Mr. Reisig told the Sacramento Bee earlier this week:
“They overturned it on technical issues… We’ll accept that, and we’ll fix it, but the need is still there. This is about public safety, and it’s the right thing to do.”
Those technical terms being the right to due process under the U.S. Constitution when the then Yolo County Deputy District Attorney noticed only one specific individual about the injunction. Moreover, the court struck down the use of “unincorporated association” as a means by which to target the entire Broderick Boys Gang.
It is not clear that Reisig has really fixed the problems involved in the first injunction being overturned. The original complaint only noticed 1 alleged gang member. This one notices 23 alleged gang members who were listed by name and another 400 unnamed individuals. It is not clear to me how they expect 400 unnamed individuals to know that they are being served and to come and defend themselves.
Moreover, as the Sacramento Bee reports,
The Sacramento-based state 3rd District Court of Appeal also ruled April 23 that prosecutors had failed to show the Broderick Boys were an “unincorporated association” for the purposes of the injunction.
To fix that problem, the new complaint argues the Broderick Boys are a group that not only shares symbols and colors and pursues lawful “social and recreational activities,” but also commits robberies and assaults, intimidates witnesses and deals drugs.
To this non-lawyer that appears to be the same argument that was used in the original ruling and struck down. The definition requires that they join for “mutual lawful purposes”–it appeared in the ruling that the judge did not agree that they joined for lawful purposes:
“In California, “‘Unincorporated association’ means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not.” (Corp. Code, § 18035, subd. (a), italics added.) The record does not show that The Broderick Boys—a criminal gang under the Penal Code, a “terrorist” group with “no social benefits”—was formed, at least in part, for a common lawful purpose.”
Based on that reading of the judges ruling, it is not clear how that argument will change his ultimate ruling.
Yesterday, four accused gang members challenged the injunction.
“As a group, they were not represented by an attorney but asked Fall if he might appoint one. The judge said that because it was a civil case — not a criminal matter — they were not entitled to court-appointed counsel.”
This appears another attempt to circumvent the rights of the accused. By claiming that this is a civil case, the accused are not entitled to court-appointed counsel. It reduces the burden of proof. And it changes the nature of the rights of the accused.
In the end, this seems no more constitutional than the last one. Even accused gang members should been innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. The District Attorney should have the burden of proving that each of the members is a gang member who has committed criminal actions against the population. And if they cannot prove that, then in this country, an individual should not be deprived of constitutional rights. Moreover, the District Attorney should not be able to bypass the legal system by making this a civil action. If it deprives people of their constitutional rights for freedom of association, it must be a criminal proceeding, where the individual is entitled to an attorney and if they cannot afford an attorney they should have the court-appoint one for them.
I sympathize with the citizens of West Sacramento who have to live in areas afflicted with gang activity. I favor all legal means to reduce that gang activity and actual crime. However, this US Constitution is not negotiable. Freedom means little during times of safety and security and only means something when our emotions and our security are challenged. We ask individuals fighting abroad to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms that we all enjoy, we can ask our citizens at home to do no less. For the second one class of people can be punished without due process of law, it becomes only a matter of time before all people can be likewise punished without due process of law.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
According to the Sac Bee article, there are 400 people covered by the new injunction – and that compares with 76 covered by an injunction in SF. The Yolo injunction seems to be much less focused than the SF injunction.
The Yolo Deputy DA made an interesting comment-
“Linden said showing up in court is another way gang members can protect their turf. “It’s a statement that gang members have made generationally,” the prosecutor said. “This is their town, and they’re not going to give it up.”
I do not see how the action of going to court can be viewed as some sort of gang activity.
According to the Sac Bee article, there are 400 people covered by the new injunction – and that compares with 76 covered by an injunction in SF. The Yolo injunction seems to be much less focused than the SF injunction.
The Yolo Deputy DA made an interesting comment-
“Linden said showing up in court is another way gang members can protect their turf. “It’s a statement that gang members have made generationally,” the prosecutor said. “This is their town, and they’re not going to give it up.”
I do not see how the action of going to court can be viewed as some sort of gang activity.
According to the Sac Bee article, there are 400 people covered by the new injunction – and that compares with 76 covered by an injunction in SF. The Yolo injunction seems to be much less focused than the SF injunction.
The Yolo Deputy DA made an interesting comment-
“Linden said showing up in court is another way gang members can protect their turf. “It’s a statement that gang members have made generationally,” the prosecutor said. “This is their town, and they’re not going to give it up.”
I do not see how the action of going to court can be viewed as some sort of gang activity.
According to the Sac Bee article, there are 400 people covered by the new injunction – and that compares with 76 covered by an injunction in SF. The Yolo injunction seems to be much less focused than the SF injunction.
The Yolo Deputy DA made an interesting comment-
“Linden said showing up in court is another way gang members can protect their turf. “It’s a statement that gang members have made generationally,” the prosecutor said. “This is their town, and they’re not going to give it up.”
I do not see how the action of going to court can be viewed as some sort of gang activity.
Won’t the ACLU take the case? Wasn’t it the ACLU who appealed the first injunction? Can’t the court limit the scope of the injunction if it feels it is too broad? Do you send your kids to a school like Pioneer High where there was a gang shooting involving a student across the street from the school? Do you have any idea how toxic gang activity can be to a community? Do you live in fear of gangs in your neighborhood? Do you have any idea how pervasive gang related crime is in Yolo County? Do you agree that crime was reduced under the old injunction and property values went up in the hood while it was in effect? Are you aware that crime has gone up since the old injunction was struck down?
If you live in a world where these issues are as palpable as US casualties are in Iraq to military families while those who do not serve risk no sacrafice then you would appreciate the DA trying to take on gangs in this county.
Ron Glick
Won’t the ACLU take the case? Wasn’t it the ACLU who appealed the first injunction? Can’t the court limit the scope of the injunction if it feels it is too broad? Do you send your kids to a school like Pioneer High where there was a gang shooting involving a student across the street from the school? Do you have any idea how toxic gang activity can be to a community? Do you live in fear of gangs in your neighborhood? Do you have any idea how pervasive gang related crime is in Yolo County? Do you agree that crime was reduced under the old injunction and property values went up in the hood while it was in effect? Are you aware that crime has gone up since the old injunction was struck down?
If you live in a world where these issues are as palpable as US casualties are in Iraq to military families while those who do not serve risk no sacrafice then you would appreciate the DA trying to take on gangs in this county.
Ron Glick
Won’t the ACLU take the case? Wasn’t it the ACLU who appealed the first injunction? Can’t the court limit the scope of the injunction if it feels it is too broad? Do you send your kids to a school like Pioneer High where there was a gang shooting involving a student across the street from the school? Do you have any idea how toxic gang activity can be to a community? Do you live in fear of gangs in your neighborhood? Do you have any idea how pervasive gang related crime is in Yolo County? Do you agree that crime was reduced under the old injunction and property values went up in the hood while it was in effect? Are you aware that crime has gone up since the old injunction was struck down?
If you live in a world where these issues are as palpable as US casualties are in Iraq to military families while those who do not serve risk no sacrafice then you would appreciate the DA trying to take on gangs in this county.
Ron Glick
Won’t the ACLU take the case? Wasn’t it the ACLU who appealed the first injunction? Can’t the court limit the scope of the injunction if it feels it is too broad? Do you send your kids to a school like Pioneer High where there was a gang shooting involving a student across the street from the school? Do you have any idea how toxic gang activity can be to a community? Do you live in fear of gangs in your neighborhood? Do you have any idea how pervasive gang related crime is in Yolo County? Do you agree that crime was reduced under the old injunction and property values went up in the hood while it was in effect? Are you aware that crime has gone up since the old injunction was struck down?
If you live in a world where these issues are as palpable as US casualties are in Iraq to military families while those who do not serve risk no sacrafice then you would appreciate the DA trying to take on gangs in this county.
