe that the United States Checks and balances will work! Yet life has returned to normal, and we remain calm and assured that the pen is mightier than the sword. I have no personal enemies at all that I would wish to see harm come to. I have become a better person through this and I learn a lot about our social condition, aiding my research as a credentialed social scientist.
The commentary on a few public officials in here is based upon “deliberate choices they made among various other possibilities, which points to their proairesis to create “controversial and often inflammatory disputes.” These choices however, treated my wife and myself differently than other similarly situated crime victims. Thus, irony has been wrapped up in an official blanket of deliberate arrogance. Which has, as a consequence, been forced upon us as undesired unwanted illogical adverse comfort. This is the only provisions given to a certain class of victims of abuse, by El Dorado County. This class of people are recognized by the Supreme Court, Engquist v. Oregon 2008. They are cited as a class of people treated unfairly because they point out deficiency in tax based due process. As a result of pointing out deficiencies, through “media” or letters, a so called right under Cal.Const.Art. 1 ¶ (3)(a), we have been denied meaningful redress, and constituent representation, and this is a matter of public concern. We do not know why, we have been singled out, because the right to “instruct our representatives” has penalties for officials who make adverse decisions harming the persons exercising the right to “instruct representatives.” If certain immature criminally prone officials are offended by rational citizen “instructions,” instead of the vigilante injustice tactics used to harm citizens these named officials should be rational like us. They should pound their swords into plowshares, and lobby the government to overturn the Constitution or particular right they hate. All we are doing is creating awareness for citizens to lobby to end policy and custom used to circumvent written existing laws. We are within our legal purview as citizens to do so!
Our tax dollars support a system that arrest behavior described in the public record, commented on this site. Paradoxically, even those tax dollars are being misappropriated somewhere else, destroying our nation according to the FBI web site. Our basis for wanting to know why we are treated different, being in itself rational, requires that a government representative provide a rational basis, for these allegations below, that match elements in color of law criminal conduct, see “FBI Top Priority” web data on “Color of Law Corruption,” emphasis on “failure to protect from harm and fabrication of evidence.” See Engquist v. Oregon U.S. 2008:
Thus, when it appears that an individual is being singled out by the government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a "rational basis for the difference in treatment." Olech, 528 U. S., at 564. i
A proper answer would be to investigate what is now public record, listed herein. Turning a blind eye is not a rational basis. Especially due to the fact that tax paid officials have not provided any rational basis for this arbitrary treatment. A matter of more significance is that allowing criminal conduct in public office violates Supreme Courts checks and balance cited in Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs. Ignoring this fragments liberty and justice. The Supreme Court rules, that it creates “wide spread corruption cleverly hidden from trusting constituents as a “custom or policy,” that illegally overrides written law. Because law is complicated, Custom or Policy that may be essentially replacing the Constitution through ordinances, or solely a custom. Without much thought these customs are blindly ratified by trusting communities with very ignorant and corrupt leadership.
Some customs or policy do not violate rights, but the courts explain, (Macias v. Ihde) infra, a growing trend of customs have been the “cause of murder,” where nasty vindictive law enforcement officials allow stalkers to kill certain crime victims by denying equal rights, if the crime victims did not say pretty please, enough times when asking for police help. Many cases in public record reveal this attitude that courts call “vindictive animus.” The Supreme Court said if this illegal conduct happens, and a citizen protests an adverse act by officials, they have developed a litmus test which ends the dispute. It is quite simple! But ithe test is ignored by corrupt jurisdictions. ConasequAn official must provide a response in a form of a real “rational basis,” that can withstand logical or judicial review. It should at least pass the straight face test, which this county fails miserably!
As a result, if they don’t provide a rational basis, they violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, humans are allergic to arbitrary treatment, if I may use that metaphor. Arbitrary classification singles our individuals to receive, inferior treatment, which makes them become hopeless and ill. Sometimes this unwritten policy formulates policy to ignore whistle blowers who require public services in emergencies, or fair treatment in other matters. There are some ruthless scoundrels who will ignore law to extract their vengeance with State power and this is illegal.
Furthermore, it weakens the moral of the community, the nation and other parts of the world looking for liberty, perhaps through our example! It is said, one leads by example. Are there any real leaders out there in public service? Imagine the landslide it would create if there was one!
The content in this site stems from verified or verifiable fraud and corruption by government officials.
For Instance, a grand jury complaint was filed GJ-07-007, and a hearing was convened, (listen here), but was obstructed by a judge, later found guilty of of it by the cjp.ca.gov. to stop a mentally ill violent fellow (listen here) from stalking a neighborhood resulting...
Read more about the “Pubic Concern Doctrine” and why this content is mandated as free speech.
in the State Courts granting 5 restraining orders to protect witnesses... For some odd reason the D.A. refused to prosecute the man, releasing him on a ¼ million dollar bond, obviously making the county wealthier. Unbelievably, the mentally Ill stalker started making murder threats, intimidating, assaulting, vandalizing a myriad of victims who were witnesses, like in the old mobster days, and the sheriff and D.A. started harassing the crime victims and witnesses, and ignoring the court orders to arrest the mental patient/criminal defendant. In fact, the D.A. had done this very thing to a John O’Sullivan, ignoring his concerns due to murder threats and he was murdered. So El Dorado County Mental Health was called, and they attempted to commit this dangerous man, (listen here: Mental Health Professionals ignored by nonprofessionals) because of recent murders by several other stalkers or mental patients not only locally but a national epidemic of mass murders had been occurring. But the County mental health professional was obstructed from doing their duty stating that a meeting with elected law enforcement and their mental health officials could end the stalking. Contradicting logic, the Sheriff and D.A. have power over the El Dorado County Mental Health Department to obstruct this tax based agency. Apparently, they had an interest to allow the stalking to continue to stop witnesses from testifying in cases that were holding county officials to Grand Jury investigations. Judge James Wagoner was found guilty by the CJP assisting the Mental Patience efforts to stalk and intimidate witness by obstructing and threatening to arrest the Grand Jury witnesses, which obstructed the investigation (listen). So while there are a lot of conspiracy theorist out there, this is the real deal!
Only one of these officials mentioned here infra, have been legally informed by the state that they committed, “serious,” offenses. This is a story that indicts local law enforcement, FBI, DOJ, who all turned a blind eye, and during the mass murder epidemic that was plaguing USA families, like o If anything should happen to these people, whether by mental patients or corrupt official retaliation, this is their story.
Although some references may seem “inflammatory,” infra, they are not “controversial,” infra. The descriptions made here are supported by fact, and they are not baseless ad hominem attacks. Descriptions that discredit the character of the individual or similar commentary arises from the conduct by the public officials themselves. This bad conduct is pointed out in the cited and referenced examples of overt contradiction to law and findings in a report made by the California Counsel on Judicial Performance, and several cases local where all the defendants or perpetrators are the same. As a result, the Judicial Commission made this case “public concern.” In addition, circumstances surrounding this case when examined by El Dorado County outside of the Commissions Jurisdictional Authority do not dispute the information, herein, and by the Commission, they offer the middle finger to the Commission and any other entity who questions there obvious secession from these laws of the United States.
What has emerged through this analysis, is a discovery of the inner workings and perverted syllogistic mechanisms used by officials, which virtually goe unnoticed. Yet it is prevalent in all corruption cases. I call this conundrum integrity swapping. You see it in most cases where public officials are accused of sexual abuse. They point the finger at the accuser swearing on a stack of bibles for few days, that the accuser is morally corrupt. Yet in a few days, these sick individuals are balling their eyes out on television news clips, expecting everyone to reinstate his or her integrity. Operating with great evil intent they extort integrity from the victim in the hopes to save themselves like a coward would do.
Public officials have learned they have the spotlight, and they can market their bad integrity as good, as if waving a magic wand made of hollywood. Simply by claiming the accuser’s accusation is the real sign of bad integrity, and nobody ever checks, well maybe a few of the cases. The content of this set of corruption cases listed in here are no different. Nevertheless, a contradiction in logic is present because color of law abuse has no support like sex abuse committed by a public official caught with their pants down. Nevertheless, the elements are identical, except that the private parts they lusted after become the personal property or private civil rights that are similarly subjected to unwanted, albeit, non-sexual molestations by these public officials who should be viewed properly as Constituent molesters..
Nevertheless, a contradiction in logic is present because color of law abuse has no support. There is a failure in what should be similar outcomes of justice. This is because of the lack of belief that color of law abuse of power can be more predominant a sociological disease than the former. But the point is that officials who swap the good integrity of the victim to publicly support their own lack of moral integrity, is not that hard to discover.
The Ninth Circuit relays the local controlling precedence for El Dorado County officials. It is articulated in written law. Addressing officials who seek to punish complainants through “serious misuse of the judicial office,” when they engage the First Amendment “right to redress of grievances,” they ordered all officials in the Ninth Circuit District to deal justly with “controversial and often inflammatory disputes,” by abstaining from arbitrary retaliatory abuses. Supporting this claim locally, the Sacramento bee reports:
El Dorado County judiciary's penchant for doing things its own way has run afoul of a state appeals court
It is no secret El Dorado County is corrupt, yet when they get caught nobody gets fired or arrested, except maybe a few petty scape goats putting on false due process, people seem to fall for. Nobody seems to know why they are struggling so bad in business, finances, and the pursuit of happiness, resulting from the alleged corruption in the Mortgage crisis. I got news for you. Those officials in Washington cut their corruption chops, at the local level!
Officials are not supposed to use the expected nonviolent emotional reactions of victims who “constitutionally redress grievances,” as a basis to punish victims or perpetrate acts to prevent them from being “heard.” Yet this integrity swapping is easily perpetrated when an angry victims is demanding redress. Officials stigmatize them as "inferior" unstable irrational nuts, not worthy of human dignity or rights. Nobody is required to listen or read websites, but the law requires peaceful rational debate, even if controversial or inflammatory, to not be “abridged,” see the First Amendment. Rather every official should grant meaningful remedy as a means of assisting the public safety, see Harris v. County Superior Ct. (9th Cir. - Jan. 20, 2011):
…suits provide an important outlet for resolving grievances in an orderly manner and achieving nonviolent resolutions of highly controversial, and often inflammatory, disputes.
Guaranteeing individuals an opportunity to be heard….
….the means of remedying perceived injustices creates respect for law and ameliorates the injury that individuals feel when they believe that they have been wronged because society views them as inferior.
This Website is not an anti-government website. It has “…respect for law…” It is an anti-corruption website that merely reports corruption, verified by public record. According to the court, certain officials view other citizens as “inferior,” supra. This is a discrimination that is similar to the former Nazi Gestapo, who considered Jews as inferior. They are wrought with lawlessness, and tolerated by co-workers who obviously support this supremacist prejudice. When the courts use words like “inferior,” it speaks these long rhetorical descriptions that should sicken a human being made aware it is going on. I want to make sure those who read this who are not sickened, examine their consciousness.
Thankfully they can only put civil right victims in concentration camps they call prisons. Gratefully, they cannot make lampshades or wallets out of their skin. And lastly, nor can they cook them in ovens. But this is not much an improvement from Nazism to U.S. judicial policy to similarly treat whistle-blowers, with a few of the lessor severe tactics used by authors of the holocaust. Yet, stripped of all other predicate premises, this is the inferiorly” treated “arbitrary specter” or skeleton left standing, “gaunt faced, in a striped filthy uniform as a present for commentary by the enemies of U.S.A... They can use our hypocrisy to justly discourage adopting U.S. relationships, which is being argued publicly by friendly countries such as China, that “U.S.A. is faux democracy of hypocrisy.”
According to a prominent psychologist, PhD Robert Hare, these officials are “Snakes in Suits.” He claims officials have most of the same traits of sociopaths. Such as, “no conscience or lack of empathy for humanity. He says that these narcissist crave on abuse through control and bullying. Similarly, and a stronger argument, Psychologist, James Fallon, confesses that a PET scan test exists to determine who psychopaths are, and not are all serial killers. He adds, "meaning they are crafty and shrewd and masters at presentation of self." Robert Hare, claims these are shrewd businessmen or public officials who crave power to abuse, but no necessarily kill. Thus, “ad hoc” retaliatory denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal treatment is barely recognizable to them as an offense resulting from their lower moral code.
Furthermore color of law crimes are criminal, according to the FBI web site, violating Title 18 §§ 241, 242, 14141, among other “public corruption” crimes. Their site claims color of law crimes are a “Top Priority” and they are arresting Judges but not all corrupt judges. This is an inequality. It is an illogical conundrum. Inequalities are failures in deductive reasoning, simply stated, they do not equate. But yet who is making the corrections? Our tax dollars are extracted and diverted to those who are supposed to make the corrections. On the contrary, they are just keeping the money without performing the duty. If you point this out Integrity swapping kicks in.
El Dorado County and the Eastern District Court are on public record using these anti-reverse arguments, the courts call “Fundamentally misconstruing facts. This web site is dedicated to teaching these principles to victims, but more over to victims and receptive law enforcement officials who are not in agreement with officials who disobey law through operating the mechanisms of corruption described herein. FBI and DOJ need to recognize that local gangs of political parties are funneling crime through civil courts staged with boiler plate responses and highly profitable attorney fee scams to litigate predetermined cases dismissed on claims not alleged by their victims. But re-alleged and fabricated without the plaintiff signature, which is the “genuine issue of material fact,” the fingerprint, the DNA evidence, of the crime they commit. It violates Monell’s prohibition on custom or policy. It violates the FBI’s own “top priority policy, failure to protect from harm, or fabrication of evidence.” But when civil right victims are retaliated against they are funneled through criminal prosecution, mimicking old soviet tactics associating persistent redress as contempt of court, or some other myriad of misconstruing that can occur.
Although, some readers or subjects mentioned could view these as “controversial or inflammatory,” they are not. The content is a matter of public concern protected under the First Amendment freedom of Speech, and the Press, and protest and to Redress Grievances.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146 (1983)(stating that “[s]peech addresses a matter of public concern when the speech can be ‘fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.’
According to the State of California Commission on Judicial Performance, they ruled that James Wagoner’s case is “aggravated” for repeated offenses. It is no stretch to acknowledge that “aggravated repeated offenses” are of great “public concern,” when for 6 years, law enforcement has turned a blind eye to this and injustice is harming the “Public,” or as the courts site in criminal cases, “THE PEOPLE v. THE CRIMINAL.” The controversy lies in the fact that law enforcement is not enforcing the law, and that is another “public concern.”
According to the CJP report, Superior Court Judge James Wagoner was previously guilty of claims surrounding allegations that he had obstructed a grand jury investigation. The Judicial Council report, confirms the validity of the basis of this content informing the public about, not only the facts released at cjp.ca.com on “September 13th 2011,” Signed by “Honorable Judith D. McConnell Chairperson.” The “decision” stated:
["Ordering a person to appear in court when no matter requiring his attendance is pending constitutes serious misuse of the judicial office"].)
The duty the jurisdictional law enforcement is to take these decisions and prosecute. Sheriff Mike Carona, “obstructed a grand jury investigation at the same time as Wagoner, and we was sent to prison for 5.5 years. What is wrong with El Dorado Count? Under the Monell custom or policy prohibitions, failure to discipline, reprimand, and dismiss officials from their positions is an element proving liability and existence of informal policy and custom that corrupt officials use to illegally circumvent law.
But the following prima facie case that was ignored by other officials. Although the plaintiffs filed many documents objecting to the false claims made by a Magistrate who substituted the claim in the block quote, totally ignoring objections. For instance a “Request for Judicial Notice” Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM –EFB, citing the objections in this list of documents; Doc. 108 ¶ 25, Doc $ 82 pg 13 line 28, Doc 16 attached by A.G. Attorney General Edmund G. Brown as exhibit Q, and Doc. 71. pointing to the sources. The quality of evidence according to code made a Judge by statute have to notice them. But the Judge ignored it, never addressing this evidence. Furthermore, the same case, the Magistrate is bald face claiming “exhibits A1, A2,…[do]not say what plaintiffs contend they say.” Yet the plaintiffs only repeated the “Sacramento Republican Party Committee” accusing Helen baumman a Board of Supervisor, of “Why have you failed to the documented concern on this web site established by…[The Plaintiff]” The judge ignored this claim found in the second sentence:
The defendants succumbed to unjustified animus in retaliation, chilling the plaintiff's free speech and other First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and this was a substantial motivating factor for the defendant's actions. Plaintiffs exercised a constitutional right to prevent officials: from abusing their power under the color of authority by defending their good names: from the defendant's unjustified animus through legal redress and media and they were punished for this when the defendants denied them equal protection of rights.
The rest of the complaint centered on exhibits A1, A2, A3. and Q. Q was never mentioned. Yet A.G. Edmund G. Brown Jr. interred it into the record (Doc 16), and it was not disputed. Brennan in two previous dismissed, complaints failed to address or even name exhibits or their contents in spite of objections. On the final amended complaint, the plaintiff put Rule 8(a) “a short and plain statement” requirement after the first sentence. Borrowing from Bill Engvals metaphor for moron’s, “here’s your sign,” In fact hoping by some miracle a judge would stumble across it, But that is a prima facie claim fatal to the predetermined plan. This is a genuine issue of fact” that proves this case was futile, on the grounds of corruption. If you only know the cost of standing in a pack of wolves using tax dollars to rape constitutional rights from you in insult to repeated injury. The “here’s your sign,” as big as a wart on a pretty girls face, was the reference to the causal link, called the “substantial motivating factor,” supra.
Brennan, and the other Judges claiming they “reviewed de novo,” willfully sabotaged our claim, a chance to redress the grievance to restore losses I would not wish on my worst enemy. All to cover up for public officials not considered, “inferior.” All to cover up for public officials not considered, “inferior.” I was surprised that a Judge of whose ancestors lived under arbitrary sovereignty for centuries would adopt these elements that enslaved whole societies ancestors would take that opinion.
This is what the facts reveal in their not just erroneous, but their slam dunk, in your face filings showing a malicious contempt for justice, with a chest bump, and a "I dare ya to do anything about it dominance." Steve Erwin would be cautious at this point! Crikey Mate! Wow
Regardless of Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, testifying on the content of exhibits, as to his “metaphysical ability” to know what the witnesses had conjured up. Yet they were never questioned. Senator Dave Cox and Bob Berger of the Sacramento Republican Party Committee provided or authored the document. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. - March 12, 2010):
…we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact present. We would need a transcript of his thoughts for that. In so holding, we are mindful that "[s]ummary Judgment is not defeated merely because issues of motive or intent are involved." Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d [441,] 443 [(7th Cir. 1989)]. We do not hold that [the Mayor]'s intent is metaphysically unknowable, but that there is a genuine factual dispute on the question.. However, there are genuine issues of material fact apparent from the recordings, which would entitle Norse to a trial on the merits…
Now exhibit Q contradicts, Doc 103 the Magistrate Recommendation to Dismiss. Brennan claims that the defendants alleged they only had two “Contentions.” Bare with me, so contention A @ The F&R 103 pp. 15 at 25 thru 26, citing TAC ~~ 87-93, citing predicates of “Failure to keep from harm.” But on the other hand, this marveling anti-brilliance, was shown in contention B, The FR 103 pp. 15 at 16 thru 17, again more predicates of “Failure to protect from harm.”
