In a major slap to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who began this process while he was still a deputy DA, Justice Fred K. Morrison ruled:
The district attorney knew of “veteranos” and “shot callers” yet served only Billy Wolfington, whose rank is unknown but who was characterized as a “soldier” at oral argument in this court; further, when served Wolfington disavowed any intention to appear. Thus, whether he would tell others was a matter of chance.
On this record, service on Billy Wolfington alone was insufficient under state law absent proof that he was of sufficient rank and character within The Broderick Boys that it is reasonable to infer that service on him effectively apprised the gang of the pendency of the legal proceeding.
As we explain, neither of the next two arguments tendered by the district attorney demonstrate that service on one gang member of unknown rank was reasonably calculated to achieve notice in this case, therefore such manner of service does not meet the Mullane federal due process standard.
(The full ruling can be read by clicking here)
In the February 20, 2007 Sacramento Bee District Attorney Reisig defended his policy:
Reisig defended the method police used to notify alleged gang members of the injunction.
“When you serve one street terrorist, they’re all going to find out that the cops are coming,” he said.
Reisig, who was at the time a Deputy District Attorney, gave notice of the suit to just one of the alleged gang members. When neither that individual nor anyone else showed up in court, Warriner granted the injunction.
In August of 2005, Cosmo Garvin of the Sacramento News and Review wrote:
“But Deputy District Attorney Reisig told SN&R that the Broderick Boys have an active communication network, through which the individual who was served notice of the injunction was able to spread word to the rest of the gang.
Reisig added that serving notice on each individual who would be subject to the injunction would have expended “a tremendous amount of resources.”
“The law simply doesn’t require us to do that. The judge even said it was OK,” added Reisig.”
The State Appellate Court however has disputed that logic:
“Whether he would tell others was a matter of chance,” Justice Morrison ruled.
The big problem here is that once Reisig served only the one gang member, the others did not show up in court to contest the injunction. Once that happened, Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner simply granted the injunction. So in effect, Reisig’s method deprived the defendants even the opportunity to challenge the injunction. This is the portion of the law that this court struck down.
The law itself–the notion of a gang injunction–is also in dispute. According to the three justices on the appellate-court panel, they saw enough evidence of gang activity in West Sacramento to potentially justify a gang injunction.
Attorney’s for the ACLU such as Alan Scholesser have argued:
“A lifetime curfew for an adult is an extraordinary punishment. I think if people had their day in court, there would have been some serious legal challenges and some very different outcomes.”
That may be the next fight, but it will be Christopher Cabaldon, the Mayor of West Sacramento and candidate for the Democratic Nomination of California’s 8th Assembly District who will make this call according to Reisig.
“District Attorney Jeff Reisig said he would seek another injunction only if city leaders, including Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, wanted it.
Cabaldon was out of town Monday and could not be reached for comment.”
Commentary
District Attorney Jeff Reisig instituted this controversial policy a few years ago. He argues that the policy has been successful. It may be. But he also likely deprived a number of people–some of them indeed gang members, some of them unquestionably not gang members–their right to contest these charges in a court of law. They were not served notice of this hearing. They were thus deprived their constitutional right to due process.
Whatever you think of this policy and this law, that action by Reisig is in and of itself a gross miscarriage of justice. In this country people, even accused gang members, are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In this country, the rule of law must prevail even when it involves despicable human beings who perform despicable acts. Why? Because that is the only way we protect the innocent from an overbearing government.
What disturbs me most is first the arrogance of Reisig in pushing through and defending this policy when it seems to a layman so blatantly in violation of law. What was even more galling is that a Yolo County Judge, Thomas Warriner, would support such an obvious miscarriage of justice.
This case unfortunately illustrates all that is wrong once again with Yolo County’s Criminal Justice System. It is not that we want guilty criminals to go free, it is that we want a fair process for all.
