Part 8: They Lied to You in Civics Class

The Highway Patrol’s Motion to Vacate was heard in Watsonville, which lies between Santa Cruz and Monterey. I arrived early for the hearing, scheduled for 2:00pm mid-September, 2010.

 

My husband had gone alone to the original Small Claims Hearing by himself and I was here without him, this time around.  My husband was recovering from Surgery. (The screws and metal rods that were put in after the 2007 accident, had been removed the day before.)

 

The Courtroom was really nice and it kind of reminded me of a church. It wasn’t Deep but it is was really wide, with very long bench type seats that reminded me of Church Pews.

 

If the Judge granted the motion to vacate on the ridiculous grounds of Mishap, Inadvertence, Malfeasance, and failure of the CHP’s crack Legal Team to realize the importance of showing up in court after they were served, the case would be heard on the spot, as if though the original hearing had never taken place.  I was prepared to argue against the motion and to present our original case, if need be. I had fretted over this for a couple weeks feeling like the CHP, as evidenced by their behavior towards me, didn’t lose in court, very often.

 

There was no doubt they were going to show up, this time, and I wanted to be ready.  I continued to research my case.  My solution to the problem of how to win this battle was right in front of me the whole time, but it took two weeks before I realized it.

 

If you’ve read this entire story… some of you will know exactly how I’m going to play my hand here. If you’re not sure…  you probably are trying to figure it out right now.  It took me two weeks,  but  the Legal Affairs Department at the CHP, never figured it out all.  They had access to the same documents, and they had the advantage of legal expertise,  so they really have no excuse.

 

When I entered the courtroom, I took a seat off to one side and waited, watching all the  people milling about, talking, and going in and out between the lobby and the courtroom.  To support my case, I had a folder on my lap with a single  page document and two copies, one for the Judge and one for the CHP representative, if need be.

 

A man dressed in a suit comes down the long row and takes the seat right next to me. He has a briefcase which he sets on the floor between his legs. Without ever looking at me, he reaches into the case and pulls out a 3″ stack of paper that has a big band around it.  He then sets the paper on his lap where I can’t miss it.  It has my Husband’s name written in large black Sharpie across the top sheet.
The large stack of paperwork was obviously meant to intimidate me.  The only way this guy could have known who I was, or what I looked like, was to have taken the time to pull up my DMV picture before coming to court.  The CHP, isn’t much for subtlety, apparently.

 

I was not intimidated; I was secretly amused at this ploy to rattle me before we went before the Judge. I didn’t react.  Instead I kept my hands in my lap, on top of my comparably skimpy folder, containing the three sheets of paper.  I felt calm and composed.

 

We might have sat like this for 5 minutes or so while he moved around, noisily sighing and fidgeting, trying to get my attention and I continued to sit as still as possible and never acknowledged him in any way.
Finally he speaks to me:

 

“Well, You Probably figured out that I’m here representing the CHP.”

 

“Yeah, that file with My husband’s name written in huge letters, was a pretty good clue.”

 

 

 

His name was Mr. Frost, and he had a personality to match.  He was an Attorney from the CHP Legal Affairs office in Sacramento, sent by Staff Attorney, John McDonough to represent the CHP’s interests in court.  I hadn’t expected a Lawyer — in Small Claims Court, attorneys are discouraged and people typically represent themselves.  I also  hadn’t expected them to send someone from Sacramento.  I figured they would be represented by someone from the Satellite CHP office in Aptos, or maybe San Jose, at the farthest.

 

The first thought I actually had was that it was costing them more to try to have this vacated than it would have cost them to just pay me.  I tallied it up as a 330 mile round trip in a state-owned vehicle or a rental car;   Gas and at least one meal on the expense report; a minimum of 6 hours to pay Mr. Frost for his time, which I know had to be a lot more that they pay the Patrol Officers ( 73.00 / hour).

 

I was very surprised, because this seemed a foolish waste of money.  I certainly wouldn’t spend more money than it would cost me to just pay the original $482.00.  Hell, from my perspective, they really only were going to be out 65.00 for my expenses, because 417.00 of it was my original Tax Return.  Furthermore, even if they did nothing but pay me what they were ordered to, they had since intercepted another 195.00 from yet another tax return. Unless I took them back to court and won my 195.00 back, they were still going to be ahead $130.00, even if they had just paid me the original judgement.
I would be mad if someone was spending my money this foolishly… Oh Wait…. I’m a Tax Payer. THIS IS MY MONEY — and yours too, if you pay taxes in California.  Our tax dollars at work for no good reason, that I can think of.

 

It obviously was NEVER about the money. They did not want to give me back my tax return and they were going to spend what ever it cost to keep them from having to do that.

This was about my challenging their authority. It was about them being above the law.  It was about them being entitled to an unfair advantage, every step of the way. It was about having all the power and having the Right to disregard my Rights.

 

They were mad and they were not going to let me get away with this, and it didn’t matter if it cost them more to keep me from winning than it cost them to be let me win. This was a power play, they wanted  to show me how little I knew, if I really thought I could beat the CHP in court.

 

Mr. Frost pulled something from his stack of papers and said:

I might as well give this to you now, the judge will make us discuss things before he hears the case anyway. So here….

 

and as he hands me the paper he says:

“this is why you are going to lose.”

 

I looked it over for a second and recognized it as the paper, that has the  legal statutes that they outrageously interpret as authorization for  CHP to collect DUI Accident Recovery Costs, without any DUI conviction.

 

I pulled a sheet of paper and handed it to him, and as I did I said :

“And This is why you’re going to lose.”

 

He knew what it was within a few seconds.  And, I kid you not, the blood literally drained from his face. Then he practically ran out of the courtroom, tugging his cell phone out of his jacket pocket as he went.

 

He came back about 20 minutes later, while the Judge was explaining courtroom procedures and etiquette to the crowded room.  This time it was Mr. Frost who was staring straight ahead.

 

We were called right away., we  were sworn in and after promising to tell the truth,   I never said another word until we were out of the courtroom. Not a single word.

The conversation that took place was all between Mr. Frost and the Judge.
The Judge said:

Welcome Mr. Frost. You do realize this is Small Claims Court, Don’t You?
Yes, Your Honor
Then you know that we do things a little different here, then what you boys are used to. Did you realize that you only have 30 days to appeal a Small Claims Judgement?
Yes, your Honor, Ms. (my last name) made me aware of it just a few minutes ago.

I’ll admit, he sounded pretty defeated.

 

Then the Judge  (I do not remember his name, but I sure remember his face and is words) gave a little speech about the circumstances we found ourselves in.  I was appalled by it… I still am.

The Judge said:

“I am really sorry about this…. I tried, I really did… I lost sleep over this last night…. I looked everywhere. I spent hours going through the cases, trying to find some way…. some precedence,  that would give some way…. any way at all…… that would allow me to do this for you. I want to grant your motion and Vacate the Judgement for you, but I just can’t , my hands are tied… I just don’t see any way I can do this for you.  I’d really like to help you out here, and it’s not for lack of trying on my part — Its just the law is clear on it. Small Claims is different. Please give your boss (John McDonough) my regards and tell him how sorry I am. I  wish I could have done this for him.”

 

Motion Denied/blockquote>

I paraphrased the Judges words, but its very close to what he said and it makes me sick. I had no idea. I thought Judges had to behave and act impartially. This Judge didn’t EVEN pretend to be impartial. He told a huge courtroom full of people that:

looking for a way to find in the CHP’s favor, had literally kept him up at night.

He hadn’t even heard the case.

 

Now it all becomes clear why the CHP was willing to use any grounds just to get back in front of a Judge… Maybe any Judge… or maybe they hand picked the court for this particular Judge. It doesn’t matter. (If they did it once they can do it again.)  What matters is this: The actual merits of the case are unimportant. The CHP was right, I should never have won my case.   They can mistreat you, take your money, falsify reports…. and they don’t have to face any consequences. Because those unfair laws on the books that allow them to do so many things that are clearly wrong, are upheld in court.

 

The most amazing thing, was this particular Judge wasn’t even concerned with propriety. He didn’t see any reason to hide the fact that he wasn’t impartial, or that the deck was stacked and the system rigged.  I call that ALARMING!!
IS THIS COMMON KNOWLEDGE?  Is this the way it works?  It sure isn’t what I learned in civics class, about how government is supposed to behave. It makes me sick, that this stuff goes on and they are so comfortable with it, that they don’t even try to hide it.

The MESSAGE WAS CLEAR:  The facts or merits of the case are not important.

The California Highway Patrol doesn’t just think they are above the law, they are above the law.

 

When we got to the lobby I asked Mr. Frost:

“So… NOW are you going to pay me?”

 

“Oh… haven’t you heard? The State of California’s broke… we don’t have any money.”

 

You have yourself a real nice drive back to Sacramento!

 

I have realized that you will want to know if and how I got paid.  They CHP pulled a couple more small stunts on us.  8 more months went by… and I am going to have to do one more short post to to finish the story. Sorry… I’m ready to be done with it too.

 

thank you  for reading

Part 7: CHP’s Absurd Motion to Vacate

Internal Affairs Investigates

I really didn’t expect my complaint with the CHP Internal Affairs Division to go anywhere, and it didn’t. As I said, it wasn’t organized or well thought out. I felt pushed  into making my initial complaint a Formal complaint. I  told Lieutenant Desmond that I didn’t need to make it formal,   I just wanted to collect on the Judgement.   He told me if I didn’t make  a Formal Complaint the investigation would be closed.  That would have put me back where I started, so I filled out the complaint form they sent me.
The complaint as written by Internal Affairs paraphrased my words saying that I had alleged Kelly Walker was evasive, and unprofessional during inquiries into my legal judgement. YA THINK? Just a tad more formal, than I had put it, but as they say “good enough for Government work“.
Kelly Walker was not important to me. She was merely a gate-keeper, who wasn’t quite up to the task.  It is quite possible to run interference for a boss and still come across as likeable and even helpful. See my post about the Deputy Chief at the Santa Cruz Police Department, if you want to see how its done.
Avoidance isn’t really a good tool for managing situations or people. When unable to avoid them, obvious lies are another bad choice. Yeah, I’d say she was unprofessional, allegedly!

---

The Unspoken Message

One odd thing I noticed was that the people in Legal Affairs and Risk Management, were noticeably hostile towards me, during many of my phone inquires. I really have a hard time understanding that. They were absolutely acting like I didn’t deserve a second of their time and like I was screwing over the Highway Patrol in general, and them personally. This seemed to be inexplicably personal to them — they were angry at me, and it showed.  This started before I contacted Internal Affairs for help.  From my point of view the hostility was misplaced and undeserved.  It’s creepy, when you think about it.
This narrow-minded way of thinking, seems central to the culture of the California Highway Patrol: They are above the law, and they resent anybody who tries to infringe on their entitlement.  How else can you explain losing a lawsuit and refusing to comply with a court order? They didn’t think I deserved to challenge their authority in court; They were angry at me for putting them in this position;  I had threatened their power and their Right to always be RIGHT.  They had no intention of rewarding or reinforcing me for this. 
There was an unspoken message conveyed through all this hostility.  I’m  fairly intuitive and my perception of the message still feels right to me, almost 5 years later.  The message was one of indignation:

“WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?  HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL”

That so many employees seem to buy into and uphold this warped perception, which is so removed from the intended role of the Highway Patrol, seems strangely,  indoctrinated to me. Maybe this unquestioning loyalty (regardless of morality) is unique to law enforcement agencies (i.e. the blue line).  I thought it was very weird.

---

Balance of Power

The California Highway Patrol behaves in a way that is both self-serving and arrogant.  As an Agency, they seem to be unable or unwilling to hide it. The scary thing is that when Government stops hiding illegal or immoral acts, it’s because they no longer have to. They’ve consolidated enough power to do as they wish and no one can stop them. The CHP is well insulated by California’s Justice System and the Legislature. They aren’t too concerned about acting outside the law. It is a rare occasion when they are held accountable for bad acts.
Our Federal Government is headed that way. They still act embarrassed when they get caught doing something illegal, but nothing changes.  It continues and we just get used to it. Our Government is turning into the monster the Constitution tried to protect us from.  The system that was meant to check and balance Government power, has been so diluted, its impotent.

