On Thursday, May 7th, Judge Leslie Nichols, from Santa Clara County, 400 miles away, dismissed most of Dave Egan’s civil action against the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Department. Judge Nichols had little choice because a crucial document (a declaration of service of summons) was missing from the court file. As I have been closely following this case, I asked Dave Egan after the hearing how this possibly could have happened. My investigation of the matter revealed some shocking occurrences going on in our local court.
First, Dave Egan swears to me that a local registered process server, Wesley Nunn, had served the defendants with the summons and that he filed a “declaration of service or POS” with the court.
So I contacted Mr. Nunn to see what happened. Mr. Nunn stated that, “Regarding the Declaration of Service, I personally served the summons and complaint on the Sheriff’s Department in compliance with applicable laws and rules. Then I filed my Declaration of Service with the court on April 3rd, 2015 and received a file stamped copy (like a receipt). On May 7th, I sat in Dave Egan’s hearing and was startled to hear that even though Judge Nichols carefully went through the file three times struggling to find it, the Declaration of Service was missing.”
So, the very next morning, Friday May 8th, I went to the court myself and examined the court file. There, in the court file, as plain as day, was Mr. Nunn’s declaration of service , the same document that was apparently missing the day prior and caused the dismissal of most of Dave Egan’s civil action (copy below). The court ‘record’ indicates the Declaration of Service had been filed more than a month ago, just as Mr. Nunn said. Further investigation revealed this is not the first time a crucial document ‘disappeared’ right before a hearing and reappeared right after.
I contacted Mr. Nunn again and discovered that he has observed the same thing on three other occasions, always played on visiting judges. Mr. Nunn, who was employed for 10 years with Macy’s Department stores in Santa Rosa as an investigator of internal and external theft,* said he first noticed the occurrence of ‘missing’ documents while watching a hearing where Judge LaCasse, from Mendocino County, could not find a crucial document filed by the attorney days prior. Mr. Nunn checked the file the next day and found the missing document had ‘returned’.
Mr. Nunn says the pattern is the same: a crucial document is filed with the court; the document seems to ‘disappear’ just before the judge hears the matter; and the document seems to reappear before returning to its place in the court clerk’s office. Nunn believes it is not the visiting judges, but someone working under the judges in the local court that is manipulating the files to manipulate the outcome of a case.
So, I again contacted Mr. Egan to see what else I could learn. Mr. Egan swears to the following facts:
Under Oath : Declaration: of Dave Egan
Attempted to get notice & facts to Judge Nichols, via his Judicial Assistant, J. Reynolds, at 12:00 noon, Thursday. May 7th, hours after my Civil Case Hearing, in regards to ”missing POS.”
Reynolds stonewalled me, “I know not of you, nor of your case,” in the beginning of our phone conversation on May 7th, 12:00 noon.
Reynolds became verbally defensive & otherwise agitated upon conveyance of my discovery of “found POS,” upon my return home.
Reynolds, then spouted at “light speed,” facts, dates, inuenndos of my case, only privy to a select few, within the innerworkings of the Judicial sytem, to my shock & dismay .
Friday, May 8th. Missing POS magically instills itself into my case file when Editor from Crescent City Times.com, Westfall, utilizes public access to Civil Court Records and Case Files and finds the POS.
It appears to this reporter that this is just one more manipulation played against Dave Egan after members of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Department broke into his home in 2011 with claims he possessed a stolen firearm (See Blackhawk Pistol Stories 1-4). Despite nothing on the warrant ever being found, the Sheriffs deputies beat Mr. Egan, threw him in jail, denied him medical attention, and confiscated everything of value from his home, some of which lost its way to evidence. ADDITIONALLY: On April 25, 2014, a public records request was made for a copy of the video of the raid on Dave Egan’s home. Neither the Sheriff’s Department nor the DA’s office have complied. They have 10 days in which to comply. They clearly intend to not comply.
Stay tuned. I will be investigating further and I want to give the judicial assistants, the Court Executive Officer, and even the local judges a full opportunity to comment on the matter.
* Wes Nunn is currently on the Board of Directors of the Crescent City-Del Norte County Taxpayers Association, a local entity that inquires into taxpayer fraud and abuse, and on the local Task Force for the Del Norte Solid Waste Authority.