The ball is now in Mayor Christopher Cabaldon’s court, we urge him to do the right thing and let this go.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
good. the whole deal was unconstitutional on the face of it. if you have the evidence to convict someone of a given crime, be they alleged gang member or freelance criminal, you ought to go to court and make your case. just collectively punishing a whole neighborhood is rediculous, and deserved to be thrown out.
good. the whole deal was unconstitutional on the face of it. if you have the evidence to convict someone of a given crime, be they alleged gang member or freelance criminal, you ought to go to court and make your case. just collectively punishing a whole neighborhood is rediculous, and deserved to be thrown out.
good. the whole deal was unconstitutional on the face of it. if you have the evidence to convict someone of a given crime, be they alleged gang member or freelance criminal, you ought to go to court and make your case. just collectively punishing a whole neighborhood is rediculous, and deserved to be thrown out.
good. the whole deal was unconstitutional on the face of it. if you have the evidence to convict someone of a given crime, be they alleged gang member or freelance criminal, you ought to go to court and make your case. just collectively punishing a whole neighborhood is rediculous, and deserved to be thrown out.
For fun people ought to take a look at the comment give and take from a few months ago with I believe a member of the DA’s office posting anonymously:
Comments
For fun people ought to take a look at the comment give and take from a few months ago with I believe a member of the DA’s office posting anonymously:
Comments
For fun people ought to take a look at the comment give and take from a few months ago with I believe a member of the DA’s office posting anonymously:
Comments
For fun people ought to take a look at the comment give and take from a few months ago with I believe a member of the DA’s office posting anonymously:
Comments
additionally, the whole use of the language of “street terrorist” is appallingly hyperbolic. what’s next, a west sac crime “insurgency”? “crime-o-fascists”?
but if they’re “terrorists,” than anything extralegal is cool, because they, like, threaten america’s homeland or something.
i would expect law enforcement professionals to use established terms like “criminal” or “the accused,” rather than making up silly talking points to impress bystanders.
additionally, the whole use of the language of “street terrorist” is appallingly hyperbolic. what’s next, a west sac crime “insurgency”? “crime-o-fascists”?
but if they’re “terrorists,” than anything extralegal is cool, because they, like, threaten america’s homeland or something.
i would expect law enforcement professionals to use established terms like “criminal” or “the accused,” rather than making up silly talking points to impress bystanders.
additionally, the whole use of the language of “street terrorist” is appallingly hyperbolic. what’s next, a west sac crime “insurgency”? “crime-o-fascists”?
but if they’re “terrorists,” than anything extralegal is cool, because they, like, threaten america’s homeland or something.
i would expect law enforcement professionals to use established terms like “criminal” or “the accused,” rather than making up silly talking points to impress bystanders.
additionally, the whole use of the language of “street terrorist” is appallingly hyperbolic. what’s next, a west sac crime “insurgency”? “crime-o-fascists”?
but if they’re “terrorists,” than anything extralegal is cool, because they, like, threaten america’s homeland or something.
i would expect law enforcement professionals to use established terms like “criminal” or “the accused,” rather than making up silly talking points to impress bystanders.
I was looking through the comments on the Sac Bee webpage. Man there are a lot of right wingers that post there.
Anyway this one caught my eye:
“I wonder how the Amtrak engineer who was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized feels about this ruling? never mind there isn’t a gang problem in W Sac anyway”
There is some logic missing in this comment, mainly due to the fact that the Amtrak engineer was beaten despite the injunction being in effect–in other words, the injunction did not to stop his crime. So why would it matter to him if the law that did not protect him, was struck down?
I was looking through the comments on the Sac Bee webpage. Man there are a lot of right wingers that post there.
Anyway this one caught my eye:
“I wonder how the Amtrak engineer who was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized feels about this ruling? never mind there isn’t a gang problem in W Sac anyway”
There is some logic missing in this comment, mainly due to the fact that the Amtrak engineer was beaten despite the injunction being in effect–in other words, the injunction did not to stop his crime. So why would it matter to him if the law that did not protect him, was struck down?
I was looking through the comments on the Sac Bee webpage. Man there are a lot of right wingers that post there.
Anyway this one caught my eye:
“I wonder how the Amtrak engineer who was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized feels about this ruling? never mind there isn’t a gang problem in W Sac anyway”
There is some logic missing in this comment, mainly due to the fact that the Amtrak engineer was beaten despite the injunction being in effect–in other words, the injunction did not to stop his crime. So why would it matter to him if the law that did not protect him, was struck down?
I was looking through the comments on the Sac Bee webpage. Man there are a lot of right wingers that post there.