The Federal Government is currently under-checked and dangerously out of balance. The Legislature has never been more ineffective. The Judicial system is neither blind nor impartial. The Security Agencies have run amok, using secrecy to shield illegal acts and no one seems able or willing to rein them in.  The violations that have been exposed are the tip of the iceberg.

The only thing that government seems to fear at all, is a free press.  Under the Obama administration there have been extraordinary measures to muzzle those that would report or expose immoral, illegal and self-serving government activity. The free internet, whistle blowers and reporters are in the cross-hairs. 

When  a voracious non native species, with no natural enemies, is introduced into an environment it either fundamentally changes or destroys that environment and is harmful to native inhabitants. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are natural enemies to Government Abuse of Power.  If the government is successful in its efforts to limit those freedoms, they’ve essentially vanquished their last natural enemy.  It will be harmful  to the inhabitants. We can’t let that happen.

If censorship is successful, the Feds will be just like the CHP: Arrogant, Above the Law and so insulated they don’t even have to act embarrassed when corruption, or any other bad act is exposed.
If these CHP employees think its wrong for a Judge to order their employer (large organization, with big budget)  to return money they seized from an individual, they really ought to see how it feels to be the individual whose money was seized,  bypassing the Judge altogether.  I can tell you right now… that feels like a violation and is a much better reason to be upset.
To see these employees upset when their employer is court ordered to give the money back…. ? Cry me a river.   Boo Hoo!  They had no right to be angry with me. I did everything legally and by the book. They likewise had no right to make collecting on the judgement such a nightmare.
And the delaying, the stalling, the rudeness … it’s not over yet!

---

Internal Affairs Concludes the Investigation

Clearly Kelly Walker was only part (and not the most important part) of my Complaint to Internal Affairs. If you missed it, you can find it here.

The letter informing me of the outcome of the investigation said they didn’t find substantial evidence to support my allegations regarding Staff Services Manager, Kelly Walker……bla bla bla.  They never even addressed the part of the complaint that had to do with the Legal Affairs Department ducking a Court Order.  Unfortunately, I was getting used to that.

But in some respects the Internal Affairs Investigation was helpful. R. Jones, a Captain in the Office of Investigation assigned K. A. Hunter, Legal Affairs Commander and supervisor to Kelly Walker to look into the matter and resolve any issues. It was through Hunter that I was FINALLY given the name and number of Staff Attorney, John McDonough.

I left him a message near the end of June or early July (I think). When he called me back on a Friday afternoon, I really wasn’t expecting to like the man.  But he was funny and charming. He made me laugh.  (A talent he should share with Kelly Walker.)

If you are the Staff Attorney for the CHP and you have to explain why your client (who is duty bound to uphold the law) is breaking the law, a little charm sure can’t hurt.

---

Finally, I Get Some Answers

The big question:

WHAT IS HOLDING UP PAYMENT OF MY COURT ORDERED JUDGEMENT OF $482.00?

We are looking to have the Judgement Vacated. We will be going back before the Judge on the matter.

OH REALLY…. AND ON WHAT GROUNDS?

On the Grounds we were never served.

Really? Because I paid the court $25.00 to serve you. And they gave me a receipt showing Proof of Service.

What address did you use?

Joe Farrell, Attorney General for State of California, at the AG’s Office in Sacramento.

See, you served the Attorney General. You didn’t serve the California Highway Patrol, so we didn’t ever receive it. You needed to serve us for it to be a valid service.

Well that’s funny because…. right on the State of California web site, in the section called “Small Claims Court Self Help” it says :

“IF YOU ARE SUING the California Highway Patrol,  serve them at the Office of the Attorney General. “

Then it gives the address. — The same address I had the court serve you at.

WHAT? Where is this Website…. ? Hold on let me get my legal assistant on that, and I’ll get back to you.

---

Motion to Vacate

The CHP Legal Affairs Department, and John McDonough, specifically, filed a Motion to Vacate the Judgement six months, TO THE DAY,  that the original judgement was filed. We were due back in court near the end of September 2010, where the Judge would hear the Motion.

The reason they gave? It was absurd.  I had a very hard time believing that such a legal maneuver could really exist or be taken seriously in a court of law.
The grounds they used to ask for the Judgement to be vacated were:  Mishap, Inadvertence,  Malfeasance, and failure to realize the importance of showing up for the hearing.

WHAT? I had no idea what that even meant, so I had to look into it. 

First of all, It is absurd to even suggest that the legal arm of the CHP doesn’t realize the importance of showing up in court to defend against a claim.  These people are lawyers.  Most small claims participants have no legal training at all.  When we get served, even without legal training, we know enough to realize that if we don’t go, and mount a defense, you are going to lose. It isn’t possible that this high powered legal team did not realize the importance of being served.  It is not grounds for the Judge to Vacate the original Judgement.

The combination of Mishap, Inadvertence, and Malfeasance is seldom used by an Attorney. It is the equivalent to an admission of incompetence and alludes to  deliberate wrongful action on the part of an Attorney in carrying out their duties.

This is like an Attorney, who is throwing himself on the mercy of court and pleading with the Judge: (Picture the back of a hand, pressed open to forehead with palm facing outward, blinking back big crocodile tears) Oh woe is me, Your Honor, I have made a mess of this. Please don’t allow my client to suffer for my mistakes.

As you can imagine , lawyer jokes aside… Attorneys aren’t scrambling all over themselves to fall on their own swords, calling attention to their incompetence in open court. Not that Lawyers aren’t known for altruistic behavior and self sacrifice for the benefit of their clients. John McDonough, must have been a rare lawyer indeed to make that kind of sacrifice for his poor misrepresented client, the little ‘ol CHP. In reality it was just a BS excuse to get back in front of the Judge.

Unlike most Lawyers who would never risk using this as grounds to vacate, Mr McDonough wasn’t running the risk of  being disciplined, sanctioned or disbarred by making this type of astounding admission for the record and open court.  He wasn’t even going to keep future business at bay, by telling the world he was a bad lawyer.  This was all just an excuse to put us back in front of the Judge.
Furthermore isn’t some incompetent Lawyer, poorly representing the CHP. He is on their Payroll. If he screwed up, they screwed up. He is part of the organization that is the CHP. He does not have a client who was poorly represented. He is the client. He works strictly for the CHP, representing only their interests in all legal matters. He is the Legal Face of the CHP.
The CHP has enough tax dollars to pick and choose among lawyers. They are embroiled in law suits all the time.  If our case fell through the cracks, it was because a Small Claims case meant NOTHING to them. It was insignificant. It only became significant when we won. The CHP doesn’t have to show up in court, because of the substantial hurdles a plaintiff has to get over before the court will hear their case.   It is as the Judge told my husband, when he found our paperwork in order:

“This Never Happens.”

And because nobody ever has the paperwork to prove they can legally sue, the Judge automatically dismisses the case, without any need for the CHP to be present. They don’t show up, because they don’t have to. The Judgement in our favor, was a huge surprise to them.  Apparently, with all their legal resources, they were ill-equipped to deal with Small Claims Court or a Judgement NOT in their favor.  And they were… FURIOUS.
I hope my readers are starting to get the picture of what we were up against here. If you think they have acted like bad losers and have been petty and childish so far…. I am NOT DONE.
The conclusion of this story will appear in the next post.  Things are not as they seem in California.   After I tell you what the CHP did next,  if you live in California, you’ll think they owe you some money now, too . Nobody should be spending our tax dollars this way…. If wasting our money isn’t a crime, it should be. It’s also amusing if you like your humor along the lines of WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? or Americas Dumbest Criminals, you’ll get a kick out of it.
The last post also exposes one more bad act, this one not done by the CHP.  It is , however so blatant and chilling, I think, that everything the CHP did to us, pales by comparison. The CHP, definitely doesn’t have an exclusive on behaving badly.

NOTE To Readers:
Throughout the eight posts that tell this story, I put the real names of the people who handled our case at the CHP. One of those people is almost certainly the person who submitted our name to a government watch list, knowing that it would lead to ongoing stalking, monitoring and constant harassment.  It started four years ago, and continues today.

We aren’t on this list because we are terrorists or a threat to anybody. Our crime was embarrassing the CHP and exercising our legal rights effectively. We threatened the ABOVE THE LAW status that the CHP takes for granted, and we are being punished for it, with no legal recourse.

That is the reason I write this blog,

SceneNSantaCruz

One more thing:

I have never posted any videos of any kind. If you see a video that indicates it came from me or has anything to do with my blog Justifiably Disturbed, you can be certain that it I had nothing to do with it.  If the day comes for me to post videos, you will see them on this blog before you see them on YouTube.

The Highway Patrol Chooses to Ignore a Court Order

Posted on September 19, 2014 by scenensantacruz Edit

It is January of 2010 have completed all the preliminary steps, required and now we can legally sue the California Highway Patrol In Small Claims Court. We are filing for the return of our 2007 (filed in 2008) tax return that was intercepted by the California Franchise Tax Board on behalf of the CHP.  We paid the courts 25.00 to serve the CHP. The CHP receives service at the California Office of the Attorney General in Sacramento.

Because I had done all the preliminary paperwork, we decided that my husband would represent us in front of the Small Claims Court Judge. I did not attend.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

I’m sure you are expecting this to be interesting… but it is decidedly anticlimactic.

When our case was called there was no one there to represent the California Highway Patrol. Usually that means a default win for the plaintiff (if the defense is a no show). When you sue a State Agency, the Judge goes through your paperwork to establish that you have that all important paper:  A Denied Claim From the State of California, which is dated no more than 6 months earlier- if you don’t, have it the Judge will dismiss the case.

When the Judge issued a default judgement for the plaintiff (us) in the amount of ($482.00) ($417.00 +$65.00 in expenses), he made an interesting comment to my husband.

The Judge said: This never happens.

The Judgement was entered on Febuary 19, 2010

---

Collecting The Judgement

 

I then, foolishly waited, expecting a check for $482.00 to arrive in the mail. The California Highway Patrol is an agency that upholds laws. They have been Court Ordered to pay me that amount. There is no gray area here. Although I realize that collecting Small Claims Judgements can be problematic, there is no way I thought collecting this judgement would be an issue.

I can’t emphasize this enough: I could not have been MORE wrong.

You can see my point: 482.00 shouldn’t even be a big deal to the CHP. I mean, $417.00 they already had from my tax return, and as for the $65.00? What could that possibly mean to an agency with an enormous budget that serves as the Police Force for The State of California? Come on…. this is chump change to them. Why wouldn’t they pay me?   Is it possible that Court Orders don’t apply to them?

Before I get on with the collection process, which took another trip to court and more than a year, I want to mention something that occurred around this time.

Just before we went to court we got a letter from an attorney asking us to be part of a class suit against the CHP regarding Recovery Costs related to DUI investigations. Because we had already initiated the paperwork to sue the CHP in Small Claims Court, we wrote a letter opting out of the class. That case can be found here, if you are interested. That case was initially won, and later overturned, on appeal. It is the same case (Allende) that I referenced earlier (making fun of the Judicial Opinion).

I waited (silly me) for 2 months for the check from the CHP to arrive, before I began any attempts to collect the judgement.

The best way to tell you about what I went through in an attempt to collect the $482, is to share the complaint I made to the CHP Office of Internal Affairs with you. I would like to say that I really didn’t want to make this complaint, but I had filled out an online form complaining about the lack of cooperation I was getting from my contact person at the CHP.

In response, I got a phone call asking

DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS EMPLOYEE?

I DON’T CARE ABOUT HER! WHAT I WANT IS THE MONEY THE CHP HAS BEEN COURT ORDERED TO PAY ME.

DO YOU WANT TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT OR NOT? IF YOU DO, WILL SEND YOU THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK. IF NOT, WE WILL CONSIDER THIS MATTER CLOSED.

I did not want the matter closed, I wanted it resolved. So I said FINE, send me the paperwork. My complaint, which I am going to share with you, was never really about the employee (Kelly Walker), but I had contacted Internal Affairs, (initially at the advice of the Attorney Generals Office, who also suggested I hire a lawyer) complaining about Ms. Walker, and now I had to see it through.

The bummer is, I think the IA investigation is probably the actual reason we were targeted for retaliation, via an organized harassment campaign, that I identify as Gangstalking. It could also be that the CHP was embarrassed by the way they handled everything, and they blamed us for it.