Ron Glick
it would be nice, however, if the DA would “take on gangs” in this county in compliance with the US Constitution and the general, common law principles of the Anglo-American legal system, i.e. the right to notice, a hearing and proof that you should actually be subject to the conditions of the injunction
instead, what we are getting here, as DPD rightly identifies, is the use of the civil system to obtain gang injunctions against people without proof they are gang members and without any ability to defend themselves, because, as the case is civil in nature, as opposed to a criminal one, they have no right to counsel
and, hence, having no right to counsel, the injunction is issued without any proof ever being produced that the named individuals are actually gang members, leaving aside what a gang member is, and whether they have engaged in conduct sufficient to justify the issuance of the injunction
autocratic methods of social control are always alluring to the people who are not subject to them, because, as Ron mentioned, it undoubtedly provides greater security for their property rights, thus increasing the value of it, as well as greater security for their persons
but, again, it would be nice if law enforcement would try to achieve these goals without using approaches deliberately designed to exploit the poverty of the targets and their inability to defend themselves in the civil court system, it makes a mockery of the whole notion that we respect the rights of the individual by recourse to the judiciary
pointing towards the social status of the people who raise these concerns, while it may have a populist appeal reminiscent of George Wallace, evades the question as to whether we are excluding certain segments of the populace from the legal protections granted to others
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
it would be nice, however, if the DA would “take on gangs” in this county in compliance with the US Constitution and the general, common law principles of the Anglo-American legal system, i.e. the right to notice, a hearing and proof that you should actually be subject to the conditions of the injunction
instead, what we are getting here, as DPD rightly identifies, is the use of the civil system to obtain gang injunctions against people without proof they are gang members and without any ability to defend themselves, because, as the case is civil in nature, as opposed to a criminal one, they have no right to counsel
and, hence, having no right to counsel, the injunction is issued without any proof ever being produced that the named individuals are actually gang members, leaving aside what a gang member is, and whether they have engaged in conduct sufficient to justify the issuance of the injunction
autocratic methods of social control are always alluring to the people who are not subject to them, because, as Ron mentioned, it undoubtedly provides greater security for their property rights, thus increasing the value of it, as well as greater security for their persons
but, again, it would be nice if law enforcement would try to achieve these goals without using approaches deliberately designed to exploit the poverty of the targets and their inability to defend themselves in the civil court system, it makes a mockery of the whole notion that we respect the rights of the individual by recourse to the judiciary
pointing towards the social status of the people who raise these concerns, while it may have a populist appeal reminiscent of George Wallace, evades the question as to whether we are excluding certain segments of the populace from the legal protections granted to others
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
it would be nice, however, if the DA would “take on gangs” in this county in compliance with the US Constitution and the general, common law principles of the Anglo-American legal system, i.e. the right to notice, a hearing and proof that you should actually be subject to the conditions of the injunction
instead, what we are getting here, as DPD rightly identifies, is the use of the civil system to obtain gang injunctions against people without proof they are gang members and without any ability to defend themselves, because, as the case is civil in nature, as opposed to a criminal one, they have no right to counsel
and, hence, having no right to counsel, the injunction is issued without any proof ever being produced that the named individuals are actually gang members, leaving aside what a gang member is, and whether they have engaged in conduct sufficient to justify the issuance of the injunction
autocratic methods of social control are always alluring to the people who are not subject to them, because, as Ron mentioned, it undoubtedly provides greater security for their property rights, thus increasing the value of it, as well as greater security for their persons
but, again, it would be nice if law enforcement would try to achieve these goals without using approaches deliberately designed to exploit the poverty of the targets and their inability to defend themselves in the civil court system, it makes a mockery of the whole notion that we respect the rights of the individual by recourse to the judiciary
pointing towards the social status of the people who raise these concerns, while it may have a populist appeal reminiscent of George Wallace, evades the question as to whether we are excluding certain segments of the populace from the legal protections granted to others
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
it would be nice, however, if the DA would “take on gangs” in this county in compliance with the US Constitution and the general, common law principles of the Anglo-American legal system, i.e. the right to notice, a hearing and proof that you should actually be subject to the conditions of the injunction
instead, what we are getting here, as DPD rightly identifies, is the use of the civil system to obtain gang injunctions against people without proof they are gang members and without any ability to defend themselves, because, as the case is civil in nature, as opposed to a criminal one, they have no right to counsel
and, hence, having no right to counsel, the injunction is issued without any proof ever being produced that the named individuals are actually gang members, leaving aside what a gang member is, and whether they have engaged in conduct sufficient to justify the issuance of the injunction
autocratic methods of social control are always alluring to the people who are not subject to them, because, as Ron mentioned, it undoubtedly provides greater security for their property rights, thus increasing the value of it, as well as greater security for their persons
but, again, it would be nice if law enforcement would try to achieve these goals without using approaches deliberately designed to exploit the poverty of the targets and their inability to defend themselves in the civil court system, it makes a mockery of the whole notion that we respect the rights of the individual by recourse to the judiciary
pointing towards the social status of the people who raise these concerns, while it may have a populist appeal reminiscent of George Wallace, evades the question as to whether we are excluding certain segments of the populace from the legal protections granted to others
–Richard Estes
–Richard Estes
What I don’t understand is this, if each of these men are involved in gang activity in West Sacramento, can’t the Court issue orders for each individual that would be the same as the limitations under the proposed injunction – a curfew, prohibition of hanging out with certain people, cease all criminal activity, allow warrantless searches of the persons home, vehicle, person by law enforcement, etc? Then the offender would be represented by legal council and have an opportunity to defend themselves against the “injuction.”
Per the article in the Bee, one alleged gang member stated that he had some brushes with the law as a juvenile, but nothing since and now lives in Sacramento. However, the ADA states that this same individual has been arrested in the last two years while driving in West Sacramento with a loaded gun in a car and, separately, for selling methamptamine. It is difficult to support an individual who apparently is engaging in dangerous, illegal activity. There is absolutely beneficial reason that someone should be driving around with a loaded gun in his car in a city within Yolo County.
However, I do believe in due process. And the 400 unnamed individuals makes me nervous. Who determines who is added to the list? Would their be notification, a requirement to prove that the person should be on the list, and an opportunity to argue against it? Is there a process to get off the list later on or is this a lifetime prohibition?
I also don’t understand the “civil” vs. “criminal” if the DA’s Office is the entitiy pushing for the establishment of the injuction – shouldn’t it be the City Attorney, or the County Counsel’s office suing the Broderick Boys instead?
I have very mixed feelings about all of this. These “boys” have no intitlement to make their community a dangerous place to live or visit for people not involved in their little society. Just because they grew up there, doesn’t give them a right to control their community – focusing the attention of law enforcement onto their neighborhoods. The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community. I’m sure that they are tired of the criminal activities that plague their neighborhoods and lure their youth into joining gangs. Things were improving under the previous injunction and I’m sure that people are afraid of returning to how it was before.
What I don’t understand is this, if each of these men are involved in gang activity in West Sacramento, can’t the Court issue orders for each individual that would be the same as the limitations under the proposed injunction – a curfew, prohibition of hanging out with certain people, cease all criminal activity, allow warrantless searches of the persons home, vehicle, person by law enforcement, etc? Then the offender would be represented by legal council and have an opportunity to defend themselves against the “injuction.”
Per the article in the Bee, one alleged gang member stated that he had some brushes with the law as a juvenile, but nothing since and now lives in Sacramento. However, the ADA states that this same individual has been arrested in the last two years while driving in West Sacramento with a loaded gun in a car and, separately, for selling methamptamine. It is difficult to support an individual who apparently is engaging in dangerous, illegal activity. There is absolutely beneficial reason that someone should be driving around with a loaded gun in his car in a city within Yolo County.
However, I do believe in due process. And the 400 unnamed individuals makes me nervous. Who determines who is added to the list? Would their be notification, a requirement to prove that the person should be on the list, and an opportunity to argue against it? Is there a process to get off the list later on or is this a lifetime prohibition?
I also don’t understand the “civil” vs. “criminal” if the DA’s Office is the entitiy pushing for the establishment of the injuction – shouldn’t it be the City Attorney, or the County Counsel’s office suing the Broderick Boys instead?
I have very mixed feelings about all of this. These “boys” have no intitlement to make their community a dangerous place to live or visit for people not involved in their little society. Just because they grew up there, doesn’t give them a right to control their community – focusing the attention of law enforcement onto their neighborhoods. The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community. I’m sure that they are tired of the criminal activities that plague their neighborhoods and lure their youth into joining gangs. Things were improving under the previous injunction and I’m sure that people are afraid of returning to how it was before.
What I don’t understand is this, if each of these men are involved in gang activity in West Sacramento, can’t the Court issue orders for each individual that would be the same as the limitations under the proposed injunction – a curfew, prohibition of hanging out with certain people, cease all criminal activity, allow warrantless searches of the persons home, vehicle, person by law enforcement, etc? Then the offender would be represented by legal council and have an opportunity to defend themselves against the “injuction.”
Per the article in the Bee, one alleged gang member stated that he had some brushes with the law as a juvenile, but nothing since and now lives in Sacramento. However, the ADA states that this same individual has been arrested in the last two years while driving in West Sacramento with a loaded gun in a car and, separately, for selling methamptamine. It is difficult to support an individual who apparently is engaging in dangerous, illegal activity. There is absolutely beneficial reason that someone should be driving around with a loaded gun in his car in a city within Yolo County.
However, I do believe in due process. And the 400 unnamed individuals makes me nervous. Who determines who is added to the list? Would their be notification, a requirement to prove that the person should be on the list, and an opportunity to argue against it? Is there a process to get off the list later on or is this a lifetime prohibition?
I also don’t understand the “civil” vs. “criminal” if the DA’s Office is the entitiy pushing for the establishment of the injuction – shouldn’t it be the City Attorney, or the County Counsel’s office suing the Broderick Boys instead?
I have very mixed feelings about all of this. These “boys” have no intitlement to make their community a dangerous place to live or visit for people not involved in their little society. Just because they grew up there, doesn’t give them a right to control their community – focusing the attention of law enforcement onto their neighborhoods. The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community. I’m sure that they are tired of the criminal activities that plague their neighborhoods and lure their youth into joining gangs. Things were improving under the previous injunction and I’m sure that people are afraid of returning to how it was before.