Anyway this one caught my eye:
“I wonder how the Amtrak engineer who was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized feels about this ruling? never mind there isn’t a gang problem in W Sac anyway”
There is some logic missing in this comment, mainly due to the fact that the Amtrak engineer was beaten despite the injunction being in effect–in other words, the injunction did not to stop his crime. So why would it matter to him if the law that did not protect him, was struck down?
additionally, those guys can be brought up on charges for the crime they committed, and hopefully have the book thrown at them. there’s no need for an injunction to do that.
doing a better job of policing that stretch of track, and perhaps fencing it off, would do a lot more to prevent recurrances.
additionally, those guys can be brought up on charges for the crime they committed, and hopefully have the book thrown at them. there’s no need for an injunction to do that.
doing a better job of policing that stretch of track, and perhaps fencing it off, would do a lot more to prevent recurrances.
additionally, those guys can be brought up on charges for the crime they committed, and hopefully have the book thrown at them. there’s no need for an injunction to do that.
doing a better job of policing that stretch of track, and perhaps fencing it off, would do a lot more to prevent recurrances.
additionally, those guys can be brought up on charges for the crime they committed, and hopefully have the book thrown at them. there’s no need for an injunction to do that.
doing a better job of policing that stretch of track, and perhaps fencing it off, would do a lot more to prevent recurrances.
Eveyone remember, ‘tough on crime’ Reisig is a right-winger, himself. Yes, partisan politics DOES manifest itself at the local level, when the ideologies of the electeds are so obvious in their policies.
Rexroad, Reisig, Chamberlain…just check their records.
Eveyone remember, ‘tough on crime’ Reisig is a right-winger, himself. Yes, partisan politics DOES manifest itself at the local level, when the ideologies of the electeds are so obvious in their policies.
Rexroad, Reisig, Chamberlain…just check their records.
Eveyone remember, ‘tough on crime’ Reisig is a right-winger, himself. Yes, partisan politics DOES manifest itself at the local level, when the ideologies of the electeds are so obvious in their policies.
Rexroad, Reisig, Chamberlain…just check their records.
Eveyone remember, ‘tough on crime’ Reisig is a right-winger, himself. Yes, partisan politics DOES manifest itself at the local level, when the ideologies of the electeds are so obvious in their policies.
Rexroad, Reisig, Chamberlain…just check their records.
Cabaldon is in D.C. right now with a lot of other council people from around CA. Hmmm….is he looking for “Homeland Security” funds to protect everyone from the “street terrorists?”
It’s quite a joke! Reisig lived in a garage while he was trying to claim “YOLO” residency, since Natomas in not in Yolo County.
Do you think we can refer to him as a “garage terrorist,” or hmmm…”Grunge Terrorist?” I know, I know…this is absurd. Just about as absurd as the West Sac. Gang injunction that Cabaldon and Reisig have supported.
Voters – Make sure you’re paying attention!!! It’s an embarassment to Yolo County. Thank goodness we have Appeals Court.
Cabaldon is in D.C. right now with a lot of other council people from around CA. Hmmm….is he looking for “Homeland Security” funds to protect everyone from the “street terrorists?”
It’s quite a joke! Reisig lived in a garage while he was trying to claim “YOLO” residency, since Natomas in not in Yolo County.
Do you think we can refer to him as a “garage terrorist,” or hmmm…”Grunge Terrorist?” I know, I know…this is absurd. Just about as absurd as the West Sac. Gang injunction that Cabaldon and Reisig have supported.
Voters – Make sure you’re paying attention!!! It’s an embarassment to Yolo County. Thank goodness we have Appeals Court.
Cabaldon is in D.C. right now with a lot of other council people from around CA. Hmmm….is he looking for “Homeland Security” funds to protect everyone from the “street terrorists?”
It’s quite a joke! Reisig lived in a garage while he was trying to claim “YOLO” residency, since Natomas in not in Yolo County.
Do you think we can refer to him as a “garage terrorist,” or hmmm…”Grunge Terrorist?” I know, I know…this is absurd. Just about as absurd as the West Sac. Gang injunction that Cabaldon and Reisig have supported.
Voters – Make sure you’re paying attention!!! It’s an embarassment to Yolo County. Thank goodness we have Appeals Court.
Cabaldon is in D.C. right now with a lot of other council people from around CA. Hmmm….is he looking for “Homeland Security” funds to protect everyone from the “street terrorists?”
It’s quite a joke! Reisig lived in a garage while he was trying to claim “YOLO” residency, since Natomas in not in Yolo County.
