Restraint of Liberty and Privacy Interests

[souperdave]

I've got it figured out as far as "t"otal "s"tupid:

She has all the indicators of sporadic cognizance where he thinks it's all natural; think breastfed until 8 or 9, a common side effect. What really affects him anymore is that his mom still calls him for some "horizontal hula". Three to five days a week. And therein lies the rub, literally and repeatedly.

"T"ire "S"lasher has very deeply ingrained pattern of behavior, indicative of a life in the basement, surrounded by Twinkie wrappers, Dorito bags, pizza boxes that have been around so long they have their own ecosystem.

[PayrolGuy]

out·come
/ˈoutˌkəm/
noun
noun: outcome; plural noun: outcomes

the way a thing turns out; a consequence.

Then everything in the US is an outcome of the revolution. Including the stuff you are against. Real and imagined.

[Mark47n]

My point is that to connect direct line in such a way is nonsense. The American Revolution is not responsible for Trump or my drivers license.

[Tyrant Slayer]

i have to disagree. Free speech and every other freedom we enjoy was an outcome if the american revolution. Whether it was immediate or it happened sometime later in american history, they, along with the creation of the us was a lineal result of the american revolution.

If one wants to get specific, the only thing that came from the american revolution was a bunch of dead people. In reality, the american revolution allowed for the creation of the us, the constitution, and everything that extends from them.

^^^ like button.

And even with all your verbosity we do realize you are working on POST conviction relief. I guess all that you know hasn’t benefitted you yet.

I don’t remember if you have stated what you were convicted of. Would you mind stating that?



well, I believe you’re wrong. What you call disrespecting and violating the outcome of the revolutionary war is one reason we fought the war. We wanted a right to be able to speak out against the governing authority so because of the revolutionary war, we have the right to do that.

Its no different than those that walk on the flag. We have had many many soldiers die to allow us to express our opinions. Walking on the flag as protest is an expression of one’s opinion and although I am not one to do it, im glad those that do aren’t subjected to prosecution because they do it. Outlawing such expression is subjugation.

Protest is healthy for a country.

^^^ I heartily agree. I don't necessarily condone stomping on the flag...because it's a symbol. The observeable Fascism associated with Capitalism, on the other hand, is intolerable, and appears to be what led to our current state of affairs.

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 1473.6, Accused respectfully moves this Court to vacate his 05/31/2018 conviction by plea agreement of "guilty" in Case No. *******/******* for "constructive" Possession of, arguably, Metal Knuckles (factually, a belt buckle) under Penal Code 21810, per 17(b)(4).

I hadn't had a chance to argue the local ordinance due to that material information being withheld, and not reasonably articulated in the officer's official statement, nor at the onset of the illegal detention. Coupled with the fact that I'm just getting my feet wet and overlooked that particular fact of the officer's pretext.

@souperdave...Can you just go back to being the kind of person your dog thinks you are? Your Ad Hominem's suck B***s!!

I'm also happy to see our disagreements develop into rational civil discourse. Thank you ALL for your participation. My apologies for presenting excessive information. I'm working on brevity. Any pointers would be helpful. Please continue.

[jk]

Well, I don’t know what arguing some local ordinance is referring to. You were apparently charged with state violations


there is also a very important part of the first law you referred to;

b) For purposes of this section, “

newly discovered evidence” is evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment.

so, what newly discovered evidence do you have that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence previously?

[Tyrant Slayer]

Well...let's see...for starters...I think, the conflict of interest manifest by virtue of the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate, who issued a warrant of arrest in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, being married to the DCA assigned to the instant so-called case, and appearing therein absent consent or waiver, being a retaliatory and concerted effort, for exposing evidence tampering, of an entrapment said Magistrate was involved in against me circa 2010, with another Magistrate (who is a former FBI SA who had participated in several covert "operations"), on YouTube, in which he (the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate) falsified documents purporting the paid informants to have been "convicted", when in fact, they had not. Oh, and the former FBI SA Magistrate held a hearing in which the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate's wife appeared as DCA, who HAD to have known of the matrimonial COI, due to the latter's initials present on the minute order of the day I FTA'd being 6 days later.

And, at the hearing I FTA'd after being informed that the CA's Office had not filed a formal complaint, on the day I inquired about the details that were in violation of PD procedure and general law, on the citation....they went ahead and proceeded without notifying me of the formal complaint being filed, in leiu of the fact that the presiding Magistrate, not the aforementioned, refused to issue a warrant of arrest, namely because there was no court order or consent to the representation by the PD's Office, who should've moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction....