My complaint against Kelly Walker was not well thought out or organized, because though, she was the focus of the complaint, she was not the reason for it. She was just the face of the problem, and (I am sure) doing her job, exactly as expected for the culture she works in. She was rude, completely unhelpful, not unlike many people who work the private sector. It isn’t something I normally complain about; But I was frustrated and expected more from an organization that is here to SERVE (SAFETY SERVICE SECURITY), or so it says on the bottom of their stationary.

---

Internal Affairs Complaint

 

I was mad, and you’ll see why. Here is the IA Complaint, (with minor corrections for readability):

June 19, 2010

California Highway Patrol, Office of Internal Affairs

I would like to file a formal complaint against the California Highway Patrol Office of Legal Affairs, in general, and against employee Kelly Walker, specifically. Kelly Walker is a civilian employee working in the Legal Affairs Office, and my contact person there.

On February 19 of this year (2010) a Judgement was filed by the Superior Court of California ordering the California Highway Patrol to pay the plaintiffs (our names omitted here) $417.00 + $65.00 in expenses. The CHP had one month to appeal the decision. They did not.

Now, for some reason, I expected a State Agency, whose purpose it is, to enforce the laws of the State of California to abide by the laws of the State of California. Silly me. After the judgement was not appealed within the required 30 day period, I waited another month, (apparently foolishly), expecting a check to arrive in the mail.

I began attempting to collect on the judgement, on or about April 12th. Since that time I have spent hours of my time, money for long distance phone calls, and an additional $18.00 faxing documents to the CHP- documents that they already have, but asked me to fax anyway.

Prior to trying to collect on the judgement, I had already spent considerable time making phone calls, writing letters, filing a claim with the State of California and preparing my case against the CHP. The result of all that effort, was a judgement in my favor, ordering the CHP to pay back the money they had intercepted from my 2008 tax return.

It now appears that the CHP Office of Legal Affairs and Kelly Walker have no need or interest in following the “rules of court” in any kind of timely fashion. I have been put through the wringer in my attempt to get paid. Apparently a court order means nothing to them.

Here are the steps I have taken since the judgement was filed (Feb 19th) to try to get the money that is owed to me:

On or about April 12, I start calling various CHP departments to try to find out WHO can help me to collect on the Judgement. I call Risk Management, Legal Affairs and Accounts Payable. I only get through to operators. I leave many detailed messages on many voice mails of various people who the operators think may be able to assist me. I do this every afternoon for a week, leaving messages each day on Kelly Walker’s voice mail; I have been told she is the most likely person to be able to help me. The following week I leave a 4th or 5th message (this time with a real person) for Kelly Walker and am steered by a unknown person in the Legal Affairs Department to the voice mail of Luis (the manager, I think), in the Accounts Payable Department.

I would like to commend Luis, he is the only bright light in this fiasco. Luis returns my call on April 20th. He was the only CHP employee, who returned ANY of the dozens of messages left for various employees. Luis tells me that he would be happy to cut me a check, but it has to be approved first by the appropriate department. He tells me I need to contact Kelly Walker in Legal Affairs. I explain to him that I have already left numerous unreturned messages on her voice mail. He tells me he knows her personally and will talk to her, to see if he can find out what is holding up approval.

At this time he asks me for information about my case, and then transfers my call to Karen Martin in Risk Management. She asks me to fax her all the information about my case, including the original claim forms filed with the State of California and a copy of the judgement. I do this the same day (April 20th) and it costs me $9.00.

I wait over a week for Luis to call me back, leaving messages almost daily on Kelly Walker’s voice mail or with whoever answers the phone in the Legal Affairs Department. On May 3rd, I finally get a hold of Luis, who tells me that the only thing he has been able to find out is that the case is being reviewed by a Staff Attorney. He tells me that there is only one Staff Attorney, and he is really busy, wrapping up other important cases. He says to continue trying to contact Kelly Walker, because his hands are tied and there is nothing more he can do for me. (I stress that he has been kind and as helpful as possible, in all my dealings with him.) He ask me to refax him the same documents I sent to Karen Martin and he will go to Kelly Walker with them and TRY to expedite payment. There goes another $9.00.

Over the next two weeks I leave countless messages on Kelly Walkers voice mail. I am careful not to be rude or sound angry, but it is clear I am frustrated with her failure to return my calls. I finally call Luis back on May 17th. I get my first hint as to why I haven’t been paid. He tells me that the Legal Affairs Department does not want to pay the Judgement. They are looking into ways to get it overturned or set aside. Apparently they are not under the same time constraints as us ordinary mortals. I had to keep to a very strict statute of limitations and follow the rules of court, in taking the CHP to court in the first place. They appear to be looking for a technicality, something that I did wrong, so they can have the judgement overturned.

I was careful. I first filed a claim with The State of California, as required by law. When it was kicked to the CHP, they denied my claim. The sent a letter telling me I had 6 months from that date to file suit, which I did. I filed in the proper jurisdiction. I paid the court to serve the CHP, via certified mail, and I did it all within the statute of limitations set forth by The State of California. There is no doubt that they are obligated to pay me this amount. They have been court ordered to do so.

After my conversation with Luis, I am upset and frustrated. I speak to a Legal Aide Attorney, here in Santa Cruz. who informs me that she can’t help me, unless I can find a cash till, where the CHP takes in cash payments. My court order would entitle me to seize the money owed me. This is how it is done in the private sector.

I fire off a letter, complaining about the situation to the Attorney Generals Office. They tell me that they can’t work on my behalf because they represent the CHP in legal matters. They tell me I should get legal representation and contact Internal Affairs for the CHP.

On or about May 21st, I call the CHP Internal Affairs Office and complain about Kelly Walker holding up my payment and not once returning my phone calls. Not even five minutes after I get off the phone, an amazing thing happens. The phone rings and it is Kelly Walker. She is nice and solicitous.

We talk for 20 minutes, basically, her asking me questions. She says she will look into the matter and give me a call in the early part of the following week. I wait the entire next week for her to call, as promised, and she never does.

.

The week after that, I leave detailed messages, on Kelly Walker’s voice mail every day, clearly frustrated with her.  On Friday of that week she picks up her phone. Apparently she was expecting somebody else and picked up the phone by accident. She then pretends that she has no idea who I am. She says she deals with lots of cases, but is not familiar with mine and she doesn’t have the records in front of her at the moment. She doesn’t have time to pull them right now, Do I want to leave my name and number?

She is flat out lying. She knows EXACTLY who I am. I am certain she would never have answered her phone, if she knew it was me. She says she doesn’t recollect the 20 minute conversation, 2 weeks earlier when (prodded by internal affairs— I’m sure that doesn’t happen every day) she promise me she would look into my case and call me back with answers.

The conversation went like this:

You promised to call me back after you looked over the paperwork regarding my Judgement and call to and tell me what is holding up the payment.

The matter is being reviewed by a Staff Attorney, who is out of the office right now. (I guess she does know who I am, after all)

When is this going to happen?

I don’t know right now. I don’t have a time frame and I’m not familiar with the details (she forgot who I am again)

Can you please just give me the name and number for the Staff Attorney who is reviewing the Judgement, since they are apparently the person who can answer my questions.

I can’t do that. It wouldn’t do you any good anyway. They aren’t in the office and they aren’t available right now.

I would still like the name and number so I can leave a message for this anonymous person.

At this point Ms. Walker gets a bit nasty and superior sounding, like she is talking to a small child who doesn’t understand what the word “NO” means. She explains slowly, (like I am an idiot) :

I will not give you the name and number. You need to ask all your questions and get all your answers through me. I am your contact person.

Well, for a contact person, you have been close to impossible to contact and you don’t have any answers, anyway.  I would really like the name of the person who does have those answers or who is just a little more accessible.

We will notify you when a decision is made.

And when will that be?

(Sounding exasperated again, and speaking very slowly, like I am an idiot who can’t grasp simple concepts)

Whenever they decide.

So there is no time frame? They can take as long as they want to decide whether they will or will not comply with a court order?

(SNAPPING, Now) Not forever, just as long as it takes. We will notify you.

Will that be by mail or phone?

I’m not sure.

The one thing I’m sure of, at this point, is that this conversation is going nowhere. Ms. Kelly Walker has no intention of helping me . She was condescending, rude and made it clear to me that she felt she did not owe me an explanation for anything.

And if you don’t think that I have already been through enough, I was notified on May 15 that a portion of another tax return (2009 this time) had been Intercepted by the CHP. And guess what? This was done without any court order when I don’t owe them a dime, I never did, and neither does my husband. There is no doubt in my mind that this INTERCEPTION, without a judgement is unconstitutional and needs to be challenged in the courts.

Isn’t it Ironic that I have a court order saying they me owe me money, and I can’t collect. They don’t have a court order and they can. How wrong is that? The CHP owes me money, not the other way around!

I am asking Internal Affairs to resolve this situation, or tell me how to resolve it myself. It has been more than a year since they took my 2008 tax return and more than 4 months since they were ordered to return it.

Stay Tuned… the fun isn’t over.  Next Post I finally hear from the CHP Staff Attorney, who explains what is holding up the payment.

Scenensantacruz

Gangstalking and the CalGang Database are too similar to be unrelated

I spend  quite a bit of time doing on line research about topics that interest me.  Gangstalking would interest me, even if I wasn’t a victim.  I explained the complexities of a the crime in my very first post.  The same post also explains some of the more fascinating known and unknown aspects of the crime.  You can read it here, if you missed it.

I prefer the term Gangstalking over the term Gang Stalking.  The reason, that I do this (and I would encourage other people writing about the topic, to do the same) is because it works as an automatic filter for Search Engines.  When You look for the term Gangstalking, you are always going to find On Topic,Information or Disinformation.  If you put Gang Stalking and do not put quotes around it (i.e. “Gang Stalking”) you end up with much less specific results:  In particular everything that has to do with Street Gangs or any one of seven other types of Stalking behavior flood your results.  Gangstalking is specific and results oriented.

I know people use different terms when describing gangstalking.  I like the term Organized Harassment and Covert Harassment, but they are subject to the same scattered results.. If you put harassment in the search engine, your results are heavily populated with unrelated sexual harassment info.  Gangstalking works best for narrowing searches to our topic.

The term gangstalking also always seemed so appropriate to me.  It describes the behavior of the large group of cult members that stalk us perfectly.I have never known where the name originated.  I assumed that it described the situation so perfectly, that once said, it stuck.

I learned something new tonight that has has made me rethink where the term Gangstalking  originated.  I always thought gangstalking had nothing to do with the street gangs, that people are familiar with.   But, I think it is possible that the term originated  with  the Gang Abatement Program in California.

I’ve put a link to a PDF File from The YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION.  This is an awesome document, easy to read and understand.  It describes the secret law enforcement lists and civil rights violations that are part of the CALGANG enforcement strategy.  The similarities to that state program and the way our gangstalking is orchestrated, are uncanny.

The CALGANG Task FORCE uses secret lists that target gang members without anything that resembles constitutional protections.  If you make the list,  (and you don’t need to have ever committed a crime to be on it) then you are tracked, trapped, and then subjected to extra harsh treatment by the courts, under Gang Enhancement statutes.   The lists are secret and you are never told you are on them and have no way of removing yourself from them.  Being on the list impacts every aspect of a persons life.

Read the PDF. They have to be related.  Let me know, if you agree with me.   If you do, this could be a breakthrough for members of the TI community.  It would demonstrate that government keeps secret domestic lists that are in violation of our rights.  CALGANG DATABASES, NO FLY LISTS, TERRORIST WATCH LISTS….. etc…  Being able to show a link would help our cause and convince the undecided that our situation is government sponsored.   What other secret lists is law enforcement working from?  What list are we on?

This PDF file contains one more gem for us.  The information about the CALGANG Database is secret.  They don’t tell you who is on the list.  The investigators who got this information have included the information of how they were able to get access to the information contained in the report.  They encourage research and transparency and they actually have a guide to teach the public how to access and research this type of information

Here is the original link  http://www.youth4justice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TrackedandTrapped.pdf

Here is the link I imported into WordPress:

TrackedandTrapped

Part 5: Rules and Red Tape – How to Sue a State Agency

This is Part 5 of my story, about suing the California Highway Patrol.