Do you think we can refer to him as a “garage terrorist,” or hmmm…”Grunge Terrorist?” I know, I know…this is absurd. Just about as absurd as the West Sac. Gang injunction that Cabaldon and Reisig have supported.
Voters – Make sure you’re paying attention!!! It’s an embarassment to Yolo County. Thank goodness we have Appeals Court.
Once again this shows that Reisig will stoop to any level to win regardless of what’s legal or fair. This is a guy who lives in West Sac (so he claims now) and who benefited directly from his illegally obtained injunction. This is a guy who illegally – according to the appeals court –snuck this injunction into place behind the backs of local city leaders and – obviously – the people effected by it. This is a guy who lied about where he lived to illegally get on the ballot to get elected. This is a guy who illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in the past to win a conviction. The appeals courts nailed him on the illegally obtained injunction and the illegal conviction.
Anyone see a pattern on this guy? Who is the street terrorist here?
He is supposed to serve justice, not stomp on it.
Well, at least he’s personally doing his part to keep the appeals courts busy.
And Doug Paul Davis- good point on the comment from the Bee reader. Even when it was still in effect, this injunction did nothing to protect the Amtrak worker.
Once again this shows that Reisig will stoop to any level to win regardless of what’s legal or fair. This is a guy who lives in West Sac (so he claims now) and who benefited directly from his illegally obtained injunction. This is a guy who illegally – according to the appeals court –snuck this injunction into place behind the backs of local city leaders and – obviously – the people effected by it. This is a guy who lied about where he lived to illegally get on the ballot to get elected. This is a guy who illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in the past to win a conviction. The appeals courts nailed him on the illegally obtained injunction and the illegal conviction.
Anyone see a pattern on this guy? Who is the street terrorist here?
He is supposed to serve justice, not stomp on it.
Well, at least he’s personally doing his part to keep the appeals courts busy.
And Doug Paul Davis- good point on the comment from the Bee reader. Even when it was still in effect, this injunction did nothing to protect the Amtrak worker.
Once again this shows that Reisig will stoop to any level to win regardless of what’s legal or fair. This is a guy who lives in West Sac (so he claims now) and who benefited directly from his illegally obtained injunction. This is a guy who illegally – according to the appeals court –snuck this injunction into place behind the backs of local city leaders and – obviously – the people effected by it. This is a guy who lied about where he lived to illegally get on the ballot to get elected. This is a guy who illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in the past to win a conviction. The appeals courts nailed him on the illegally obtained injunction and the illegal conviction.
Anyone see a pattern on this guy? Who is the street terrorist here?
He is supposed to serve justice, not stomp on it.
Well, at least he’s personally doing his part to keep the appeals courts busy.
And Doug Paul Davis- good point on the comment from the Bee reader. Even when it was still in effect, this injunction did nothing to protect the Amtrak worker.
Once again this shows that Reisig will stoop to any level to win regardless of what’s legal or fair. This is a guy who lives in West Sac (so he claims now) and who benefited directly from his illegally obtained injunction. This is a guy who illegally – according to the appeals court –snuck this injunction into place behind the backs of local city leaders and – obviously – the people effected by it. This is a guy who lied about where he lived to illegally get on the ballot to get elected. This is a guy who illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in the past to win a conviction. The appeals courts nailed him on the illegally obtained injunction and the illegal conviction.
Anyone see a pattern on this guy? Who is the street terrorist here?
He is supposed to serve justice, not stomp on it.
Well, at least he’s personally doing his part to keep the appeals courts busy.
And Doug Paul Davis- good point on the comment from the Bee reader. Even when it was still in effect, this injunction did nothing to protect the Amtrak worker.
Its interesting that the court didn’t rule on the injunction but instead focused on how people were notified about its impeding implementation. What will determine whether this comes back will be political in the short term but in the long term it will be decided on the basis of the crime rate in the area. If the crime rate goes up then there will be more push back by law enforcement.
All of the comments on here seem to ignore the violent and deadly gang violence that is too common in the Sacramento region where there were recently multiple shootings in a single day. If you live in a place where you don’t experience the gang scene its hard to appreciate how destructive it is to young people and the community.
While I recognize the need for civil liberty I also see the need for public safety. How you balance that should be the focus of this discussion.