But in F&R Doc 103, Magistrate Brennan mentions 23 more contentions, all but a few that are not alleged by the defense. This is more “genuine issue of material fact” on the record that Brennan was acting as a liaison defense attorney fixing deficiency’s in the defense motion to dismiss, while ignoring the plaintiffs “substantial motivating factor” an indisputable free speech retaliation claim. Which was supported by “rarely evidenced by explicit agreements,” that exhibits A1, A2, A3, and Q were! See, H. L. Moore Drug Exchange v. Eli Lilly and Co, 697 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1982):
Conspiracies, of course, are rarely evidenced by explicit agreements, but must almost always be proved by "inferences that may fairly be drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators." Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., supra, 534 F.2d at 1043.
We had a winning ticket, handed to us, that I would never wish upon anybody in the world! And Magistrate Brennan ripped it to pieces tossing it in the wind, laughing in our faces, metaphorically speaking, supported by two other district court judges. There is nothing that can be done contrary to the constitution, and yet they can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me what they did was constitutional!
Another case suing the same corrupt defendants, supports the custom and policy that ignores written law. The victim described in the CJP case was another victim of James Wagoner’s Penchant to use the jails and courts as his own personal torture dungeon, he uses to torment and destroy people who object to public officials abuse of power. The CJP showed more conduct of the judge going out of his way outside the courts, and intimidating or arresting witnesses testifying against people he favors, or has influence peddled his favor. See case 2:2010cv03119. Filed Nov. 19, 2010:She dropped the case because the serious misuse of the Federal Magistrate office who used evidence the CJP declared was a criminal act done by James Wagoner, to sanction her several thousand dollars, destroying her last small fortune absorbed by the greed therein.
John O’Sullivan, I do not conceal his name because he is a victim murdered by a “Neighbor.” While John O’Sullivan’s wife and many kids, plead the courts for protection, they were deemed “inferior.” The officials swapped credibility and to make a murdering neighbor look good. Officials unsuccessfully used court power to file bogus charges, dropped or dismissed, according to O’Sullivan’s widow. Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, assured a District Court Judge contrarily with his fair judicial anti-brilliance that the neighbor could be Murdered by John O’Sullivan, granting favor to the “neighbor, see Case 2:08-cv-00013-FCD-EFB. The same defendants in the above case where dismissed. Brennan couldn’t resist the discrediting of the O’Sullivan’s but the case was dismissed after his "protected neighbor murdered John O’Sullivan.
Those horror stories should be coming from B movies and tales afar from arbitrary nations. But low and behold this is El Dorado County California USA! How did law enforcement learn to integrity swap, to the point they could stage without much effort, arbitrary murder by proxy? We see it was used to silence decent people who will not acquiesce to unwanted civil right molestations! Yet if I make that accusation, it could be perceived as hyperbole. Even hyperbole assumptions do not cross the line. Yet look just a few counties over to the west on the 80 corridor to Sonoma. In 2000, that county had perfected murder by proxy, which is explained in better context deeper in this content information. However this case brought by the Estate of Maria Teresa Macias v. Mark Ihde 219 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2000). Macias has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit in 2010 in AE JA Elliot-Park v. Jarrod Manglona 592 F.3d 1003 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 723:
The Appellants contend that the district court "fundamentally misconstrued" the constitutional deprivation at issue in this case. They maintain that the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred when the defendants failed to provide Mrs. Macias with equal police protection in the months leading up to her death. Their brief states: The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants'] constitutional injury as `murder' rather than `lack of equal protection.' By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.
I emphasized with bold and underlined the word “failed.” Edmund F. Brennan conned a district court judge he probably has lunch with on occasion to dismiss Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM –EFB, by claiming about 23 times that the plaintiffs alleged that police or whoever, “failed” to arrest or enforce something. Yet, on point and Identical we see that preventable murder victim Ms, Macias was alleging a “lack of equal protection.” In Brennen's’s fabricated findings we see that he ignored the plaintiffs, claim after the First Sentence, “…defendants denied them equal protection of rights,” supra. The Macias case is 14 years and Brennan is playing as if he doesn’t know. But like in the Macias case he willfully ignored evidence, re-fabricated the writings of a witness into his own perverted interpretation!
So the Macias court said what the District Court Judge did was aid the defendants and “ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.
Now this important to note, because it is almost like sleight of hand and you almost cannot see the difference, especially a babe in the woods like a pro se litigant who would naturally expect to trust a judge, like a small child trusting an adult but yet growing up only find out too late that the trust will become a regret for the rest of his life.
When the Macias court says, the district court “ignored the evidence,” the “failures to protect” were the evidence, and not the claim, identically following the pattern of the Macias deception that “caused her murder.,” Mentioning the “failure to do something” the corrupt “fundamentally misconstrued is as the claim instead of evidence to show “overt inferences,” the Eli Lilly case, supra, states:
evidence of” inferences that may fairly be drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators that Judges can draw from.”
So apparently, the Magistrate is not capable to draw inferences, showing his lack of qualification as a judge. Eli says Judges can “draw from inferences.” All Judges can do this, but not Magistrate Brennan. This is a violation of a logical categorical syllogism allowing persons to be a judge who cannot draw on inference, but fundamentally misconstrues facts, and not only ignores exhibits, A1, A2, A3, Q, inter alia, but does not know the significance of a “substantial motivating factor is.” Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre (Mar. 22, 2013) __ F.3d__ (2013 WL 1180299), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:
To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, the plaintiff employee must show that his or her speech was a matter of public concern, …spoke as a private citizen …, and the … protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the… alleged adverse …action.
Shockingly, case ” Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM –EFB, requesting a “protective order” and within weeks of the Murder of John O’Sullivan, Edmund F. Brennan, the Magistrate, ignored Federal Statues Title 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A):
a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, [emphasis added].
He ruled on several protection order request violating not only the statute, but the rights. Because the State Courts had issued 5 valid restraining orders protecting around 2 dozen targets of a stalker, the request had precedence and was rationally based. However, the same defendants who withheld equal protection to John O’Sullivan and his wife and caused O’Sullivan’s murder. Following a pattern, they were repeating the same conduct that could result in another murder and the officials were allowing violence and murder. But the cause do not forget was the “truthful, but inflammatory remarks about their lack of concern for public safety, prior to the time they turned a stalker loose to terrorize witnesses when Judge Wagoner’s attempt was busted by the CJP. While being directed by Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, they were also ignoring assaults, murder threats, 5 figure property damage vandalism cases witnessed, but allowed even though court orders existed to increase the necessity for police to be alert. To the defendants, they probably had lotteries going on the time a murder would occur. It was bloody amazing to watch and very disturbing. Edmund F. Brennan, paved the way for a second murder to occur if the man who made the threats desired to do it. Although the plaintiffs had built a dream home they had to abandon it, or gamble in the delusion of one of El Dorado Counties mental Patients. Please listen to this audio by El Dorado County Mental Health official describing the obstruction of his attempts to protect us. He is heard blaming the Sheriff and D.A. “Vern” Pierson as the authority over diagnosing mental illness by violent individuals.
Another woman victimized under the jurisdiction of Wagoner and the most of the same key defendants, Case # Case 2:09-cv-01574-FCD-EFB: She was tortured, thrown into glass, tazered, stripped naked, denied asthma medicine left in convulsions in her own feces, because a sergeant with the Sheriff Department got “angry” when she insisted on seeing his supervisor.
The linked story claims James R. Wagoner “threw the case out,” but only after holding on to it for a year and 2 days into the jury trial. Two days, according to the victim, of ludicrous integrity swapping by all the defendant deputies trying to make a criminal out of a 55 year old woman married to a homeland security employee. The expressions on the Jury showing their shock and disgrace and contempt revealing what sick judge would bind this woman’s ordeal over for a trial at a preliminary hearing.
Like I said, these defendants no longer belong to a jury pool, they have become the transitory species Darwin was looking for. Robert Hare PhD accurately describes these “Snakes in Suits,” and the Jury in this case caught a whiff that turned their stomach. Disgustingly, two days into the Jury Trial, Wagoner is playing like yeah this wrong:
"I just do not see how a reasonable jury, having heard this information, this testimony, and evaluating the conduct, could find that Ms. Pastula had violated" the law, Wagoner told the attorneys. - See more
Had he put the jury through weeks of this, disgusting display of grown cops pretending they were doing some public service for a woman seeking to speak to a rude cocky sergeants supervisor. It would probably have ruined them as humans. Where do they draw their limits to play with their torture devices, and practice choke holds? Not 55 year old woman? I know a 70 Year old woman whose husband was murdered by another nut they allowed to stalk people, Jack is his name. While he was gargling his last breath, a deputy took her away put her on the ground, her face in the road and cuffed her and left her while her husband passed away shot 5 times, by road rage lunatic who other drivers came forth had run them down. After calling the sheriff, the sheriff ignored the complaints and are he cause of Jacks murder. However, However, to be fare this did not happen on John D’Agostini’s watch, the newer sheriff.
Amazingly, an Article III judge understands this anti-brilliance and adopted the findings, dismissing a claim Magistrate Brennan spent 3 years draining plaintiffs accounts with futility, through a form of deceptions or fraud. The case was dismissed because Magistrate Brennan, suppressed evidence by fabricating its content or merely suppressing other facts, and witnesses, inter alia. But we know this is true because the second sentence of the claim mentions nothing about the predicates Brennan cited that fall under the major premise, he was claiming “Failure to protect from harm.”
The Cause: Public Record Reveals the Obvious Contradictions and Corrupt favoritism Perpetrated by El Dorado County Officials. “Fundamentally Misconstruing Facts“(see Macias v. Sonoma County Sheriff Mike Ihde) is the number one element that points to public corruption. Although the examples herein feature a few examples from public record local to El Dorado County, basic elements in all corruption cases are identified herein. The courts use these elements as a snare,...
...where the bait of absolute power substitutes the constitutions, and as a result, it entraps all officials who use it revealing the deception. Because facts on both sides are recorded in public record, when these facts are analyzed by those who are objective, and whose ethics are not swayed by bias, they can follow the critical path that tells the truth by following the elements that connect, one fact to another. Logic plays a major role in deducing these facts. Jurisdictions where corruption is alleged, hire defense attorneys who are barred by client privilege to tell the truth. This also goes for civil right plaintiffs. Both can engage in rhetoric, which is filled with possible truth called inductions, filled with fallacy or non sequitur arguments that do not necessarily follow logical syllogism. A prima facie case, however, has “genuine issues of material fact," assumed to be true. If they cannot be disputed, then they are true, and the best the defense can do is negotiate a settlement. Because it is up to a jury to review "genuine issues of material fact," and not judges. Prima facie cases do not argue rhetorically. They argue dialectically pointing to a smoking gun, attempting to avoid emotional appeals, i.e. ethos. So if a civil right case is prima facie, and an official has enough pull, he can use ethos, corruption, and deceit, to hide the truth because of his position among similar officials who lack ethics. So judges, abuse discretion when they ignore logic and follow ethos. Ethos and deception are the two major elements behind the myriad of phrases courts use artfully to explain and excuse criminal color of law conduct. Judges either grant “redress” to restore the “victims grievances,” or they hide the truth through abuse of power they legalized by restating that “abuse of discretion” is legal. And so the story begins…
Judges named here created "genuine issues of material fact." One issue was determined to be criminal by the State of California. But then a federal Magistrate, not quite a judge, if I may use the metaphor, gave the middle finger to the State of California, and ignored the "genuine issue of material fact," created by the corrupt judge, supra. Thus, creating a new set of "genuine issues of material fact. Although the facts exist, United States law enforcement and constituent representatives are looking the other way. No representation for U.S. citizens exist in Congressman Tom McClintock's Congressional District. They can care less about corruption. I wonder why? This could happen to anybody, destroying your life, and any hope for a future with new awareness that the U.S. Constitution is being ignored by an awful lot of public officials. Your job, if you choose this impossible mission, is to realize that the laws that allow them to do this can be removed, and elect officials solely on this new platform. Also, potential producer partners for this screen play, "all rights reserved," are welcome.
So in a nutshell, the above pull quote describes the content of this site. The rest of the information will teach you what is hidden from public that formulates an underground government policy. This underground custom or policy has emerged in a sort of a unorganized bloodless coup d’état. All it takes is for any official with power and fellow officials to support using a remarkably perverted form of diabolical brilliance. The custom or policy is always contrary to any part of the existing constitution or written law. There are people in our great nation who act under a "custom or policy," exposed by the Supreme Court in 1978, in a case called Monell v. the Dept. of Soc. Svcs. The Supreme Court discovered that an underground system of corruption had crept into government agencies through ignorance and desire by some to wield anti-democratic arbitrary power similar to a dictator. Identification of some of those who support this, follow a predictable pattern. Thus, anti-democratic allegations are turned against those claiming this, by corrupt officials stating their accusers are “anti-government.” This is predictable because it follows the perversion of genus species, which is to “fundamentally misconstrue the facts,” a process noted by many appellate courts to reverse corrupt decisions. Because the justice system tends to lean toward brute force and supreme power over undesirable criminals, people who fall victim of arbitrary government custom or policy become confused in the minds of arbitrary officials, who start treating them as if they had no rights like a criminal. Hoping to intimidate their victims from filing complaints. Typically, whistle blowers object to arbitrary “custom or policy,” under a fatal belief to do so is a citizen duty. But when arbitrary acts of officials come under light of questioning, officials take advantage of their power and they engage deliberate indifference choice to retaliate. victims are denied services and due process, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment. If the courts in that jurisdiction are corrupt, these whistle blowers have to leave their community or face future wrath and grief. There is rarely anything that can be done. Occasionally the FBI or DOJ go into jurisdictions and arrest these public officials. But that would be almost as likely to occur as hitting the lottery.
Contrary to many conspiracy theorists, there is no organized "Illuminati" involved. The engine that propels it is just a perpetual motion of greed, by individuals, misusing the laws to emulate “absolute power.” The "Cause" is virtually identical to a computer virus, which "corrupts" community operations, at the “boot sectors,” if you will. Public officials who have random access to abuse of power, surround themselves with fellows who will turn a blind eye, quid pro quo. With each new relationship, the virus is spread, and it attracts supporters, and repels honest officials. The virus, like any virus, is hard for people to notice. Similar to frequent hand washing is avoiding contact with public officials, this aids in avoiding infection. However, sooner or later one does have to make contact and if you are infected as a victim, attempts to quarantine the cause are met with vehement disdain and retaliation. At this stage a virulent outbreak is spread, because the antibodies, if you will, receive instruction, like the HIV virus, to attack good cells. There is a cure. Like a computer virus that has corrupted the files, a system restore to an earlier restore point will correct and repair the damage without much loss. Unfortunately, it takes national approval, because the restore point is at the Eleventh Amendment. Again, although the amendment grants immunity, this has been fundamentally misconstrued too. Immunity sounds wonderful. But it only gives immunity for the HIV virus that attacks good cells. But if you have any logic at all, the solution presents itself. We need to remove the immunity that encourages disease over good health. Immunity under the Eleventh Amendment needs to be removed, which emerges by its name and nature. “State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights,” id a book with an enthymeme title that speaks for itself. The sole purpose of immunity protects individual from human right violations. Ending this is the anti-virus software. The Constitution, has had a virus attached to it, identified as the Eleventh Amendment, mixed with other perverted forms or corruption. The good news is that it can be removed. Unfortunately, very few know the 220 year old history of its ominous paper trail. Anyone with, cough-“to much…” time on their hands can follow. The information I have provided from painstaking research will explain that there essentially is nothing wrong with the Constitution, if immunity was stricken. It is just very bad people who surround themselves with other very bad people who pay off Party Committee members with slogan’s or graft. Political party’s package them nice and neat to a trusting democracy, U.S.A.’s other flaw. The problems are seen to be Jurisdictional and not the U.S.A. as a whole. As a result, immunity has been misconstrued by officials pretending it is a "get out of jail free card," which the Supreme Court disagrees. However, you will be shocked to see what I have taken the time to focus on as a credentialed Social Scientist. You will also need to focus very carefully if you are truly interested in essentially ending abuse of power color for law human right violations.
Outside jurisdictional investigations, investigators can abandon assumed confidence in public office that is relied upon by locals in corrupt jurisdictions to protect organized officials acting in a concerted code of silence or acquiescence. According to judicial review, when public law enforcement or administration officials turn their efforts from investigating whistle-blowing complaints, to that of adversely treating the whistle-blowers, these elements are not hard to identify. They are solely, to protect the accused public officials who should be otherwise punished by civil or criminal action. What occurs is, in order to protect an accused official, whether guilty or not, other officials fearing equal retaliation or job loss, treat the victims of corruption “differently than similarly situated victims of crime, typically Title 18 §§ 241, 242, 14141, among others. The primer case most significant is Engquist v. Oregon 2008 U.S. S. Ct.. upholding that:
...in Olech, supra, we recognized in the regulatory context a similar class-of-one theory of equal protection, Brief for Petitioner 14-15; that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not classes, id., at 15-17."
"Equal Protection" is obviously ignored in El Dorado County. This is because most Title 42 § 1983 suits to redress grievances of public corruption have been dismissed through bigotry. Acts that should be left in the archives of former bigots who ignorantly claim, that they can discriminate against "individuals" but not classes, contrary to written law. This is evidence that they are maintaining old customs, a constitutional violation explained herein that is key to understanding and unraveling the wrong identified by the courts. Custom or policy are adverse acts officials do, but no law supports it. They have been doing this so long, they do not know it’s wrong, or they do know it’s wrong, and feel the means justify the ends, expecting collateral damage as publicly acceptable. But the Supreme Court says no! Whistle blowers stumble on to these customs, and report them thinking they are doing a service to society, which they are. But public officials found abusing power with "custom or policy." They rally the troops, call upon favors, and can successfully ruin the life of the whistle blower. It is believed that the troops rally in order to maintain status quo and not weaken their power to abuse by removing transparency, to maintain deceit to cover up wrong doing they are accused of.