If you missed any of the previous posts, you can read them here: Winning a lawsuit against the CHP feels a lot like losing

Now that you have the background, this is where things get really interesting.  I say that because, this is where you start to see how the State has legal advantages that feel morally wrong. It’s where you start seeing things that make you wonder “How Can That Possibly Be Legal?” or “How Can They Get Away with that?” It’s where it becomes obvious that the same laws that govern us, do not apply to the State. Agencies like the CHP really are Above the Law. They do things that should be illegal, with the full support and backing of the State and the Courts.

I never had any idea things worked the way they do, until I stepped in it.  I really think most people don’t know. If you have been gangstalked, like us, you probably already take a dim view of your Government because they not only refused to protect you from criminals, they even refused to acknowledge the crimes against you. Such a simple thing:  Acknowledging the crimes we know they are aware of, crimes which we have all reported to authorities, most of us on multiple occasions. If they didn’t want to help, or didn’t know how to help, simple acknowledgment would still benefit us a great deal. Simple acknowledgement would make the crimes harder to commit. Simple acknowledgement would make it easier for us to get help and support outside of Government.

When you put it in context, denying the existence of the crimes that have been reported to them over and over, only makes sense if the crimes they are denying, are their own. Nothing else makes sense. That the FBI is unaware of gangstalking, is not even a possibility. We reported our situation to them 3 times. And we sure aren’t the only ones. They presumably wouldn’t cover up organized crime unless they had a very good (or bad) reason to do so. Sometimes the things left unsaid speak volumes.

Seeing how things really work and how petty, vengeful and morally corrupt the CHP behaved towards us, with the full support of the State and the Courts makes it clear:

Our Government puts itself before its citizens.

---

The reason I decided to take the CHP to court had a lot to do with the nature of INTERAGENCY INTERCEPTIONS. It feels like legal theft.

When the CHP sends you a bill, they tell you to notify them in writing if you dispute the charges. I did that. It’s silly, because it doesn’t change anything. Sure, they acknowledge that you dispute the charges. Then they send you another bill. They don’t actually reconsider the debt OR your reasons for disputing it.

When we didn’t pay the bill, the CHP swooped in and took our tax return in what is called an INTERAGENCY INTERCEPTION.  I was beyond irritated. They took the entire tax return and continued to send letters for the balance of 197.00. Basically we were expected to foot the bill for, among other things, the report the CHP falsified, and tried to hang my husband with.

The ability to Intercept a disputed amount, while legal, is pretty shady. I definitely don’t think it should be legal. It’s like some grey area of the law where my rights can be infringed upon by the State, in a way that would never be allowed in the private sector. Any State Agency can make up an invoice, send you a bill and if you don’t pay it, they can take your tax return. They don’t need any proof or court order or paper. They are above all that. Once they have your money… your options are extremely limited.

---

So You Want to Sue the State of California?.. First, Jump Through These Hoops!

You have probably felt ripped off at some time in your life. Maybe you’ve even taken a business or an individual to Small Claims Court to try to get what you felt you were owed. If you decided not to do it, it could be that you didn’t think the amount of money was worth the hassle of going through Small Claims Court. The operative word here, is HASSLE.

If you think suing a private business or individual is a hassle (and it is), you should try suing the Government in Small Claims Court. It’s good for an education and probably little else. There are very different rules.

First of all, you can’t even sue the Federal Government, unless they agree to it. That of course is done in Federal Court. It sounds absolutely ludicrous. If no one could sue you unless you agreed to it, would you ever? I imagine the Feds feel the same.

When you sue a State Agency in California, you are basically suing the State, itself. In order to sue the State, you must first File a Claim with the State of California within 1 year of any incident you are referencing in the claim. To file the claim you fill out a manageable form, to which you attach evidence supporting your claim, and a check or money order for $25.00.

The State will look it over. If they think it may have merit, they then kick it to the Agency you are making the claim against. That Agency looks it over, and make the decision to deny or affirm your claim. (Somehow, I don’t think this is a difficult decision for them.) You are notified of their decision 6 to 8 weeks later.

If your claim is denied, you have exactly six months from the date you are notified of the denial, to bring a suit against that agency in Civil Court, for the amount of the claim. If you wait more than one year to file the original claim, or more than six months, after the claim is denied, you are past the statue of limitations. Hassle… right? That’s a

lot of hoops and rolls of red tape to go through, BEFORE you even begin the Small Claims process.

---

SO… the first time I file the claim, I send in my evidence with the claim form and a check for $25.00. You can then look on line (supposedly to see the status of your claim and follow it’s progress). I made the mistake of sending the claim in via regular mail the first time around. It then disappeared into the vapor, never received and never returned. The check was likewise, never cashed. (Putting a stop payment on a $25 check is pointless, since it costs $25 to do so. ) That check is still floating out there somewhere, valid and cashable.

Smarter and wiser the second time around, I sent the claim, the evidence, and the new check for 25.00 via USPS with Delivery Confirmation/Signature Required. This time it was processed. About 2 months later I get the expected denial from the CHP saying they were entitled to Intercept my tax return, because I had not paid the invoice… blah blah blah. No, acknowledgement of my supporting evidence, which included this little gem, I found on line.

This is an excerpt from a 2006 report from the State Controllers Office discussing the findings of their California Highway Patrol audit :

The evidence supporting my claim is the same as the what we planned to argue in Small Claims Court:

My husband should NOT have to pay DUI ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION RECOVERY COSTS, because he had not been drinking prior to, or during the accident, and he was not riding the motorcycle at the time. The DMV returned his drivers license, after hearing the evidence in a Civil Hearing and he had was not convicted of a DUI or any alcohol related offense in Criminal Court.

In a recent case (after our court case), which referenced the validity of charging people who are never convicted of DUI, the courts rendered a Judicial Opinion on the matter.

Below, is my own summary of some of the points made in the OPINION, followed by a few choice comments from me:

The charge for DUI Recovery costs is not a a fine or punitive in nature.

(REALLY? Cause it sure feels exactly like you are being punished when you get a bill for several hundred dollars or when they snatch your tax return with no court order.)

Because it is not punitive, a conviction is not necessary for them to be entitled to your money. It is more like a contractual obligation

(I sure didn’t agree to this in writing, nor did I ever enter into a verbal contract with the CHP, agreeing to pay these costs.)

Parties can dispute the bill, and then they have all the (plentiful) protections and civil remedies afforded to them under the law

This is a Joke, right?

Below is the actual Text of the Opinion. (An Opinion is not LAW, even a Judicial Opinion. It is more like a Guide to help Interpret the Law.) Read it carefully. By the time I’ve finished this story. You will think as I do…. The people who wrote this opinion are, at best completely out of touch with reality. And… they may very well be……complete MORONS!

The first part explains the problem the plaintiff has with The DUI Recovery Charges (The objection is the same as my own,)

Allende also claims that collecting law enforcement costs from persons not convicted of a crime raises constitutional issues and violates the general principle that counties should bear the costs of law enforcement absent a contrary legislative directive. The purported constitutional infirmity is that DUI defendants are singled out to pay law enforcement costs without criminal procedural protections.

Here is the Legal Opinion, which assumes that the world works differently than the one we actually live in:

We do not agree that imposing response costs on DUI offenders violates constitutional principles. The case on which Allende relies, People v. Thomas (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 798, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 856, involved the imposition of a criminal fine without finding a violation of the statute on which the fine was based (see id. at p. 804, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 856). The expenses subject to reimbursement under section 53150 are in the nature of a civil debt collectible by a public agency in the same manner as a contract debt. (§ 53154.) The debt is not a criminal fine and does not require criminal procedural protections. (Cf. United States v. Ward (1980) 448 U.S. 242, 248, 100 S.Ct. 2636, 65 L.Ed.2d 742 [distinguishing constitutional protections associated with civil and criminal penalties].) If a person invoiced for the expense of an emergency response disputes the invoice, the public agency must commence an action to collect the invoice amount as if the debt were a contractual obligation. (See Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 23833 (Nov. 4, 1985) Emergency Response:  Recovery of Costs, p. 1.) In such a civil proceeding, the public agency as plaintiff bears the burden of proving its entitlement to relief, and a person disputing an invoice is afforded adequate due process protections. – See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1099451.html#sthash.F3bHBJeh.dpuf

NONSENSE! The State, which is the only entity getting reimbursement here, does not have to prove anything. Unlike those of us that are at the mercy of the State (us tax paying citizens) they can snap up your tax return, without any court order or legal document proving you owe. The money can be taken, based only on the word of the State Agency. There is no written contract. There is no verbal contract… if it was something you knowingly and willingly agreed to, it wouldn’t be such a BIG surprise, when you get the bill. There is no Contractual agreement that involves you. The only Contractual Agreement appears to exist between the CHP and the California State Franchise Tax Board, which has agreed to steal from you on behalf of The CHP and other California State entities that can claim you owe then money, for any reason.

There are no checks and balances here. The Interagency Interception Laws offer no protection or oversight. It is bound to be abused. It feels abusive, invasive, unethical and, in my opinion, should absolutely be Illegal.

The Opinion sites a source that they say distinguishes the difference between Civil and Criminal Penalties. This is just a couple lines after stating that these DUI REIMBURSEMENT Fees were NOT CRIMINAL FINES. I don’t see one bit of difference between a PENALTY FINE AND A CRIMINAL FINE. Elsewhere in the document they make it clear that these DUI Recovery cost fines are not PUNITIVE in nature. A penalty is punitive, Civil or Criminal!

The Opinion is flawed.

And as for the Adequate due process protections afforded me…. REALLY? What are they talking about? The protections available AFTER they take the money in an Interagency Interception? Getting your money back after being robbed doesn’t really qualify has a protection. A protection is proactive, and would keep you from being robbed in the first place. The civil remedies that are available to someone who was never convicted of the DUI are perfectly adequate for one thing: Making sure the CHP gets to keep the money and you can’t do anything about it.

They don’t have to take you to court to get the money, you have to take them to court to get your money back!

This Opinion was written by people (notice the first word: WE) who clearly have NO IDEA how the system works. I understand that. I HAD NO IDEA how the system worked until I got wrung through it. But I am not writing legal opinions on a topic I know nothing about, trying to influence what happens to other people in a court of law. They are living a fantasy if they really believe there are adequate civil remedies available if you dispute the bill. The burden of proof is never with the CHP, as the OPINION suggests. The first time we went to court the CHP was the defendant, not the plaintiff.

Now that we are in possession of a DENIED CLAIM from the State of California, we are legally allowed to sue the California Highway Patrol in Small Claims Court to try to recover our tax return.

I’ll cover Small Claims Court in the part 6.

A quick word about Gangstalking related comments…

I have quickly realized that I cannot possibly vouch for the credibility of the links you find in the comment area of my blog.   Some of the commenters have blogs with hundreds of posts, going back years.  Some mix up the topic of Gangstalking with theories I cannot possibly endorse. Some are disinformation sites.

My favorite comment was “Stop poking the bear. Instead pick up a 2’x4′ and beat the snot out of him. “ when I checked out the comment author’s blog,  I discovered three important  things:   He does indeed seem to be a real victim of Gang Stalking.  He is openly racist, and fanatical  in his hatred of Gays.

I do not want to endorse those beliefs, by directing traffic to his blog, however the fact that he is a real TI, creates a bit of a dilemma.

My personal philosophy is that everyone should be able to choose to live their life, as they wish, no matter what their race or religion, or sexual orientation,  without judgement or interference.   There are plenty of people who don’t agree.  Clearly gangstalkers  have  stripped us of the freedom to live our lives unharassed.   They are far worse than even this TI blogger, because they are acting on their hatred and ignorance, instead of merely voicing it.

This commenter has a right to voice his opinion.  I have the right to say I find it offensive.  We can all choose for ourselves what we wish to read, and what we choose to think.  But wouldn’t it be awful to not have a choice?  Wouldn’t it be awful to never even be exposed to opinions different from your own?    (We might all end up like the Stepford Gang Stalkers… conforming and going along with whatever the cult dictates, discouraged from questioning authority, and not free enough  to think for themselves.).

With that in mind, I am going  to do less moderation of the comments, which means more of them will be approved.   There are some gems mixed in with the disinformation.  I figure by reading the disinformation stuff, we get a glimpse  into the minds of  the people trying to oppress us.  You cannot write, without giving something of yourself away.   It is good to know what your enemy is thinking and saying.  Sometimes the topics avoided, are the biggest giveaway of all.