Ron Glick
Its interesting that the court didn’t rule on the injunction but instead focused on how people were notified about its impeding implementation. What will determine whether this comes back will be political in the short term but in the long term it will be decided on the basis of the crime rate in the area. If the crime rate goes up then there will be more push back by law enforcement.
All of the comments on here seem to ignore the violent and deadly gang violence that is too common in the Sacramento region where there were recently multiple shootings in a single day. If you live in a place where you don’t experience the gang scene its hard to appreciate how destructive it is to young people and the community.
While I recognize the need for civil liberty I also see the need for public safety. How you balance that should be the focus of this discussion.
Ron Glick
Its interesting that the court didn’t rule on the injunction but instead focused on how people were notified about its impeding implementation. What will determine whether this comes back will be political in the short term but in the long term it will be decided on the basis of the crime rate in the area. If the crime rate goes up then there will be more push back by law enforcement.
All of the comments on here seem to ignore the violent and deadly gang violence that is too common in the Sacramento region where there were recently multiple shootings in a single day. If you live in a place where you don’t experience the gang scene its hard to appreciate how destructive it is to young people and the community.
While I recognize the need for civil liberty I also see the need for public safety. How you balance that should be the focus of this discussion.
Ron Glick
Its interesting that the court didn’t rule on the injunction but instead focused on how people were notified about its impeding implementation. What will determine whether this comes back will be political in the short term but in the long term it will be decided on the basis of the crime rate in the area. If the crime rate goes up then there will be more push back by law enforcement.
All of the comments on here seem to ignore the violent and deadly gang violence that is too common in the Sacramento region where there were recently multiple shootings in a single day. If you live in a place where you don’t experience the gang scene its hard to appreciate how destructive it is to young people and the community.
While I recognize the need for civil liberty I also see the need for public safety. How you balance that should be the focus of this discussion.
Ron Glick
Ron:
As is often the case in the appellate courts, the court will address the process by which a lawsuit was served, or in general the legal procedure by which a lower court ruling came to be, or how evidence was obtained, rather than the substance of the underlying case.
Once the appeals court concludes the PROCESS was correct, it will address the substance of the case in a subsequent challenge if the case is revived. That is why cases so often are dismissed early in the appeals process only to return in another form later. Many, of course, never are refiled because of the difficulty that may ensue.
Here, the court addressed the issues raised by the party that filed the appeal. Obviously one issue raised by the party oposing the injunction was whether adequate notice of the injunction was provided to those affected by it. Due process was not afforded in this case, according to the ruling.
Gang injunctions have been used as a tool in other cities. This injunction was different from those in several ways, one of which was addressed in this challenge’s ruling: HOW it was served – one person versus several people. That was not adequate notice of the injunction hearing for the permanent njunction that ultimately was issued, under the law cited by the applellate court in its ruling.
There are many aspects of this ruling that are interesting. For example, the service on an “unincorporated association” was also improper. The evidence Reisig provided all pointed to the Broderick Boys having no lawful purpose, but the method of service he chose REQUIRED that the “unincorporated association” must exist for a “lawful purpose.” Case law said as much prior to the change in the statute. This injunction was subject to the statute by the time it was served, but subject to the prior court rulings – case law – when sought.
The method chosen by Reisig also requires that service “MUST be on ‘a person of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the unincorporated association will be apprised” of the case.” (See page 21 of this ruling). A low level member was insufficient according to the appeals court ruling.
There are plenty of lawful ways to address gang violence. This could have been another lawful method to address gang issues in Yolo County. Unfortunately, at the very least, it was implemented in an unlawful manner.
Pat Lenzi
Ron:
As is often the case in the appellate courts, the court will address the process by which a lawsuit was served, or in general the legal procedure by which a lower court ruling came to be, or how evidence was obtained, rather than the substance of the underlying case.
Once the appeals court concludes the PROCESS was correct, it will address the substance of the case in a subsequent challenge if the case is revived. That is why cases so often are dismissed early in the appeals process only to return in another form later. Many, of course, never are refiled because of the difficulty that may ensue.
Here, the court addressed the issues raised by the party that filed the appeal. Obviously one issue raised by the party oposing the injunction was whether adequate notice of the injunction was provided to those affected by it. Due process was not afforded in this case, according to the ruling.
Gang injunctions have been used as a tool in other cities. This injunction was different from those in several ways, one of which was addressed in this challenge’s ruling: HOW it was served – one person versus several people. That was not adequate notice of the injunction hearing for the permanent njunction that ultimately was issued, under the law cited by the applellate court in its ruling.