What I don’t understand is this, if each of these men are involved in gang activity in West Sacramento, can’t the Court issue orders for each individual that would be the same as the limitations under the proposed injunction – a curfew, prohibition of hanging out with certain people, cease all criminal activity, allow warrantless searches of the persons home, vehicle, person by law enforcement, etc? Then the offender would be represented by legal council and have an opportunity to defend themselves against the “injuction.”
Per the article in the Bee, one alleged gang member stated that he had some brushes with the law as a juvenile, but nothing since and now lives in Sacramento. However, the ADA states that this same individual has been arrested in the last two years while driving in West Sacramento with a loaded gun in a car and, separately, for selling methamptamine. It is difficult to support an individual who apparently is engaging in dangerous, illegal activity. There is absolutely beneficial reason that someone should be driving around with a loaded gun in his car in a city within Yolo County.
However, I do believe in due process. And the 400 unnamed individuals makes me nervous. Who determines who is added to the list? Would their be notification, a requirement to prove that the person should be on the list, and an opportunity to argue against it? Is there a process to get off the list later on or is this a lifetime prohibition?
I also don’t understand the “civil” vs. “criminal” if the DA’s Office is the entitiy pushing for the establishment of the injuction – shouldn’t it be the City Attorney, or the County Counsel’s office suing the Broderick Boys instead?
I have very mixed feelings about all of this. These “boys” have no intitlement to make their community a dangerous place to live or visit for people not involved in their little society. Just because they grew up there, doesn’t give them a right to control their community – focusing the attention of law enforcement onto their neighborhoods. The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community. I’m sure that they are tired of the criminal activities that plague their neighborhoods and lure their youth into joining gangs. Things were improving under the previous injunction and I’m sure that people are afraid of returning to how it was before.
Ron.. your “attack” uncharacteristically misses the point here. I do not think that anyone here is against using all legal constitutionally-allowed means to control virulent gang activity. Our Great Leader and his Attorney General make a similiar argument that to fight international “street gangs”, we should accept their trampling on constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Ron.. your “attack” uncharacteristically misses the point here. I do not think that anyone here is against using all legal constitutionally-allowed means to control virulent gang activity. Our Great Leader and his Attorney General make a similiar argument that to fight international “street gangs”, we should accept their trampling on constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Ron.. your “attack” uncharacteristically misses the point here. I do not think that anyone here is against using all legal constitutionally-allowed means to control virulent gang activity. Our Great Leader and his Attorney General make a similiar argument that to fight international “street gangs”, we should accept their trampling on constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Ron.. your “attack” uncharacteristically misses the point here. I do not think that anyone here is against using all legal constitutionally-allowed means to control virulent gang activity. Our Great Leader and his Attorney General make a similiar argument that to fight international “street gangs”, we should accept their trampling on constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
“The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community.”
A dangerous concept, Sharla, that community support trumps citizen rights.. Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.
“The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community.”
A dangerous concept, Sharla, that community support trumps citizen rights.. Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.
“The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community.”
A dangerous concept, Sharla, that community support trumps citizen rights.. Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.
“The difference between the last injunction and this attempt is that Reisig seems to have the backing of the West Sacramento community.”
A dangerous concept, Sharla, that community support trumps citizen rights.. Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.
I met one of the alleged gang members when I was involved in this issue a while ago. She was a teenager attending community college. She worked a job to pay for college. She had never been in trouble with the law. But when they arrested a suspected gang member they apparently found a picture fo her with the him holding up gangs signs. The picutre was from their Catholic school days and the gang signs were peace signs….. If this is what Reisig considers stopping gangs in Wes Sac, then the US is bringing peace and stability to Iraq.
I met one of the alleged gang members when I was involved in this issue a while ago. She was a teenager attending community college. She worked a job to pay for college. She had never been in trouble with the law. But when they arrested a suspected gang member they apparently found a picture fo her with the him holding up gangs signs. The picutre was from their Catholic school days and the gang signs were peace signs….. If this is what Reisig considers stopping gangs in Wes Sac, then the US is bringing peace and stability to Iraq.
I met one of the alleged gang members when I was involved in this issue a while ago. She was a teenager attending community college. She worked a job to pay for college. She had never been in trouble with the law. But when they arrested a suspected gang member they apparently found a picture fo her with the him holding up gangs signs. The picutre was from their Catholic school days and the gang signs were peace signs….. If this is what Reisig considers stopping gangs in Wes Sac, then the US is bringing peace and stability to Iraq.
I met one of the alleged gang members when I was involved in this issue a while ago. She was a teenager attending community college. She worked a job to pay for college. She had never been in trouble with the law. But when they arrested a suspected gang member they apparently found a picture fo her with the him holding up gangs signs. The picutre was from their Catholic school days and the gang signs were peace signs….. If this is what Reisig considers stopping gangs in Wes Sac, then the US is bringing peace and stability to Iraq.
Annoymous 10:20 am
“Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.”
This sounds like a Norbie Kumagai argument. Innocent citizens are not being rounded up and sent off so your analogy fails.
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves. The real tragedy is the instances where law enforcement and the DA’s office has misused its descretion to place people on the list who don’t belong there, like the posting above. This needs to be fixed and take away that power from the DA’s office.
Annoymous 10:20 am
“Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.”
This sounds like a Norbie Kumagai argument. Innocent citizens are not being rounded up and sent off so your analogy fails.
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves. The real tragedy is the instances where law enforcement and the DA’s office has misused its descretion to place people on the list who don’t belong there, like the posting above. This needs to be fixed and take away that power from the DA’s office.
Annoymous 10:20 am
“Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.”
This sounds like a Norbie Kumagai argument. Innocent citizens are not being rounded up and sent off so your analogy fails.
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves. The real tragedy is the instances where law enforcement and the DA’s office has misused its descretion to place people on the list who don’t belong there, like the posting above. This needs to be fixed and take away that power from the DA’s office.
Annoymous 10:20 am
“Remember when Japanese- American citizens were rounded up and sent to relocation(concentration)camps with,I believe, the enthusiastic support of the majority of Californians.”
This sounds like a Norbie Kumagai argument. Innocent citizens are not being rounded up and sent off so your analogy fails.
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves. The real tragedy is the instances where law enforcement and the DA’s office has misused its descretion to place people on the list who don’t belong there, like the posting above. This needs to be fixed and take away that power from the DA’s office.
That last post was me.
That last post was me.
That last post was me.
That last post was me.
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
There is. It’s called the criminal justice system, and it has evolved over several hundred years. People are arrested, charged, and given the resources to present at least a decent defense, because they are at risk of losing their liberty.
Here, we have an experimental use of nuisance law against a group of people defined as “gang members” by the DA, who are unable to defend themselves because they are impoverished, and are not entitled to court appointed representation in a “civil” proceeding of this nature.
The entire process is designed to obtain defaults (failures to appear) or easily obtained judgments (DAs in court versus people untrained in the law defending themselves) by evading the due process protections of the criminal courts.
As a result, it fails to generate any proof that the individuals subjected to the injunction actually engaged in wrongdoing, because there is no procedure that will test the veracity of what the DA puts forward in the complaint.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves.
Yes, that’s what we have here, a process that will invariably subject people to restraints upon their freedom of movement based upon “suspicion”.
As an aside, it is also worth noting that West Sacramento has been undergoing a lot of residential development and some gentrification. If the overbreadth of the DA’s gang injunction forces out some low income people incapable of fighting it, it could be an instance of, so much the better, from the perspective of civic leadership.
–Richard Estes
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
There is. It’s called the criminal justice system, and it has evolved over several hundred years. People are arrested, charged, and given the resources to present at least a decent defense, because they are at risk of losing their liberty.
Here, we have an experimental use of nuisance law against a group of people defined as “gang members” by the DA, who are unable to defend themselves because they are impoverished, and are not entitled to court appointed representation in a “civil” proceeding of this nature.
The entire process is designed to obtain defaults (failures to appear) or easily obtained judgments (DAs in court versus people untrained in the law defending themselves) by evading the due process protections of the criminal courts.
As a result, it fails to generate any proof that the individuals subjected to the injunction actually engaged in wrongdoing, because there is no procedure that will test the veracity of what the DA puts forward in the complaint.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves.
Yes, that’s what we have here, a process that will invariably subject people to restraints upon their freedom of movement based upon “suspicion”.
As an aside, it is also worth noting that West Sacramento has been undergoing a lot of residential development and some gentrification. If the overbreadth of the DA’s gang injunction forces out some low income people incapable of fighting it, it could be an instance of, so much the better, from the perspective of civic leadership.
–Richard Estes
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
There is. It’s called the criminal justice system, and it has evolved over several hundred years. People are arrested, charged, and given the resources to present at least a decent defense, because they are at risk of losing their liberty.
Here, we have an experimental use of nuisance law against a group of people defined as “gang members” by the DA, who are unable to defend themselves because they are impoverished, and are not entitled to court appointed representation in a “civil” proceeding of this nature.
The entire process is designed to obtain defaults (failures to appear) or easily obtained judgments (DAs in court versus people untrained in the law defending themselves) by evading the due process protections of the criminal courts.
As a result, it fails to generate any proof that the individuals subjected to the injunction actually engaged in wrongdoing, because there is no procedure that will test the veracity of what the DA puts forward in the complaint.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves.