In fact, the example cases below show that they are dismissing cases they say are brought to them on grounds of “failure to protect,” equally. As if nobody notices they leave out the word “equal,” as if that matters, adding insult to injury to victims. But the point here is that abuse of power has been a right officials can use for profit, or to maintain a public appearance of innocence through a network of deceit made possible through acquiescence. The courts state that by “fundamentally misconstruing facts,” jury's and innocent law enforcement coworkers through, smoke and mirrors, are essentially taken by the hand, so to speak, and artfully fed a restated version of the complaint not made by the complainant. This is done by crafty county defense attorneys. This faux complaint, although no different than criminal fraud, is a deception. The deception is made capable by laws that turn fraud from a crime, into a non-crime that they artfully created called “abuse of discretion.” As a result, there is no deterrence in U. S. jurisprudence, to prevent judicial corruption in this manner. Their response is, that you have justice through appellate court review, a 2 to 10 year or more process, costing a fortune.
I'm sorry to say, but most people assume that U.S. justice is filled with meaningful checks and balances. It is naivety and lack of knowledge about the system that removes any possible change from the democratic process. If you don't know it is broke it will never get fixed. Furthermore, many individuals are coddled through employment with benefits resembling small fortunes that would decrease if it was fixed. As a result, complaining about the abusers as they get caught, is dealt with in a way to make complaints not only disappear, but point back at the complainant that they typically call “vexatious or incomprehensible.” That is all it takes! People become fearful of the perception that corrupt officials create to artfully paint complainants as irrational. Basically, what I am describing is a form of brainwashing, made evident through recognizing the artful use of those “non-crime discretions,” costing a small fortune to overturn. This is the process used by corrupt officials to create a stigma more damaging than a social faux pas.
In addition to “fundamentally misconstruing" claims, there are immunity claims as a defense. But this fact is even “fundamentally misconstrued.” For instance, the Supreme Court clearly states, Immunity only attaches if an “adverse" decision affects rights beyond a “particular” individual. In other words, unlawfully violating individual rights through a policy that does discriminate, i.e. “single out,” such as, an official that is on a power trip relying in “ipse dixit,” (because we say so). Although, the policy affecting, “many well beyond the particular individual,” Id, although, it may be adverse, it was a non-intended mistake of bad legislation. That is the proper grounds for immunity. Consequently, not the stated "individual denials" of equal services or rights, which abrogate or remove immunity, Bogan v. Scott-Harris U.S. S. Ct. 1998 concluded:
…prospective implications "that reach well beyond" [emphasis added] the particular… [individual] occupant of the office; and, in eliminating respondent's office, it governed in a field where legislators traditionally have power to act, Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998 U.S. S. Ct.
For a clearer explanation, see El Dorado County jurisdiction see Santa Cruz v. Norse, 2011, (certiorari denied), but, Norse v. Santa Cruz (9th 2010):
In this Circuit, we have developed a four-part test to determine whether an action is legislative in nature. We consider "(1) whether the act involves ad hoc decision making, or the formulation of policy; (2) whether the act applies to a few individuals, or to the public at large; (3) whether the act is formally legislative in character; and (4) whether it bears all the hallmarks of traditional legislation." Kaahumanu v. Cnty. of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Whether an act is ad hoc can depend on whether it is aimed at a few people or many, and whether an act bears all the hallmarks of traditional legislation can depend on whether it is ad hoc." Id. at 1220 n.4.  In this case, we are dealing with city officials who ejected one individual from City Council meetings. Separately, and with regard to his argument for municipal liability, Norse argues that the officials were formulating policy. We need not determine whether the ejections "effectuate[d] policy," however, see id. at 1220, because the second, third, and fourth factors clearly point to this being an administrative rather than legislative act. Thus, Krohn, Kennedy, and Fitzmaurice are not entitled to absolute immunity for their part in removing Norse from the meetings. Although the record is incomplete, it appears that in both 2002 and 2004 Norse was singled out for expulsion and arrest.
Therefore, public officials who "single out" individuals arbitrarily, to cover-up negligence or corruption are serious "color of law" offenses. These imbalances are acts that deny rights unequally that other citizens have not been denied. Consequently, for the official, he or she has committed the FBI's "Top Priority, Color of law Crimes, i.e. Public corruption."
However, it is obvious there is resistance among FBI and DOJ to enforce these laws. Yet similar white color crime, even minor, are prosecuted. Under the United States, it seems that public officials operate under a "custom or policy" to avoid criminal culpability, in addition to civil liability under qualified immunity. The objective of this site is to inform the public and the FBI or DOJ, that these are the laws of the land, and the consequences that officials should be held to, are being diverted to the complainants. which is the problem we citizens would like ended.
In order to distinguish which are suspected of public corruption is easily identifiable by following a few precedence's that support the myriad common law precedence's hanging from the foundations of what the difference between ad hoc adverse action and legislative policy that is affecting many adversely. It is not a crime or tort for citizen government officials to make policy error, but it is unlawful for a custom or policy that defies the common law herein to deprive the rights of a citizen, ad hoc, by "treating them differently that similarly situated individuals,:" regardless of the "motives," see Norse, supra. Referencing:
Local legislators are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their legislative acts. See Bogan v. Scott- Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998). But "not all governmental acts by . . . a local legislature[ ] are necessarily legislative in nature." Cinevision Corp. v. City of Burbank, 745 F.2d 560, 580 (9th Cir. 1984). "Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it." Bogan, 523 U.S. at 54. Thus, we must determine whether the actions of the Council members, when "stripped of all considerations of intent and motive," were legislative rather than administrative or executive. Id. at 55.
Although, the law is complicated, nonetheless, only by the fragmentation resulting from many court cases outside of corrupt jurisdictions that do make it through a meaningful process, it does leave the story of exactly what corruption is. This fragmentation requires years of study to put the facts together in a cognizable form, which I believe, for the average citizens is this thesis. But we learn by example, and fortunately I am privy to real examples to draw facts from.
AS AN EXAMPLE:
This web site provides examples of several cases involving Judge James Wagoner, and a Federal Magistrate Judge, Edmund F. Brennan. One Judge, James Wagoner, according to the California Council on Judicial Performance (CJP), is totally outside of his jurisdiction. Therefore he was totally liable for possible million dollar damages. Yet another Judge, Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, within his jurisdiction, but through alleged abuse of discretion, fixes a case for Judge James Wagoner. Evidence also supports facts that he fixes law suits in the same manner for a corrupt D.A. in multiple cases. Obstruction of justice by judicial discretion, though frowned upon, is within the purview of appellate court review, and possibly reversible. But, if the discretion is so obtuse destroying rights of Wagoner's victims without a rational basis, are there criminal violations? There should be. Because dealing with corrupt judges, who force the issue to the appellate courts, do this because it is economically impossible for anyone to afford this. This is judicial extortions! The FBI thinks so and is making arrests. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption
The public record reveals that both judges have ignored every one of these precedence's. Failing to respond substantially to most of the common law citations, as if they did not exist. This is the "unwritten policy" that violates Monell v….,infra. While Judge Wagoner was actually found guilty of these tactics that "obstruct justice,"i.e. according to the CJP. It is no stretch of the imagination to become aware that Magistrate Brennan, on the other hand, covered up for Wagoner.
Because Wagoner is outside the Jurisdiction of the Judicial Counsel, no obstacle existed to prevent him from publicly instigating mock judicial proceedings outside his court house walls, like the Ku Klux Klan would commonly do.
Beyond inference, emergence phenomenon is inarguable when Brennan failed to recognize facts from the same allegations within the CJP findings. These findings, if ignored by other officials show acquiescence and ratification of unlawful unwritten policy to protect perpetrators that they favor regardless of criminal acts. Dismissing James Wagoner from proceedings was contrary to genuine issue of material facts, i.e., exhibit Q, an illegal court order barring the contact of law enforcement to prevent crime, or face "incarceration and money sanctions" (yeah no kidding!), inter alia.
As a consequence, this fact is enthymeme to Brennan's corrupt motives, shown to be an indisputable fact to this day. Furthermore, Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan is seen using old non-controlling precedence substantially surrounding laws that allow adverse speech infringement affectively barring First Amendment rights solely to public employee, even though the same common law precedence state that this precedence excludes infringing on the rights of non-public employee private citizens, who have no such lawful infringements. These are typical elements used by all corrupt officials, though particulars may be different, the elements fit a pattern or mold, or footprint.
Instead of local authorities investigating and charging officials, "Color of law victims" are funneled to corrupt Magistrate or Superior Court Judges, like the above cases. Unfortunately, and illegally, they are run through an arbitrary process, of sanctions and humiliating corrupt judicial punishments that chill and deter proper civil redress rights violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This leaves the only venue left, which is public documentation of these events, in the hopes that FBI or other enforcement agencies do not view this as merely "anti-government rhetoric," and retaliate in like manner. Rather, they abandon custom or policy to allow public corruption to cultivate. This is a perfect starting point when looking at El Dorado County, plagued with Corrupt Mayors, Boards of Supervisors, now displaying a crime family photo album of these officials mug shots. Yet more sinister officials are at large blindly wading through victims of color of law abuse.
The information shows TAX dollars misappropriated for obstructing justice against a fight by the FBI alleging to end this very corruption shown here: Not doing so is allowing the illegal disfavoring of witness, and allowing intimidation and public tax dollars to violate crime victims bill of rights.
Undaunted by law prohibiting these acts, corrupt Magistrate...
... Judges in Sacramento Eastern District Courts issue Findings and Recommendations that are adopted by the Article III District Court Judges, using rhetoric similar to this stating, "As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law," and dismisses the claim, regardless of the "objections." For plausible deniability to protect the district court Judge, the phrase "assumes its correctness," are typical. Also Superior Court Judges at the state level will run color of law abuse victims who complain through an arbitrary process, of sanctions and humiliating corrupt judicial punishments. These punishments serve to deter further complaints and proper redress violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Unjustly intimidating victims, reemerging the once thought ended Declaration of Independence claim of "Repeated Injury," or more modern, insult to injury. For those who doubt this statement see Sacramento bee article:
"The El Dorado County judiciary's penchant for doing things its own way has run afoul of a state appeals court.
The reason citizens have a constitution is to prevent violence, especially civil or revolutionary events. While most victims are decent citizens who relinquish to "you can't fight city hall," a minority, barely able to be seen on a statistical graph, yet some unstable individuals, no more unstable due to government grievances, compared to private vendetta crimes, but they make headlines, as if all people who object to "unwritten" illegal policy are dangerous terrorist who should be scorned and feared as persons destroying the United States of America. The common link is that they objected to "perceived injustices," Id, or to genuine issues of fact that violate constitutional rights against individuals. This Federal Appellate Court District, such as the Ninth Circuit, has pointed out the fallacy that officials should avoid. But the courts rule that they tolerate and expect even "unsuccessful…suits." In fact if law enforcement is perpetrating civil right actions by citizens as unlawful, herein lies the perversion. In order to articulate the danger to society, the Ninth Circuit does not lay cause on victims of abuse of power under color, but on corrupt officials who obstruct justice using the arbitrary sovereign power of the courts, which is not legal, even though perhaps it is frowned upon abuse of discretion. Recently, Harris v. County Superior Ct. (9th Cir. - Jan. 20, 2011), this was articulated:
Even when unsuccessful, such suits provide an important outlet for resolving grievances in an orderly manner and achieving nonviolent resolutions of highly controversial, and often inflammatory, disputes.
Guaranteeing individuals an opportunity to be heard in court instead of leaving them only with self-help as the means of remedying perceived injustices creates respect for law and ameliorates the injury that individuals feel when they believe that they have been wronged because society views them as inferior.
One could falsely perceive that this web content is "[dis]respect[ful] for law." The FBI articulate that anti-government individuals are targets of their investigations due to "conspiracy theorists" such as those idiots who think the Constitution is the work of an "Illuminati." Implying that some blow up federal buildings. Yet I never saw a civil suit filed by Timothy McVeigh, prior to that terrible bombing. Perhaps he was aware that our justice system is protecting corrupt officials and cut to the chase in his own sick perverted delusion. The court decision above, Harris v. County Superior Court, would put the blame for violence on deterring redress of grievances by for instance , by the FBI publically advertising that filing law suits may be a sign of terrorism." Why not just prosecute corrupt officials instead of ignoring the law and precedence established as checks and balances, even to keep FBI in line. It is understandable for the concern of public safety. For instance, some believe the Illuminati controls the white house as a group of Satan worshipers, among others who consider themselves, "supreme beings," borrowing from an antiquated dogma claim that they are "sovereign citizens." Our second amendment prohibits mentally ill people from possessing weapons, yet although the FBI wants to show caution, they do not declare this goofy thought process of "sovereigns" as mentally ill. Therein is the rub. Be Cautious, but please distinguish that civil suits to prevent "ad hoc" abuse of power are the only way to restore property lost through color of law violations. What may be irresponsible for the way the FBI articulate this danger, is that their "Block Quote:"
Although the sovereign-citizen movement does not always rise to violence, its members'…activities…make it a group that should be approached with knowledge and caution.
When police approach groups with caution, guns are drawn, and people are killed more often than when approaching civil disputes. The court articulates a different approach, recognizing the "highly controversial, and often inflammatory, disputes." They allow disputes ongoing in the courts against officials who violate "ad hoc." Furthermore, the FBI states that one of signs of these "sovereign citizens" is the "frivolous lawsuits or liens against real property of officials," etc. Because these El Dorado Courts, contrary to law, consider "ad hoc" suits "frivolous," as perverted as the officials are in El Dorado county, this marginalizing the proper claims, noted by the Supreme and Ninth circuit courts of "ad hoc" victims, is another unlawful custom or policy contradicting these precedence's. Ignoring any clarification showing the distinction seems to encourage pointing guns at civil right abuse victims. This custom or policy emerging on the FBI agency web site contradicts court precedence and possibly endangers law abiding citizens, attempting to end arbitrary ad hoc custom or policy that the courts allow. Thus, without making the proper distinction, this policy of grouping together rational and irrational grievances, as "targets to approach with caution," is "arbitrary classification," pointing to the tort of "deliberate indifference." But then, where is the profit motive, outside of good conscience, for these facts to be acknowledged, which would limit arbitrary abuse, endangering the positions of the inept and malicious and malicious it protects. What a conundrum to overcome!
Furthermore, in 1789 when the First Amendment was ratified, the word "redress of grievance" centers around the discussion of the Ninth Circuit, who is including the emotional effects of "highly controversial, and often inflammatory, responses that are natural in arguments. The First Amendment word "Grievance" is logically enthymeme to "highly controversial, and often inflammatory, disputes." Thus treating people as terrorists embroiled in law suits, violates this precedence by making victimization of abuse of power a booby trap or snare. Redress of grievances has become a snare that automatically destroys the public perception of civil right victims, trusting the FBI's articulation which contradicts stari decisis,. Furthermore, the First Amendment bars arbitrary action against citizens' naturally reacting to emotional grievance. That is why it was important to bar arbitrary knee jerk reactions by officials who use the victim's inability to remain calm, to discredit emotionally troubled individuals as possibly dangers to society. Once that is done, there is no hope for the victims they created. This tactic false within that perverted diabolical brilliance used by the very corrupt. It is hard to remain calm by those who see the futility in recovering their losses caused by corrupt men or woman, when the futility suddenly becomes apparent, contrary to justice. Although most do remain calm showing their better character. In fact, to support this perversion of "grievance," it can be soundly argued that corrupt officials use this tactic to stigmatize for an "emotional responses" to injustice. Goading their victims to appear unstable and irrational. The very same thing is a common unlawful tort we call "intentional infliction of emotional distress." So the syllogism in the FBI rhetoric is essentially non equator. Maybe USA needs to abandon the custom of using state power to retaliate against a citizen's redressing a grievance, and hire law enforcement officials who can cope mentally with remaining neutral, as the First Amendment right obviously did articulate that word, "grievance," as a protected right not to be abridged, yet our policy on web sites is to consider grievance clams, as possible terrorists.
This is of great concern to this author, who disputes the irrational concept of a poorly educated and misguided "sovereign citizens" or conspiracy theorists." Redress of grievances is a right under the First Amendment, and not even "Congress shall abridge this right." Yet some equally uneducated officials can articulate a rumor that exercising a right is a possible act of a terrorist, should be looked into. While there are groups that are irrational, like those relying on mythical deity worship from religious "sovereignty," that seems to be without biblical support contradicting 1 Timothy 6:15:
These nuts are without factual evidence to support the claims. Thus, if the FBI is targeting valid nuts, the danger is the lack of distinctions that does support the constitution. This leaves a stigma that the courts have identified the dangers of this equivocation, or "arbitrary classification," leaving knee jerk reaction that will endanger individuals solely redressing grievances in these corrupt jurisdictions, see Engquist v. Oregon U.S. S. Ct. 2008:
Thus, when it appears that an individual is being singled out by the government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a "rational basis for the difference in treatment." Olech, 528 U. S., at 564.
The story about "sovereign citizens" is partly rational, but the lack of distinction and caution citing protected rights is missing from the site content. Thus in reality this is argued as is irrational, because it groups together classes of individuals who regardless of merit of the case, file "civil suits" which they say is "anti-government." Mixing classes under categorical syllogism without distinction is a violation of logical genus species of classification of groups." Logically speaking, not all who file civil suits are anti-government. Yet the site content does not allow this inference to be policy. Who gave them permission to classify first amendment civil suits as an unprotected constitutional right, to be unfairly mixed in with "anti-government groups." This discussion on FBI policy, may be a bit of digression, however, I deem it notable to the topic.
But because of court corruption noted here, how can the FBI or law enforcement distinguish the difference. It is not known if qualified legal researchers are writing FBI content on websites, A contradiction emerges, revealing the danger of deterring and chilling individuals is made known by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals using Supreme Court precedence."
Thus, corruption becomes wide spread, and the American Dream is overturned for individuals, and there is no rational basis, which also violates Engquist v. Organ, supra:
This differential treatment raised a concern of arbitrary classification, and we therefore required that the State provide a rational basis for it.
Consequently, any individual civil right case brought to Eastern District Court, regardless of its merits, has no "Rational Basis," where Immunity was not stricken from the record, disregarding "written law," Id. This custom or policy is deliberately used in "Findings and Recommendations" or Article III Judicial dispositive rulings, to dismiss a claim. This is a show of a perversion of justice as a "custom not authorized by written law" which violates Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs. 1978, U.S. S. CT:
"Congress included customs and usages [in § 1983] because of the persistent and widespread discriminatory practices of state officials. . . . Although not authorized by written law, such practices of state officials could well be so permanent and well settled as to constitute a 'custom or usage' with the force of law…"
So the investigation by FBI or DOJ is necessary to at least be able to provide rational grounds for inaction against corrupt allegations with a lawful "rational basis." Contradicting local bias, that when reviewed, the basis seen is so irrational on its face. This is simple in El Dorado County because of the custom and policy is open corruption. Some may believe they are within law, while the judges, elected officials and supervisors know better.