9 thoughts on “Do Court Documents “Disappear” From Court Files?”
One can only surmise that court clerks aren’t being paid enough and are forced to take on side work of document tampering. What would be the benefit for them if they weren’t being bribed by someone with something to gain by temporarily hiding those specific documents ?
I would like to see what would happen when the DA’s documents “go missing”. Physical paper is one thing but electronic file tampering can be dealt with by installing software that captures every key stroke.
The real question is whose job is it to investigate this ? The DA ? Ca. state Attorney Generals Office ? Maybe one of the honest attorneys can get the ball rolling ..after all they have the most to lose when this happens
We’re publishing Part 2 of Missing Docs soon. CEO Sandra Linderman is going to be conducting an internal investigation once complaints are filed and an investigation is requested.
As a native New Yorker & practicing attorney, I find this account of systemic corruption to be staggering. This sounds like a John Grisham novel. Flagrant interference with court documents, if true, strikes me as appalling, yet intriguing. Perhaps it’s time to put down roots in Del Norte County.
You don’t know me, but I filed court documents and evidence was removed, not only removed but court employees allowed attorneys to forge a Federal District Judge name on a Summary Judgment Order written by the attorney herself. We had complaints to all relevant agencies FBI, DOJ and others to no avail. We were told by the Judicial Council to contact the Chief District Judge and he called our home. After advising the Chief District Judge of what happened, the attorney involved was arrested and arraigned (the DA stated she was arraigned for not registering a boat) Yeah Right…After all of this the US Marshal were sent to our home saying that we had threatened a judge. So now we are forced to sue the court employees and attorneys involved. Just wanted to share : This was filed on May 18, 2015: PRO SE PLAINTIFF Case # 1-15-CV-00757-GSA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
Susan K. Hatmaker, Brett Sutton, Jared Hague: dba Sutton and Hatmaker and Susan K. Hatmaker of Hatmaker Law Group. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague of/dba: Sutton and Hague. Harold Nazaroff and Renee Gaumintz
Defendants SUMMONS & COMPLAINT:
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN VIOLATION OF: US CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242, 18 U.S. Code § 505, and 28 U.S. Code § 951 and 42 U.S. Code § 1983
THE PLAINTIFF , REQUEST THE COURT PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, DISTRICT COURT IN HIS ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS; SUSAN K. HATMAKER, DBA: HATMAKER LAW GROUP, FORMERLY WITH SUTTON AND HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE, DBA: SUTTON AND HAGUE, FORMERLY: SUTTON AND HATMAKER AND HAROLD NAZAROFF, FORMER DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII AND RENEE GAUMINITZ , CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
CAUSE OF ACTION
THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF IN THE IN THE EASTER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER ON THE FOLLOWING U.S. CODE : U.S CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
ALL DEFENDANTS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION DID AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFF OF HIS INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF DOES HAVE TO SET FORTH HIS CASE WITHIN HIS SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, HE SHALL REQUEST THE COURT INDULGENCE TO REVIEW THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANTHONY W. ISHII, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. : 01-12-CV-00633-AWI.
THE PLAINTIFF FILED MOTIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL PROCEDURE
RULE 56 (a) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought.