There are many aspects of this ruling that are interesting. For example, the service on an “unincorporated association” was also improper. The evidence Reisig provided all pointed to the Broderick Boys having no lawful purpose, but the method of service he chose REQUIRED that the “unincorporated association” must exist for a “lawful purpose.” Case law said as much prior to the change in the statute. This injunction was subject to the statute by the time it was served, but subject to the prior court rulings – case law – when sought.
The method chosen by Reisig also requires that service “MUST be on ‘a person of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the unincorporated association will be apprised” of the case.” (See page 21 of this ruling). A low level member was insufficient according to the appeals court ruling.
There are plenty of lawful ways to address gang violence. This could have been another lawful method to address gang issues in Yolo County. Unfortunately, at the very least, it was implemented in an unlawful manner.
Pat Lenzi
Ron:
As is often the case in the appellate courts, the court will address the process by which a lawsuit was served, or in general the legal procedure by which a lower court ruling came to be, or how evidence was obtained, rather than the substance of the underlying case.
Once the appeals court concludes the PROCESS was correct, it will address the substance of the case in a subsequent challenge if the case is revived. That is why cases so often are dismissed early in the appeals process only to return in another form later. Many, of course, never are refiled because of the difficulty that may ensue.
Here, the court addressed the issues raised by the party that filed the appeal. Obviously one issue raised by the party oposing the injunction was whether adequate notice of the injunction was provided to those affected by it. Due process was not afforded in this case, according to the ruling.
Gang injunctions have been used as a tool in other cities. This injunction was different from those in several ways, one of which was addressed in this challenge’s ruling: HOW it was served – one person versus several people. That was not adequate notice of the injunction hearing for the permanent njunction that ultimately was issued, under the law cited by the applellate court in its ruling.
There are many aspects of this ruling that are interesting. For example, the service on an “unincorporated association” was also improper. The evidence Reisig provided all pointed to the Broderick Boys having no lawful purpose, but the method of service he chose REQUIRED that the “unincorporated association” must exist for a “lawful purpose.” Case law said as much prior to the change in the statute. This injunction was subject to the statute by the time it was served, but subject to the prior court rulings – case law – when sought.
The method chosen by Reisig also requires that service “MUST be on ‘a person of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the unincorporated association will be apprised” of the case.” (See page 21 of this ruling). A low level member was insufficient according to the appeals court ruling.
There are plenty of lawful ways to address gang violence. This could have been another lawful method to address gang issues in Yolo County. Unfortunately, at the very least, it was implemented in an unlawful manner.
Pat Lenzi
Ron:
As is often the case in the appellate courts, the court will address the process by which a lawsuit was served, or in general the legal procedure by which a lower court ruling came to be, or how evidence was obtained, rather than the substance of the underlying case.
Once the appeals court concludes the PROCESS was correct, it will address the substance of the case in a subsequent challenge if the case is revived. That is why cases so often are dismissed early in the appeals process only to return in another form later. Many, of course, never are refiled because of the difficulty that may ensue.
Here, the court addressed the issues raised by the party that filed the appeal. Obviously one issue raised by the party oposing the injunction was whether adequate notice of the injunction was provided to those affected by it. Due process was not afforded in this case, according to the ruling.
Gang injunctions have been used as a tool in other cities. This injunction was different from those in several ways, one of which was addressed in this challenge’s ruling: HOW it was served – one person versus several people. That was not adequate notice of the injunction hearing for the permanent njunction that ultimately was issued, under the law cited by the applellate court in its ruling.
There are many aspects of this ruling that are interesting. For example, the service on an “unincorporated association” was also improper. The evidence Reisig provided all pointed to the Broderick Boys having no lawful purpose, but the method of service he chose REQUIRED that the “unincorporated association” must exist for a “lawful purpose.” Case law said as much prior to the change in the statute. This injunction was subject to the statute by the time it was served, but subject to the prior court rulings – case law – when sought.
The method chosen by Reisig also requires that service “MUST be on ‘a person of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the unincorporated association will be apprised” of the case.” (See page 21 of this ruling). A low level member was insufficient according to the appeals court ruling.
There are plenty of lawful ways to address gang violence. This could have been another lawful method to address gang issues in Yolo County. Unfortunately, at the very least, it was implemented in an unlawful manner.