I cannot vouch for or verify the links you find in the Comment Section, that follows my posts.

If they do not  support my mission to get Credibility for targeted individuals, you can be sure I don’t endorse them and /or have not read the content.

I will at some point be posting a list e to sites and blogs I do recommend, that support my message.

thank you! SceneNSantaCruz

Part 4: CHP bills for “Accident Investigation”

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION CHARGES:   No Conviction Required

 

We got the first demand letter from the CHP in October, 4 months after the accident and 2 months after the DMV returned my husband’s drivers license.
The Demand letter is for Accident Recovery Costs, pursuant to Government Codes 53150 and 53158. The bill is to pay the salary of the CHP for his time spent working a DUI case. 7 hours and 40 minutes were billed at the officer’s 2007 salary (with benefits) of 73.00 per hour.
It was broken down just like a normal bill:

• Incident Investigation (response time, on scene investigation, follow-up investigation report, writing):

6 Hours, 20 Minutes

• Vehicle Storage:

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

• In Custody (field sobriety test, transportation, booking, chemical tests):

 1 Hours, 20 Minute

• Traffic Control

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

• Other

0 Hours, 00 Minutes

Total: 7 Hours, 40 Minutes @ $73.00/hr = $559.67

My husband had never been arraigned or heard anything from the courts, regarding the arrest. We had no idea exactly what this meant. We naiively thought that maybe they had decided not to persue it.
The 2nd Demand letter came in November;   I wrote a letter disputing the charges, saying my husband had not been convicted of a DUI and, in fact, the DMV had returned the license the CHP had confiscated at the scene.
In the mean time my husband was arraigned in Santa Cruz Superior Court for the DUI.
I’m going to try to wrap up the court stuff quickly, because it’s not central to my fight with the CHP.
Most people probably just plead guilty, when they get a DUI.  It is hard to win if you don’t have a lawyer, and even if you do, I suspect.  Lawyers often attack the BAC evidence, sometimes bringing in experts.  It is expensive to defend against a DUI and expensive to be convicted of one.  I don’t think that many people get out of a DUI, once they’ve been arrested for it.

I want to make one thing clear here: I do not want to be on the road with drunks any more than you do. They are dangerous and scary. Strict penalties for DUI have made our roads much much safer than they used to be.  The consequences of drunk driving are so steep, that they have acted as a deterrent .  I am all for that.
I am also for something called Due Process. The CHP and the DMV are able to collect Accident Investigation Charges, and Reinstatement Fees from people who have not been convicted of Drunk Driving. Remember the Constitution? The part where it says “you are innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law”.  Is there anyone out there who thinks this should apply to most crimes, but not to DUI? REALLY?   Our constitution is here to protect us. Every exception to it hurts us, collectively.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

At his arraignment, in late December of 2007 my husband pleaded not guilty.  Before things wrapped at the end of April, 2008. there had been 3 or 4 pretrial conferences.

At the arraignment, because my husband pleaded not guilty, the Judge asked him if he was being represented by council. He told the court he would be representing himself. The Judge then called him back into chambers, where the DA was present, to discuss it.

In chambers the Judge asked if he was below the income threshold required to have the court appoint him an attorney. He replied that he made too much money to qualify, but not so much that he could afford an attorney.

My husband, clearly not understanding the rules of court,  kept trying to tell the Judge and the Prosecuting Attorney that he was innocent. He was trying to make it clear to the Judge, that the  witnesses would testify that the CHP Officer had lied on the report.

The Judge kept waving him off, saying he didn’t want to hear about that right now. My husband was indignant that the Judge didn’t want to know why he was innocent. I assume this went on for a few minutes with my husband and the Judge getting more and more frustrated with each other.

(In case you, like my husband, do not know the rules of court: The arraignment is to get the business stuff out of the way.  The Judge never hears a defense against the charges, unless the case actually gets to trial. You also would not want to be telling the DA your defense strategy at this point, and a Judge is probably expected to protect an ignorant defendant from himself, by keeping him from making a huge mistake.

Finally the Judge, fed up with my husband said, “YOU CANNOT REPRESENT YOURSELF IN MY COURT”. To this, my husband replies “ISN”T THAT MY RIGHT?” The Judge threw up his hands and said to the court administrator, “I’ve had enough of this… Give him an attorney.”

RESOLUTION OF THE LEGAL CASE

In the end, after 4 pretrial conferences, his court appointed attorney suggested he plea to a (dry) reckless driving ( A dry reckless means no alcohol or drugs were involved.) and Pay a fine of 300.00. She would represent him to have it expunged in a years time.

She had told my husband early on she could win if it went to trial. She had interviewed all the witnesses and had excellent statements from them. As time went on and meeting after meeting with the DA took place my husband says she got really busy and she seemed to just want to get it over with. He agreed to take a plea to the reckless driving (dry), at the urging of his attorney, even though he was not driving at the time of the accident. He regrets it to this day.

When they went back to court a year later the DA argued against an expungement, but the Judge, ruled in my husband’s favor saying he would allow it. The attorney then needed to file the paper with the court. I don’t know if that was done or not, but it never came off his record, something we found out just recently.

My husband regrets taking a plea, as do innocent people all over the country. There is a lot of pressure, for guilty and the innocent to take a plea.  It isn’t really a great system; but it greatly reduces the cost of prosecution and it brings in all kinds of money, in fines.

INTERCEPTION

In the meantime, my letter to the CHP disputing the Accident Investigation Charges got a response in February, 2008. In summary it said:

The Santa Cruz Area office of the CHP has concluded that your invoice is appropriate.
Below is a brief explanation as to why you are liable and responsible to reimburse the State of California for these Charges under Government Code Sections 53150 and 53158.
Government Code Sections 53150 through 53158 authorizes the California Highway Patrol, under the DUI Cost Recovery Program to seek reimbursement for the full costs incurred in responding to alcohol or drug related traffic incidents. The Legislature has set aside driving under the influence as a behavior which taxpayers should not have to subsidize. These charges are not based on a conviction of driving under the influence. Reimbursement is based on Government code Section 53150 which says in part:

Any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug… whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response,…. is liable for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency to the incident.

We received a 2nd demand letter for $559.67 in February and a FINAL NOTICE at the beginning of March. The letter said if they had not received payment within 30 days they would be turning the invoice over to a collection agency and The Franchise Tax Board for offset.
In May they intercepted our tax return, taking the entire amount of 361.95, which was not enough to cover the full amount of the bill. It was, however enough to infuriate me that they could do this without a court order or a conviction for an alcohol related offense.  I wasn’t even there, but the tax return was half mine.

I decided to sue the CHP in small claims court to get our money back.

Silly me, I thought I had a right to do that.
I was about to learn that exercising your constitutional right, might not be a good idea. In fact, it could be a very bad idea.

If I thought it was unfair to intercept a tax return without a court order, I was about to learn that the big boys don’t have to play fair.  The laws that govern the rest of us, don’t apply. And as for the CHP….. you can check that box N/A.
Stay tuned… You now have all the background information. Everything to come, is the reason I tell the story in the first place.

NOTE TO READERS

I’ve had no feedback, for the last 4 posts. The link to my site, when I copy it online, looks like gibberish, instead of what it should be.    https://justifiablydisturbed.wordpress.com/

Email was changed to go to a mailbox I don’t own. Due to my subject matter, I am understandably a bit uneasy.  So feedback, please.

Thank you,
SceneNSantaCruz

Part 3: DMV Hearing Officer Questions the World’s Worst Witness

The DMV Hearing

The hearing took place at our local DMV office six weeks after the accident .  I have paraphrased all witness testimony and am recounting it as I remember it.  I am also trying to set the tone of the witnesses, to give you a feel for how everything played out.

The hearing officer, who, I think, meets mostly with lawyers, representing clients, was nice enough, patient and extremely serious. He may have been a little jaded, but considering he probably gets lied to all the time, he hid it pretty well.

The evidence, as written in the report was damning. The blood alcohol tests measured .012 (the 2 breathalyzer tests at the scene) and the blood taken at the hospital tested at .014. To refute the report, we had to convince the hearing officer that there were inconsistencies, and mistakes. The biggest hurdle was to convince him that the officer had lied about witness testimony on the report.

I had written everything out ahead of time and tried to keep my testimony relevant and on point.

The DMV, IS ONLY interested in the answers to three questions.  To get them to set aside the suspension you have to show that one of the following things did not happen:

1. Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of CVC §§23152, 23153, or 23154?
2. Were you lawfully detained while on DUI probation or lawfully arrested?
3. Were you driving a motor vehicle when you had 0.08% BAC or more while driving a noncommercial vehicle?

 

1. The first question wasn’t one I really felt we could refute. My husband reeked of alcohol, there had been an accident and there was a motorcycle involved. That seems like reasonable cause to assume that the answer to question number 1 is yes. My assumption is that reasonable cause equates with probable cause, but that may not be accurate.  He had probable cause to investigate.  Did he have reasonable cause after investigating to believe it… maybe.  I do think that if he was sure after the investigation, that my husband had been riding, while under the influence… he would not have had to stack the deck in his favor, by changing witness testimony on the written report.

---

 

2. Was my husband lawfully arrested?  This second question, I could work with.  My husband and I both testified that the first clue we had, that he had, in fact been arrested, was 5 days later, when our mail box was flooded with offers to represent him from DUI attorneys.  Can a person be lawfully arrested and not know it? I wouldn’t think so.

The contents of the report were vague, at best, with regards to the Miranda Warning.

The report states that the time of the incident as 19:20, the CHP estimates ETA at 19:25, and the time of arrest is listed as 19:40. The report states my husband was read his rights at 20:35.  According to my husband and witnesses at the scene, the CHP was still asking questions and hammering my husband as he was  loaded into the ambulance.  The CHP then followed the ambulance to the hospital, 5 to 7 minutes, where he accompanied my husband, as he was treated for his injuries.  He was relentless.   At any time (except for the 5-7 minute transport time) he could have issued a Miranda Warning. My husband says the Miranda Warning never happened at all.

It was news to me, to discover that the Officer is not required to issue a Miranda Warning, but if he does not, he must stop all questioning.  Since the questioning never stopped, legally my husband should have been Mirandized, at the time he was placed under arrest.  Normally, a DMV Hearing Officer would not have any reason to doubt the CHP, if he reported that he had Mirandized the suspect.  But, there were some problems with the actual report.  There is a 55 minute lag time between the arrest and the Miranda, during which questioning continued.

In the report there are questions about the Miranda Warning.
With these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us? the officer did not check the yes or the no box. Instead he wrote the shorthand for Not Applicable.

In the Waiver Statement box the Officer wrote “continued talking”.  That hardly constitutes a waiver or indicates suspect clearly understands he has a choice here. The Miranda Warning seems to have been white washed, if it happened at all. The answers on the report seem evasive. Either the suspect waives his rights or he doesn’t. N/A as an answer takes away the protection of the Miranda Warning. There should never be any question in the mind of a suspect, whether he has ,or has not, waived his rights. No peace officer should be allowed to obscure the Miranda Warning, by changing the wording, breaking it up into parts, or hiding it in the guise of an ongoing conversation. My husband didn’t know he had been arrested, because this Officer, did not make it clear. He obscured it, to increase his chances of getting an incriminating statement, post arrest. Not Right. Not Legal.

Next there is the issue of the Blood taken at the hospital to determine, BAC.   When the nurse took blood, my husband thought it was necessary for the treatment of the injury. He thought he had already done the Breathalyzer, at the scene. (Neither of us knew that the breathalyzer given at the scene is only preliminary, and another BAC test is always done post arrest. ) As I understand it, you have a choice of Breathalyzer or Blood.  Implied consent means that you are allowing them to test you;  it doesn’t mean that you’ve given up the choice of which type of test you agree to take.  The BAC test of Urine is no longer a choice, unless Blood or Breathalyzer  testing is unavailable. I don’t know if the Urine test was still an option in 2007.  I haven’t done the research.

As my husband put it to the DMV Hearing Officer: “There really was a three-foot puddle of blood. I had lost enough blood that day.  If given a choice, I would have opted for a Breathalyzer test.” Again, the reason the blood was being drawn, was obscured. That explains why he wasn’t given a choice. It would have given him a pretty solid clue that he was under arrest, something the Officer did not want him to realize.