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. THE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 (d) AND THE MOTION FILED UNDER FRCP 60 WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE DISPUTE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT (SEE EXHIBIT-A and B-PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR REFLIEF UNDER FPCR 56 & 60-ATTACHED). THE COURT DID NOT STATE ON RECORD THE REASON WHY THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION WAS DENIED. HOWEVER JUDGE ISHII SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE IN AN INFORMATIONAL REGARDING HIS DECISION TO DENY THE MOTION (SEE EXHIBIT-C-JUDICIAL INFORMATIONAL ATTACHMENT-ATTACHED). THE PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE COMPLICITY WITH EACH OTHER BY REMOVED EXHIBITS (EVIDENCES) THAT WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE BODY OF MOTIONS. THE PLAINTIFF ALSO INFORMS THE COURT THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT THAT OF CHIEF SENIOR JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
THE INFORMATIONAL ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C SHOWS A COPY AND PASTE SIGNATURE THAT WAS PUPORTEDLY AN E-SIGNATURE (ELECTRONIC) THAT’S THE STATEMENT ON THE INFOMATIONAL DOCUMENT. THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS SHOW THAT THE SIGNATURES ARE MORE THAN LIKELY SCANNED COPIES NOT E-SIGNATURES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FOR AUTHENICITY. THE DOCUMENTS ARE MISSING THE SEAL OF THE FEDERAL COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION; UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE US COURTS THE FOLLOWING IS ALLOWED FOR FEDERAL JUDGES SIGNATURES: COURTS MEET THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIREMENTS OF AN “ORGINAL “SIGNAUTURE ON DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE COURT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. ON PAPERS FILED ELECTRONICALLY, THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE MET WITH THE LOG-IN AND PASSWORD, AND THE SIGNAURE INDICATED BY s/ or /s. ALSO, ALL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE MISSING THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE COURT. ACCORDINGLY UNDER U.S. CODE 18 § 505; Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers; Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any Territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. THE PLAINTIFF STATES THAT UNDER FEDERAL COURT GUIDELINES: A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE COURT ELECTRONICALLY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SIGNED BY A PERSON (“THE SIGNATORY”) WHEN THE DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THE PERSON AS SIGNATORY AND THE FILING COMPLIES WITH SUBPARAGRAPH A OR B. ANY FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OF THESE METHODS SHALL BIND THE SIGNATORY’S SIGNATURE, WHETHER FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TO ATTEST TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF AN AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT ARE FALSE DOCUMENTS WITH FORGED SIGNATURES AND NO SEALS. THE SIGNATURE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANTHONY W. ISHII AS THE SIGNATORY BECAUSE HIS JUDICIAL TITLE IS NOT PRESENT. THESE FALSELY FILED DOCUMENTS AFFORDED ATTORNEYS SUSAN K. HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE AN ILLEGAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR THEIR CLIENT (LEIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 01-12-CV-00633) IN FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT (SEE EXHIBIT-D- SUSAN HATMAKER ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER DECLARATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT).
IN ORDER FOR THE ATTORNEYS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION TO PROCEED WITH THEIR FRAUDLENT ACTIVITIES (FILINGS, FORGERY OF JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE, AND CLOSING OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE) THEY MORE THAN LIKELY HAD TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE FROM AN INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. ACCORDING TO TITLE 28 U.S. CODE 951; Oath of office of clerks and deputies; Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, XXX XXX, having been appointed XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” IT’S APPARENT THAT THIS OATH MEANS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE DEPUTIES OF THE COURT, BECAUSE OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN UNDERMINING THE PLAINTIFF CASE AND VIOLATING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER TILE 42 CODE § 1983 –
Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. THE PLAINTIFF HAS ATTACHED EMAILS FROM FORMER DEPUTY CLERK, HAROLD NAZAROFF STATING HIS REFUSAL TO CONTACT THE OFFICER OF THE COURT WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNS OF FRAUD, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND FORGERY. ALSO, ATTACHED IS ONE OF THE MANY CORRESPONDENCES DELIVERED TO THE COURT, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE COURT ON JULY 28, 2014, THE EMPLOYEES FOR JUDGE ISHII STATED THAT THIS LETTER WAS GIVEN TO THE JUDGE, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE COURT AS THIS LETTER WAS ATTACHED TO MY MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRPC 60, THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII (SEE EXHIBIT-E-LETTERS, EMAILS, CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE COURT EMPLOYEES).
THE PLAINTIFF ALSO WISHES TO ADVISE THE COURT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF JUDGE MORRIS C. ENGLAND JR. ON SEPTEMBER 05, 2014, AT 11:20AM. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS INFORMED OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT REGADING THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS COURTROOM ADMINISTRATORS, AND DEPUTY CLERKS. HE WAS INFORMED THAT HIS EMPLOYEES CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENCES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, THEY HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS TO INTIMDATE, HARRASS AND THREATEN THE PLAINTIFF. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER, WAS/IS AWARE THAT JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE WAS FORGED; HE SEARCHED THE PACER WEBSITE ALONG WITH MYSELF AND FOUND THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS FORGED AND STATED, “I GOT YOU….I GOT YOU” ….. THEN JUDGE ENGLAND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS STATED HE WOULD GET BACK WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNING HIS COMPLAINTS REGARDNG THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. HE ALSO APPRISED ME THAT HE COULD NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THE CASE BUT WOULD ADDRESS THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND SPEAK WITH JUDGE ISHII.