When USA officials turn a blind eye to corruption, the world has a legitimate challenge to our forcing our corrupt democracy on the rest of the world. China in fact is now using our hypocrisy in the world courts, and it will ruin the United States intended purpose to be a haven, as demonstrated by the hypocritical Statue of Liberty, that's creed "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…" China publicly denounced the USA as "hypocrites on human right violations in 2010, in an ongoing pattern to date. Reuters reports, "China calls U.S. a hypocrite over human rights." Thanks to Jurisdictions like El Dorado County, or any law enforcement who does not enforce corruption laws, is creating international decent towards the United States of America. The greed and selfish lack of concern for a good image for the rest of the world is revealed by these incompetently corrupt officials. Additionally, according to the FBI website, "Public corruption is a "Top Priority, because:
Corrupt public officials undermine our country's national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road. "
FBI investigations against these officials have been simplified by the open corruption recorded in the court record. They cannot rationally state that investigations have no evidence. Whether or not officials are corrupt can be found if immunity was used as a defense. Furthermore, objections requesting that non relevant facts do not result in them being stricken from the record, are also condemning showing official corruption. Other elements would show that that civil actions against officials by "individuals" were dismissed on grounds of lack of Plausibility where "genuine issues of material fact" claimed as "undisputed facts," existed and they were not properly addressed or responded to, see Rule 8 FRCP:
However, there are genuine issues of material fact apparent from the recordings, which would entitle Norse to a trial on the merits.
Probable cause of a color of law crime exists, if the defense or courts ignored these requirements, see Norse, supra:
However, there are genuine issues of material fact apparent from the recordings, which would entitle Norse to a trial on the merits.
Exciting recent news for abuse of power victims is in the Sacramento Bee. It reports that a new FBI director has emerged in Sacramento with an agenda on fighting Public Corruption. FBI in Orange County showed up to fight their corruption prior to, Monica Millers appointment to head up Sacramento Office. Orange County, has been for months, embroiled in a large public corruption sweep. The Sacramento Bee published this story on Monica Miller, mentioning her highly skilled "expertise" on "public and political corruption." Prior to 9:35 AM, the bee headlines were "FBI talks, Corruption,…" Oddly, the Bee then redacted the headline, "Last Modified: Monday, Nov. 25, 2013 – 9:35 am, pulling the word "Corruption" from the headline. Following corruption cases on the Bee for more than ½ a decade, I found certain local officials once reported as sketchy, corrupt, or reports showing El Dorado County negligence, have been totally deleted from the archives.
This is a malicious Orwellian deed hiding the record from public archives, for seemingly "special friends," or law enforcement agencies found to be negligent in the county. This does beg the question, possibly allowing an inference to suggest the Bee does not like officials poking their nose around the business of campaign advertisers, whose deeds if investigated could cut profits from imprisoned officials no longer funding the Bee through advertising political campaigns.
Yet the "unwritten law, " Id, in El Dorado County, whose "judiciary's penchant for doing things its own way," supra, and the Sacramento Eastern District Court, not identified yet with the same "penchant," has a policy to cultivate more corruption, inconsiderate of the damages. Not just violating all citizens rights to "equal protection," but the "…officials undermine our country's national security…"
In some cases, which leads to the FBI's so called, "Top Priority" where officials undermine our country's national security priority, public corruption of "FAILURE TO PROTECT FROM HARM," officials who do this "murder by proxy." This disturbing pattern of elements was identified by the Ninth Circuit, to prevent "arbitrary failure to enforce the law," to become the "cause of murder. Because it is a pattern of elements, very evil men in control of law enforcement can withhold service, although it violates the 14th amendment, due to ongoing violent circumstances. The ends that do not justify the means, are the murder of a disfavored crime victims who has annoyed a public official who is shy on empathy, and justice for all. Consequently, these sociopath traits they display, "cause stalking, murder, harassment, and the death threats that proceed, their "arbitrary" insane discovery of murder by proxy. They allow public officials "Unwritten…" or unlawful protection for "failing to protect from harm," citizens, unlawfully using the courts to enforce the criminal act. See Maria Teresa Macias v. Mark lhde 219 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2000). Macias has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit in 2010 in AE JA Elliot-Park v. Jarrod Manglona 592 F.3d 1003 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 723:
The Appellants contend that the district court "fundamentally misconstrued" the constitutional deprivation at issue in this case. They maintain that the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred when the defendants failed to provide Mrs. Macias with equal police protection in the months leading up to her death. Their brief states: The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants'] constitutional injury as `murder' rather than `lack of equal protection.' By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.
This content shows how, in El Dorado County, not too far from Sonoma County, that this type of murder by proxy is a common repeated disturbing pattern of elements that can be orchestrated, repeated, and "cause the murder" of individuals suing public employees who over-reach their power ad hoc. This content shows judges who "fundamentally misconstrue" facts, creating the cause of murder of certain crime victims who file complaints thinking that they had a right to stop the "months [and years] of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it," Macias, supra. The content describes another victim who discovered this ghastly trend, and moved from the county, because they were repeating the same events, at the same time they allowed the murder of John O'Sullivan that was basically orchestrated, following the elements in the Macias murder by proxy set of blue prints. Imagine, having to move away from your dream home! John O'Sullivan refused, and he was murdered. Is there any justice for US?
The National FBI website claims that "Public Corruption: Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority," yet El Dorado County seems to be excluded. Thus, violating the equal protection clause, and legally authorizing protected activism to protest such favoritism outlawed by the FBI's own policy described in their website. As a result, the reader must be aware and separate this website from other obscure websites which are merely alleging corruption, which is common. The claims here are not originating from an author vexed on harassing innocent parties. These claims are not without merit. This information is merely reporting on the findings discovered by the California Commission on Judicial Performance who provides the support and plausibility for the basis of the claims herein. Basically, this story stems from an arrest threat made by a Judge James Wagoner, according to the CJP.ca.gov, against concerned citizens who filed a Grand Jury Complaint as witnesses, to lawfully report obstruction of justice and witness intimidation, discovered by information provided by the late Senator Dave Cox and his aid, Rob Olmstead. Ironically, Judge Wagoners order has never been officially reversed creating an inconceivable lifetime ban on reporting crime in El Dorado County, or face arrest. Additionally, this website describes the many high ranking officials outside the CJP jurisdiction, who aid and abet the cover up to protect Wagoner, and each other in an unbelievably huge racketeering enterprise that transpires and emerges in brilliant color from the corrupt shenanigans found in the public record, re-conveyed on this site.
Ironically, and furthermore, a Ninth Circuit Appellate Case #11-1734, appealed on the basis that El Dorado County sought dismissal falsely alleging a fraudulent claim "failure to keep from harm,"stating this was not actionable, fitting the elements of criminal deceit. Yet, again, a contradiction of civil rights, the facts show the unlawful policy and custom, in that the FBI web site, clearly states that "Failure to keep from harm," is a criminal "color of law violation," leading to jail time for public offenders, including Judges. Unfortunately, these public officials, have not been indicted. Instead they are abusing powers to arrest witnesses and intimidate witnesses to cover up official criminal conduct, and they are doing it right out in the open because society is scared to death to object, and with good reason. In some cases, they have apparently secured law enforcement through the Jurisdiction of Tom McClintock's district, who has denied equal representation of his office to the victims, compounding the dilemma. This is public record of these events, should these officials succeed in further abuse of power to silence their victims.
In addition, the "3rd district Court of Appeal, noted "El Dorado County frequently "evades review" of petitioners redress attempts. They stated, "Case law recognizes the need to address such issues, particularly in 'matters of broad public interest that are likely to recur.' We agree … that this petition presents an issue that is likely to recur while evading review," according to the Sacramento Bee . How this county can be admonished, insulted by the state judiciary and yet remain undaunted should be the precursor to get FBI to treat El Dorado County like they do Orange County reported on July 26 2013, recent activity. As recent as this is, El Dorado County engaging in open disdain of laws that limit their power, like in Orange County, should not feel so secure and someone in the county should seek immunity by coming forth while they have time. This is the goal of this information.
This site calls on other countries to notice that USA districts are destroying any future hope in spreading democracy worldwide, because it sure does not exist in this part of USA! Other countries should notice, because citizens here noticing are being prosecuted or financially ruined by arbitrary government once limited to outside the USA, and the African American's, Native Americans, Japanese Americans, Irish Americans, all Americans. We need the UN here to obstruct arbitrary government officials as equally as does any other arbitrary government per our 14th amendment stance on equal human treatment, if our own government cannot behave, we see the UN occupying countries where abuse of power is not being deterred, by local law.
Number one, document the affect. don’t waste resources on fighting the affects, or the abuse, resistance is futile.
Number two, Fight the Cause. Learn about Immunity, and where it comes from and its true intent. These are documented in this site. Organize to educate US citizens the “Chisholm Trail” that caused a perverted brilliance by evil men to legalize corruption by equivocating sovereignty, a dogmatic “extractive institution,” into the Eleventh Amendment, and in 1999 The U.S. Supreme Court illogically ruled that sovereignty is the Constitution and the Eleventh Amendment is null. This is a perversion of the genus species of what Sovereignty is. Its hard to see, but if you study the paper trail, it emerges its ugly bastard head. In Conclusion, stop swatting the mosquito and drain the pond of immunity that cultivates the larvae.
El Dorado County overt Multi-Million Dollar Attorney Fee Scam Emerges: Eleventh Amendment Federal Sting Operation: Civil Immunity Claim in essence is an admission of guilt for criminal indictment! Ouch!
THIS ARBITRARY COUNTY is a perfect sociological study in real time as each incident of criminal power abuse are developed like editable key frames of time coded scenes. It is hoped that, due to the State ratification of most of these facts, this site will be used to publicly illustrate the elements making identification of corruption readily assessable by common citizens. Scenes described herein, which should have ended up on the cutting floor, are real. But what happens when the editors are motivated to not edit? Unlike a bad movie, the final cut leaves victims at the hand of arrogantly vicious criminal abusers and they unjustly suffer great losses contrary to American tradition and policy! In El Dorado County, abuse of power victims are fodder for a multi million dollar Attorney Fee Scam that has recently been uncovered. To make matters simple,...
..the acts in each scam are recorded forever in the public record. Therefore, they reliably reveal the deliberate, otherwise concerted effort seen in racketeering organizations of the past.
Although James Wagoner was found guilty by the State of California Counsel on Judicial Performance (CJP) of repeated obstruction of justice crimes, you can conclude that he is a serial offender. He is still at large as an acting Judge in El Dorado County, totally making a mockery of the judiciary system. Local, Federal and State law enforcement has given him a get out of jail free card, so he is “embolden to act with greater impunity…” This is more common than thought, and the courts are trying to stop it. In fact the United States Department of Justice put it this way:
Vigorous prosecution of public corruption has always been vital to our country. Public corruption takes a heavy toll on our communities. Corruption gives unfair advantages to those willing to break the law: public officials, their relatives and friends, and those who willingly pay bribes to gain public contracts and other government actions. But there are many victims: both those who are shaken down for bribes and kickbacks, and the members of the general public, who pay for corruption through inflated costs and loss of faith in government. With tightening budgets throughout all levels of government, vigorous enforcement is even more important than ever.
" According to Elliot-Park v. Deputy Manglona (9th 2010), "Would-be criminals will act with a greater impunity if they believe they have a get out of jail free card if they commit crimes against the disfavored..." The court is talking about officials as the “would be criminals.”
The information I provide on this website is a glimpse of history documented, albeit, amidst a background of tremendous white noise now two centuries old. But because of this history, there is a logically sound and valid paper trail that leads to the same mathematically deductible categorical syllogistic conclusions. I assure you, I have broken out my old oscilloscope, if I may use the metaphor, wiped of the dust and have tuned out the white noise, leaving a clear signal of wavelengths that exactly match the essence of abuse of power under the color of law. Through much patience and focus, I have isolated the patterns showing how minion officials “fundamentally misconstrue” your reality that would convict them or find them liable, into predictable patterns that can save you time and vast resources you would lose through a futile system. A system that is jurisdictional and contrary to law, requiring prison time for most of these minions lost in proairesis. Victims of abuse of power under the color of law crimes, committed by officials who violate criminal statute Title 18 United States Code §§ 241, 242, 14141, among others, are protected Just not in this El Dorado County jurisdiction. So be warned. But the good news is that there is a statutory basis to allow corruption, thus it can be reversed, a bloodless revolution if you will. But that is another discussion I have fully researched.
El Dorado County has essentially seceded from the United States of America. Contradicting the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals in what is probably one of the largest and longest unnoticed attorney fee scams ever conceived by the diabolical perversion of genius that seems to hypnotize seemingly brain dead constituents into a deeper coma. Legal smoke and mirrors has long been a tactic worth the risk by creating public offices as fraternity “enterprises” with select members “…embolden to act with greater impunity…” creating a supremacy class of individuals above the law. Due to the civil rights act, members of all classes are invited, but dare any “class of one,” of all the classes object to abuse of power. Consequently, when law enforcement or legislators abuse power under the color of law, nobody will dare arrest them, as they are the authority anyway. Even the California Supreme Court is ignored when this article proves my point from Sacramento Bee, accusing El Dorado County Superior Court Judges of “ignoring law, and making up their own rules!” . Think about it. They do the corrupt openly, because even the staff, know that whistle blowing will lead to a pink slip, loss of wages and a black list. They too hold power over superiors which can be leveraged to fix tickets, or God forbid, the occasional petty murder; i.e. Governator Arnold clemency of a fellow politicians murderer son, contrasting disfavored murders who must do all the time! That loophole was closed by legislation, But what about the confessions of crime in the hush hush attorney fee scam?
As a result, this site is intended to encourage all victims of abuse of power to maintain peaceful and lawful redress attempts. Also do them at your own risk. In El Dorado County, you will most likely fail and lose everything. Also, any legal approach to redress this, can be misconstrued as a threat, assault, and deranged act. Anything they want to claim they can get away with because nobody on planet earth will listen. All redress has been suspended in Tom McClintock’s district, regarding corruption claims, according to an aid. Se be warned. Just stay away from these miserable souls, and just tell the story to law enforcement outside the jurisdiction. Not all officials are corrupt! Well, outside of El Dorado County that is.
My success filing a complaint only occurred filing it outside of the local jurisdiction with the Judicial Counsel. The complaint detailed information with public statements and documents proving a seemingly corrupt group of law enforcement elected officials, among others who oversee their operations, obstructed justice and committed wire and election fraud. Their failure to dismiss or punish named members was evidence showing acquiescence by those who turned a blind eye. While, Senator Dave Cox, made the right choice and offered the exhibit document as evidence, excluding himself from participation and criminal activity. Inaction, according to the courts is an overt inference, infra, when it is obvious that policy is not to allow murder or witness intimidation through ongoing private violence to end law suits. Their motive was opposition to damaging view point activism or peaceful protest and press statements that reflected them in a negative light that their own malicious acts created. Which is lawful to do under the first amendment.
Retaliation for protected activity, on the other hand is not. Which according to Macias v. Sheriff Mike Ihde (9th 2000) outlines elements showing how it is possible for law enforcement to use ongoing crime as a "cause of murder" to stop complaints and calls. Shockingly, the courts identified a tactical modification of equal protection of due process, the court calls "fundamentally misconstruing" (nice talk officials use for themselves instead of saying perjury or lying). They described a "murder by proxy," when the victims aren't prone to suicide that their arbitrary inaction may generate, or they don't stop filing complaints. Our most vindictive immoral officials stoop to this deliberate proairesis. To help you understand, consider this scenario. Imagine a homeowner watching a burning ember from a city tossed from a car and land on their highly insured home. Instead of picking it up, and reporting the perpetrator, they realize a benefit. The house burns, they collect the insurance, and all are glad they made it out alive. If he was a sheriff, he saw the car and the careless perpetrator so he arrests the perpetrator pretending he discovers secret clues! He’s touted a brilliant cop, all the while he took advantage of elements that he knew could possibly solve some problems, through a perfect crime!. As far-fetched as this would seem to those who support a bit of larceny in the hearts of their favorite party member, This is a common vendetta ability identified by Macias, and mentioned on the FBI web site. Most of us would do the right thing and stomp out the cig. That hypothetical syllogism is used so that you can compare it to the deductions made by the Macias court, pointing to these same elements that stop scandalous acts from a disgruntled crime victim from making it through due process, which could end an officials career for negligence, if not corruption. Like all things nasty, follow the money.
This is explained in more detail, showing to actual cases, that match the elements, and leaving one dead body, and courts barring civil rights encouraging a mental patient to, if he desired, to murder another person suing Vern Pierson. This is not conjecture, the facts support the claims, and the elements derive from the 9th circuit of appeals. The only defense would be to provide a rational basis, and there has never been any, even in the Macias case. The act is a murder by proxy! I'm not the only one able to comprehend the horror that can be orchestrated by the Macias investigation. Additionally, these elements have been referred to by a motion picture documentary called “Murder by Proxy.” It's a morbid scenario and the courts are trying to stop it. It is no wonder that the Elliot-Park case in 2010, reaffirmed Macias as controlling authority.
James Wagoner was not part of the original complaint. But the trap was laid, and he took the bait to cover up for others criminal acts where D. A. Vern Pierson was repeating elements that caused the murder of John O'Sullivan, similar to the Macias Case. Wagoner, could have been free and clear and reported the crime and illegal influence to get him to obstruct the grand jury, like the Honorable late Senator Dave Cox, RIP. But Wagoner has no honor! In fact he is dishonorable publicly, and that does not deter him, he remains undaunted. Wagoner made a “…deliberate choice…,” a 2500 year old illogical conundrum.
Aristotle’s work on ethics, the “Nicomachean Ethics,” “proairesis” which determines a person’s character. Officials who operate in this manner, do not think that it is noticeable. In El Dorado County, the evidence show from actual participation and review of overt out in the open facts they ignore, as stated by the California 3rd District Supreme Court, “El Dorado County Judges make their own rules, ignoring state and federal law.” So, now they have fashioned a racketeering enterprise to obstruct justice, and I personally have been through chain of command, all the way to the Sacramento Eastern District Court. I can confidently say, all of those chains of commands inside Tom McClintock district violated some criminal statutes or civil rights. Proairesis? Are they just negligent? If they would have honored and obeyed the Supreme Court and provided a rational basis, which could only occur in an evidentiary hearing, we would know. But all that I can see is gross negligence or malicious vindictive animus, which are valid complaints, without a rational basis. That is why the Supreme Court requires a rational basis:
"Thus, when it appears that an individual is being singled out by the government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a "rational basis for the difference in treatment." Olech, 528 U. S., at 564..”