You may be thinking, these are technicalities. Getting off on a technicality, doesn’t mean you didn’t commit the crime.
At this point in time, I don’t think anything we had said or done was going to impact the decision of the Hearing Officer.

---

 

3. The third question is the biggie. Was he riding the motorcycle with a blood alcohol of .08 or higher?

I never told the CHP Officer my husband was drinking prior to the accident. I told him he wasn’t. The report states that I had told him he had drunk beer and a Margarita, before the accident. That was a flat-out lie. I was the one who drank the Margaritas, and that was after he failed to return home and had already broken his leg (which I had been unaware of.) There was no beer mentioned at all.

The three of us testified that the bike was broken down. To get it home, my husband needed a truck. His brother had been called to transport the bike, before the accident. I had also received a call prior to the accident notifying me the motorcycle wouldn’t start. (A point that could have been verified with phone records).  My husband testified that he repeatedly asked the officer to touch the engine, so he would realize it was cool and had not been running.  He tried to talk the officer into trying to get the bike started, so he would realize it wouldn’t start. Neither of those things happened.

After our testimony, we are still nowhere with the Hearing Officer.  But we still have the witnesses, supposedly standing by waiting for the call. (Or so they had promised me.)

The officer had a statement on the report saying a bartender gave my husband a shot of Bacardi after he saw the extent of the injury.   There is the proof that he drank alcohol post accident.

Two of the three witnesses, listed on the CHP report did not answer their phones, even though the hearing officer dialed them several times.

When the Hearing Officer got ahold of the bartender he said that he had not seen the accident (that was in the report). He heard is buddy yelling “Oh my God!” and went to investigate. He said he was horrified at the amount of blood and at being able to see the bone.

He said “If that was my leg, I’d beg someone to knock me out until they fixed it.”

Did you bring the injured man a shot of rum?

“Not a shot, a bucket, man and not Just Rum, this was the strong stuff, 151, Dude. I thought
it  would make him feel better. He downed it,  so I brought him another one.”

What is a “bucket” ?

“It’s a glass that holds three shots, instead of one”

(We were hearing about the bucket and the 151 for the first time)

Did you tell this to the officer?

“I told him the same thing, I’m telling you, I gave the guy 2 full buckets of 151 cause his leg was so bad. I thought it might make him not think about it. I told him the guy just downed a bunch of booze and he sure didn’t seem very drunk. Maybe he was in shock or something, …didn’t seem like the alcohol was really working. He wasn’t freaking out though. I know I would have been. Maybe it was working, keeping him calm, ya know… or maybe he’s one of those dudes, that’s just that way. It was gross, man. I don’t even like to think about it.”

This is helpful, but, it didn’t tip the scales in our favor. The Officer hadn’t out and out lied. He had only minimized the amount and type of alcohol consumed, post accident.

For half an hour the Hearing officer had been periodically dialing the other two witnesses. They weren’t answering and he was wrapping things up, ready to dismiss us. I pleaded with him to just try the numbers one more time. This time the guy, who am pretty darn sure is the Worst Witness in the World, answers his phone.

It is embarrassing!  The hearing officer kept rolling his eyes during the conversation.  We all listened on the speaker phone, mortified. This witness was sworn in and he sounded like a sitcom version of a stoned, dumb, surfer duuuuuuude…….

He said he saw the bartender (his cousin) bring the shots, and the injured guy drink ’em down.   He was a little confused on some of the details and not always making a lot of sense.

Finally, the Hearing Officer asked him if they had been drinking that day.

“Oh man, we were wasted! It was the Fourth of July. We were partying.”

Weren’t you working in the kitchen at the time?

“Yeah, but everybody’s cool. I work with my cousins. We were doing the boss a favor, man. We weren’t gonna be open that day. We were doing her a big favor.”

When did you start drinking?

“Oh man early…. probably around 6:00”
 

AM?????

“Yeah, It was the 4th of July, Man. ‘ Course.”

So you were drunk at the time of the accident?

“I already told you man, we were wasted!”

(by this time the Hearing officer is kind of smiling and shaking his head, like he can’t believe this guy was the best the CHP could come up with for a witnesses (or that we could be foolish enough to think he could help our case)  We are trying to figure out how to distance ourselves from this guy, who can’t possibly do us any good.

Had you consumed any drugs, that day…. or was it just the alcohol?

“Oh sure, we smoked some bowls, the good kind. It was the 4th of July, man, I told you… we were partying.”

Have you consumed any alcohol today?

“No man, I just got home from school.”

Have you consumed any drugs today?

“No man, Well… I just smoked a bowl, before you called… but nothing else… if that counts. But, I’m good.”

By this time, the hearing officer, still shaking his head, has a big ‘ol grin on his face. He looks like he might start laughing. We are still squirming.

The CHP Officer wrote on the report that you saw the defendant, riding the bike in the parking lot, prior to the accident, hot- rodding and popping wheelies.  Is this what you told…..

The stoner witness doesn’t even let him finish. He cuts him off sounding very indignant.

“I KNOW MAN! I HEARD THAT! I COULDN’T BELIEVE THAT. It really kinda pissed me off, cause I never said nothin’ like that. What ‘s he doing that for…? That just AINT RIGHT.”

That was it. The guy who had been honest about drinking and drugging, was telling the truth. He sounded Indignant. He really was pissed about the contents of the report. It really bothered him.  You just couldn’t doubt his genuine reaction.

You just knew the guy was telling the truth. We all knew it. This guy, a little too honest for his own good, was deeply offended to have been misrepresented by the Highway Patrol, in the accident report.  The Hearing Officer looked up at us and I could see it in his face. He knew, this was the truth.  He got lied to all the time.  But this guy was absolutely telling the truth.

This witness, that no one would ever willingly pick to bolster their case, if they had a choice, had just turned the tables in our favor.

It really did feel like a Perry Mason Moment.  Up to that point, I don’t think the hearing was going our way.

There was a few more questions, where it was established that the witness never saw my husband riding the bike, never heard the engine, and had noticed him working on it, before the accident.

When we left the hearing, we thanked the officer, who told us we would get his decision in the mail within 10 days.

I had to ask, “so what do you think?

All he said was:

“Well, the witnesses do tend to bring into question, the Officers version of events”

10 days later, My husbands Drivers License was returned in the Mail with the Set Aside Order.

Part Two: Injury, DMV, DL, DUI and CHP Report

THE INJURY

 

If you read Part 1: The Accident, you are probably wondering how my husband ended up at home instead of hospitalized or on the night of the accident  . I will try to be brief about the medical stuff, It isn’t central to the story and  my message.

 

The injury was severe: a compound fracture with very jagged edges.  They put a temporary cast on it (I guess to immobilize ), the night of the accident.  They then sent my husband home, with a prescription for painkillers and instructions to make an appointment to see his Orthopedic Specialist, and have it looked at.   We have good Insurance. What we don’t have is an Orthopedic Specialist on speed dial.  We called everyone who practices locally. . The soonest any one of them would see him, even after we explained the circumstances, was 10 days away.

This led to an agonizing weekend filled with excruciating pain for my husband (because of the jagged bone ends grinding together, we later learned.) Over this long weekend we made two more trips to Emergency, where they administered Morphine.  I spent a good part of the weekend covering my ears, because my husband was literally screaming in pai.n and there was nothing I could do for him.

The 3rd visit to emergency, a doctor gave my husband a his  business card.  Instead of a 4th visit to the ER, my husband  called the number on the card at 4:00 AM Monday Morning. Within minutes there was a call back from the Orthopedic Surgeon. He told my husband to be at the Surgery Center in 3 hours.  This was a huge relief to us.

Because it had been more than 24 hours since the injury, the leg was put into a contraption to stabilize it

Fixation Device

The fixation device (similar to the one in the picture) is screwed into the bone, above and below the injury, to keep it from moving or rotating.

This was a temporary measure, until the swelling went down and the break could be properly set.

The 2nd Surgery (involving metal plates and many. many more screws) was scheduled for a month down the road.
Prompt treatment of the injury would have eliminated the need for a two costly surgeries, when one would have sufficed.

Arrest?  What Arrest?

Obviously, we were both preoccupied with my husband’s injury. What neither of us realized, was that my husband had actually been arrested for DUI. The last my husband saw of the CHP officer at the hospital, he was still trying to get him to confess to something he swore he hadn’t done.

The first hint we had of the arrest,  began arriving in the mail, in a flood of very informative literature from DUI attorneys. Drumming up business with a little post-holdiday ambulance chasing.

My husband did realized his Drivers License was missing from the wallet he had handed  over to the CHP at the scene, because he was asked for it in one  ER visits.

Neither of us had ever had any experience with DUI procedures, but we were about to get an education

In California, when you are arrested for DUI, typically you are taken to jail and your vehicle is impounded. There isn’t much room for doubt.

My husband really thought the cop had interviewd the witnessess, and realized he was telling the truth and had decided not to arrest him.

A couple days after the DUI brochures, we received a notice Order of Suspension/Revocation from the DMV in the mail , notifying us we had 10 days to contact them, if we wanted a civil hearing (to review the matter.)
The literature from the various attorneys explains that you are not just facing criminal charges for DUI, but that forfeiture of your DL is automatic and, and considered a civil matter, unrelated to any criminal charges by the DA. The attorneys claim that only 5% of all DMV civil hearings, result in a Set Aside (return of license and driving privileges) for those defendants not represented by a Lawyer.  Because they are trying to drum up business, this is probably not accurate.

I did read somewhere that in 2007 only 9% of all DMV hearings were decided in favor of the defendant. I have no idea what the real stats are, but suffice it to say that very few cases, represented by lawyer or not, result in the defendant walking away with their driving privileges intact.

When you are notified that you have 10 days to schedule the hearing, you have to act fast. We could not afford a lawyer, but my husband insisted we fight this because he was innocent. Because of my husband’s severe injury, most of the planning and preparation for the administrative DMV hearing, was left up to me.

First thing to do when you are going into battle: learn the rules of engagement.

---

 

The following info comes from the Department of Motor Vehicles website:

WHAT HAPPENS TO MY DRIVER LICENSE?
The officer will give you an Order of Suspension/ Revocation. If you have a valid California driver license, the officer will take your driver license and send it to the DMV (to be destroyed). The Order of Suspension/Revocation includes a temporary driver license valid for 30 days from the issue date

(usually the date of your arrest). At the end of the 30 days, the suspension/ revocation action goes into effect. If the officer does not serve you with an Order of Suspension/ Revocation, the DMV will mail you one.

The temporary driver license does not allow you to drive if there is another DMV or court-imposed driver license action in effect.

The APS suspension or revocation is independent of any jail, fine, or other criminal penalty imposed in court if you were convicted of a DUI offense.

WHAT DOES DMV DO?
DMV automatically conducts an administrative review which may include an examination of the officer’s sworn report and any accompanying documents, such as an arrest or traffic collision report.

If the review shows there is no basis for the APS suspension/revocation, it will be set aside. DMV will notify you in writing only if the suspension/revocation is set aside.

WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT THE SUSPENSION/REVOCATION?
You have 10 days from the receipt of the Order of Suspension/Revocation to request a hearing to show that the APS suspension/revocation is not justified. DMV will conduct a telephone hearing unless you request an in-person hearing. The APS suspension/revocation will not be stayed (delayed) unless:

You request a hearing within 10 days from the issue date of the order and the DMV cannot provide a hearing before the effective date of the suspension/ revocation.
Before the hearing, and upon request, you may see and/ or obtain copies of DMV’s evidence. If you want copies released to someone else, such as an attorney, you must give the person signed permission. You have the right to have a sign or language interpreter present at your hearing. Immediately notify DMV if you require an interpreter.
You may represent yourself or at your own expense, an attorney or another person may represent you at the hearing. You may present oral testimony and other evidence. Your testimony will be taken under oath or affirmation and the hearing will be recorded.

DMV ordinarily does not arrange to have the peace officer testify. However, DMV reserves the right to call the officer if his/her testimony is needed. You may subpoena the officer or any other witness(es) you feel may help your case and have relevant testimony or evidence to present. You are responsible for paying the required fees and for making sure your witness(es) receives the subpoena.