Yes, that’s what we have here, a process that will invariably subject people to restraints upon their freedom of movement based upon “suspicion”.
As an aside, it is also worth noting that West Sacramento has been undergoing a lot of residential development and some gentrification. If the overbreadth of the DA’s gang injunction forces out some low income people incapable of fighting it, it could be an instance of, so much the better, from the perspective of civic leadership.
–Richard Estes
If a community is under siege by criminal activity and asks for relief, then there has to be a solution. If people are given due process – notification, a hearing, judicial oversight, legal representation, a sunset on the restrictions or a review process, and a process to be removed (much like the current probation system), it might pass muster.
There is. It’s called the criminal justice system, and it has evolved over several hundred years. People are arrested, charged, and given the resources to present at least a decent defense, because they are at risk of losing their liberty.
Here, we have an experimental use of nuisance law against a group of people defined as “gang members” by the DA, who are unable to defend themselves because they are impoverished, and are not entitled to court appointed representation in a “civil” proceeding of this nature.
The entire process is designed to obtain defaults (failures to appear) or easily obtained judgments (DAs in court versus people untrained in the law defending themselves) by evading the due process protections of the criminal courts.
As a result, it fails to generate any proof that the individuals subjected to the injunction actually engaged in wrongdoing, because there is no procedure that will test the veracity of what the DA puts forward in the complaint.
I suspect that most of these people brought this attention on themselves.
Yes, that’s what we have here, a process that will invariably subject people to restraints upon their freedom of movement based upon “suspicion”.
As an aside, it is also worth noting that West Sacramento has been undergoing a lot of residential development and some gentrification. If the overbreadth of the DA’s gang injunction forces out some low income people incapable of fighting it, it could be an instance of, so much the better, from the perspective of civic leadership.
–Richard Estes
Richard, while I appreciate your idealism I think you would be the first to admit that the scales of justice always tilt to favor the rich. The names Claus Von Bulow and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
Still it is fair to argue that the accused should have access to representation before the courts to challenge their being cited in the complaint and I hope they are able to obtain that representation. Likewise it is reasonable to argue that the DA should use the tools at his disposal to try to get a handle on violent crime and to a lesser extent property crime which is what he is doing when he tries to address the pernicious effects of gang activity.
If you want to be critical of the DA I would look at the prosecution of someone for getting some kid’s teeth fixed instead of trying to reduce violent gang activity.
Ron Glick
Ron
Richard, while I appreciate your idealism I think you would be the first to admit that the scales of justice always tilt to favor the rich. The names Claus Von Bulow and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
Still it is fair to argue that the accused should have access to representation before the courts to challenge their being cited in the complaint and I hope they are able to obtain that representation. Likewise it is reasonable to argue that the DA should use the tools at his disposal to try to get a handle on violent crime and to a lesser extent property crime which is what he is doing when he tries to address the pernicious effects of gang activity.
If you want to be critical of the DA I would look at the prosecution of someone for getting some kid’s teeth fixed instead of trying to reduce violent gang activity.
Ron Glick
Ron
Richard, while I appreciate your idealism I think you would be the first to admit that the scales of justice always tilt to favor the rich. The names Claus Von Bulow and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
Still it is fair to argue that the accused should have access to representation before the courts to challenge their being cited in the complaint and I hope they are able to obtain that representation. Likewise it is reasonable to argue that the DA should use the tools at his disposal to try to get a handle on violent crime and to a lesser extent property crime which is what he is doing when he tries to address the pernicious effects of gang activity.
If you want to be critical of the DA I would look at the prosecution of someone for getting some kid’s teeth fixed instead of trying to reduce violent gang activity.
Ron Glick
Ron
Richard, while I appreciate your idealism I think you would be the first to admit that the scales of justice always tilt to favor the rich. The names Claus Von Bulow and O.J. Simpson come to mind.
Still it is fair to argue that the accused should have access to representation before the courts to challenge their being cited in the complaint and I hope they are able to obtain that representation. Likewise it is reasonable to argue that the DA should use the tools at his disposal to try to get a handle on violent crime and to a lesser extent property crime which is what he is doing when he tries to address the pernicious effects of gang activity.
If you want to be critical of the DA I would look at the prosecution of someone for getting some kid’s teeth fixed instead of trying to reduce violent gang activity.
Ron Glick
Ron
Ron, really, you aren’t getting it.
The DA is resorting to this civil process precisely because it prevents the targets from obtaining representation, and thereby evades any judiciary inquiry into the factual and legal merits of issuing the injunction.
If the process is reformed to provide it, the DA will promptly complain about how he is being prevented from making the citizens of West Sacramento safe because of “technicalities” and say that he lacks the resources to proceed.
–Richard Estes
Ron, really, you aren’t getting it.
The DA is resorting to this civil process precisely because it prevents the targets from obtaining representation, and thereby evades any judiciary inquiry into the factual and legal merits of issuing the injunction.
If the process is reformed to provide it, the DA will promptly complain about how he is being prevented from making the citizens of West Sacramento safe because of “technicalities” and say that he lacks the resources to proceed.
–Richard Estes
Ron, really, you aren’t getting it.
The DA is resorting to this civil process precisely because it prevents the targets from obtaining representation, and thereby evades any judiciary inquiry into the factual and legal merits of issuing the injunction.
If the process is reformed to provide it, the DA will promptly complain about how he is being prevented from making the citizens of West Sacramento safe because of “technicalities” and say that he lacks the resources to proceed.
–Richard Estes
Ron, really, you aren’t getting it.
The DA is resorting to this civil process precisely because it prevents the targets from obtaining representation, and thereby evades any judiciary inquiry into the factual and legal merits of issuing the injunction.
If the process is reformed to provide it, the DA will promptly complain about how he is being prevented from making the citizens of West Sacramento safe because of “technicalities” and say that he lacks the resources to proceed.
–Richard Estes
Richard,
My guess is that the people named will find someone to represent them either by hiring or getting pro bono help. This thing is high profile enough now that someone like Katz, Kravitz or some ACLU lawyer will want to help. I will be surprised if this injunction isn’t challenged by competent counsel.
I also want to point out that I wrote on this blog that whether or not the DA tries to reinstate the injunction would depend on whether the crime rate goes back up. So at least I do get something because that seems to be what has happened.
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve. Meanwhile violent crime associated with gangs remains rampant in the region.
Ron Glick
Richard,
My guess is that the people named will find someone to represent them either by hiring or getting pro bono help. This thing is high profile enough now that someone like Katz, Kravitz or some ACLU lawyer will want to help. I will be surprised if this injunction isn’t challenged by competent counsel.
I also want to point out that I wrote on this blog that whether or not the DA tries to reinstate the injunction would depend on whether the crime rate goes back up. So at least I do get something because that seems to be what has happened.
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve. Meanwhile violent crime associated with gangs remains rampant in the region.
Ron Glick
Richard,
My guess is that the people named will find someone to represent them either by hiring or getting pro bono help. This thing is high profile enough now that someone like Katz, Kravitz or some ACLU lawyer will want to help. I will be surprised if this injunction isn’t challenged by competent counsel.
I also want to point out that I wrote on this blog that whether or not the DA tries to reinstate the injunction would depend on whether the crime rate goes back up. So at least I do get something because that seems to be what has happened.
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve. Meanwhile violent crime associated with gangs remains rampant in the region.
Ron Glick
Richard,
My guess is that the people named will find someone to represent them either by hiring or getting pro bono help. This thing is high profile enough now that someone like Katz, Kravitz or some ACLU lawyer will want to help. I will be surprised if this injunction isn’t challenged by competent counsel.
I also want to point out that I wrote on this blog that whether or not the DA tries to reinstate the injunction would depend on whether the crime rate goes back up. So at least I do get something because that seems to be what has happened.
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve. Meanwhile violent crime associated with gangs remains rampant in the region.
Ron Glick
This should make for a lively show today, hope you guys take up this issue on KDVS, Speaking in Tongues.
This should make for a lively show today, hope you guys take up this issue on KDVS, Speaking in Tongues.
This should make for a lively show today, hope you guys take up this issue on KDVS, Speaking in Tongues.
This should make for a lively show today, hope you guys take up this issue on KDVS, Speaking in Tongues.
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve.
It seems to elude you that it’s not a very hard balance to achieve, but an essential requirement of the US constitutional and criminal justice system.
You still keep alluding to gang problems in the region as if it implicitly justifies usually approaches that are contrary to the historic requirements of the legal system.
–Richard Estes
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve.
It seems to elude you that it’s not a very hard balance to achieve, but an essential requirement of the US constitutional and criminal justice system.
You still keep alluding to gang problems in the region as if it implicitly justifies usually approaches that are contrary to the historic requirements of the legal system.
–Richard Estes
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve.
It seems to elude you that it’s not a very hard balance to achieve, but an essential requirement of the US constitutional and criminal justice system.
You still keep alluding to gang problems in the region as if it implicitly justifies usually approaches that are contrary to the historic requirements of the legal system.
–Richard Estes
In my opionion, the real discussion should be about how you cast the net perfectly to reduce crime while only limiting the conduct of the perpetrators of that crime, a very hard balance to achieve.