JUDGE ENGLAND NEVER RESPONDED BACK AS HE STATED, SO THEREFORE I PHONED HIS CHAMBERS AS A CITIZEN, TAXPAYER AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENT TO REQUEST A MEETING TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS. HIS ASSITANT, ADELE PURPUR-ESPANA STATED THAT JUDGE ENGLAND HAS ADVISED HER TOO NO LONGER HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ME. THE EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED FROM JUDGE ENGLAND (JUDGES HAVE EMAILS) WAS SIGNED “MCE.” ALTHOUGH, I AM NOT FRIENDS WITH JUDGE ENGLANCE BUT FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE TO SEND AN EMAIL WITH ONLY HIS INITIALS “MCE” WHO IS “MCE.” (SEE EXHIBIT-F- JUDGE ENGLAND EMAIL.
AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE JUDGES’ ASSISTANT ADELE AND HIS DEPUTY CLERK STEPHANIE TO NO AVAIL, MY WIFE HELENE JONES RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE IN SACRAMENTO. OFFICER JOE MCKEOUGH (SP?) STATED THAT, SHE NEED TO STOP CALLING THE JUDGES CHAMBERS. MY WIFE INFORMED HIM THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE HIS CALL BECAUSE WE HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL CHAMBERS WITH OUR COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYEES. WE HAD BEEN RECEIVING MANY CALLS FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE STATING THAT WERE FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
HOWEVER, OFFICER MCKEOUGH (SP?) DEEMED OTHERWISE BECAUSE ON OCTOBER 01, 2014, OFFICERS FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE SHOWED UP AT MY HOME AT 7:30PM, WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR AUTHORIZATION. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY IDENTIFICATION NEITHER WOULD THEY TELL US UNDER WHOS’ AUTHORITY THEY WERE THERE UNDER. MY FAMILY AND I SAW THIS AS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION, INTIMIDATION, HARRASSMENT AND THREAT AGAINST MY FAMILY. THE US MARSHALS DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR OWN PROCTOLS AND GUIDELINES BEFORE ASSESSING A SO-CALLED THREAT TO A FEDERAL JUDGE. THE ACTIONS OF THE US MARHALS IS COVERED UNDER TITLE 18 CODE § 242.
SINCE THE EVENTS OF OCTOBER 1, 2014, WE HAVE TRIED REPEATEDLY TO CONTACT THE COURT FOR SOME TIME OF RESOULTION. JUDGE ISHII’S LAW CLERKS AND CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK RENEE GAMNITZ HAVE REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME. HOWEVER, JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK RAY HORNG STATED, “OH…I SEE THE VISIT BY THE US MARSHALS DIDN’T SEEM TO DO YOU ANY GOOD.” THIS STATEMENT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK WAS WELL AWARE OF IMMENIENT THREAT THAT THE MARSHAL OFFICE WAS PREPARING. ANY DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT HAVE NOT BE PRESENTED TO JUDGE ISHII. HIS LAW CLERKS, MICHAEL SOWARDS AND HIS FORMER RETIRED DEPUTY CLERK HAROLD NAZAROFF BOTH HAVE WIVES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN A RELATIONSHIP/FRIENDSHIP WITH THE LEAD ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S PERVIOUS COURT ACTION (JONES –VS- LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT 01:12-CV-0633-AWI).
THIS INFORMATION WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT AS THE PLAINTIFF AS NOW BEEN FORCED TO FILE A NEW ACTION WITH THE COURT AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS AND THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. THE PLAINTIFF ASKED THE COURT TO ALLOW HIS COMPLAINT TO BE HANDLED IN ANOTHER VENUE UNDER TITLE 18 US CODE 1404 (a). IT’S THE PLAINTIFF BELIEF THAT HE CANNOT AND WILL NOT RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. THE PLAINTIFF IS AWARE THAT THE FRESNO DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES AND DEFENDANTS ACTIONS OCCURRED.