---

 

We scheduled an  in-person hearing was scheduled for the end of August. My husband was issued a temporary DL, good until the hearing officer has decided the case, (approximately 10 days, post hearing.)  The temporary DL, was a moot point for us, as my husband was still a  months away from being able to drive.
In preparation for the hearing, we immediately requested the copies of the DMV evidence. This basically consisted of the CHP Report filed by the officer who responded to the scene and test results of the breathalyzer.

The DMV, is  ONLY  interested in the  the answers to three questions. To get them to set aside the suspension you have to show that one of the following did not happen:

1. Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of CVC §§23152, 23153, or 23154?
2. Were you lawfully detained while on DUI probation or lawfully arrested?
3. Were you driving a motor vehicle when you had 0.08% BC or more while driving a noncommercial vehicle?

 

 

THE EVIDENCE AND THE CHP REPORT

The evidence against my husband wasthe CHP report and the results of the Blood Alcohol Tests (BAC).The CHP officer’s report, stated as fact, exactly what he thought happened. It had 4 witnesses, including myself.

The officer wrote that I told him my husband and I were drinking Margaritas in our hot tub, prior to the accident.  I knew it wasn’t true and that I never told him that. It was something he had made up, based on what I did tell him. It is legal for him to tell a lie to my husband to extract a conviction. It is not legal for him to use that lie in his report. It became evident at that point, that the report was not truthful.
The report stated that, according to the three witnesses, my husband was popping wheelies, and racing around the parking lot, showing off, when he lost control of his motorcycle. (My husband would have to be a lot drunker and stupider than he is to pull a stunt like that on 4th of July, down the street from a CHP office, knowing he would be stopped at checkpoint to gain access to our street, on his way home.—that would be akin to ASKING to be arrested for drunk driving.
According to the report,  two of the three witnesses reported they had observed this out of control display of showmanship just prior to the accident. The witnesses all worked at the hotel. Two of them had been on a break at the time of the accident. One of them was the hotel BARTENDER. And now you know where the alcohol came from.
We contacted each of the witnesses. The bartender said he told the officer he brought shots out to my husband two times. The other two witnesses both were surprised to hear the officer had said they saw my husband riding the motorcycle. They had noticed him working on the bike, but neither one of them had told the officer he was riding it, much less showing off and popping wheelies. They agreed to testify to this on our behalf at the DMV hearing. They promised to make themselves available to the hearing officer by phone, as did the Bartender.
It is important to note that we did not pick these witnesses. They are not our friends of ours. We didn’t even know their names until we saw the report.  We are 25 years older than them and to this day, I’ve never met them. My husband met them briefly, in the 5 minutes after the accident happened– never before, never since.   These witnesses were listed on the CHP report as witnesses. supporting the CHP version of events.

The report stated that bartender witnesses reported that he had given a shot of Bacardi after he called 911. That isn’t exactly accurate, which I’ll get into on the next post.
There are other inconsistencies on the report.

• The officer states the alcohol was given to my husband 10 minutes before his arrival, (but after the accident happened.)  The eta on the report is 5 minutes after the 911 call.

• The supplemental report is dated July 4, 2007.  The date of the report and the date of the accident are listed in separate boxes, next to each other.    The report could not have been created on the 4th, since key witnesses were not interviewed until the 5th.  Witnesses were interviewed the following day, per the written report.

• The report states the bike was lying next to my husband in one place on the report and that it had been moved by witnesses prior to his arrival,  elsewhere in the report.

• The report states that the CHP Officer observed my husband, who had an “unsteady gait” (this was one of the things that led him to conclude my husband had been drinking. )This is clearly wrong. He couldn’t have observed a gait (unsteady or otherwise), due to the injury.

• The report states that the time of the incident as 19:20 and the time of arrest is listed as 19:40. The report states my husband was read his rights at 20:35. My husband says he never even knew he had been arrested or was in custody,  and that he was never read his rights.

 

• The report has 3 boxes regarding the Admonition of Rights:

1.    Do you understand these rights? box checked “Yes
2.   “With these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us? no check in either yes or no      boxinstead, has a hand written N/A
3.     Waiver Statement box has the words “continued talking” written in it

These might seem petty, but CHP Officers are held to certain standards and their reports are expected to be accurate. That’s one way to protect the rights of citizens from overzealous law enforcement.
Unfortunately this report went far beyond having a few inconsistencies and typos. Parts of it were fabricated, including my testimony and the testimony of other witnesses.

The report also falsely states that while still at the scene of the accident:

• My husband admitted drinking alcohol prior to the accident (If he had, the officer wouldn’t have continued to hammer him for the next two hours, to get him to confess to it.)
• My husband admitted that he was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident (a pretty neat trick for a motorcycle that he’d arranged transport for, because it wouldn’t start)

At the DMV hearing, we address each  questions the DMV is interested in. They are the only thing that the DMV considers relevant, and the only things considered  grounds for a Set Aside of the DL Revocation

.
I know I promised you a “Perry Mason” moment. I will deliver on that promise in the next post, where I cover the actual DMV Hearing

Part One: The Accident

Part 1: The Accident

One Break Down, One Bad Break,  One Mysterious Man bearing Booze, Two  Annoyed Paramedics,   One Eager CHP  Officer,  One  Good Break

July 4, 2007, County of Santa Cruz, CA

For years our neighborhood has had a reputation as the place to go berserk on the 4th of July. The fireworks (many of them, small sticks of dynamite) begin going off in earnest, a week in advance.  The holiday  itself, starts out fun, but eventually it starts to feel like a war zone. overlapping rockets, and explosions, coming from all directions, with no quiet time in between—and it literally goes on for hours and hours.  Every animal goes to ground, or runs terrified into the night, often to be mowed down by some inebriated (or not) party goer.  The house continues to shake and the windows continue to rattle for days after the big party has ended.  The neighborhood is tired of it. The police are tired of it.

The streets fill with people, and it is a complete madhouse. Every one should experience it at least once. It kind of reminds me of the spring break in Florida or boat parties that go on at the Delta (Sacramento River) where Jack Daniels (or a similar vendor) sets up a booth at one of the small islands. House boats and ski boats come from everywhere, lining the docks and dropping anchor. There is Loud Music, Wet T-Shirt Contests, Bawdy Games and Chugging Contests.

People have an absolute blast: bathing suits come off’; boat keys get lost; there’s always a few fights; inappropriate PDAs; people puke; someone always gets hurt; someone always leaves in handcuffs.

Everywhere you look there is something going on, and someone acting like an idiot. It’s crazy fun– but you wouldn’t want the party at your house. When you’ve had enough, you want to go home. It’s stops being fun, when 300 guests have over-stayed  their welcome. That is our neighborhood on the 4th of July.

The Santa Cruz Police Department has tried to contain it. They get a bit more restrictive each subsequent year, in their efforts to lock it down. That’s a tall order. This year they added big fines for anyone found in possession of fireworks (Safe and Sane, included). It seemed to be getting  better in recent years, until this year, when all hell broke loose right around the corner from us. A large tree and three cars went up in flames, neighboring houses  were evacuated.   And without missing a beat, the explosions continued, unabated, as throngs of people milled about, continuing to light fireworks in the street, in plain view of firefighters and police working the scene. Mayhem all around — again fairly normal for the 4th of July in our neighborhood.

In 2007 the police had the beach access blocked early in the day, with a rented chain link fence that ran from south of the San Lorenzo River to the Santa Cruz, Yacht harbor. Access to the beach was controlled  at several gates.  There, the police were diligently checking ice chests for alcohol, and bags, blankets, and portable BBQ’s for fireworks. (Smart and determined types bury the goodies in the sand ahead of time, for later retrieval.). Road access to the neighborhood is blocked off later in the day, but well before dark, via the feeder streets. Once the streets are blocked, you can only enter the neighborhood by car, if you are a resident. You have to show your driver’s license and answer a couple of questions from an officer at the check point to prove it. By 2007, we had lived here for years, and like other residents, were well aware of the road blocks.

If you go to a party somewhere else, and want to come home after, you better be sober or have a designated driver. If you knew you had to go through a checkpoint on the way home, would you risk a drunk driving arrest by drinking alcohol –in a state where one drink can put you over the limit, and a first offence costs an estimated $10,000?.—NO!.. well, neither would we.

My husband had to work the on the holiday in 2007. He had spent most of his spare time, in the week leading up to it, repairing his motorcycle. It had been down for a while, waiting for parts to arrive. He had just gotten everything back together fairly late on the evening of the 3rd.

When he got off work it was the first opportunity he had to take it out for a spin and see how it ran with the new parts. He changed his work clothes and left the house, promising me he would try to be back, before they blocked off the streets, to start the BBQ. I told him If he took too long, I was going to blend and drink the first batch of Margaritas without him.

He called an hour or so later to tell me the motorcycle had broken down on him. He was in a parking lot behind the Laundromat, in Aptos (a nearby town). He was waiting for his brother, to come with the truck. so he could haul the bike home. His brother, wasn’t happy about it, he was coming but  he said the soonest he could be there would be half an hour, if the traffic wasn’t too bad. (Summer beach traffic is bad enough but weekends and holidays can be a nightmare.)

My husband really doesn’t like asking for favors. He would not have called his brother (or anyone else) if he thought there was any chance of getting the bike started. But he’s a mechanic, he had a time to kill, while waiting, and this bike was his baby, so he continued to make adjustments and try to get it running, or at least figure out what the problem was.

The parking lot he was in is big and poorly maintained. It has broken asphalt and pot holes, truckloads of varying sizes of rock and gravel have been deposited on it over the years to make it passable. It is sparsely populated by a few businesses, that don’t use it for customer parking, because they back up to it. The parking lot has one place where there is a very short and slight incline.

My husband tinkered with the motorcycle, making several attempts to start it. After making an adjustment here or there, he would try to start it. He would run along side the bike, pushing it to try to get some speed going, until he reached the incline. At that point he would jump on the bike, pop the clutch, hoping it would kick in. He had already done this twice. without success.

This third time he tried it, approaching the incline, he tripped, slipping on the gravel, legs akimbo, he lost one the handlebars, the wheel turned in.  and the bike came down on him, gouging into his lower leg and snapping his tibia (shin bone.) near the ankle. It was a compound fracture, very jagged, leaving several bone fragments loose in the surrounding tissue

Though most of the near by businesses were closed for the holiday, the accident was witnessed by a couple of guys who were smoking outside the kitchen entrance to an old hotel.   Blood began spurting out of the wound immediately, but the smokers were too far away to see it. When my husband didn’t get up, one of the two guys, who been smoking came over to investigate. When the guy saw the hole in his leg and how much blood there was, he said  “oh my God, stay right there, I’ll get you an ambulance”.    My husband, not realizing how bad he was hurt, managed to sit up and , said “its alright, my brothers on his way”.  The guy said “Dude, you’re hurt bad.  I’m going to call an ambulance. — do you want me to bring you a towel and some ice?  How about something to drink?  You want me to bring you a shot of something?

And then my husband does something really stupid.. He says “yeah, sure.” That’s the turning point. This is where the CHP’s version of events and my husband’s part ways.

At this point I am sure you think it is pretty odd that a complete stranger would run to call 911 and then return with a glass of unknown liquor to give to an injured man, while he waits for an ambulance. Not only that, He did it twice.

My husband, injured or not was an idiot for accepting the booze. I do think he would have drank water, orange juice, coke or beer, if it had been handed to him. He  may even have been in shock.

If you are skeptical, that this is how it went down… you will be able to imagine how the CHP Officer, who arrived on the scene shortly after, felt about it. He didn’t believe it for a minute. He was an eager investigator and he just knew my husband was a lying, drunk motorcyclist. Perfectly understandable. It’s a fishy story… but I’ve gone into great detail laying the foundation out for you. If you don’t believe it now, you will by the end of an upcoming post, after I reiterate the testimony of the subpoenaed witnesses. It is almost like a “Perry Mason Moment”, only a lot funnier.

The officer had every right to doubt the story. Sounds pretty unlikely, right? It sounded strange even to me. Sure, some complete stranger appears out of nowhere and gives you shots right before the ambulance gets there?  You don’t know this guy? Are you sure? Why would he do that? He just happened to be carrying a bottle of hard liquor on him? 