It seems to elude you that it’s not a very hard balance to achieve, but an essential requirement of the US constitutional and criminal justice system.
You still keep alluding to gang problems in the region as if it implicitly justifies usually approaches that are contrary to the historic requirements of the legal system.
–Richard Estes
Why is it that all of you believe Judge Fall when he says that these people do not have the right to appointed counsel because it is not a criminal case? Yolo County has a number of judges sitting on the bench who are a shame to their profession. If a Yolo County judge expresses a legal opinion, you should always look up the law yourself rather than rely on him. I direct your attention to California Government Code sec. 27706 “The public defender shall perform the following duties . . . . (c) Upon request, the public defender shall defend any person who is not financially able to employ counsel in any civil litigation in which, in the judgment of the public defender, the person is being persecuted or unjustly harassed.” There are a number of situations other than criminal cases in which people are entitled to appointed counsel which are listed in that statute. See for yourself at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=26522919400+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Of course, among the many problems in Yolo County is that the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office and its denizens are also a shame to their chosen profession. The gang members might have done better representing themselves than being represented by the useless eaters of the public defender’s office; moreover, it’s the practice of the court to conceal Yolo County’s intent to bill people $175/hr for the public defender’s services under Gov. Code 27712 and Penal code 987.8 until it’s too late, and the victim of this fee fraud has become a peon indebted to the county for a far greater sum than the actual value of the services rendered. If Yolo County had a competent Public Defender, he would have been there in the court volunteering his services. How many Yolo County residents are aware that the sorry excuse they have for a Public Defender, Barry Melton, never even graduated from college or attended law school? What can you expect from someone like that? Not much, and that is what you get! Linden is also not a competent attorney, although his despicable comment equating defending yourself against a false complaint with gang activity does express the corrupt culture of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and the Yolo County Superior Court. In theory, the judicial system is supposed to operate as an adversarial system. The truth is supposed to arise from the clash of adversaries. They have the totalitarian mentality that nobody has the right to defend themselves. The duty of citizens is to bend over on request. Like Louis XVI, Linden and his associates believe, “Me, I am the state.” They have forgotten that they are mere representatives of the people of the state, who are the state. This is the corruption that results from inadequate defense provided by a lazy and corrupt public defender’s office, a culture of plea bargaining and too many coerced guilty pleas. It is an attitude of entitlement. They believe they have the right to get what they want regardless of the law. That is where Reisig’s contemptuous attitude to the 3rd District’s prior ruling has its roots. The Yolo County judicial system is a sewer as dark, dank and deep as the worst found in Deep South before the civil rights era. The West Sacramento defendants need not only to appeal, but to seek out civil rights attorneys willing to sue in federal court. They do not have to wait for the state case to play out before bringing suit under 42 USC 1983.
Why is it that all of you believe Judge Fall when he says that these people do not have the right to appointed counsel because it is not a criminal case? Yolo County has a number of judges sitting on the bench who are a shame to their profession. If a Yolo County judge expresses a legal opinion, you should always look up the law yourself rather than rely on him. I direct your attention to California Government Code sec. 27706 “The public defender shall perform the following duties . . . . (c) Upon request, the public defender shall defend any person who is not financially able to employ counsel in any civil litigation in which, in the judgment of the public defender, the person is being persecuted or unjustly harassed.” There are a number of situations other than criminal cases in which people are entitled to appointed counsel which are listed in that statute. See for yourself at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=26522919400+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Of course, among the many problems in Yolo County is that the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office and its denizens are also a shame to their chosen profession. The gang members might have done better representing themselves than being represented by the useless eaters of the public defender’s office; moreover, it’s the practice of the court to conceal Yolo County’s intent to bill people $175/hr for the public defender’s services under Gov. Code 27712 and Penal code 987.8 until it’s too late, and the victim of this fee fraud has become a peon indebted to the county for a far greater sum than the actual value of the services rendered. If Yolo County had a competent Public Defender, he would have been there in the court volunteering his services. How many Yolo County residents are aware that the sorry excuse they have for a Public Defender, Barry Melton, never even graduated from college or attended law school? What can you expect from someone like that? Not much, and that is what you get! Linden is also not a competent attorney, although his despicable comment equating defending yourself against a false complaint with gang activity does express the corrupt culture of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and the Yolo County Superior Court. In theory, the judicial system is supposed to operate as an adversarial system. The truth is supposed to arise from the clash of adversaries. They have the totalitarian mentality that nobody has the right to defend themselves. The duty of citizens is to bend over on request. Like Louis XVI, Linden and his associates believe, “Me, I am the state.” They have forgotten that they are mere representatives of the people of the state, who are the state. This is the corruption that results from inadequate defense provided by a lazy and corrupt public defender’s office, a culture of plea bargaining and too many coerced guilty pleas. It is an attitude of entitlement. They believe they have the right to get what they want regardless of the law. That is where Reisig’s contemptuous attitude to the 3rd District’s prior ruling has its roots. The Yolo County judicial system is a sewer as dark, dank and deep as the worst found in Deep South before the civil rights era. The West Sacramento defendants need not only to appeal, but to seek out civil rights attorneys willing to sue in federal court. They do not have to wait for the state case to play out before bringing suit under 42 USC 1983.
Why is it that all of you believe Judge Fall when he says that these people do not have the right to appointed counsel because it is not a criminal case? Yolo County has a number of judges sitting on the bench who are a shame to their profession. If a Yolo County judge expresses a legal opinion, you should always look up the law yourself rather than rely on him. I direct your attention to California Government Code sec. 27706 “The public defender shall perform the following duties . . . . (c) Upon request, the public defender shall defend any person who is not financially able to employ counsel in any civil litigation in which, in the judgment of the public defender, the person is being persecuted or unjustly harassed.” There are a number of situations other than criminal cases in which people are entitled to appointed counsel which are listed in that statute. See for yourself at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=26522919400+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Of course, among the many problems in Yolo County is that the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office and its denizens are also a shame to their chosen profession. The gang members might have done better representing themselves than being represented by the useless eaters of the public defender’s office; moreover, it’s the practice of the court to conceal Yolo County’s intent to bill people $175/hr for the public defender’s services under Gov. Code 27712 and Penal code 987.8 until it’s too late, and the victim of this fee fraud has become a peon indebted to the county for a far greater sum than the actual value of the services rendered. If Yolo County had a competent Public Defender, he would have been there in the court volunteering his services. How many Yolo County residents are aware that the sorry excuse they have for a Public Defender, Barry Melton, never even graduated from college or attended law school? What can you expect from someone like that? Not much, and that is what you get! Linden is also not a competent attorney, although his despicable comment equating defending yourself against a false complaint with gang activity does express the corrupt culture of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and the Yolo County Superior Court. In theory, the judicial system is supposed to operate as an adversarial system. The truth is supposed to arise from the clash of adversaries. They have the totalitarian mentality that nobody has the right to defend themselves. The duty of citizens is to bend over on request. Like Louis XVI, Linden and his associates believe, “Me, I am the state.” They have forgotten that they are mere representatives of the people of the state, who are the state. This is the corruption that results from inadequate defense provided by a lazy and corrupt public defender’s office, a culture of plea bargaining and too many coerced guilty pleas. It is an attitude of entitlement. They believe they have the right to get what they want regardless of the law. That is where Reisig’s contemptuous attitude to the 3rd District’s prior ruling has its roots. The Yolo County judicial system is a sewer as dark, dank and deep as the worst found in Deep South before the civil rights era. The West Sacramento defendants need not only to appeal, but to seek out civil rights attorneys willing to sue in federal court. They do not have to wait for the state case to play out before bringing suit under 42 USC 1983.
Why is it that all of you believe Judge Fall when he says that these people do not have the right to appointed counsel because it is not a criminal case? Yolo County has a number of judges sitting on the bench who are a shame to their profession. If a Yolo County judge expresses a legal opinion, you should always look up the law yourself rather than rely on him. I direct your attention to California Government Code sec. 27706 “The public defender shall perform the following duties . . . . (c) Upon request, the public defender shall defend any person who is not financially able to employ counsel in any civil litigation in which, in the judgment of the public defender, the person is being persecuted or unjustly harassed.” There are a number of situations other than criminal cases in which people are entitled to appointed counsel which are listed in that statute. See for yourself at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=26522919400+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Of course, among the many problems in Yolo County is that the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office and its denizens are also a shame to their chosen profession. The gang members might have done better representing themselves than being represented by the useless eaters of the public defender’s office; moreover, it’s the practice of the court to conceal Yolo County’s intent to bill people $175/hr for the public defender’s services under Gov. Code 27712 and Penal code 987.8 until it’s too late, and the victim of this fee fraud has become a peon indebted to the county for a far greater sum than the actual value of the services rendered. If Yolo County had a competent Public Defender, he would have been there in the court volunteering his services. How many Yolo County residents are aware that the sorry excuse they have for a Public Defender, Barry Melton, never even graduated from college or attended law school? What can you expect from someone like that? Not much, and that is what you get! Linden is also not a competent attorney, although his despicable comment equating defending yourself against a false complaint with gang activity does express the corrupt culture of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office and the Yolo County Superior Court. In theory, the judicial system is supposed to operate as an adversarial system. The truth is supposed to arise from the clash of adversaries. They have the totalitarian mentality that nobody has the right to defend themselves. The duty of citizens is to bend over on request. Like Louis XVI, Linden and his associates believe, “Me, I am the state.” They have forgotten that they are mere representatives of the people of the state, who are the state. This is the corruption that results from inadequate defense provided by a lazy and corrupt public defender’s office, a culture of plea bargaining and too many coerced guilty pleas. It is an attitude of entitlement. They believe they have the right to get what they want regardless of the law. That is where Reisig’s contemptuous attitude to the 3rd District’s prior ruling has its roots. The Yolo County judicial system is a sewer as dark, dank and deep as the worst found in Deep South before the civil rights era. The West Sacramento defendants need not only to appeal, but to seek out civil rights attorneys willing to sue in federal court. They do not have to wait for the state case to play out before bringing suit under 42 USC 1983.