THE PLAINTIFF CURRENTLY LIVES IN THE KERN COUNTY AREA, HOWEVER I SHALL BE CHANGING RESIDENCES AT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. THE PLAINTIFF REQUEST THAT HE BE ALLOWED A CHANGE OF VENUE TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
I moved away from Del Norte County primarily due to the levels and intensity of corruption and only came back to help a friend in time of need, but when that was over, left again, and for good. At every level of local Government there, it seems there are people abusing their authority and power on a near daily basis.
The big issue with having higher levels of government that has jurisdiction in “cleaning house” up there in Del Norte County is the simple fact that most people cannot seem to grasp the wide scope and depth of corruption perpetrated by various members of Government at each level of Government in Del Norte County. They think that’s just not going to happen. It’s a big county, but it has only one small city, so at face value, it seems large to an outsider. You’d think with all the various departments, you would have many people working in official capacities there. The reality is that of all the projects and departments there, a very limited number of people have direct influence or control over those projects and departments. There are plenty of instances where people in a position of power there have their hands in so many other projects, they personally and politically profit. Most of it goes under the radar because people in Del Norte are just not aware and haven’t awoken.
Of the people who ARE paying attention, their attempts to become part of the democratic process to resolve issues are thwarted time and time again. Like when my friends’ microphone was cut off at a City Council Meeting. When an officer of the law is inches away from being handcuffed, they move out of the state. They know it’s just a matter of time before they are in prison. Their time is running out and they know it.
In the case of Dave Egan, he is not a convicted felon, yet he was labeled as one in an effort to obtain a search warrant. They messed up bigtime in his case and probably could have offered an apology and maybe some cash, return his belongings including his guns collection. He instead has been dragged through a heart wrenching court battle spanning years now and is only trying to get his damn life back and his name cleared. He did no wrongdoing. There is a regime out there in Del Norte County, and sadly when Dean Wilson (the former sheriff) was replaced by the new Sheriff, Eric Apperson, not all of the corrupt officers left. One detective as i understand it was demoted, while another quit his job and moved to Oregon suddenly. Another was apparently forced to retire. I don’t know exactly why. I suppose we’ll never know. Mr. Egan’s case is reminiscent of many others over the years, where the basic rights of an individual are quite literally brutally violated with no legal justification. Yet, despite the mistake, law enforcement has utterly failed to deliver a simple apology and instead, decided to pursue criminal charges against their own victim, hurting him further. Mr. Egan has not bent over to take whatever “punishment” Del Norte County wants to offer him, but rather he has fought back and continues to fight for his rights, and his dignity. I applaud him for this. It is not wise to “settle” with something like this, because if it continues with Egan, it will continue with others.
Mr. Egan has been following the legal process as he’s required to do. Our government is structured so democracy works. When local government employees fail to let people follow the legal process, it taints the entire system and invalidates the need for local government and and such, civilians then are granted a very limited but very powerful alternative to solving the issue by forcing elected officials out of office and putting into place a replacement government.
If those people in Del Norte County are not able to follow the process due to the corruption of the government there, and pleas are not heard by higher levels of government to step in and help citizens address these issues, then my friends in Del Norte, need to step up and replace the government there. I want to be clear that this doesn’t necessarily mean violence is needed.
How many people up there are contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigations? State Attorney General’s office? Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. (ATF)? I helped with the process of reporting health hazard issues to the EPA which began an massive investigation. I urge people there to due the same with the other hazards of Del Norte.
If I were up there, i would begin forming groups who must legally sign confidentiality agreements and begin the process of investigating law enforcement, county clerk’s office, court records department, et cetera. Set up stings if you must, reporting any findings to the proper authorities having jurisdiction. Believe it or not, our higher levels of Government are generally good for us and when there is a demand for assistance, they will assist. The only thing not stopping corruption up there are the people who live and work there not doing what’s needed of them. You think local government will clean their own house? Think again.
And also, people need to understand their rights. They have a legal right to film interaction with ALL government officials and most records ARE PUBLIC RECORD. Begin posting everything online if you must. It is imperative that people exercise their rights and assert them whenever necessary, or even for fun. Do not let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, which is clearly a problem up there and has been for a very long time.
Weeding out corruption in a small city may result in trying to find replacements for their positions, but it will certainly make for a better community up there, wouldn’t it?