Pat Lenzi
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
Anyone who thinks that people in Yolo County are considered innocent until proven guilty is deluded. After all, what is the point of not serving a complaint for a gang injunction? The point is obviously not to have to prove guilt, membership or anything else, and not to give anyone else an opportunity to prove anything either.
Reisig made it clear that he had convicted in his own mind the gang injunction defendants when he publicly maligned them as “street terrorists” when they had never had their day in court. I hope that the ACLU and each and every one of those defendants remembers that Reisig has no prosecutorial immunity for his statements to the press.
Yolo County is the classic case that makes Santayana’s cliché new again, “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, which of course recalls Niemoller’s warning, paraphrased below.
When the Henderson/Reisig stormtroopers came for the civil rights of the Latinos and the working class in West Sacramento,
I remained silent;I was not a Latino or part of the working class living in West Sacramento, thank God.It didn’t bother me that DA Reisig the Grifter swindled his way to an injunction. Doesn’t it take a crook to know one?
When the Grifter DA falsely accused the African-Americans and Muslim-Americans in Davis and in Clarksburg,I remained silent;
I was not an African-American or a Muslim-American. I was just glad they were the ones up on his sales scoreboard—oops, conviction quota board—not me.
When they violated the civil rights of the poor or uneducated of all races throughout Yolo County I did not speak out; I am not poor. I am educated. They must have done something wrong. I assumed they deserved it.
When they finally came for the civil rights of the proud and affluent and mostly white people mostly in Davis, the university professors and other employees, the state government workers, the professionals, the business people and investors, the developers, and the politicians, nobody much noticed at first. They were more worried about all those multizillion dollar judgements that had come down against the self-insured Yolo County from the federal courts and how it would affect their taxes. When they went to protest, they were served with a gang injunction.
The folks down at the Davis Enterprise and the Daily Democrat thought about doing some investigative reporting, but they didn’t really know how anyway and since they believed in the system, they voluntarily surrendered their civil rights down at the Amtrak station like they learned they were supposed to do in history class. They regaled each other with tales of what great examples they were for the rest of us. Of course, we weren’t there to see them. We were gone already. There was nobody left to read anything they might have written anyway. Then there was no one left to speak out in Yellow County.
The most surprised were the corrupt judges in the Yolo County Courthouse, even more surprised than the corrupt district attorneys and the corrupt public defenders. They never thought anyone would come for them. They didn’t care that the U.S. Department of Justice was watching them. If they had paid more attention to the civil rights of those at their mercy, they would have been more prepared to defend themselves when they were arrested.
Now is the time to start talking about the real reasons for all this nonsense. It is one word. GRANTS The Yolo DA is dependent on grant funding like a junkie is dependent on drugs, and like a junkie, the Yolo DA will do any lowdown heinous thing it deems necessary to keep the juice flowing. Reisig is probably cheering that he lost in the Court of Appeals because relitigating the injunction is a good excuse to beg for more gang grants. The Yolo DA sells himself for money, and Yolo County residents are his victims.
In Yolo County you are GUILTY until you agree to take a plea. Oh yeah…unless you’re a retired DA with a DUI on the record and somehow still manage to get relected and pass judgement on others. What a joke it was to have Henderson holding the office of DA for Yolo County when he himself had a spotted record. Looks like he picked the right person to follow in his muddy footsteps.
In Yolo County you are GUILTY until you agree to take a plea. Oh yeah…unless you’re a retired DA with a DUI on the record and somehow still manage to get relected and pass judgement on others. What a joke it was to have Henderson holding the office of DA for Yolo County when he himself had a spotted record. Looks like he picked the right person to follow in his muddy footsteps.
In Yolo County you are GUILTY until you agree to take a plea. Oh yeah…unless you’re a retired DA with a DUI on the record and somehow still manage to get relected and pass judgement on others. What a joke it was to have Henderson holding the office of DA for Yolo County when he himself had a spotted record. Looks like he picked the right person to follow in his muddy footsteps.
In Yolo County you are GUILTY until you agree to take a plea. Oh yeah…unless you’re a retired DA with a DUI on the record and somehow still manage to get relected and pass judgement on others. What a joke it was to have Henderson holding the office of DA for Yolo County when he himself had a spotted record. Looks like he picked the right person to follow in his muddy footsteps.