CONTINUED As I think about it, I realize that Reisig thinks he is so clever bringing this case as a civil case, but that can be turned around on him by good civil rights attorneys. All that needs to be done is to sue on federal issues via a cross-complaint to the civil complaint, and then seek removal to federal court on federal question grounds. Falsely identified gang members should also file a criminal complaint against Reisig and Linden with the U.S. Department of Justice for honest services fraud; they have been denied the honest services of the Yolo DA’s office because of gang grants which amount to bribery of the Yolo DA.
CONTINUED As I think about it, I realize that Reisig thinks he is so clever bringing this case as a civil case, but that can be turned around on him by good civil rights attorneys. All that needs to be done is to sue on federal issues via a cross-complaint to the civil complaint, and then seek removal to federal court on federal question grounds. Falsely identified gang members should also file a criminal complaint against Reisig and Linden with the U.S. Department of Justice for honest services fraud; they have been denied the honest services of the Yolo DA’s office because of gang grants which amount to bribery of the Yolo DA.
CONTINUED As I think about it, I realize that Reisig thinks he is so clever bringing this case as a civil case, but that can be turned around on him by good civil rights attorneys. All that needs to be done is to sue on federal issues via a cross-complaint to the civil complaint, and then seek removal to federal court on federal question grounds. Falsely identified gang members should also file a criminal complaint against Reisig and Linden with the U.S. Department of Justice for honest services fraud; they have been denied the honest services of the Yolo DA’s office because of gang grants which amount to bribery of the Yolo DA.
CONTINUED As I think about it, I realize that Reisig thinks he is so clever bringing this case as a civil case, but that can be turned around on him by good civil rights attorneys. All that needs to be done is to sue on federal issues via a cross-complaint to the civil complaint, and then seek removal to federal court on federal question grounds. Falsely identified gang members should also file a criminal complaint against Reisig and Linden with the U.S. Department of Justice for honest services fraud; they have been denied the honest services of the Yolo DA’s office because of gang grants which amount to bribery of the Yolo DA.
If it’s now a civil offense, what can the court do if these people are found in violation of the injunction? Fine them without any leverage to force payment…much like OJ Simpson?
If it’s now a civil offense, what can the court do if these people are found in violation of the injunction? Fine them without any leverage to force payment…much like OJ Simpson?
If it’s now a civil offense, what can the court do if these people are found in violation of the injunction? Fine them without any leverage to force payment…much like OJ Simpson?
If it’s now a civil offense, what can the court do if these people are found in violation of the injunction? Fine them without any leverage to force payment…much like OJ Simpson?
Richard,
I know you think the law should stick to prosecuting people for their conduct not for their associations or their beliefs. Maybe we should not have things like racketeering, conspiracy, gang or hate crimes but these tools are on the books and to expect that law enforcement is not going to use them to try to get a handle on gangs is naive. The gang problem with its associated violence is a serious problem with many victums both inside and outside of the gang scene. Law enforcement is trying to surpress it as they should. Maybe they are going too far but I respect the fact that they are trying to reduce the level of violent crime. We will see if the DA has adjusted enough to please the 3rd district court of appeals this time around.
Ron
Richard,
I know you think the law should stick to prosecuting people for their conduct not for their associations or their beliefs. Maybe we should not have things like racketeering, conspiracy, gang or hate crimes but these tools are on the books and to expect that law enforcement is not going to use them to try to get a handle on gangs is naive. The gang problem with its associated violence is a serious problem with many victums both inside and outside of the gang scene. Law enforcement is trying to surpress it as they should. Maybe they are going too far but I respect the fact that they are trying to reduce the level of violent crime. We will see if the DA has adjusted enough to please the 3rd district court of appeals this time around.
Ron
Richard,
I know you think the law should stick to prosecuting people for their conduct not for their associations or their beliefs. Maybe we should not have things like racketeering, conspiracy, gang or hate crimes but these tools are on the books and to expect that law enforcement is not going to use them to try to get a handle on gangs is naive. The gang problem with its associated violence is a serious problem with many victums both inside and outside of the gang scene. Law enforcement is trying to surpress it as they should. Maybe they are going too far but I respect the fact that they are trying to reduce the level of violent crime. We will see if the DA has adjusted enough to please the 3rd district court of appeals this time around.
Ron
Richard,
I know you think the law should stick to prosecuting people for their conduct not for their associations or their beliefs. Maybe we should not have things like racketeering, conspiracy, gang or hate crimes but these tools are on the books and to expect that law enforcement is not going to use them to try to get a handle on gangs is naive. The gang problem with its associated violence is a serious problem with many victums both inside and outside of the gang scene. Law enforcement is trying to surpress it as they should. Maybe they are going too far but I respect the fact that they are trying to reduce the level of violent crime. We will see if the DA has adjusted enough to please the 3rd district court of appeals this time around.
Ron
Ron:
It’s actually illustrative that you use racketeering laws as an example, because I think RICO actually disproves rather than proves your point. The reason to have a RICO statute was to be able to get the kingpins for organizing the criminal activities even when they were not directly involved in given crimes. THe problem was that without such laws it was near impossible to establish that a Mafia kingpin had engaged in conspiracy. This led to the bizarre historical tidbit that Capone was finally broken not by criminal acts of murder and mayhem but rather for the more mundane tax evasion.
In this case, you have a DA trying to go after low-level gangbangers for alleged association with other gangbangers. And you are allowing him to do so without evidence of association and by limiting the means by which he can challenge those allegations. That is a very different function from the RICO statute.
Ron:
It’s actually illustrative that you use racketeering laws as an example, because I think RICO actually disproves rather than proves your point. The reason to have a RICO statute was to be able to get the kingpins for organizing the criminal activities even when they were not directly involved in given crimes. THe problem was that without such laws it was near impossible to establish that a Mafia kingpin had engaged in conspiracy. This led to the bizarre historical tidbit that Capone was finally broken not by criminal acts of murder and mayhem but rather for the more mundane tax evasion.
In this case, you have a DA trying to go after low-level gangbangers for alleged association with other gangbangers. And you are allowing him to do so without evidence of association and by limiting the means by which he can challenge those allegations. That is a very different function from the RICO statute.
Ron:
It’s actually illustrative that you use racketeering laws as an example, because I think RICO actually disproves rather than proves your point. The reason to have a RICO statute was to be able to get the kingpins for organizing the criminal activities even when they were not directly involved in given crimes. THe problem was that without such laws it was near impossible to establish that a Mafia kingpin had engaged in conspiracy. This led to the bizarre historical tidbit that Capone was finally broken not by criminal acts of murder and mayhem but rather for the more mundane tax evasion.
In this case, you have a DA trying to go after low-level gangbangers for alleged association with other gangbangers. And you are allowing him to do so without evidence of association and by limiting the means by which he can challenge those allegations. That is a very different function from the RICO statute.
Ron:
It’s actually illustrative that you use racketeering laws as an example, because I think RICO actually disproves rather than proves your point. The reason to have a RICO statute was to be able to get the kingpins for organizing the criminal activities even when they were not directly involved in given crimes. THe problem was that without such laws it was near impossible to establish that a Mafia kingpin had engaged in conspiracy. This led to the bizarre historical tidbit that Capone was finally broken not by criminal acts of murder and mayhem but rather for the more mundane tax evasion.
In this case, you have a DA trying to go after low-level gangbangers for alleged association with other gangbangers. And you are allowing him to do so without evidence of association and by limiting the means by which he can challenge those allegations. That is a very different function from the RICO statute.
“If it’s now a civil offense…”
If they are found in contempt of a civil court order, I believe that the maximum sentence is 5 days in the pokey or $1000 fine for each violation. When the defendants are brought before the court with this option “on the table”, I believe that they are then eligible to receive legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves.
“If it’s now a civil offense…”
If they are found in contempt of a civil court order, I believe that the maximum sentence is 5 days in the pokey or $1000 fine for each violation. When the defendants are brought before the court with this option “on the table”, I believe that they are then eligible to receive legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves.
“If it’s now a civil offense…”
If they are found in contempt of a civil court order, I believe that the maximum sentence is 5 days in the pokey or $1000 fine for each violation. When the defendants are brought before the court with this option “on the table”, I believe that they are then eligible to receive legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves.