Therefore, we have freedom of the press, to report arbitrary classification, and although it seems to be disrespectful, the “…Specter…is fairly raised…” here. Unlike the Judicial Council who did have an evidentiary hearing. And they said, James Wagoner was guilty, and his attempt to fundamentally misconstrue truth with fraud, was determined wholly irrational! Thus, now all that is left is to draw public support to get the media to do what they are supposed to do and question arbitrary government actions that go unpunished!
In a foolish telltale blunder, James Wagoner’s motive is clear that he too was "…emboldened to act with greater impunity…" knowing he could commit crimes of witness intimidation, jury intimidation, obstructing a grand jury investigation by wire fraud, dated, December 20th 2007. In his jurisdiction James Wagoner is without fear. But in San Francisco, he was busted. Usually colleagues when confronted with such buffoonery amongst the corrupt, will force a resignation. This hasn’t happened so they all must be dirty! However, in the above campaign picture, all the other judges are distancing themselves from him. A coincidence, or Gestalt design?
That Judicial Council was in San Francisco, and the tentacles of El Dorado County Corruption do not reach in that jurisdiction. The point being that if you file complaints, file them with jurisdictions farther from local influence. FBI or DOJ. But a few years ago, local FBI in Sacramento, in spite of the CJP turned a blind eye and maintain the cover-up, contradicting national policy regarding "failure to keep from harm." My bet is on the DOJ., revealing their local proairesis.
In the last substantial part of the decade, recent cases where crime victims allege, "failure to protect from harm," in their "Equal Protection violation claims," an individual among many "cause of actions, alleged to have been perpetrated by El Dorado County arrogant D.A. Vern Pierson. The discovery reveals that there is a pattern of conduct that developed putting D.A. Vern Pierson into the limelight, not because of a half a dozen or so disgruntled complainants, where ad hominem bias can argue a motive, valid or not. But because of the elements that match 14th amendment violations, the allegations are prima facie. Although the claims by victims are not "substantially motivated by "failure to protect from harm,” they are fundamentally misconstrued from 14th amendment violation, which is a noted element, telltale warning sign pointing to corruption. But the telltale facts emerge due to Vern Pierson not prosecuting favored citizens who commit crimes. Pierson, a prosecutor, should have known that, although he is immune for prosecution cases for civil liability, it is a crime of "Top Priority" by the FBI. As a consequence, his paltry immunity claims are in essence a criminal confession. Furthermore, where the 5th amendment right to not convict yourself is washed away in pounds and stacks of pleadings. One merely, as one court put it, “sniff for his truffles in the briefs of their frivolous pleadings,” and cut and paste them into criminal indictments. How convenient. Why are there investigations? Hamlet, in Shakespeare’s scene 1, "The laws delay...the insolence of office and the spurns that patiend merit of the unworthy takes.” Yet as popular and as repeated and studied as those lines are, humanity is still trapped in a web of deceit by corrupt officials, or "The laws delays."
Well trained judges recognize elements that show crimes they commit based upon the confidence in their relationship with fellow officials, will obstruct justice through “fellows” ignoring their crimes. Consequently, the defense of the county’s private defense attorneys defending this heinous public behavior is a display of disdain for logic. They are also emboldened by claiming immunity as a blindsided confession made by official’s claiming, “so what, I am immune under the Eleventh Amendment.” They may not even be aware that the enthymeme, an indisputable fact. Where out of one side of their mouth, claiming immunity, regardless of the merits, may dispose of personal financial restitution for the victim, set aside, “ad hoc” cases. But out of the other side of the mouth is a confession of act that is in violation of human rights, which is not protected by immunity and criminal, such as “failure to protect from harm” FBI’s “number on priority.” I didn’t recognize this emergence and fact for some time, but if I may use an old British expression, Bob’s your Uncle, there it is! Regardless, People like James Wagoner and Vern Pierson fully expect the FBI to ignore their confession of "so what if we failed to protect from harm" we are immune. The Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity does not protect from criminal prosecution, however! Only corruption protects from criminally prosecuting officials confessing to abuse of power civil and human right violations claiming immunity. It is not my intent to cause the FBI in Sacramento to retaliate, they never have, they just have ignored the violations, which calls for Citizens to demand review. And review is happening across the nation, and supervisors, elected officials and judges are being prosecuted and it is about time!
This allowable civil defense of immunity is contributory to the diabolical perversion of brilliance. Such that to escape civil liability, unwittingly, lawyers toss the official under the criminal prosecution buss by using it, I would argue, unconsciously. It is comical when they get busted. FBI is currently backlogged, but heading to El Dorado County. This is gold country, and revenue is high, and their tax coffers overflow. They fine these officials, which also deservedly punishes the tax payers for tolerating this abuse! You can bet they are heading to Gold Country!
Finally, citizens will rejoice, the economies will flourish, and these officials can at least feel the heat and the sickening pit in their stomach when they realize the fatal error they voluntarily recorded, waiting to indict them for relying on immunity to escape civil liability. Now they have confessed to being criminals using it. Now that is great justice and karma! That is, once it comes around!
It is not known if these unwitting officials are mentally competent to be aware of their actions; therefore, please be patient and treat them with human dignity, even if they appear to be tyrants. Contact agencies not in Sacramento or El Dorado County, otherwise you run the risk of being misconstrued publicly by their tactics and seemingly compliant press corps.
The citizens in the county who control vast amounts of wealth have influence purchased this type of injustice. They consider it a sort of insurance policy insider trading, so to speak, to avoid consequences of criminal conduct, typically white color crime, but occasionally a friend or family member get off their meds and become violent. These crimes are featured in context here. Victims’ rights where violent crime is allowed to occur, do to a favoring of a violent criminal, is wrong. Regardless of helping out a friend, the victims has to be considered, and there is no legal justification, or "rational basis," Engquist v. Oregon U.S. 2008, to ignore FBI warning about "failure to keep from harm."
Constitutionally protected redress has been suspended in El Dorado County! It is now official. Just Google “Wagoner and CJP,” and read the Bee article about Supreme Court pointing to Judges in El Dorado County who “make up their own laws” as common. More importantly, look at my discussion on Norse v. Santa Cruz (9th 2010), further on in another article herein this web of information. Maui Hawaii in 2004, and Santa Cruz in 2010, was similarly caught by the Appellate court ignoring The Supreme Court mandate Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998; which bars “officials, but moreover, “Legislators” from denying individuals rights where other individuals have those rights. The Ninth Circuit abrogated the immunity of local “legislators” allowing abuse of power victims to sue city council members and boards of supervisors into bankruptcy. Because the abuse was “ad hoc,” case by case there is no immunity.
I cannot stress the necessity for awareness on this! Legislators have immunity only for non-ad hoc abuse that affected large populations equally. This prevents political action committees from using the courts to intimidate legislators by holding them accountable for policy formulation affecting citizens equally. It may even be good law. So what occurs in counties such as El Dorado, is rule by arbitrary constituent molesters who feel they have a lawless duty to molest the rights of individuals they do not like "ad hoc." They fundamentally misconstrue Bogan case in the Supreme Court granting immunity and ignore the “ad hoc” four part test,” and rarely is immunity abrogated. One case is on file where immunity was abrogated, but then the Judge used the crime against the plaintiff that was determined to be illegal by the State Judicial Counsel, to sanction her! For example, your death row murder conviction is overturned, you are released, and another judge orders your execution because the accusation had been made regardless of its lack of truth. “…Repeated injury..,” so Declared the Colonists in 1776!
They do this by denying certain persons, “ad hoc,” the use of official services. As a result, this action is adverse and it does not formulate policy but only proves the point. That is, the government singles out certain subjects, and denies them 14th amendment rights that are common to other similarly situated individuals who enjoy the same right a victim of abuse is denied, without a “rational basis.” Complaints are funneled to per-arranged mock due process venues, who all ignore “ad hoc” precedence, and they argue contrary, and in spite of objections and judicial notice of “ad hoc” controlling precedence, the corrupt courts, because of their proairesis characters deliberately ignore them. Also, another tactic is to use as a mock basis. The will use irrelevant employment abuse of power cases where government employees are denied redress legally, as part of public duty, Garcetti v. Caballos 2006 US. In a mock due process venue, the defense presents the tripe argument to a judge who ignores plaintiff objections, claiming that a private citizens is employed by the state. Its ironic, but they do it, they are that inept from seeing the overt inferences these tactics reveal. The typical adversary judge aids the defense in making corrections, and sinking cases that expose county corruption, in a out in the open cover-up. Monty Python made a career out of illustrating this behavior where citizens would just ignorantly adopt and ratify the absurdities as if they were buffoons. Some judges are so callous, they are jailing shocked plaintiffs for contempt, the worst scenario, or sanctioning them into bankruptcy for darkening the door of their personal court rooms. As if they believe the courts are given to them by the so called “People,” so judges can do as they please, regardless of law. All of these absurd tactics are used, making prosecution against them very easy. It’s like following bloody foot prints from the murder victim which leads to his door, thus he is easily convicted. But trying to get a government representative to listen, is another story. Most victims give up, and they know it. So you better start supporting this type of activism!
There can be no discrimination according to the courts, even for one person that the courts now call a "class-of one." The elements are identical, and the tort and crime is predictable. The only distinction that has been identified by the courts is public employment ad hoc perceived arbitrary abuse claims. Public employees, whether they know it or not, waive speech rights that interfere with public business, among other reasons they cite. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). Military volunteers or draftees are told this up front. To digress, in another form of Irony, military under the UCMJ, who have to waive constitutional rights due this because they trust their government? Yet they have more “protection from harm by rogue superiors than do private civilian citizens. New enlistee’s are typically too young to be aware of the public official abuse described by the content of this site. Nevertheless, the irony appears where the UCMJ does not have immunity for abuse of power. Enlisted men, as well as officers can file a complaint. Consequently, if it is valid, the offender receives a reprimand, which goes in the record and ruins the future career of abusive officials. Unlike civilian authorities, the military are aware there are plenty good men to replace them. Local politicians are inherently arrogant, and support a false belief that a community would be lost without them.
So the point I’m am making, in El Dorado County, your tax dollars have been funding city attorneys along with private attorneys who are favored to receive your tax dollars in an attorney fee scam. The scam is to ignore the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit and articulate the opposite to non-lawyer Boards of Supervisor’s who pretend that it is normal business to pay high priced tax dollars instead of using the already funded public defenders to (wink wink) “”defend the public.”” Even though the corruption is visible, and contrary to a panoply of statutes affirmed by the highest courts, ignorance of the people is on their side.
That’s why we have FBI agents looking for corruption as “top priority.” The FBI in Sacramento is turning a blind eye, however. As a result, complaining to them may draw retaliation. It does draws snickers and tee hee's from a duty agent. Some get a kick out of seeing civil right complainers squirm because there is no redress. This is an intoxicating power that will cause a human who possess it to destroy another human who objects to it.
The revelation, however, is shown that jurisdictions ignore law for a profit. Thus, enriching certain connected private attorneys. Instead of using the public defender lawyers already receiving tax dollars to defend “public” officials, the appropriated tax money stays where it is, and the Boards of Supervisors convene through “ad hoc” necessity, totally contrary to the Norse precedence and rob money from additional tax dollars. This is in addition to money appropriated for the "public defense," that is already there paying for existing lawyers. It is sort of ironic to see tax dollars used by the state to defend corruption where they do not deny that they lie to do it, regardless of the appropriation discrepancy.
In my research, I have not found one civil right case to defend the public offices, defended by the (wink wink) “”public defender.” It seems that the El Dorado County Boards of Supervisors totally deliberately commit a crime 18 USC color of law violations. They make “ad hoc” decisions to vote on using funding for special favored “private attorneys” who have been paid millions of tax dollars when it has been a crime. They also do this in a "closed hearing," apparently to limit witnesses and keep audiences from becoming repulsed at concerted organized crime tax dollar attorney fee scams.
According to the Ninth Circuit pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court Bogan v. Scott-Harris. El Dorado County Legislators are guilty of extorting tax dollars in the millions, due to the indisputable ad hoc tax misappropriations. Nevertheless, in spite of the exposure only hid by ignorance, they are getting away with it. It is Ironic that Ray Nutting makes the news over a petty crime, when our public officials have somehow hypnotized a whole community while lining the pockets of favored private attorney’s, instead of using the “public defender’s office, to “”defend the Public.””
Are you waking up yet, or are you still in a coma? Where in the Constitution does it say that corrupt officials get free private attorneys? Nowhere! Color of law crimes are the FBI’s top priority. You as a citizen have never had it so good to report massive corruption in California in a small complaint to the FBI. Ultimately, making your community a coveted place to live. It would open doors for honest citizens not prove to divisive tactics making public participation in government enjoyable! The FBI web site is inviting your request as a citizen for help! It is stating, "Public Corruption is our top priority among criminal investigations—and for good reason:”
Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year.
The FBI is singularly situated to combat this corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance.
For example, a citizen complaint initiated a land mark attempt a restoring justice, if not by jurisdiction alone. Look at Orange Counties example. Mike Carona is an elected Sheriff, and he is really in prison, no kidding! I’ll be there officials are thinking twice. But not in El Dorado County, something has affected the people, and they are morally unconscious.
The Court decisions mandating officials to obey the law, are not limited to Santa Cruz or Maui, as is burglary is not barred only in certain districts! High ranking public officials and candidates are feeling the pain of a disgruntled nation following the Tea Party and Occupy movements. Wise politicians find that throwing ineptly corrupt officials under the corruption buss is a sure ticket to win the vote! The unwise, ignore reality and continue status quo corruption. It will catch up to them, and the FBI are hot on their trails. Sacramento office, embolden with impunity to ignore their own policy may be short lived. CBS has exposed scandal and crime in local offices, and they are not done looking!
Please wake up from your coma’s and contact the FBI, or DOJ and demand equal rights protection of the law. The evidence of the attorney fee scam are recorded at Pacer.gov. Just search “*v. el Dorado county et. al.” and 42 USC 1983 for hundreds of cases over the past decade. Then perhaps you can have the best possible outcome of your life and ride off into the sunset thinking joyful peaceful things, while our Boards of Supervisors are lead off to prison in chains where they belong for allow this.
FUTILITY USING THE PETITION CLAUSE: Civil Rights: FBI "Top Priority", but not in Sacramento. Why?
Public Corruption: FBI "Top Priority", but not in Sacramento regional office! Why? Inquiring minds want to the the basis, to see if it is "rational."
The FBI has been contacted in the past, about these indisputable prima facie facts. Although a contradiction to policy outside of this local jurisdiction is present, it shows how the tentacles of local corruption thwart checks and balances, otherwise designed to prevent the disparate treatment of citizens who object to abuse of power.
When corruption is perceived to be the standard operating procedure, breaking from the American tradition of liberty and justice for all; connotations need to be excluded to insure that the perception of corruption is rational. A recent court case, specifically for the subject matter of arbitrary classification used to discriminate, Engquist v. Oregon 2008 U.S., warns officials that, “Our equal protection jurisprudence has typically been concerned with governmental classifications that "affect some groups of citizens differently than others." Thus, the courts require a rational basis from officials accused of arbitrary power to excuse perceived behavior. Engquist stated:
Thus, when it appears that an individual is being singled out by the government, the specter of arbitrary classification is fairly raised, and the Equal Protection Clause requires a "rational basis for the difference in treatment." Olech, 528 U. S., at 564..”
Alternatively, in El Dorado County a battle between civil servants creating power to enhance their own personal wealth by depriving their accusers of meaningful due process, is but one of many motives supported by financial reward which could end due to employment termination or arrest. Respectively, in the private sector, similar white collar crime is not protected with immunity, and they are fired. Additionally, this brings up another point:
A section 1983 plaintiff may attempt to prove the existence of a custom or informal policy with evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officials were not discharged or reprimanded. See McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780, 784 (9th Cir.1986)
The FBI has been contacted in the past, about these indisputable prima facie facts. Although a contradiction to policy outside of this local jurisdiction is present, it shows how the tentacles of local corruption thwart checks and balances, otherwise designed to prevent the disparate treatment of citizens who object to abuse of power
Consequently, due to the fragmentation of jurisdictions by anti-constitution law enforcement, complainants are converted to “disfavored,” political dissidents. Thus, they run the risk of being singled out and retaliated against for following and believing the myth that the First Amendment Petition or Free Speech Clause exists.So as you can see, due to the CJP investigation, these claims are merely reporting news handed down by the State Agency. Therefore, this arbitrary county is a perfect study point and example showing a contrast between good and evil men in power, an ethical conundrum can be viewed as reliable by a reasonable person.
INDISPUTABLE FACTS: “officials are not entitled to absolute immunity if acts of officials deprive rights based upon “Ad hoc decisions!” Robert Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th 2010).
Many cases exist in El Dorado County where, “deliberate indifference and failure to adequately train” public officials create tort liability which can abrogate immunity of public officials. Thus, a “show of cause” in courts to legislate corrupt behavior of rogue public officials can be intervened by, “The People” jury panels.
...Civil right cases outside of “ad hoc,” individual “case by case, actions that are “legislative in nature” are barred by the Eleventh Amendment because they don’t single out an individual. Moreover, Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999, affirming that the First Amendment right barring congress from abridging petition redress right has been repealed. Alden has replaced the necessity for county defense attorney’s to rely on the Eleventh Amendment to cover up corruption under the color of law, a non sequitur illogical premise contradiction (but skewed law regardless). Defending the illogical, though hasn’t caught up to “The Peoples” comprehension level, but its demise draws near, because the dark ages cannot hang onto into the space age paradigm. This is because illogical premises are grounds for reversal. Thus, sanity in our nation will return. Resulting, only when the major premise behind abuse of power, Alden v. Maine claim to “dogmatic sovereignty” is sent back to the dark ages.
El Dorado, officials have deliberately seceded from the Nation and are acting outside of authority! Norse v. Santa Cruz shows this secession. Tax dollars are being robbed from every citizen in the county subjected to whatever whim an official can convince other corrupt officials to ratify. Citizens are excluded from U.S. citizenship rights, and representation when they are turned away, or subjected to arbitrary mock due process events by the representatives seeking to chill and stigmatize allegations made by citizens as vexatious.