As I had previously articulated...Denial of Due Process, of irreparable magnitude.

They wanna play dirty pool, so I intentionally set up SEVERAL more appealable errors for the Appellate Division to rule on...where the Section 1018, AND 1473.6 motions are presently being reviewed, which hopefully grabs the attention of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Hence the handle "Tyrant Slayer".

Gotta exhaust those state remedies...

4th District...here I come.

[souperdave]

@souperdave...Can you just go back to being the kind of person your dog thinks you are? Your Ad Hominem's suck B***s!!.

The twinkies and doritos, and pizza boxes thing hit sorta close to home? You're stuck with me gasbag...embrace the horror!

[jk]

Well...let's see...for starters...I think, the conflict of interest manifest by virtue of the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate, who issued a warrant of arrest in the clear absence of all jurisdiction, being married to the DCA assigned to the instant so-called case, and appearing therein absent consent or waiver, being a retaliatory and concerted effort, for exposing evidence tampering, of an entrapment said Magistrate was involved in against me circa 2010, with another Magistrate (who is a former FBI SA who had participated in several covert "operations"), on YouTube, in which he (the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate) falsified documents purporting the paid informants to have been "convicted", when in fact, they had not. Oh, and the former FBI SA Magistrate held a hearing in which the Supervising Criminal Division Magistrate's wife appeared as DCA, who HAD to have known of the matrimonial COI, due to the latter's initials present on the minute order of the day I FTA'd being 6 days later.

And, at the hearing I FTA'd after being informed that the CA's Office had not filed a formal complaint, on the day I inquired about the details that were in violation of PD procedure and general law, on the citation....they went ahead and proceeded without notifying me of the formal complaint being filed, in leiu of the fact that the presiding Magistrate, not the aforementioned, refused to issue a warrant of arrest, namely because there was no court order or consent to the representation by the PD's Office, who should've moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction....

As I had previously articulated...Denial of Due Process, of irreparable magnitude.

They wanna play dirty pool, so I intentionally set up SEVERAL more appealable errors for the Appellate Division to rule on...where the Section 1018, AND 1473.6 motions are presently being reviewed, which hopefully grabs the attention of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Hence the handle "Tyrant Slayer".

Gotta exhaust those state remedies...

4th District...here I come.

So, all things that were known prior to the process. That removes the statute you cited from being applicable.

Your due process is not violated if they offer a plea deal. You have the option of refusing it and continuing on your defense in court.

[Tyrant Slayer]

So, all things that were known prior to the process. That removes the statute you cited from being applicable.

Your due process is not violated if they offer a plea deal. You have the option of refusing it and continuing on your defense in court.

That's what Section 1018 covers. The plea. The COI was discovered to be factual subsequent the plea offer, and the offer was made in bad faith, nullifying it. Most criminal cases end in plea bargains. These plea agreements are contracts. Once signed, the obligations of the agreement must be honored.

However, "[f]raud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments." (U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61). Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by his or her obligation in the plea deal. The same must be true in the reverse, to satisfy due process requirements of conforming to traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

CA-PEN § 170 provides: "Every person who maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant or warrant of arrest to be issued and executed, is guilty of a misdemeanor".

CA-BPC § 6128(a) provides: "every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or. . . .any party. . . .and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both".

The essence of false imprisonment is the intentional, unlawful, and unconsented restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another. CA-PEN § 236 provides: "false imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another", and CA-PEN § 237(a) provides: "if the false imprisonment be effected by fraud, or deceit, it shall be punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170".

CA-PEN § 141(c) provides: "A prosecuting attorney who intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years".

CA-PEN § 141(d) provides: "This section does not preclude prosecution under both this section and any other law".

Counsel also arouses culpable suspicion by ridiculously stating that: “on a number of different occasions” (i.e. once, before Judge *******) “[i]t was explained [] that ALL PD videos are silent for the first 30 or 120 seconds, depending on when the videos were made” i.e. 06/27/2017. This inane assertion is easily defeated by the following:

(a) Police Department Procedure; June 18, 2014; § 1.49; Axon Body Worn Cameras; II. Scope: This procedure applies to all Department members; III. Background: Law enforcement’s use of in-car cameras and body worn cameras has proven effective...Video cannot always show the full story nor does it capture an entire scene. Persons reviewing recordings must also be cautious before conclusions are reached about what the video shows; V. Procedure: B. General: 7. Personal computer equipment and software programs shall not be utilized when making copies of digital evidence.