Mr. Maietta, Who is your friend and why was his mic. shut off at the City Council meeting. What was he talking about? When did this happen. I am a councilmember and I don’t remember it.
Councilman Enea; I’m responding since I was on the City Council at the time. The Mayor was Kathryn Murray. The speaker was Ginny Aland. She mentioned being allergic to fluoride and once she said the word “fluoride,” Mayor Murray told them to shut her microphone off and Ms. Aland was escorted out of the room by former Police Chief Doug Plack. This happened on May 21, 2012.
Donna Westfall
I also retrieved a copy of the City Council meeting in question, because I believe like another video that vanished, this one had the potential to vanish as well. I will be re-posting this video online, including the snippet in question as soon as i have time.
@Mr Enea, Donna Westfall is right. My friend, Ms. Aland not only had her microphone cut off being under 3 minutes, she also had been mistreated by Kathryn Murray in a follow-up meeting request.
One can only surmise that court clerks aren’t being paid enough and are forced to take on side work of document tampering. What would be the benefit for them if they weren’t being bribed by someone with something to gain by temporarily hiding those specific documents ?
I would like to see what would happen when the DA’s documents “go missing”. Physical paper is one thing but electronic file tampering can be dealt with by installing software that captures every key stroke.
The real question is whose job is it to investigate this ? The DA ? Ca. state Attorney Generals Office ? Maybe one of the honest attorneys can get the ball rolling ..after all they have the most to lose when this happens
We’re publishing Part 2 of Missing Docs soon. CEO Sandra Linderman is going to be conducting an internal investigation once complaints are filed and an investigation is requested.
As a native New Yorker & practicing attorney, I find this account of systemic corruption to be staggering. This sounds like a John Grisham novel. Flagrant interference with court documents, if true, strikes me as appalling, yet intriguing. Perhaps it’s time to put down roots in Del Norte County.
You don’t know me, but I filed court documents and evidence was removed, not only removed but court employees allowed attorneys to forge a Federal District Judge name on a Summary Judgment Order written by the attorney herself. We had complaints to all relevant agencies FBI, DOJ and others to no avail. We were told by the Judicial Council to contact the Chief District Judge and he called our home. After advising the Chief District Judge of what happened, the attorney involved was arrested and arraigned (the DA stated she was arraigned for not registering a boat) Yeah Right…After all of this the US Marshal were sent to our home saying that we had threatened a judge. So now we are forced to sue the court employees and attorneys involved. Just wanted to share : This was filed on May 18, 2015: PRO SE PLAINTIFF Case # 1-15-CV-00757-GSA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
Susan K. Hatmaker, Brett Sutton, Jared Hague: dba Sutton and Hatmaker and Susan K. Hatmaker of Hatmaker Law Group. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague of/dba: Sutton and Hague. Harold Nazaroff and Renee Gaumintz
Defendants SUMMONS & COMPLAINT:
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN VIOLATION OF: US CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242, 18 U.S. Code § 505, and 28 U.S. Code § 951 and 42 U.S. Code § 1983
THE PLAINTIFF , REQUEST THE COURT PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, DISTRICT COURT IN HIS ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS; SUSAN K. HATMAKER, DBA: HATMAKER LAW GROUP, FORMERLY WITH SUTTON AND HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE, DBA: SUTTON AND HAGUE, FORMERLY: SUTTON AND HATMAKER AND HAROLD NAZAROFF, FORMER DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII AND RENEE GAUMINITZ , CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK FOR CHIEF JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
CAUSE OF ACTION
THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF IN THE IN THE EASTER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER ON THE FOLLOWING U.S. CODE : U.S CODE: 18 U.S. Code § 242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
ALL DEFENDANTS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION DID AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFF OF HIS INDIVIDUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF DOES HAVE TO SET FORTH HIS CASE WITHIN HIS SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, HE SHALL REQUEST THE COURT INDULGENCE TO REVIEW THE PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FRESNO, CALIFORNIA UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANTHONY W. ISHII, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. : 01-12-CV-00633-AWI.
THE PLAINTIFF FILED MOTIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL PROCEDURE
RULE 56 (a) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought.