El Dorado County is very creative. In fact Judge James Wagoner, according to the Counsel on Judicial performance (CJP) will hold court and prosecute bystanders for nothing, where he has no jurisdiction. He has ordered, inept drone deputies to seek out innocent bystanders and arrest people or threaten to arrest people he doesn’t like, and throw them in jails that he considers his very own private torture dungeons. One victim named by the CJP claimed that his torture detail broke her wrist. All of this was deemed illegal, and he did this after another case where Wagner “obstructed a grand jury investigation” by intimidating protected witnesses with threats of ”incarceration and sanctions,” during his private nonpublic duty illegal use of public funds used to finance the enterprise. James Wagoner has remained undaunted and defiant refusing to vacate the order, yet he is not prosecuted for the continued ongoing crime. His actions show he is an anti-constitutionalist and ignores his own district courts opinions.
Legislators, are the Judiciary, and the representatives of constituents. Those who sit in Legislation, according to the Supreme Court Bogan v. Scott-Harris 1998, and legislate to deprive individual citizens of a right that “similarly situated individuals enjoy,’ i.e. land use permits, grand jury indictments, orders to make arrests against protesters or boisterous irritating vocal “thumbs down dissent as opposed to clapping with elation,” loose or “abrogate” immunity, and can be sued into bankruptcy where they lose their homes, their kids’ education and savings accounts, imprisoned, to restore the victims’ rights, and fired! All to deter future corruption in order to preserve democracy. Common public participation in official meetings, can be noticed by elevated happiness, or booing dissent. But prosecuting “thumbs down” boisterous dissent is illegal. Remove these checks and balances and you have anarchy, or better stated, El Dorado County.
THE EXAMPLE OF THE HONEST OFFICIAL: celebrating the very honorable federal judge jack Weinstein of New York! We need more of you! Please move to Sacramento!
Federal Judge Weinstein and the location of his jurisdiction shows the dichotomy that denies equal justice and liberty for citizens of El Dorado County who have grown accustomed to living in an arbitrary totalitarian regime. Recent Headlines read, Judge Jack Weinstein “rips” the police in New York for ”false arrests” where they framed private citizens.
Contrary to Sacramento Federal Judges in recent cases who ignored and “approved” public officials similar behavior...
When written evidence was provided by the Late Senator Dave Cox, proving elected officials and a State Legislator Ted Gaines participated in creating false “Arrest” reports to obstruct justice by fabricating “numerous arrests” against crime victims. The document was an “agreement” between most of El Dorado County elected officials, seemingly headed by Assemblymen Ted Gaines, named as the highest ranking official who ratified the criminal obstruction of justice. The agreement was to retaliate against those who sought redress of grievance, by exposing Felony fixing, a rather over the top extension of petty ticket fixing. See Exhibit A1 thru A3 Ninth Circuit court of appeals case # 11-17344, The case is wrought with indisputable allegations and proof ignored by the corrupt district court who ignored and fabricated the plaintiff complaint to another “Fundamentally Misconstrued” set of claims. Instead of remaining unbiased a Magistrate acted as an editor for El Dorado County defense attorneys. He made up allegations claiming objected to allegations were the plaintiff’s basis for the suit, as suggested by the defense. This was so ridiculous because the false claims they made, contradicted themselves, and could not have occurred. They were told in Judicial Notice, about this, but this Magistrate seemed he would have accepted a photo copy of a phone book page, and ruled on it, regardless. It was a shocking revaluation of what judicial corruption does to those who are being re-injured for seeking redress of injury. The Declaration of Independence called this, “repeated injuries and usurpations. Nevertheless, these fraudulent suggestions skewed the “substantial motivating factor” which was stated clear as a bell following those exact terms. They counterfeited the plaintiff claim and it was ratified by a Magistrate, who ignored every objection for 3 years. Rule 8 of the FRCP, denies any further dispute by the county of the real alleged facts that were never objected to or responded to, within the constraints of rule 8. Rule 8, by law seals the Plaintiff Claim as stated, and admitted as fact, and it remains undisputed to this day. The evidence speaks for itself in the record.
Out of character with the jurisdiction of El Dorado County and Sacramento Eastern District Court, Tom McClintock’s congressional district, Weinstein noted that “informal inquiry by [himself] and among the judges of this court, as well as knowledge of cases in other federal and state courts … has revealed anecdotal evidence of repeated, widespread falsification by arresting officers of the New York City Police Department.” In addition he stated, “there is some evidence of an attitude among officers that is sufficiently widespread to constitute a custom or policy by the city approving illegal conduct.”
His position is sound law and is supported by other district courts regarding conspiracy’s by corrupt groups who think that hiding bribes creates the perfect crime. Overt examples of incidences that cannot be explained rationally outside of the corrupt court rooms, are “inferences” that judges can rely on to make rational rulings. However, in El Dorado County, the overt incident, the ignoring of exhibits A1 thru A3 and exhibit Q, in case # 11-17344, Id, is not alone for justifiable reliance. Putting it in court lingo:
Conspiracies, of course, are rarely evidenced by explicit agreements, but must almost always be proved by inferences that may be fairly drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators." Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., supra, 534 F.2d at 1043. At a minimum, however, "the circumstances (must be) such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement." American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1139, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946).
Yet Federal Eastern District Court Case contained, Exhibit A1 thru A3, “rarely evidenced by explicit agreements,” and their cavalier attitude, in way, could PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST, due to the fact that it was IGNORED EVIDENCE FOR 3 YEARS!
Furthermore, exhibit Q, a court order written on State Court letterhead, but stolen for personal use by James Wagoner to “obstruct a grand jury investigation,’ according to the CJP, supra, was used to cover up allegations that Vern Pierson was endangering crime victims to protect accused criminals who had his favor, according to sworn affidavits, and the inferences drawn from allowing a mental patient to stalk, assault, threaten to murder, vandalize, almost 2 dozen crime victims for a 3 year period, when there were 5 restraining orders Vern Pierson ignored, protecting an unprecedented amount of crime victims. Where is the Rational Basis, to allow crime against critics of a public official required by the U.S. Supreme Court? Oh but it gets worse…we didn’t know that Vern Pierson was using a federal Magistrate to ratify setting up elements barred by a Ninth Circuit case, to allow, and be”the cause of murder…assaults…months of stalking” infra.
One of the above mentioned civil right appeals case Ninth Circuit cass,e # 11-17344 disputing the findings of Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan that was later settled out of court. The appeal covered some rather bizarre hateful judicial and evidently corrupt behavior by Magistrate Brennan... a grand jury complaint was filed GJ-07-007, and a hearing was convened, (listen here), but was obstructed by a judge, later found guilty of of it by the cjp.ca.gov. to stop a mentally ill violent fellow (listen here) from stalking a neighborhood resulting...
THIS IS WHAT PUBLIC RECORD ALLOWS ME TO SAY ABOUT EDMUND F. BRENNAN, a Magistrate Judge in Sacramento Eastern District Court? Is he playing bad cop or good cop? I am addressing the indisputable facts showing that a miscarriage of justice is illegal U.S, Supreme Court “Monell” prohibitions, ex[plained infra, which, in a nutshell is the creation of unwritten “custom or policy. This Supreme Court case prohibits officials from benefiting from abuse of power “under the color of law,” by obstruction of justice, or use of official power to intimidate and threaten witnesses, where law or evidence is ignored, and place with agenda, custom or policy, that may not be authorized under the supremacy clause. These elements here are documented as used, not as a warning from the Ninth Circuit to Magistrates like Brennan. On the contrary, they are instead used as a deadly means of retaliation to punish whistle-blowers, in the form of a play book, so to speak. Perpetrated by the Edmund F. Brennan’s, in our world who abandon the office of Magistrate Judges. While sheltered with immunity under the Eleventh Amendment or Sovereignty, (Alden v. Maine U.S. 1999) the very worst of them act as an “insider, aiding the defense of corrupt counties, who used the prohibited elements of Monell, or other cases describing elements of abuse of power, to deter criticism and whistle blowing, allowing assaults, vandalism and murder or murder threats directed at the whistle blowers. The motive is to deter future whistleblowing or to punish their critics out of spite and ill will.
For instance, Edmund F. Brennan, alleges that there was no evidence to support the claim appealed in Ninth Circuit Appellate case # 11-17344, which was settled out of court, vacating any substance to the validity of the district court dismissal. The appeal was pointing to mock judicial processes so boldly perpetrated, the means of the perpetrators were not hid from public record. Revealing the creation a new set of “genuine issue of material facts,” through an ill willed repeated prolonged injury occurring during a redress of grievance attempt, due to a corrupt court.
If any prosecutor would look objectively, grounds for criminal conduct or civil liability are surely no stretch of the imagination. For instance, a grand jury complaint was filed GJ-07-007, describing the “concerns” of crime victims were being ignored, resulting in assaults, vandalism, murder threats regardless of 5 separate restraining orders to specifically prohibit the offender’s violent onslaughts that the county officials were allowing to terrorize and intimidate witnesses complaining against D.A. Vern Pierson, among other representatives who ratified the abuse by inaction. In other words, victims of ongoing violence where concerned with their lives and safety, but they were disfavored as inferior citizens, as officials were denying them equal services, favored citizens have learned to expect under violent asslts. Denying equal rights abrogates immunity under prescribed conditions. The Grand Jury was originally concerned. A hearing was convened, (listen here), but was obstructed by a superior court judge, James Wagoner, later found guilty of obstructing the grand jury investigation by the cjp.ca.gov investigation here. The crime victims were trying to stop a mentally ill violent fellow (listen here) from stalking a neighborhood, assaulting 7 or 8 citizens with a loaded Glock Pistol pointed at their head. These facts were ignored and suppressed from the defense record and Magistrate Brennan’s rulings. Thus, justice was totally perverted.
These two audios set up the facts. They are from credible witnesses, contradicting Magistrate Brennan’s illegal personal testimony illegally acting as a witness in a judicial proceeding he was presiding over, regarding his comments on exhibits A1, A2, A3. A1 though A3 from totally different highly credible sources, one being the late Honorable Senator Dave Cox,” prove and corroborate that the defendants, “were trying to formulate some kind of plan or action,” according to Robert Bloom Dept. of El Dorado County Mental Health. Although Judges cannot testify to direct knowledge of evidence, while they are a presiding judge, Brennan demonstrates open corruption by claiming that the evidence “did not say what it says,” if you can believe that obvious contradiction. Because the act to obstruct the Grand Jury, which was identified as an “aggravated” offense, and “misuse of the judicial office,” by the Judicial Council, Brennan had no right to ignore “judicial notice.” Nevertheless, he failed to respond to exhibit Q, or the corroborating Audio witnesses at the Grand Jury. Brennen’s acts of dismissing this evidence as nonexistent, or reinterpreting them as if he had personal knowledge of them, proves he is absent reasoning capability, or he is absolutely corrupt! You be the judge! Although, he never examined any witnesses or evidence.
Other criminal acts existed that would cause concern by non-corrupt law enforcement, such as, stalking, assaults, witness intimidation, 5000 dollar vandalism on witness property, and trespassing, named in 4 separate criminal counts. This mentally ill man was released on a ¼ million dollar bail, enriching the county over 25 grand, according to the newspapers. Home loans were secured moneys were transferred and crimes disappeared, all under the nose of sheriff’s and D.A. Vern Pierson. A 3 year violent crime spree intimidating witnesses complaining about Vern Pierson and other officials ratifying racketeering elements continued by official acts of obstruction of justice, noted by the Judicial Commission. The present latter victims had no idea that Vern Pierson had done this in another county resulting in the murder of John O’Sullivan.
After reading and studying this site, a serous reader will learn that corruption follows a pattern and is, in your face, predictable, emphasis added! Reporting public concern issues, such as policy that endangers public safety on a website is a rational process, even a civil duty, and a constitutional right under obvious speech and press rights. This website names and identifies cases prohibiting retaliation, by revealing predictable elements showing predictable patterns that reveal how officials retaliate. Thus, according to law and precedence, they can be indicted which is the more severe penalty. A less sever deterrence is the right to sue to punish and deter others from creating arbitrary hamlets where resistance becomes futile. For instance, in these cases, the facts show they abrogate immunity by following prescribed elements identified in civil right case law, but the hamlet is so corrupt, all departments cover-up one another. In this case, the California Commission on Judicial Performance in San Francisco, outside of the corrupt jurisdiction of El Dorado and Sacramento Counties, reviewed the identical complaint and found James Wagoner guilty. Contradicting the corrupt hamlets, El Dorado and Sacramento County, who where all of opinion that the evidence could not be seen, heard, ascertained, even though, in reality, others could see, hear and ascertain its existence.
I argue, that that these hamlets have in essence, seceded from U.S. Constitutional obedience by displacing the Constitution with unwritten policy or custom. This is not a theory! Arbitrary “custom or policy,” is prohibited by Monell v. Dept. Soc. Svc. U.S. 1978. The Supreme Court removed the stigma fabricated by defendants to discredit their victims, ad hominem. This predictable element evokes the band wagon fallacy for support. It invokes certain electorate’s imaginations of citizens not able to comprehend the difference of theory and non-theory based upon their naïve trust of government officials, perhaps properly attributed to cognitive dissonance or blatant ignorance.
Objecting to the abuse of power, recognizing fallacies of logic, these crime victims noticed similarities in El Dorado County violating the Monell prohibitions, and acts the local government were following in what appeared to be a cover-up of a criminals acts that could not possibly be covered up in an otherwise sane world. A civil suit was eventually filed as a last means effort to stop this bizarre dangerous official racketeering conduct, where whole branches of local and state government obstructed the normal chains of command to redress grievances by internal affairs corruption, or simply denying constituency representation “case worker” scrutiny. The suit claimed as the “substantial motivating factor” of the defendant’s retaliation in the second sentence of the complaint. Putting the claim up front in the second sentence, “plain ordinary statement,” so the Magistrate could not argue a “fundamentally misconstrued” fabrication of other evidence, they had been doing, for instance, see Document 82 Third Amended Complaint, second sentence:
The defendants succumbed to unjustified animus in retaliation, chilling the plaintiff's free speech and other First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and this was a substantial motivating factor [EMPHASIS ADDED] for the defendant's action Plaintiffs exercised a constitutional right to prevent officials :from abusing their power under the color of authority by defending their good names :from the defendant's unjustified animus through legal redress and media and they were punished for this when the defendants denied them equal protection of rights.
Although, as predicted, putting these allegations required by rule 12(b)(6), and rule 8 of the FRCP, “up front,” made no difference. Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan made a deliberate choice outside of compliance to rule 12 or 8, or any other rule, and fabricated a non-substantial factor or factors, that did not state the stated claim, so he could emulate due process and dismiss a valid claim. Never citing these claims, or addressing the “causal link” or “substantial motivating factor.” These following facts could not be evidently more plausible. Yet plausibility does not have any foundation when the corrupt are making that determination. Thus, their resulted corruption becomes public record, and creates actionable “genuine issues of material fact,” when viewed by objective investigators, cannot be disputed as genuine.
Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, has deliberately exposed his proairesis to advertise to other high ranking corrupt officials, FBI or DOJ investors, the world, that he is a team player able to do the dirty work for organized corrupt counties. Although the motive cannot be deduced beyond a simple desire to aid and cover-up official malfeasance of colleagues he identifies with in public administration functions.
Brennan is not yet a real article III judge. Is corruption so bad locally, that prospective endorsements refuse to appoint judicial officers who do not cover up political party scandals, such as this case points to? If so, this would be indicative of a corrupt political hamlet, prohibited by the Constitution, which has been interpreted by Monell v. NYC Dept. of Soc. Svcs.
We believe his empathy should be for justice, especially violent crime victims he shows disdain for, in these public cases herein. But the evidence supports the contrary! He has empathy for the corrupt! This should never be a qualification publically advertised in the acts of judicial discretion, and the abuse thereof.
After all, the recording from the Grand Jury describes the plaintiff’s compliance with exhibit Q, determined to be an illegal obstruction of Justice committed by Superior Court James Wagoner. In other words, this is evidence that a high ranking official was racketeering for some sort of silence cover up. Magistrate Brennan, contradicted by the recording, stating that no such possibility existed. Magistrate Brennan is on record stating many times in Document 103 “the claim was not plausible.” Yet, Robert Bloom of the El Dorado County Mental Health (here his statement). The plaintiff claims Bloom was seeking approval for commitment to a mental facility, at the least, “for observation.” But the recording and all the other evidence reveal this reasonable commitment to public safety was being obstructed, and he names, “Vern, the D.A.” and other department heads. Thus, he arranged the meeting, stated in the video by “Vern” the D.A., naming various county departments.
Please note, [that theses departments], “were trying to formulate some kind of plan or action.” This is important because the outcome of the “plan or action” becomes the custom or policy.
Whatever the policy, it should obviously comply or contradicts with existing law, providing basis to act, of for inaction. In addition to avoid discrimination inequality, treating similarly situated individuals equally where murder threats are handled by police, and where evidence creates a county wide “meeting.”
Unbelievably, the case Magistrate Brennan fraudulently led the district court judge to dismiss, contained all this indisputable evidence shown in audio recordings, Exhibit A1, A2, A3, Q, CJP.ca.gov findings, affidavits, all of which Magistrate Brennan, in 3 years of litigation covered up and ignored, an element in Macias. Or he was pretending some did not center on the claim, the “fundamentally misconstruing,” element in Macias. All centered on the denial of the “equal protection clause,” another element met by Magistrate Brennan, to obstruct the petition for redress of grievances, around these prima facie government provided documents, pointing to guilt. Paradoxically, These documents are rare in cases like these. In fact, one court explains this quite well, . See, H. L. Moore Drug Exchange v. Eli Lilly and Co, 697 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1982):
Conspiracies, of course, are rarely evidenced by explicit agreements, but must almost always be proved by "inferences that may fairly be drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators." Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., supra, 534 F.2d at 1043. At a minimum, however, "the circumstances [must be] such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.
We had this evidence. Yet the judge said no evidence existed, as if in a fairy tale fit for a mental asylum, where the district court judges, stating, “We review this de novo,” seemingly acknowledging that they too are mentally ill, and cannot distinguish reality from the delusion or fraud made by Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan. But of course, they are not mentally ill, they are deliberate in covering up corruption alleged by plaintiffs, who they view as inferior and not worthy of rights.