(b) C. BWC Modes of Operation (TASER models): 2. Buffering Mode is when a BWC is on but has not been activated to record both sound and video. While in the buffering mode, the camera will continuously record only video in 30 second loops.
The buffered video (not audio) captured directly before the event will be saved and attached to the event in permanent memory.

Repeated pressing of the Event button turns the recordings on and off and creates separate media segments.
I.7.e. Officers will always document why the BWC was intentionally deactivated during an enforcement contact. (Police Department Procedure; September 26, 2017)

3. Event Mode is when the Event button is activated and the camera is recording both audio and video. (Police Department Procedure; September 26, 2017)

”With default settings, the system does not capture audio in BUFFERING mode, so anything recorded in that mode will be video-only. Buffering mode starts only after the Axon Body 2 camera is turned on” (Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual; ©2017 Axon Enterprise, Inc.).

Each segment, as received by the City Attorney, has had the first 30 seconds of audio deleted from the footage, indicating that there was an underlying purpose for tampering with said evidence, in general.
(“ALL SDPD videos are silent for the first 30 or 120 seconds”, DCA; 2019)

“An agency can extend the BUFFERING mode’s duration to 2 minutes total (00:02:00)”
(Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual; ©2017 Axon Enterprise, Inc.).

“An agency can configure the BUFFERING mode so it records sound as well as video”
(Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual; ©2017 Axon Enterprise, Inc.).

(c) F. Camera Position: Officers shall wear the BWC above the midline of their torso. Officers shall utilize their viewers to ensure the BWC is in a position where the field of view provides for effective recording. Officers shall not intentionally obscure the view of their body worn camera.
I.1.a. All officers who are issued a BWC shall keep their BWC on Buffering Mode/Stand-by Mode while on duty.

In Chapter 3: Recording with the Axon Body 2 Camera; on page 8 of the Axon Body 2 Camera User Manual, the instructions read: “When you need to record, quickly double-press the EVENT button on the camera. To stop recording and return to BUFFERING mode, press and hold the EVENT button for approximately 4 seconds. The moment you double-press the EVENT button, both video and audio will be recorded from the camera”.

The EVENT button is located in the center of the device. At 09:29:05 of the third segment of officer A's BWC footage, he is observed as engaging in a face to face conversation with officer B, the reporting officer,, who does not quickly double-press the EVENT button, located at the center of the device he was wearing above the midline of his torso, in full view of officer A's BWC.

09:29:05 is precicely when the fourth segment of officer B's footage resumes, after purportedly being turned off for approximately 7 minutes (between 09:22:04 and 09:29:05), according to the timestamps appearing in the top right-hand corner of each video segment.

If officer B is not observed turning his BWC back on, and with both hands down at his sides prior to 09:29:05, after magically turning it off, then Accused has presented damning evidence in support of the footage being altered, because both officers were operating according to department procedure, which “applies to all Department members” with respect to their BWC's.

“You cannot use Axon View or the mobile device to delete or alter original video files on the Axon camera” (https://help.axon.com/hc/en-us/artic...s-in-the-field).

Why then, would 21 minutes, 9 seconds be missing from officer B's BWC footage, and a full 47 minutes from officer A's footage? Perhaps Counsel can provide the court with a reasonable, and rational, technical explanation, and a rational answer as to why there was a request for a Protective Order stipulating that the use of the evidence be limited to the instant matter, instead of a civil action under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983; 1985(3); 18 U.S.C. §§ 241; 242?.

The twinkies and doritos, and pizza boxes thing hit sorta close to home? You're stuck with me gasbag...embrace the horror!

Not in the slightest @soupkitchendave, oops...I meant @souperdave....your Ad Hominem's just suck B***s!!....no countervailing comedic interest, or value, whatsoever. But, I luv ya anyway!!

@jk...The only reason I chose the term "inane", is because Prosecuting/Soon to be Defending Counsel used the term to describe my allegations....Sucks to be her.



https://photos.app.goo.gl/F7mm1YRRsV7atd27A

https://photos.app.goo.gl/p9KasyrncL7nUhez9

[flyingron]

No, a plea agreement is not a contract/ If you read the plea form you'll find that the lea agreement isn't binding on the court until they accept it no matter what the prosecutor wants or claims and the thing is disclaimed 9 ways to sunday that you know what you are doing, signed by both you and your attorney.