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. THE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56 (d) AND THE MOTION FILED UNDER FRCP 60 WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE DISPUTE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT (SEE EXHIBIT-A and B-PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR REFLIEF UNDER FPCR 56 & 60-ATTACHED). THE COURT DID NOT STATE ON RECORD THE REASON WHY THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION WAS DENIED. HOWEVER JUDGE ISHII SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE IN AN INFORMATIONAL REGARDING HIS DECISION TO DENY THE MOTION (SEE EXHIBIT-C-JUDICIAL INFORMATIONAL ATTACHMENT-ATTACHED). THE PLAINTIFF BELIEVES THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE COMPLICITY WITH EACH OTHER BY REMOVED EXHIBITS (EVIDENCES) THAT WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE BODY OF MOTIONS. THE PLAINTIFF ALSO INFORMS THE COURT THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT THAT OF CHIEF SENIOR JUDGE ANTHONY W. ISHII.
THE INFORMATIONAL ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C SHOWS A COPY AND PASTE SIGNATURE THAT WAS PUPORTEDLY AN E-SIGNATURE (ELECTRONIC) THAT’S THE STATEMENT ON THE INFOMATIONAL DOCUMENT. THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS SHOW THAT THE SIGNATURES ARE MORE THAN LIKELY SCANNED COPIES NOT E-SIGNATURES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FOR AUTHENICITY. THE DOCUMENTS ARE MISSING THE SEAL OF THE FEDERAL COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION; UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THE US COURTS THE FOLLOWING IS ALLOWED FOR FEDERAL JUDGES SIGNATURES: COURTS MEET THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIREMENTS OF AN “ORGINAL “SIGNAUTURE ON DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE COURT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. ON PAPERS FILED ELECTRONICALLY, THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE MET WITH THE LOG-IN AND PASSWORD, AND THE SIGNAURE INDICATED BY s/ or /s. ALSO, ALL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE MISSING THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE COURT. ACCORDINGLY UNDER U.S. CODE 18 § 505; Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers; Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any Territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. THE PLAINTIFF STATES THAT UNDER FEDERAL COURT GUIDELINES: A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE COURT ELECTRONICALLY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE SIGNED BY A PERSON (“THE SIGNATORY”) WHEN THE DOCUMENT IDENTIFIES THE PERSON AS SIGNATORY AND THE FILING COMPLIES WITH SUBPARAGRAPH A OR B. ANY FILING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OF THESE METHODS SHALL BIND THE SIGNATORY’S SIGNATURE, WHETHER FOR PURPOSES OF RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TO ATTEST TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF AN AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT ARE FALSE DOCUMENTS WITH FORGED SIGNATURES AND NO SEALS. THE SIGNATURE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANTHONY W. ISHII AS THE SIGNATORY BECAUSE HIS JUDICIAL TITLE IS NOT PRESENT. THESE FALSELY FILED DOCUMENTS AFFORDED ATTORNEYS SUSAN K. HATMAKER, BRETT SUTTON AND JARED HAGUE AN ILLEGAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR THEIR CLIENT (LEIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 01-12-CV-00633) IN FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT (SEE EXHIBIT-D- SUSAN HATMAKER ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER DECLARATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT).
IN ORDER FOR THE ATTORNEYS MENTION IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION TO PROCEED WITH THEIR FRAUDLENT ACTIVITIES (FILINGS, FORGERY OF JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE, AND CLOSING OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE) THEY MORE THAN LIKELY HAD TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE FROM AN INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. ACCORDING TO TITLE 28 U.S. CODE 951; Oath of office of clerks and deputies; Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, XXX XXX, having been appointed XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” IT’S APPARENT THAT THIS OATH MEANS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE DEPUTIES OF THE COURT, BECAUSE OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN UNDERMINING THE PLAINTIFF CASE AND VIOLATING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER TILE 42 CODE § 1983 –
Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. THE PLAINTIFF HAS ATTACHED EMAILS FROM FORMER DEPUTY CLERK, HAROLD NAZAROFF STATING HIS REFUSAL TO CONTACT THE OFFICER OF THE COURT WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNS OF FRAUD, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND FORGERY. ALSO, ATTACHED IS ONE OF THE MANY CORRESPONDENCES DELIVERED TO THE COURT, SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE COURT ON JULY 28, 2014, THE EMPLOYEES FOR JUDGE ISHII STATED THAT THIS LETTER WAS GIVEN TO THE JUDGE, HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFF NEVER RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE FROM THE COURT AS THIS LETTER WAS ATTACHED TO MY MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FRPC 60, THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY DENIED BY JUDGE ISHII (SEE EXHIBIT-E-LETTERS, EMAILS, CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE COURT EMPLOYEES).