Yet listening to the audio links I provide, it is obvious that the Grand Jury was convened, case GJ07-007, and they reviewed facts alleged, and wanted “…testimony on Wednesday.” They could have indicted officials or dismissed the allegation, after the Grand Jury reviewed evidence. But they didn’t because evidence shows that James Wagoner, not acting as a judge, illegally influence peddled the Grand Jury to cover up the complaint and reverse their due process. Which violates criminal law and the constitution, “due process” clause. At this point it is hard to dispute the claim submitted by the plaintiffs. Which is strengthened when Robert Bloom voices his obvious frustration leaving a recording discussing a meeting to allow mental patients to stalk and assault witnesses, or to encouraged the sheriff and D.A. to become, “proactive,” in the formulate some kind of plan or action, which is obviously to stop violence, which was not done!What we see is that, as alleged in the complaint was a “formulation of a plan or action,” to ignore facts and evidence, and restraining orders. Yet magistrate Brennan, ignoring this evidence in two previous dismissals, all of sudden, noting the “final attempt,” addresses exhibits, A1, A2, A3, stating in Document 103, as if this evidence was used to dismiss the two previous complaints, which it was not:
the allegations are insufficient. As an initial point, the emails do not say what plaintiffs contend they say
Yet the second sentence in the complaint are the “allegations” which he never disputed or made any ruling on. Where was a Judge? There was no judge, only an aide to the defense. The Complaint alleged that that retaliation for speech existed, and is plausible because of audio recordings (grand jury, Robert Bloom), exhibits, A1, A2, A3, Q, overt behavior from the defendants, among others. All that the complaint was but for, or substantially motivated solely due to a right to be concerned about public officials allowing and following the elements of the Macias v. Sonoma County Sherriff Mike Ihde, case, which is a cause of murder to violent crime victims, which was made public news in a “media” supre, website, exhibit A2.
Instead of interpreting Macias as a warning from the courts, that this behavior abrogates Eleventh Amendment Immunity, Brennan hid the fact defendants were using them as a playbook. The evidence shows that the defendants, i.e. et all through custom and ratification, followed the Macias playbook, to allow stalking that resulted in a half a dozen murders documented in a “media,” website. The facts reveal Brennan’s wholly arbitrary compliance to supporting elements that “cause murder,” and contradict his fabrication, making the 3 years of hell by the plaintiffs, totally without remedy, destroying forever, loss of assets, and freedom no irreparable. Brennan seems to revel and repeat actually experiencing this diabolical despicable misuse of office and power by denying John O’Sullivan the right to be protected from harm, by “fundamentally misconstruing” John O’Sullivan’s case, as well as appellate case, # 11-17344. See, . Macias v. Sonoma County Sheriff Mike Ihde (9th 2000).
The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants'] constitutional injury as `murder' rather than `lack of equal protection.' By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.
Brennan, lying through his judicial teeth, ignoring 15 year old warnings from his own circuit of Appeals, is seen engaging elements that “cause murder.” John O’Sullivan, unaware of this, like a trusting child, emigrating to this so called U.S.A. fair Justice, from Ireland, is slain by the Justice taught to him as a higher standard not in existence to any other part of the world. Solely because Edmund F. Brennan, is either corrupt or cannot comprehend his actions. Similarly, the Plaintiff from appellate case, # 11-17344, also with a similar “national origin,” outside the USA, from England, is told by Brennan, that if a mental patient wants to murder him, he can, without interference from his Sacramento Eastern District Court. This is what is left standing stripped of all predicate misconstruing, done by Brennan. The act of illegally dismisses a protective order injunctive relief request, violating 28 USC 636 provision, has no defense. This is essentially a murder authorization by the court, within weeks of O’Sullivan’s murder. Had a real judge ruled on this, he would have had to weigh “justiciability” between parties. In other words, would a person making murder threats be denied justice by a judge, if prohibiting these threats through a protective order unequally imbalance justice for both parties? In support of the order, 5 state protective orders were in effect, but were being ignored by the defendants. It was hoped, in a claim separate from the civil right action that the federal court would check and balance and support the State Court precedence, but magistrate Brennan contradicted precedence, and did it without 636 authority, hiding the justiciability from a judge who would have known better.
Brennan, ignoring the author of Exhibit A1, A2, A3, and testifying on the evidence without recusing himself, as if he had “metaphysical knowledge” (Eli Lilly, supra) about it, thus dismissing its existence. Contradicting Bob Berger, the author, who used this data to obstruct Republican Party Candidate, “Helen Baumann’s” bid for a Legislator office run. Also contradicting Senator Dave Cox, who agreed “per plaintiff request,” to testify the validity of the “conspiracy” he too was invited to participated but rejected tossing named conspirators under the buss.
Brennan ignores the evidence, just as described in Macias elements perverting his Ninth Circuit warning to protect crime victims, into a play book to follow, “how to be a cause of murder to complaining crime victims.” All of the audios are separate sources that support, but moreover, prescribe the additional ongoing seasoned conspiracy in exhibit A1, A2, A3, and Q. This case is a prosecutors dream, or a civil right attorneys, “rarely exhibited by evidence a prima facie case, if there ever was one, that cannot fail. Yet, custom and policy have caused a hidden secession of a county to cause its citizens to be exempt from the U.S. constitution. The only remedy is for FBI and DOJ to do as they are doing in Orange County now, following the imprisonment of Sheriff Mike Carona!
These similar cases, show, as of now locally, there is no enforcement for adverse judicial misconduct, especially when it comes to civil rights cases before Edmund F. Brennan. But there are other magistrates doing the very same thing in other civil right cases. The crux of the problem is demonstrated through describing the elements scientifically. All corruption is predictable through identifying the elements and this similar behavior of the defendants which is overt. I believe this web site is THEE catalyst, an emergence phenomenon, avant la letter, pointing to a groundbreaking revolutionary potential for a paradigm shift that can occur to substantially end this type of corruption, which is ultimately legalized custom to violate human rights. The following data and criteria are more examples of the absurdity of Magistrate Brennan’s open nature of this corruption. The examples described here are showing that nobody is watching. Thus any so called lawful procedure, no matter how brutal or destructive to human rights will or can occur, unlawfully, and there is nothing or nobody to stop it, at this point in time.
It did not matter! Exhibit A1, A2, A3 and Q where "explicit agreements." All parties are named:
at the Supervisor’s direction I have personally contacted the Undersheriff Fred Kollar. Dick: Jones at the
District Attorney’s office, our code enforcement unit, Assemblyman Ted Gaines' oftice and Senator Dave Cox's Office. Undersheriff Kollar will tell you that the Sheriff’s Department has responded numerous times and has arrested both parties more than once.
Supervisor Baumann has communicated with the appropriate law enforcement officials in our county to ensure that all parties involved are receiving the appropriate responses and assistance from the different county departments involved.
It did not matter that public officials can agree to create false “arrest reports” to deter a political party committee from stopping Helen Baumann’s political career for fabricating arrest report and getting all the officials named to “agree,” “will tell you…” how could they “…tell you…” if they had not conspired to agree to “tell.” One problem, well two problems. Bob Berger, the committee member discovered this fabrication and informed the plaintiffs. The plaintiff then contacted all the representatives named, and with exception to the Late Senator Dave Cox, through his aid, denied complicity and offered the exhibit to illustrate his noninvolvement tossing the rest of these scum officials under the buss.
Nevertheless, undaunted, Magistrate Brennan stated in Document 103, infra regarding the content of exhibit A:
The allegation that defendants made false statements regarding plaintiffs’ arrest in violation of plaintiffs’ equal protection rights, as discussed above, is contradicted by the exhibits attached to plaintiffs’ complaint. Those exhibits are directly contrary to plaintiffs’ allegation that the named defendants were responsible for the false statements regarding plaintiffs’ arrest.
How can that be a contradiction. It is obvious the Judge had no clue what the exhibit was, or what the intent behind it was. Magistrate Brennan, falsely claims that the “plaintiffs [were] arrest[ed].” Magistrate Brennan has ratified and approved that officials can create false arrest reports against disfavored protesters of abuse of power to discredit their characters using libel per se. And then use his findings to create a public record of libel per se, by claiming that the “plaintiffs arrest” contradict the “false arrest claim,” and yet exhibit A2, apologizes for making the false arrest claims, and blames the Sheriff Department. Then exhibit Q is totally ignored. Judge James Wagoner threatens to arrest citizens not in his jurisdiction for ratting on his corrupt friends to the Grand Jury. Brennan, again tries to argue, arguments that cannot pass the straight face test.
Engaging in discourse with Magistrate Brennan was like meeting Satan face to face. It was a father of lies, a hateful vengeful man whose findings were so insane and yet legal official documentation that had no bearing on reality. Yet is was reality in some twilight zone manifestation on earth to deprive the rights of civil right victims. In 3 years of litigation, I never had a day in court, and I am grateful, only because to present yourself to a man like this would be similar to agreeing to suicide. The thought was fearful, and crime victims should not have to be oppressed by the judicial system like this.
Ultimately, these exhibits are “genuine issues of material fact,” Norse, infra, and only a jury can decide what the intent was by hearing from those named, and Bob Burger, or Senator Dave Cox and his aid Rob Olmstead who ratted them out. This was a miscarriage of justice, and the cost to the plaintiff’s family is so egregious, yet this so called Magistrate Brennan s emboldened to act with greater impunity against disfavored civil right “groups” because nobody will enforce laws that bind judges to honesty or competence or integrity. The Ninth Circuit explains this when officials become “would be criminals” by ignoring civil right laws, January 12, 2010' AE JA Elliot-Park v. Jarrod Manglona 592 F.3d 10032010 U.S. App. LEXIS 723:
"If police refuse to investigate or arrest people who commit crimes ... Would-be criminals will act with a great impunity if they believe they have a get out of j ail free card If they commit crimes against the disfavored group." Estate of Maria Teresa Macias v. Mark Ihde 219 F.3d 1018, 1028 * '2000 U.S: I
Magistrate Brennan was hell bent on destroying the plaintiff claims as you will see. Ask yourself the question, what "inferences will you draw from the behaviour" of Magistrate Brennan? Furthermore, the magistrate judge, would postpone hearings or filings for personal vacations or business. He would grant extensions to the defense and postpone hearings...
...The Magistrate Brennan’s Clerk demonstrating a "hostile manner," with a choice of 365 days, would schedule hearings on the plaintiffs birthday, or anniversary dates. Courts have access to these dates; coincidence, or sophomoric acts to incite giggles and tee hee’s, amongst those he favored? On one occasion, demonstrably egregious and hostile manner," he denied a motion for the plaintiff’s reasonable request for a filing extension even though the plaintiff had a surgery, “complicated by a disease,” according to the filed letter from the “Chief Surgeon of the VA hospital.” Any rational judge would understand that denying this type of disabling condition would force the handicapped to plead facts, where he was not capable of all his faculties. A purposeful sabotage of a filing attempt? Or just down right vindictive?
In another seemingly “demonstrably egregious and hostile manner" Brennan denied the plaintiffs request to file electronically, which forced the plaintiffs wife to drive in snow conditions to file deadlines, which they requested leave of the court to file electronically, to avoid another accident on black ice. On the other hand, the defense was entitled to file electronically. Local Rules allow a judge to grant e-filing upon request to E-file. Even the IRS allows anyone to E-file. These acts were showing great disdain for crime victims, wholly violating the federal crime victims bill of rights, Section 3771 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the first one being "The right to be reasonably protected from the accused;" and the last one being, "The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Notwithstanding the plaintiffs suffered the perversions of judicial ethics of a so called impartial unbiased judge who does not fit the picture regarding crime victims. This is why we only refer to "plaintiffs" and not their names, because the law allows the “privacy” of crime victims.
We mention John O’Sullivan, solely because he was murdered under similar circumstances while he sought the protection of Edmund F. Brennan, and the plaintiffs fear was reasonable to doubt the ability of Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan to be unbiased and have any real empathy or concerned for their safety. Every act regarding the safety of the plaintiffs is adverse, by Magistrate Brennan. Plaintiffs had explained that his magna cum laude communication degree enabled him to understand simple uploading, regardless Brennan denied it. Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, totally disregarded the plaintiff’s health and safety, yet granted petty extensions for the defense and took personal extensions. These are grounds for cannon violations, showing an overt indisputable bias. Yet, when the complaint was made to the federal judicial council, the facts were again intervened, and an invalid adverse response dismissed the claim. The notice falsely claimed that they dismissed ethics complaint based upon their dispositive rule barring complaints based upon the “merits” of the original claim. We were aware of the rules, and did not allege any merits of the case, only the adverse treatment outside of the merits of our claims. Basically the seemingly hostile manner he intimidated us with. The Process for filing a judicial complaint states:
2. WHAT TO INCLUDE IN A COMPLAINT
The terms “misconduct” and “disability,” as used in this complaint process, are defined by law. “Misconduct” is “conduct prejudicial [emphasis added] to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” A “disability” is a “temporary or permanent condition” that renders the judge “unable to discharge the duties” of the judicial office. If neither term, so defined, describes the facts you allege, your complaint will be dismissed
You may complain about actions taken by a judge outside of his or her official role, but only if they qualify as misconduct under the above definition
Examples of judicial misconduct include
• using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
• treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner;
• discriminating against litigants or attorneys on account of race, ethnicity, sex, or other legally protected attribute;
NOTE: Many complaints claim only that a judicial decision was wrong. Under the law, such complaints must be dismissed. A judicial decision that is unfavorable to you — or even wrong — does not in itself establish misconduct or disability. If you wish to challenge the correctness of a judge’s decision, you must do so in court under the proper procedural rules
Plaintiffs who complained against this judge were fully aware and avoided adding any of the other plethora of abuse of discretion that occurred, when complaining about this judge. For instance, many repeated injury to their case occurred by Brennan for ignoring FRCP Rule 8(b)(1)(2)(6). Brennan, wholly ignored the complaints purpose or "substantial motivating factor" this actually alleged in the complaint. For 3 years and over 100 documents Brennan ignored objections, totally excluding the plaintiffs from the due process or participation as plaintiffs. The only thing the plaintiffs could do was feel the humiliation degradation of humanity Brennan forced upon them in an oppressive manner. The plaintiff’s complaint was never heard or responded too even though the court misappropriated the 350 dollar filing fee. In fact it was a mock proceeding for 3 years, and somehow we survived the insanity they were operating under by oppressive adverse tactics abusing due process, in a mock act of justice.
Because of the forgoing facts showing Magistrate Brennan was “unable [without prejiduce] to discharge the duties,” ignoring a complaint for 3 years definitely matches this reason for the Ninth Circuit to discipline this Judge, yet plaintiffs are punished for filing complaints by the process itself even if, according to the ethics code:
conduct prejudicial [emphasis added] to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” A “disability” is a “temporary or permanent condition” that renders the judge “unable to discharge the duties” of the judicial office
According to the Supreme Court, proairesis, the logical term for “deliberate indifference barring the equal rights of citizens, forbids “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration.” Because the plaintiffs now show that John O’Sullivan was murdered redressing grievances against the same defendants who could have prevented O’Sullivan’s murder. How could it not be deliberate to allow a stalker to murder similarly situated individuals suing Vern Pierson and El Dorado County? The plaintiffs had to move to another county for safety sake, and yet the court would do nothing.
Furthermore, because the plaintiffs had a separate injunctive relief request for a protective order. Unfortunately, that was enough to muddy the waters in our Constitutional Claim, which was free speech, press, and redress retaliation offenses, which caused the Judge to deliberately over-reach and ignore a prima facie case ripping the very soul out of our citizenship rights, to obstruct justice protecting a fellow law enforcement officials from his own illegal acts. Yet the irony is present viewing the content of the FBI web site, stating, that: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law:
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies…
… Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency….
- False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
- Deprivation of property; and
- Failure to keep from harm
Yet in Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM -EFB Document 103 Filed 03/01/11, Brennan fabricates evidence by restating evidence contrary to the “substantial motivating factor” claimed in the complaint. The corrupt fix done by Brennan was so ignorantly perpetrated, and self contradicting, regarding he plaintiff complaint, Magistrate Brennan should only rule on “The F&R 103 states only two contentions, "Defendants Contend.......
The FR 103 pp. 15 at 25 thru 26
implementing unconstitutional policies supporting the failure to investigate rimes and/or failure to enforce laws and/or failure to enforce restraining orders. Id. (citing TAC ~~ 87-93).
CONTENTION B: [IDENTICAL TO A] changed "constitutional" to
"Unconstitutional" and "policy" to "official action to take no action." [this Is pitifully embarrassing]
The FR 103 pp. 15 at 16 thru 17 "it is not unconstitutional for a governmental entity or official to take no action to enforce a restraining order .....
Brennan, fully aware, that the defendants only had two contentions, which actually are only one, goes off on a hunting expedition to aid the defense. His methods are predictable by his fundamentally misconstruing his own witness testimony. Again, by buttressing the defenses false defense Brennan’s false assertion of fact includes a total of 26 additional claims that the plaintiffs claim were “failure of defendants to enforce law” of some sort predicates of law. All of these false contention, in reality are one contention under the classification of the FBI criminal act of “Failure to protect from harm.” This is not complicated, and it is articulated as only one contention on the FBI web site here “Failure to Protect From Harm.” http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law Brennans acquiescence to ignorance and corruption is exemplary with his additional 26 claims that are without basis in the record as a “substantial motivating factor in the plaintiffs claim. Ask yourself, why is this judge outwardly acting as a defense attorney instead of an unbiased judge?
Brennan, fully aware, that plaintiffs where pointing them away from the “failure to arrest” bogus claim he was making states in document 103:
Plaintiffs contend that the conduct constituting retaliation was not a “failure to arrest people,” or a “failure to hear” plaintiffs’ speech, but rather was defendants’ conduct of “arrest[ing] criminals and releas[ing] them to assault his accusers because they complained to defendants peers causing them damages, their motive for vindictive animus and retaliation.” Id.
And their false assertion of fact for a “failure contention” was always followed by objections pointing this disgustingly abusive Magistrate to the “second sentence.” For instance, document 108, motion request for judicial notice,” filed to correct the judges error the dozen or so times, points to paragraph 4:
Bob Berger had directed the defendants to the plaintiff's web site to suggest she was not as forthright as she had presented herself, see www.preventmurder.org, exhibit A3.
Refereing to the real claim of retaliation for the website, violating freedom of press and speech, never “failing to hear.” This Judge, not a master of the “perversion of logic,” just a common pervert of illogical syllogism perhaps, see, Justice James Wilson concurrence, Chisholm v. Georgia U.S. 1793.
Nevertheless, Magistrate Brennan submitted 25 pages of rhetoric that never reflected our claim, stating this claim over 28 different ways, as it doing that proves lack of substantive claims.