It sounded unlikely to me, and I knew things the officer didn’t. I knew my husband worked all day, that he came home,  changed clothes and left, without having a drink. I knew he certainly sounded sober (and disappointed) an hour later when he called me about broken down bike.  I knew he was in the parking lot because he waiting to get his bike transported home.  He could not have been driving  (coasting maybe….) when  the  accident happened..  Still, the man with the booze was a pretty bizarre twist. (And you don’t know the half of it, yet and neither did we until a couple of months later).

Unaware of the accident, I was impatiantly waiting at home.

Meanwhile… back in the parking lot… it is chaotic. The paramedics arrive just before the CHP (5 minute ETA on the report). They are just beginning the initial assessment trying to get baseline readings and determine the extent of the injury. The (eager) CHP officer interrupts them several times, sticking his breathalyzer between them and their patient, cutting off their questions, with ones of his own,  trying to conduct a modified field sobriety test. The paramedics repeatedly ask the officer to step aside and let them do their job. The Officer thinks his business is more important than theirs and keeps getting in the way. My husband, probably reeking of booze, keeps insisting to the officer that he fell while pushing the bike. The officer keeps saying “come on, you can tell me the truth, we both know you were riding it”. My husband wants to show him that the bike won’t start, but he is incapable of doing so, and the officer isn’t interested anyway. He really isn’t interested in anything but an admission of guilt. After the second breathalyzer test, one of the Paramedics finally gets fed up and snaps at the officer to GET OUT OF THE Way!

It is, into this chaotic scene, that my husband’s brother pulls up in his truck. He is stunned to see his brother on a stretcher, about to be loaded into the ambulance.   And off to the side, mostly forgotten, the broken. troublesome, killer bike (with nothing but a scuff mark on it, ) is about to be rewarded for its treachery, with a vacation from the open road,  that will last for many months, while my husband heals from 2 surgeries and learns to live with one leg  shorter than the other.

It is here that we get our first break, (2nd, if you include the leg;)  Instead of being impounded, (as it surely would have been) the officer releases the ungrateful  bike to my brother-in-law. It rides home, in the back of his truck, just as it would have, had the accident never happened.

The timely arrival of my brother-in law, a few minutes after the ambulance and CHP officer arrived on scene, never would have happened if he had gotten the call to pick up the bike after the accident (when 911 was called). Holiday beach traffic was worse than expected and it took him longer than half and hour to get to Aptos.. (That’s why my husband rides a motorcycle) . The quick arrival of transport certainly supported my husband’s claim that he couldn’t have been riding the bike, because it was, in fact, not running and awaiting rescue, when the accident happened. I don’t really know if the Officer gave it any consideration at all,  He was happy to release it to my brother-in-law, (instead of waiting for the tow service) so he could follow the ambulance to the hospital and work on getting a confession out of my husband.

My husband pointed out the guy that gave him the drinks before the ambulance arrived saying ,  “Talk to him; he’ll tell you”  the Officer responded  “Oh believe me…, I plan to.”
At home, I was spitting mad.. My husband wasn’t answering his phone, neither was his brother. I had no idea there had been an accident.   I was DONE waiting. I hit the hot tub AND the margaritas at the same time.

I got the phone call around 8:15 pm. It was the CHP officer and he said there had been an accident.   He  wanted me to come to the hospital and pick my husband up. He said he also had a few questions for me. I told him the street was barricaded, I had drunk a couple margaritas in the hot tub and there was no way I could legally drive right then. He said “That’s all right, your husband’s brother is here. He’s going to give him a ride home”, leaving me to wonder why he called to tell me my husband needed a ride.

After he spoke to me, the Officer went back into the room where they were treating my husband, and said “Your wife says the two of you were drinking Margaritas in the hot tub.” I never told him that, but cops are allowed to lie to people they suspect of a crime, when they are trying to get a confession. Its lousy but it is legal. My husband knew it was a lie, because it never happened, and he told him so: “She did not say that. She sure wouldn’t make up some lie to try and get me IN trouble. If you really think that’s what she said, you better call her back, because you misunderstood her.”

Not too much later, my brother-in-law drives up, and together, we helped my husband into the house.

To be continued in Future Posts!

I poke the bear because he won’t let me go

You might have noticed I added a disclaimer to the previous post. I did this in deference to my husband, who despite thinking the CHP has nothing to do with gangstalking, is nevertheless uncomfortable with my publicly writing that I am sure they do.

Poke The Bear

I think on some guttural level most people feel (me included) a little leery of Poking the Bear Especially a bear that has the power and ability to bite back. So to reiterate: It is my opinion that the CHP set our gangstalking in motion. That very statement makes both my husband and I nervous. It’s obvious why Poking this particular Bear makes me apprehensive: I’ve been bitten. If my husband does not think the CHP has anything to do with gangstalking, exactly why is he wary of Poking the Bear?

 

Police get lots of bad press and I am small potatoes. If the California Highway Patrol  is an ethical agency, they aren’t going to be interested in this bloggers opinion.  In theory, I need not worry about  being bitten by legally exercising my right to express myself from an agency that upholds laws.  And yet… in my interactions with them, they have displayed a complete disregard for ethics and the law.  I’m not talking about one  bad apple.  I’m talking about the culture.  So, there is this apprehension….

Could it be that even among the most trusting of us, there is, at our core, a niggling apprehension and distrust of government and its enforcers. I do think most of us are aware enough, to be alarmed by the stripping away of the protections, put in place by the Founding Fathers.   Maybe the uneasiness is because we sense that those diminishing protections,  may be all that stands between us and the snapping jaws of Big Brother. Our liberty is a stake. Our way of life is at stake.

If you would also feel apprehensive, about exercising your legal right (by say…. for example, suing a government agency in small claims court, or writing about it in a blog), you aren’t as free as you think you are. You are feeling the thumb of repression. Government should be working for us… not working us over. Any apprehension at all.  should give you pause. And when you pause… think about what an important tool repression has been. historically to those in power. Not very pretty, is it?

Most people go through life trying to avoid trouble. I’ve always done that. We don’t want police, government or criminal interference in our lives. We just want to live as unfettered and unobstructed as possible. I was naïve in thinking that I could actually sue a powerful branch of law enforcement and emerge unscathed.   It never occurred to me that there might be consequences to seeking a legal remedy to recover money taken from me, money I disputed owing.  I thought the entire collection process was unfair, unconstitutional and would be illegal if done by any group or person, other than the State.  Winning a few battles, felt like victory at the time, but I had no idea I was fighting a war.  And that was before the gangstalking  started. Our nightmare with the CHP began in the summer of 2007. It wasn’t resolved legally until fall of 2010. Add 4 years of gangstalking to that. No, I am not winning this war.  I can’t even walk away from it.

Silly me, I had no idea that doing something perfectly legal would piss off the Highway Patrol as much as it did. I mean…. they are the California Highway Patrol– surely they piss off people daily… probably hourly. People choose their battles. Make ’em mad enough, or treat them bad enough and they just might sue you. The Highway Patrol must get sued all the time, or so I thought. I certainly never could imagine that they would take it personally–extremely personally.

Now… having been through it… I no longer think they get sued in small claims court– at least not very often, and  if they do, they must never lose. The system is rigged, absolutely rigged.  I had to go through it to realize it.  The judgment in our favor seemed to have taken them completely by surprise.

They were, with all their resources, completely unprepared for it. If anyone has ever won against them in small claims court before… I would be very surprised. I used to think an impartial judge made a decision based solely on the merits of a case. Now, I am fairly certain  CHP doesn’t even have to put in an appearance to win.  I think they are a slam dunk and everybody knows it, except opposing parties in law suits (like me)  From what I’ve seen,  our judicial system and law enforcement are one and the same.  Judges can’t be expected to be impartial when they have a horse in the race.

Keith Labella, an attorney and my one of my personal heroes,  has done a lot for gangstalking victims.  He is also no stranger to judges that won’t be swayed by the facts.    Here’s a summary of his recent lawsuit over FOIA request omissions by the FBI   : http://gangstalkingismurder.wordpress.com/gang-stalking-f-o-i-a-lawsuit.  There is a link to the  full text PDF from there, if you want to read it in its entirety.

I am no whistleblower. I am not an activist. I just want to live my life free from harassment. It doesn’t seem like a lot to ask. It’s called the “pursuit of happiness”. You may have heard of it. Well, for the past 4 years the “pursuit of happiness” as been denied us. Gangstalking is covert aggression. An agency, which is in place, strictly for the purpose of upholding the law, would never be able to justify retaliating against anybody that legally sued them in court. You wouldn’t expect them to retaliate at all. But if they did…. they would have to do it covertly.

I don’t believe in violence, but it is pretty obvious that harassment, bullying. mobbing and gangstalking can push people over the edge. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that mass shootings are often preceded by it. Complaints are often lodged with someone in a position of authority about by the (soon to be) shooter, trying to get relief from the harassment.   Later the shooters are described fairly consistently, regardless of the victims,  or the real motives.  You’ve all  heard it before:  The shooter  is described (after the fact) as a loner, a disgruntled employee, anti social or not quite right in the head. I think one of the goals of gangstalking is absolutely to: push people over the edge. They keep the pressure on victims constantly, hoping frustration and rage at the injustice, will do just that.

Being placed on a list by some secret threat assessment committee, signals the start of total and unrelenting, harassment. The fact that being on the list in the first place is what caused a person to go off the rails, just wouldn’t work to further the gangstalking program or the huge expenditures it requires.. When people do blow their tops, it furthers the consensus (among those in the know) that these lists (and the ever tightening noose around the neck of free America) are necessary to find and neutralize potential threats. Cause and effect are obscured by arguments for even more lists, more vigilance and ever more intrusive ways of identifying threats, (thus widening the net) including labeling, identifying and protecting us from the mentally ill (conveniently diagnosed by expert opinion, rather than science). This (they claim) will keep us safe and free from tragedy by preventing crime before it happens. This not only distracts the public, it allows them to marginalize people for crimes they may commit in the future.  Ludicrous as it seems,  this is a well-funded hot research area right now.  I’ll try to give you more information about it some time.

My personal favorite, among methods used to obscure what causes  mass shootings is to break out the old, tired gun control debate– always good for diverting attention and shifting blame.  Nothing ever comes of it, of course, because in the current climate, guns are  useful.  It’s easy to blame guns, and it might not be in your best interest to blame government harassment and blacklisting.

Everybody knows you don’t need a gun for killing, Murder takes place every day,  in almost every country, without them. Guns just make killing more efficient. You can’t grab the attention of our rubber necking society without some substantial carnage. Guns are good for that. This explains why the argument never gets put to rest. It’s a distraction away from the real reason people go postal.

The truth is, nobody in power envisions or wants a future where the civilian majority can legally own a gun. It’s problematic. The day it becomes illegal for civilians to own guns will be the day we can’t get back up the slippery slope. . Until that day, there is still hope for a way of life that allows all people to have their basic needs met and live a life of hope and dignity.

I hate violence. I don’t think it has any place in a civilized society and this…., writing all this crap down and railing passionately on a public forum about societal ills is so not me. It is, instead, the me who has been pushed over the edge by four years of non stop harassment and stalking. The old me didn’t feel the need to stir things up. Even the new me wishes they would just give up, so I could too.

I think about Christopher Dorner and how he destroyed himself to make an impact. He paid the ultimate price. He had other avenues available to get his message out. He was blinded to the possibilities by frustration, indignation and rage at what had been done to him.  Violence is never the answer.  It could be he felt his days were numbered and he had to get the message out very quickly –or never.  A lot of gangstalking victims feel that way.  that their health is in decline from the stress of be harassed.  I’m currently healthy and I shouldn’t have any problem rolling out my message at a snails pace, if I want.  But I still feel an urgency to get the message out

I really think Christopher Dorner was a man out of time, and out of options.  After reading his manifesto, I think he was an intelligent man who didn’t think he would be alive to take the “slow and study wins the race approach”.  He spoke out against police brutality and he later goes on a killing rampage.  He was out of options.  No one should ever feel that way and backing people into a corner by gangstalking, mobbing and monitoring  until they lash out, doesn’t solve problems It creates them.  If you’ve been told gangstalking is a solution to a problem, don’t believe it…  you’ve been snowed.  You can’t break things to fix things.  When you break people, society doesn’t get better; It gets less open and more fearful.  Who among us doesn’t want society to get better?  Who benefits from gangstalking?  Don’t be part of it.

Thank you for reading my blog.