“If it’s now a civil offense…”
If they are found in contempt of a civil court order, I believe that the maximum sentence is 5 days in the pokey or $1000 fine for each violation. When the defendants are brought before the court with this option “on the table”, I believe that they are then eligible to receive legal representation if they cannot afford it themselves.
Reisig’s resubmission of his gang injunction is another political bloody-nose and retreat from his demogogic, “sledgehammer” approach to Yolo DA law enforcement under his leadership.. clear legal thinking and a careful judicious approach to carrying out his duties as DA do not appear to be his forte.
Reisig’s resubmission of his gang injunction is another political bloody-nose and retreat from his demogogic, “sledgehammer” approach to Yolo DA law enforcement under his leadership.. clear legal thinking and a careful judicious approach to carrying out his duties as DA do not appear to be his forte.
Reisig’s resubmission of his gang injunction is another political bloody-nose and retreat from his demogogic, “sledgehammer” approach to Yolo DA law enforcement under his leadership.. clear legal thinking and a careful judicious approach to carrying out his duties as DA do not appear to be his forte.
Reisig’s resubmission of his gang injunction is another political bloody-nose and retreat from his demogogic, “sledgehammer” approach to Yolo DA law enforcement under his leadership.. clear legal thinking and a careful judicious approach to carrying out his duties as DA do not appear to be his forte.
Ron, you don’t seem to understand what I have been saying.
The whole purpose of the gang injunction is to proceed civilly against poor people who lack the means to defend themselves against it, and, apparently, aren’t going to get it from the bench of Yolo County.
It is designed to use the civil system to restrict the liberties of people by exploiting the fact that they can’t defend themselves.
And, you are also missing a critical point: as these people lack the means to defend themselves, there is no test of what the DA alleges in the complaint, there is no testing through discovery, through hearings, so there is no way to know if what is alleged is true or false, but, with the entry of a default judgment, or the entry of a judgment against someone who ineptly tries to defend against it, it is thereafter recorded as true, with potentially serious consequences for the people involved (inability to obtain housing, employment, educational opportunties, etc.).
Hence, the DA can decide that someone is a “gang member”, what that means, decide that someone has engaged in acts of wrongdoing that have never been previously adjudicated, and decide that they are associating with others similary defined, without any actual proof any of it is true, or, any proof sufficient to satisfy the standards of the civil system.
So, that, it’s just an arbritary process, and when, after the injunction is issued, despite the papering over it with a judgment, the punishment of these people is equally arbitrary.
In effect, it creates a separate legal system, with lesser protections, for those targeted by the DA. And, it is hard to understand how it facilitates the goal of public safety.
Of course, there are alternatives, West Sacramento could hire more police, the DA could hire more staff, and they would have the resources to address this problem consistent with the due process requirements of the American legal system. They could persuade Lois Wolk, the Legislature and the Governor to make more funds available for communities that face violence like theirs.
But, of course, that costs money and time, and the willingness of people like you to accept the gang injunction as an acceptable alternative is a cautionary tale as to how people can expediently accept the loss of fundamental legal protections for the purported benefit of public safety. Not surprising, really, that’s what the Congress and the President have been doing for the last 6 years.
I stand by my earlier prediction: if the courts impose requirements that will allow the people to defend themselves and the allegations to be meaningfully tested, Reisig will drop the case, complaining about how “ACLU liberals” took advantage of “technicalities” to prevent him from protecting the people of West Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
Ron, you don’t seem to understand what I have been saying.
The whole purpose of the gang injunction is to proceed civilly against poor people who lack the means to defend themselves against it, and, apparently, aren’t going to get it from the bench of Yolo County.
It is designed to use the civil system to restrict the liberties of people by exploiting the fact that they can’t defend themselves.
And, you are also missing a critical point: as these people lack the means to defend themselves, there is no test of what the DA alleges in the complaint, there is no testing through discovery, through hearings, so there is no way to know if what is alleged is true or false, but, with the entry of a default judgment, or the entry of a judgment against someone who ineptly tries to defend against it, it is thereafter recorded as true, with potentially serious consequences for the people involved (inability to obtain housing, employment, educational opportunties, etc.).
Hence, the DA can decide that someone is a “gang member”, what that means, decide that someone has engaged in acts of wrongdoing that have never been previously adjudicated, and decide that they are associating with others similary defined, without any actual proof any of it is true, or, any proof sufficient to satisfy the standards of the civil system.
So, that, it’s just an arbritary process, and when, after the injunction is issued, despite the papering over it with a judgment, the punishment of these people is equally arbitrary.
In effect, it creates a separate legal system, with lesser protections, for those targeted by the DA. And, it is hard to understand how it facilitates the goal of public safety.
Of course, there are alternatives, West Sacramento could hire more police, the DA could hire more staff, and they would have the resources to address this problem consistent with the due process requirements of the American legal system. They could persuade Lois Wolk, the Legislature and the Governor to make more funds available for communities that face violence like theirs.
But, of course, that costs money and time, and the willingness of people like you to accept the gang injunction as an acceptable alternative is a cautionary tale as to how people can expediently accept the loss of fundamental legal protections for the purported benefit of public safety. Not surprising, really, that’s what the Congress and the President have been doing for the last 6 years.
I stand by my earlier prediction: if the courts impose requirements that will allow the people to defend themselves and the allegations to be meaningfully tested, Reisig will drop the case, complaining about how “ACLU liberals” took advantage of “technicalities” to prevent him from protecting the people of West Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
Ron, you don’t seem to understand what I have been saying.
The whole purpose of the gang injunction is to proceed civilly against poor people who lack the means to defend themselves against it, and, apparently, aren’t going to get it from the bench of Yolo County.
It is designed to use the civil system to restrict the liberties of people by exploiting the fact that they can’t defend themselves.
And, you are also missing a critical point: as these people lack the means to defend themselves, there is no test of what the DA alleges in the complaint, there is no testing through discovery, through hearings, so there is no way to know if what is alleged is true or false, but, with the entry of a default judgment, or the entry of a judgment against someone who ineptly tries to defend against it, it is thereafter recorded as true, with potentially serious consequences for the people involved (inability to obtain housing, employment, educational opportunties, etc.).
Hence, the DA can decide that someone is a “gang member”, what that means, decide that someone has engaged in acts of wrongdoing that have never been previously adjudicated, and decide that they are associating with others similary defined, without any actual proof any of it is true, or, any proof sufficient to satisfy the standards of the civil system.
So, that, it’s just an arbritary process, and when, after the injunction is issued, despite the papering over it with a judgment, the punishment of these people is equally arbitrary.
In effect, it creates a separate legal system, with lesser protections, for those targeted by the DA. And, it is hard to understand how it facilitates the goal of public safety.
Of course, there are alternatives, West Sacramento could hire more police, the DA could hire more staff, and they would have the resources to address this problem consistent with the due process requirements of the American legal system. They could persuade Lois Wolk, the Legislature and the Governor to make more funds available for communities that face violence like theirs.
But, of course, that costs money and time, and the willingness of people like you to accept the gang injunction as an acceptable alternative is a cautionary tale as to how people can expediently accept the loss of fundamental legal protections for the purported benefit of public safety. Not surprising, really, that’s what the Congress and the President have been doing for the last 6 years.
I stand by my earlier prediction: if the courts impose requirements that will allow the people to defend themselves and the allegations to be meaningfully tested, Reisig will drop the case, complaining about how “ACLU liberals” took advantage of “technicalities” to prevent him from protecting the people of West Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
Ron, you don’t seem to understand what I have been saying.
The whole purpose of the gang injunction is to proceed civilly against poor people who lack the means to defend themselves against it, and, apparently, aren’t going to get it from the bench of Yolo County.
It is designed to use the civil system to restrict the liberties of people by exploiting the fact that they can’t defend themselves.
And, you are also missing a critical point: as these people lack the means to defend themselves, there is no test of what the DA alleges in the complaint, there is no testing through discovery, through hearings, so there is no way to know if what is alleged is true or false, but, with the entry of a default judgment, or the entry of a judgment against someone who ineptly tries to defend against it, it is thereafter recorded as true, with potentially serious consequences for the people involved (inability to obtain housing, employment, educational opportunties, etc.).
Hence, the DA can decide that someone is a “gang member”, what that means, decide that someone has engaged in acts of wrongdoing that have never been previously adjudicated, and decide that they are associating with others similary defined, without any actual proof any of it is true, or, any proof sufficient to satisfy the standards of the civil system.
So, that, it’s just an arbritary process, and when, after the injunction is issued, despite the papering over it with a judgment, the punishment of these people is equally arbitrary.
In effect, it creates a separate legal system, with lesser protections, for those targeted by the DA. And, it is hard to understand how it facilitates the goal of public safety.
Of course, there are alternatives, West Sacramento could hire more police, the DA could hire more staff, and they would have the resources to address this problem consistent with the due process requirements of the American legal system. They could persuade Lois Wolk, the Legislature and the Governor to make more funds available for communities that face violence like theirs.
But, of course, that costs money and time, and the willingness of people like you to accept the gang injunction as an acceptable alternative is a cautionary tale as to how people can expediently accept the loss of fundamental legal protections for the purported benefit of public safety. Not surprising, really, that’s what the Congress and the President have been doing for the last 6 years.