Similarly, defendants note that “under the Due Process Clause there is no individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, plaintiffs cannot prevail for an alleged due process violation arising from failure to enforce it.” Id. (citing Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756-758 (2005)).
But you see, the objections ignored by Magistrate Brennan, always strayed from his false claim, “failure to arrest.” The exhibit, A3, showing how the website ended Baumann’s career move, injects plausibility into the claim. But it was ignored and not discussed by Brennan, though he cited A2 on document 103, without commenting any relationship whatsoever, or that it was about a “website retaliation.” You see this judge, not just twisting facts, but actually admitting, in part why the website existed, and its content, but ignoring the first retaliation, “BUT-FOR” the speech on the website, the “substantial motivating factor” that caused the defense to retaliate and deny equal rights under the 14th amendment for viewpoint discrimination articulated in Document 82, Third Amended Complaint pg. 2, @ line 18 thru 20:
This has denied Plaintiffs their Constitutional Right to have Police Services, Code Enforcement services and Political Discourse with Plaintiffs elected Representatives administered in a non discriminatory manner - a right that is violated when a state actor denies such protection to disfavored persons; especially when rights are enhanced by the California Crime Victims Bill of Rights.
Never was the claim a “failure to arrest.” Especially in the sense of their cited cases such as Deshaney or Gonzalez, v. Castle Rock. Any reference pointed out were predicates of “Failure to protect from harm,” see FBI website, infra, acknowledging behavior that is a criminal offense, showing the character of the defendants. Thus, Brennan chooses to fail to comprehend, or maliciously finds only a non-valid case he recommends for dismissal, and in spite of valid objections the district court judge adopted the fraud from this Magistrate. This was outright fraud under the color of law! Brennnan’s willful false assertion of fact, never addressing the “substantial motivating factor:
[plaintiffs conteded]…but rather was defendants’ conduct of “arrest[ing] criminals and releas[ing] them to assault his accusers because they complained to defendants peers causing them damages, their motive for vindictive animus and retaliation.” Id.
The damage to the families committed by Magistrate Brennan far exceed that of a grand larceny theft, and including all of the damages caused by the defendants. In John O’Sullivan’s case, it was ruled by the Ninth circuit that “ARBITRARY FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE LAW CAUSED…MURDER…” Emphasis added. How can a man do acts which cause murder and still be a judge? Why is it considered irrational to question this? Or is it?
Yet although for 3 years, the Magistrate ignored our objections to their contentions and did not dispute the First Amendment Claim, by failing to recognize evidence as “genuine issue of material fact,” as if exhibit A1, A2, A3, and Q, did not exist. That is until the final dismissal document 103, but passed off as insignificant. Yet the Defense also ignored the content and its validity. We see Brennan acting as a defense witness and testifying his knowledge in a manner that resembles perjury, regarding the exhibits, and controlling authority forbids a judge to do this, see Norse, infra:
Here, applying our traditional summary judgment analysis, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact present. We would need a transcript of his thoughts for that. In so holding, we are mindful that "[s]ummary Judgment is not defeated merely because issues of motive or intent are involved." Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d [441,] 443 [(7th Cir. 1989)]. We do not hold that [the Mayor]'s intent is metaphysically unknowable, but that there is a genuine factual dispute on the question.. However, there are genuine issues of material fact apparent from the recordings, which would entitle Norse to a trial on the merits.
Yet Magistrate Brennan defies logic and injects soothsaying and metaphysics and crystal balls into his decision making. Never asking the named individuals in he exhibit what their “intent” was. Brennan violated statute, law, precedence, and for what cause? Why do officials protect other officials totally destroying ones belief in a system? What agency will stop this? Herein he reason why individuals abdicate to other countries. This should not be the only means of redress.
Also Exhibit Q, officially determined as illegal, by the State CJP had no purpose other than to cover up corrupt activity and intimidate witnesses, in a retaliation against lawful petition clause. However, these are genuine issues of material facts, and judicial notice was made. A controlling precedent, Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. - March 12, 2010), regarding similar viewpoint retaliation stated:
Here, applying our traditional summary judgment analysis, we conclude there are genuine issues of material fact present. ... However, there are genuine issues of material fact apparent from the recordings, which would entitle Norse to a trial on the merits.
Thus, Exhibit A1, A2, and A3, are verified recordings provided by a State Senator affixing his seal to the correspondence, and, a Superior Court Judge who signed an order that was criminal for him to do so. Yet in the Deshaney and Gonzales cases, they were off point because in both cases Deshaney nor Gonzales did not allege any “first amendment retaliation claims.” The thesis of exhibits, not from the plaintiffs, but “genuine crediblie witnesses, including an author, Bob Berger A1, A2, A3, were the fact that officials were ignoring “DISCRETE FACTS,” including exhibit Q, of genuine dangers against crime victims, see exhibit A1, circumstances around “El Dorado County officials ignoring violet crime:
…When mentally ill persons make threats… When several different Judges issue restraining orders, 5 so far protecting more than a dozen Victims that is a signl When the Sheriff and OA Ignore court orders amidst incontrovertible evidence. showing witness tampering and stalking witnesses protected by a court order….
Thank you for your tlme In this of grave concern to the citizens of that In EI Dorado County.
Bob Berger Sacramento County Republican Party Member
Furthermore, Magistrate vehemently defends that a county has no duty to “protect from harm,” citing cases showing this. Yet in Document 103, Findings and Recommendations used to dismiss a valid claim, contradicts reality in such a way that is beyond comprehension. He ignores the real plaintiff claim, First Amendment retaliation, claiming the “Two Contentions,” supra, that are really only one contention. Brennan Vehemently claims that “Failure to keep from harm,” Id, is basis for dismissal, although it is part of the FBI’s number one priority, “Failure to keep from harm.” And although he never addresses issues of “Genuine Issue of Material Fact,” using “Metaphysical,” crystal balls, and soothsaying, testifies as a witness, that “discrete facts” “have not [been] alleged,” infra. Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan uses the elements of corruption, that is, exactly that tactics used to dismiss the claim, as his basis to dismiss the claim, by “Fundamentally Misconstruing,” Macias, Id , by deceptive truth twisting and smoke and mirrors, see Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM -EFB at Dckt 103 pg 11, line 13-16:
The syllogism is a non-sequitur. Plaintiffs have not alleged discrete facts demonstrating that defendants retaliated against plaintiffs (either by a failure to protect against a known and genuine danger, or otherwise) because the plaintiffs had exercised their first amendment rights.
If exhibits A1, A2, A3, and Q were not retaliation, Then what “legitimate purpose” did they serve? Additionally, if so, why was Exhibit Q used by the CJP to find Judge James Wagoner guilty of “Obstructing a Grand Jury Investigation,” which is obviously a retaliatory act of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, intimidation, inter alia?
That is a perversion of the Gonzales case which had nothing to do with arbitrary retaliation. Smoke and mirrors was the purpose. Nevertheless, “Failure to protect from harm” are crimes that the FBI are seeking to prosecute, “U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards,” supra. Why should they exclude prosecuting Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan, when unsuspecting plaintiffs being threatened with murder end up getting murdered i.e. John O’Sullivan? While Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan ignores, and fundamentally misconstrues the “Causation?” In Brennan’s Document 103, supra, four times he cites a basis for dismissal due to his damaging ruse falsely alleging a paintiff’s failure to allege “substantial causal relationship.” Yet in spite of objections pointing to the plaintiff complaint, complaint Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM -EFB Document 83 page one, first paragraph:
The defendants succumbed to unjustified animus in retaliation, chilling the plaintiff's free speech and other First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and this was a substantial motivating factor for the defendant's action.
Yet the first few sentences clearly allege, a “substantial causal relationship” allowed in retaliation cases. This is the “Substantial Motivating Factor,” we alleged, yet Brennan lies and totally destroys our human rights to be free from arbitrary government actions, and the violence they were orchestrating to punish them for speaking out, using private actors. Again, the FBI web site recognizes this, see their site first sentence: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/corruption_032610
Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices.
Thus, these additional facts reveal that this Jurisdiction is similar to the New York corruption, but there are no honest officials who will stop it, like the Honorable Judge Jack Weinstein. Too many Civil right plaintiffs are met with corrupt judges who obstruct justice, without fear of any repercussions, in what would be a utopia for former Nazi’s and Stalinist who operated in this manner. But history reveals, good guys catch tyrants, but only following much suffering, leaving human right violators in prison or hanging at the end of an executioners rope following a lawful trial in civilized countries when the rest of the society come to their senses. It is known that German citizens were under the deluded belief that official arbitrary acts were legal due process. In modern civil right litigation, society remains clueless, even though cases like John O'Sullivan, or Maria Theresa Macias end in murder benefiting malicious criminally minded personnel who control and orchestrate criminal injustice, to protect fellow colleagues.
The plaintiff complaint was a first amendment retaliation complaint as stated. Outside of our complaint, bifurcated, it was mentioned in a brief for injunctive relief protection order request, was that we had witness affidavits, video recordings of assault attempts, a terrorist in a mask attacking the plaintiff and multiple individuals including an employee, on his way to work. This is where Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan uses judicial tyranny by “fundamentally misconstruing” the injunctive relief request as his fabricated “failure to arrest claim.” They were two separate supporting documents. The Ninth Circuit has identified this judicial con artist approach to fixing cases for public officials, which will be explained in the Macias case, infra.
In the request for protection orders, many incidence of assaults and stalking occurred, all public record. This particular incident was a suspect who was identified by a deputy in report # EG0708272, who confessed and was present in full military camouflage with mask and a weapon that was a shield, noted by the officer after the attempted assault. However, the assailant showed the officer a web site criticizing police negligence, the officer noted the criticism and refused to make the arrest in spite of the evidence and the restraining order, and his confession of approaching the victim who was protected. This violent behavior was brought before several judges by a dozen victims and family to be protected from this one individual Vern Pierson released from a ¼ million dollar bail for other violent crimes he was accused of. It appears the reward for intimidating us, was the fixing of all 8 or 9 criminal cases.
In fact, Judge James Wagoner was found guilty of obstructing the plaintiffs separate Grand Jury Investigation GJ07-007, where it turned out Judge James Wagoner was the trial Judge. Unbelievably, in open court he instructed a Jury to believe the mentally ill perpetrator could not have possibly put a loaded gun to the heads of the seven minor child victim witnesses, and car accident victims who crashed their car. As a result of being so alarmed at a crazy man waiving a gun in the street. The accident victims were also threatened with a pistol. But because James Wagoner, going beyond bizarre, instructed the jury to believe every word the defendant said because Wagner ordered the jury to view the defendant is “truthful and honest” from the bench, ultimately, hamstringing the jury. The fact that the defendant claimed he was fired for driving a commercial vehicle under the influence was hid, and many more affidavits and witnesses were barred from the trial. This guy threatened to assault a 70 old man who had a heart attack a few weeks later. This was no honest good citizen. He was alleged to supply drugs to teenagers. Robin Seeley, at the time an employee of Cal.Crm.Code, who writes jury instructions for the State of California, responded to correspondence stating,“ no such instruction exists, and what judge in his right mind would do such an absurd thing.” Do judges fix felonies out in the open free of charge? Is there a process somehow to get a judge to defy gravity and common sense? Inquiring minds want to now.
These facts that are unfolding before you here on this site, are so overwhelming stinking of corruption, yet many victims are forced with the burden of living under this oppression! This case is ripe for the picking for any honest FBI or DOJ prosecutor, whose “number one priority,” supra, is not to find ways to frame or obstruct justice against civil right abuse victims turned activist, but to stop corrupt officials, according to their website: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/corruption_032610
“Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices.
Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities?
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society…
During the injunction request for a protective order by the plaintiffs, in case # 11-17344, it was shocking when they learned that the Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan, denied the request, an official inaction authorizing the murder of plaintiffs acting “cavalier,” if the alleged stalker so desired. There was no evidentiary hearing like the State courts held granting 5 other restraining orders based upon the same defendant stalking a whole community. But suing Vern Pierson the D.A. et. al., although is a constitutional right, this right is superseded as a “cavalier” act, and this deprives constitutional right. In a recent News Paper, a report comments quoting Vern Pierson who files indictment requests for officials who citizens him, i.e. Supervisor Ray Nutting, stating that “Ray has a cavalier attitude.” Public officials do not get perverted with power beyond reacting to what they perceive as “cavalier attitudes” From constituents.
So again, we see facts that other state judges, prior to the concerted effort to obstruct justice, used to grant protection as they should have. Now this seemingly insane diabolical Magistrate, taunting surgery patients with deadlines, on their anniversaries and birthdays. While relieving the county of any pressure, was now all of a sudden, in spite of overwhelming evidence, a Magistrate that would unconscionably allow a stalker seemingly enlisted by D. A. Vern Pierson to carry out threats, without law enforcement interference. This including murder threats unobstructed by justice. This was terrifying and shocking, and unbelievable, yet the facts speak for themselves, res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiffs were forced to move for safety sake, and take on expenses of two properties. One, their dream home they built, but were barred from it for safety. As an immigrant to the United States, I’m shocked, very shocked.
During this time it was discovered that within weeks of a magistrate judge ruling on and dismissing an injunction; which by the way was illegal for him to do, John O’Sullivan had been suing Vern Pierson. Ironically, and suspiciously, his case was funneled to Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan. How convenient for Vern Pierson et. al. O’Sullivan and his Wife and kids were being stalked by a man Ken Zimmerman who Vern Pierson obviously favored over O’Sullivan and his wife and kids. Zimmerman shot O’Sullivan in the back from quite distance three times. This was after several years of Zimmerman stalking O’Sullivan when Vern Pierson ignored O’Sullivan’s police reports of assaults over a period of years similar to what was occurring to the other plaintiffs suing Vern Pierson. O’Sullivan sought refuge in Magistrate Brennan’s court, not knowing Brennan favored allowing stalking and murder threats to achieve fruition, even if murder. Seemingly to stop law suits against a fellow prosecutor, Vern Pierson, whom Brennan was at one time, as a pattern of repeated conduct had developed, a telltale sign.
What has just been described are predictable elements, which reminds us of the familiar phrase from Conan Doyle’s famous “Sherlock Holmes,” “It is elementary my dear Watson.” Our federal court circuit of appeals is the Ninth Circuit. Magistrate Brennan’s job is to be an expert on elements and especially Ninth Circuit precedence. Macias v. Sonoma County Sheriff Mike Ihde (9th 2000), is a case where a woman, Maria Theresa Macias, chronically abused by a stalker, received harassment from the police as she insisted on protection for obvious and verifiable assault and stalking, and murder threats. However, the court found that the officials fundamentally misconstrued her calls for help as chronic abuse of police time. She was very cavalier about insisting on being protected from murder. But rotten to the core immature perhaps qualified by nepotism, take offense to being “instructed,” another dangerous right that causes retaliation, article 1 § 3(a) of the Cal.Const. “The people,[who] have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances…” as stated by the California Constitution article 1 § 3(a). Knowing elements, it’s hard to imagine a Magistrate judge could claim incompetence over malice aforethought.
The elements in the Macias case found to be offensive by the court pointed to a scenario where murder could be orchestrated by proxy out of vengeance, negligence, or vindictive animus. In corrupt jurisdictions like El Dorado County, all public officials, let’s say for instance, one who is being aggressively criticized by legal petition actions by victims objecting to the abuse of power, but in a county where employees dare not break ranks. Ultimately, they acquiesce as accomplices, and do not deliver justice, in a perverted sense of loyalty, which is similar to treason. Equal protection, that would be afforded to favored citizens who do not complain would not be dismissed. Yet disfavored citizens’ complaints are dismissed, but without a rational basis. As you have learned that is a no no by the Supreme Court Engquist case, among others. Furthermore, “Inadequately trained officials,: and those who are “deliberately indifferent to rights,” or those weak petty officials goaded into trivial pursuits, by vendetta vindictive animus, another tort, stoop to the unlawful offense, the “substantial motivating factor” that is a prima facie case with all elements intact. Not the murder, or stalking, or lack of police protection, but the “arbitrary denial of equal protection that motivated officials to create elements, unconscious or deliberate allowing the murder. The Macias court stated:
The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants'] constitutional injury as `murder' rather than `lack of equal protection.' By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it.
“Officials are the cause of murder?” Very shocking indeed. Was Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan Consciously performing willful acts to create elements that would “cause murder,” a perfect crime, in the hands of a diabolical hardened individual who has no empathy for crime victims that complain of bad justice? The fact that he violated 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A):
a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, [emphasis added].
Magistrate Brennan denied injunctive relive motions! This fact is public record on pacer.gov! 18 USC 636 (b)(1)(A) is a statute, and violating it violates law, and judges who violate law, ignore crime victims, allowing perpetrators to kill witnesses and parties to suits to benefit state employees. According to the FBI “failure to keep from harm,” is wrong, and should not be tolerated! Their website, supra, states that they will arrest judges. But these plaintiffs, husband and wife, have to be viewed as human beings and not the lower life animals they have endured for 6 years now. Both professionals, both decent people! The mistake they made was to report crime against one of their favored friends! That is all it takes in corrupt counties. Dial 911, and you may see the end of your dreams in America. Unfortunately, I have had to take crime against me as part of life. I refuse to contact corrupt police and officials. No wonder USA is so dark these days.
There are so many cases on file, and victims who tell their story and live in fear of these sociopathic type officials. Injustice without remedy make the united states appear rotten to the core. Yet hope is not far, there are still good police, and officials, and we will list them. The FBI website is stating that: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/corruption_032610
Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society…
The FBI need not lift up the rug to see the dirt. Corruption is so prevalent. Color of law crime is out of control in El Dorado County, and if you can believe, that New York City judges, don’t ignore crime, you’d think that a rural hamlet, such as El Dorado County, would abandon the KKK elements used to terrorize citizens who point to this number 1 priority of the FBI. These officials are building cases against them and the evidence is stored in their mock hearings of faux due process. Their caught red handed, on radar, blood on their hands, its just the FBI, or DOJ hasn’t made it here yet. They were here for Mike Carona in Orange County, and in New York and others states. It is just a matter of time, and real constitutional justice will happen in the good ole USA, where ever you are.
Above all, I am grateful to be tolerant to the point I only seek lawful remedy, no matter what. I have lived peacefully and will continue to respect, as stated by Hamlet, “the laws delay, the insolence of office,” to be a better person, through adversity. I have built the site, showing a filth stench and stain on USA, and the janitors are coming! They are in Orange County right now, just around the block! My fellow victims, please be patient! I encourage you!
Read more about the “Pubic Concern Doctrine” and why this content is mandated as free speech.