I stand by my earlier prediction: if the courts impose requirements that will allow the people to defend themselves and the allegations to be meaningfully tested, Reisig will drop the case, complaining about how “ACLU liberals” took advantage of “technicalities” to prevent him from protecting the people of West Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice. Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice. Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice. Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice. Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
no, actually, it is quite apt, just substitute fears of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalist for “gang members”, and it reads exactly the same
and, it is driven by the same psychology, people identified as “terrorists”, as “gang members”, aren’t people like you and I, and, hence, aren’t entitled to any legal protections
thus, “terrorists” are carted off to Guantanamo, without any recourse to the American legal system, and you would have address the problem of gang violence by allowing the DA to deliberately, and make no mistake, it is a quite deliberate strategy (just as the creation of Guantanamo was similarly quite deliberate), to obtain use injunctions against people who can’t defend themselves
with these injunctions, once obtained, upon future violations by the people subject to the injunction, violations of things that are otherwise legal, like being seen in the presence of another person identified by the DA as a gang member, or being seen in a particular proscribed location, violations of otherwise legal acts thereafter being transformed into jail time, as someone else here noted
it’s a Tinkers/Evers/Chance thing: injunction/violation/jail (for failure to pay the fine, which, few, if any, of these people, will be able to do), without the person being sent to jail ever having committed an offense as set forth in the Penal Code, except for violating a judicial order
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice.
So, why is it that you still defend the use of an injunction that is deliberately designed to exploit their inability to defend themselves, and subjects them to constraints upon their ability to associate with people and visit particular areas (areas where other friends and family may live), with violations for otherwise legal acts subjecting them to fines and incarceration if they can’t pay them?
Anyway, you still, for some reason, miss my larger point, it’s not just about the “poor getting access to justice”, it is about the deliberate use of a legal instrument designed to control a segment of the populace, and subject them to fines and incarceration, without ever having to factually and legally prove the basis for it
you are fine with it, I’m not, and as I said, if Reisig is ever forced to meet the most minimal requirements of due process, he will abandon the effort, because Reisig has chosen the route of proceeding with an injunction precisely because it doesn’t require the extensive use of DA’s office resources, and doesn’t require that they actually prove their allegations
but, as Bush does with the ‘war on terror’, keep pandering on the issue of public safety, it’s worked for him, and, yet again, he’s persuaded Congress to abandon common recognized constitutional principles, and it may work for you (and Reisig) here
–Richard Estes
Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
no, actually, it is quite apt, just substitute fears of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalist for “gang members”, and it reads exactly the same
and, it is driven by the same psychology, people identified as “terrorists”, as “gang members”, aren’t people like you and I, and, hence, aren’t entitled to any legal protections
thus, “terrorists” are carted off to Guantanamo, without any recourse to the American legal system, and you would have address the problem of gang violence by allowing the DA to deliberately, and make no mistake, it is a quite deliberate strategy (just as the creation of Guantanamo was similarly quite deliberate), to obtain use injunctions against people who can’t defend themselves
with these injunctions, once obtained, upon future violations by the people subject to the injunction, violations of things that are otherwise legal, like being seen in the presence of another person identified by the DA as a gang member, or being seen in a particular proscribed location, violations of otherwise legal acts thereafter being transformed into jail time, as someone else here noted
it’s a Tinkers/Evers/Chance thing: injunction/violation/jail (for failure to pay the fine, which, few, if any, of these people, will be able to do), without the person being sent to jail ever having committed an offense as set forth in the Penal Code, except for violating a judicial order
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice.
So, why is it that you still defend the use of an injunction that is deliberately designed to exploit their inability to defend themselves, and subjects them to constraints upon their ability to associate with people and visit particular areas (areas where other friends and family may live), with violations for otherwise legal acts subjecting them to fines and incarceration if they can’t pay them?
Anyway, you still, for some reason, miss my larger point, it’s not just about the “poor getting access to justice”, it is about the deliberate use of a legal instrument designed to control a segment of the populace, and subject them to fines and incarceration, without ever having to factually and legally prove the basis for it
you are fine with it, I’m not, and as I said, if Reisig is ever forced to meet the most minimal requirements of due process, he will abandon the effort, because Reisig has chosen the route of proceeding with an injunction precisely because it doesn’t require the extensive use of DA’s office resources, and doesn’t require that they actually prove their allegations
but, as Bush does with the ‘war on terror’, keep pandering on the issue of public safety, it’s worked for him, and, yet again, he’s persuaded Congress to abandon common recognized constitutional principles, and it may work for you (and Reisig) here
–Richard Estes
Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
no, actually, it is quite apt, just substitute fears of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalist for “gang members”, and it reads exactly the same
and, it is driven by the same psychology, people identified as “terrorists”, as “gang members”, aren’t people like you and I, and, hence, aren’t entitled to any legal protections
thus, “terrorists” are carted off to Guantanamo, without any recourse to the American legal system, and you would have address the problem of gang violence by allowing the DA to deliberately, and make no mistake, it is a quite deliberate strategy (just as the creation of Guantanamo was similarly quite deliberate), to obtain use injunctions against people who can’t defend themselves
with these injunctions, once obtained, upon future violations by the people subject to the injunction, violations of things that are otherwise legal, like being seen in the presence of another person identified by the DA as a gang member, or being seen in a particular proscribed location, violations of otherwise legal acts thereafter being transformed into jail time, as someone else here noted
it’s a Tinkers/Evers/Chance thing: injunction/violation/jail (for failure to pay the fine, which, few, if any, of these people, will be able to do), without the person being sent to jail ever having committed an offense as set forth in the Penal Code, except for violating a judicial order
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice.
So, why is it that you still defend the use of an injunction that is deliberately designed to exploit their inability to defend themselves, and subjects them to constraints upon their ability to associate with people and visit particular areas (areas where other friends and family may live), with violations for otherwise legal acts subjecting them to fines and incarceration if they can’t pay them?
Anyway, you still, for some reason, miss my larger point, it’s not just about the “poor getting access to justice”, it is about the deliberate use of a legal instrument designed to control a segment of the populace, and subject them to fines and incarceration, without ever having to factually and legally prove the basis for it
you are fine with it, I’m not, and as I said, if Reisig is ever forced to meet the most minimal requirements of due process, he will abandon the effort, because Reisig has chosen the route of proceeding with an injunction precisely because it doesn’t require the extensive use of DA’s office resources, and doesn’t require that they actually prove their allegations
but, as Bush does with the ‘war on terror’, keep pandering on the issue of public safety, it’s worked for him, and, yet again, he’s persuaded Congress to abandon common recognized constitutional principles, and it may work for you (and Reisig) here
–Richard Estes
Of course to be so dismissive of the fears I have expressed about kids getting shot across the street from school or a 21 year old murdered coming out of the VFW hall in Sacramento the other night as if this is some abstact legal issue that puts me in league with those who would surrender liberty for safety that have been exploited by the Bush administration seems like quite a stretch.
no, actually, it is quite apt, just substitute fears of terror attacks by Islamic fundamentalist for “gang members”, and it reads exactly the same
and, it is driven by the same psychology, people identified as “terrorists”, as “gang members”, aren’t people like you and I, and, hence, aren’t entitled to any legal protections
thus, “terrorists” are carted off to Guantanamo, without any recourse to the American legal system, and you would have address the problem of gang violence by allowing the DA to deliberately, and make no mistake, it is a quite deliberate strategy (just as the creation of Guantanamo was similarly quite deliberate), to obtain use injunctions against people who can’t defend themselves
with these injunctions, once obtained, upon future violations by the people subject to the injunction, violations of things that are otherwise legal, like being seen in the presence of another person identified by the DA as a gang member, or being seen in a particular proscribed location, violations of otherwise legal acts thereafter being transformed into jail time, as someone else here noted
it’s a Tinkers/Evers/Chance thing: injunction/violation/jail (for failure to pay the fine, which, few, if any, of these people, will be able to do), without the person being sent to jail ever having committed an offense as set forth in the Penal Code, except for violating a judicial order
Yes Richard I understand your point about the poor getting poor access to justice.
So, why is it that you still defend the use of an injunction that is deliberately designed to exploit their inability to defend themselves, and subjects them to constraints upon their ability to associate with people and visit particular areas (areas where other friends and family may live), with violations for otherwise legal acts subjecting them to fines and incarceration if they can’t pay them?
Anyway, you still, for some reason, miss my larger point, it’s not just about the “poor getting access to justice”, it is about the deliberate use of a legal instrument designed to control a segment of the populace, and subject them to fines and incarceration, without ever having to factually and legally prove the basis for it
you are fine with it, I’m not, and as I said, if Reisig is ever forced to meet the most minimal requirements of due process, he will abandon the effort, because Reisig has chosen the route of proceeding with an injunction precisely because it doesn’t require the extensive use of DA’s office resources, and doesn’t require that they actually prove their allegations
but, as Bush does with the ‘war on terror’, keep pandering on the issue of public safety, it’s worked for him, and, yet again, he’s persuaded Congress to abandon common recognized constitutional principles, and it may work for you (and Reisig) here
–Richard Estes