THE PLAINTIFF ALSO WISHES TO ADVISE THE COURT OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF JUDGE MORRIS C. ENGLAND JR. ON SEPTEMBER 05, 2014, AT 11:20AM. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS INFORMED OF THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT REGADING THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS COURTROOM ADMINISTRATORS, AND DEPUTY CLERKS. HE WAS INFORMED THAT HIS EMPLOYEES CONDUCT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENCES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, THEY HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS TO INTIMDATE, HARRASS AND THREATEN THE PLAINTIFF. JUDGE ENGLAND WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER, WAS/IS AWARE THAT JUDGE ISHII SIGNATURE WAS FORGED; HE SEARCHED THE PACER WEBSITE ALONG WITH MYSELF AND FOUND THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS FORGED AND STATED, “I GOT YOU….I GOT YOU” ….. THEN JUDGE ENGLAND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS STATED HE WOULD GET BACK WITH THE PLAINTIFF CONCERNING HIS COMPLAINTS REGARDNG THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. HE ALSO APPRISED ME THAT HE COULD NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THE CASE BUT WOULD ADDRESS THE BEHAVIOR OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND SPEAK WITH JUDGE ISHII.
JUDGE ENGLAND NEVER RESPONDED BACK AS HE STATED, SO THEREFORE I PHONED HIS CHAMBERS AS A CITIZEN, TAXPAYER AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENT TO REQUEST A MEETING TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS. HIS ASSITANT, ADELE PURPUR-ESPANA STATED THAT JUDGE ENGLAND HAS ADVISED HER TOO NO LONGER HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ME. THE EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED FROM JUDGE ENGLAND (JUDGES HAVE EMAILS) WAS SIGNED “MCE.” ALTHOUGH, I AM NOT FRIENDS WITH JUDGE ENGLANCE BUT FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE TO SEND AN EMAIL WITH ONLY HIS INITIALS “MCE” WHO IS “MCE.” (SEE EXHIBIT-F- JUDGE ENGLAND EMAIL.
AFTER REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE JUDGES’ ASSISTANT ADELE AND HIS DEPUTY CLERK STEPHANIE TO NO AVAIL, MY WIFE HELENE JONES RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE IN SACRAMENTO. OFFICER JOE MCKEOUGH (SP?) STATED THAT, SHE NEED TO STOP CALLING THE JUDGES CHAMBERS. MY WIFE INFORMED HIM THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE HIS CALL BECAUSE WE HAD THE RIGHT TO CALL CHAMBERS WITH OUR COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYEES. WE HAD BEEN RECEIVING MANY CALLS FROM PEOPLE THAT WERE STATING THAT WERE FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
HOWEVER, OFFICER MCKEOUGH (SP?) DEEMED OTHERWISE BECAUSE ON OCTOBER 01, 2014, OFFICERS FROM THE US MARSHALS OFFICE SHOWED UP AT MY HOME AT 7:30PM, WITHOUT ANY WARNING OR AUTHORIZATION. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY IDENTIFICATION NEITHER WOULD THEY TELL US UNDER WHOS’ AUTHORITY THEY WERE THERE UNDER. MY FAMILY AND I SAW THIS AS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION, INTIMIDATION, HARRASSMENT AND THREAT AGAINST MY FAMILY. THE US MARSHALS DID NOT FOLLOW THEIR OWN PROCTOLS AND GUIDELINES BEFORE ASSESSING A SO-CALLED THREAT TO A FEDERAL JUDGE. THE ACTIONS OF THE US MARHALS IS COVERED UNDER TITLE 18 CODE § 242.
SINCE THE EVENTS OF OCTOBER 1, 2014, WE HAVE TRIED REPEATEDLY TO CONTACT THE COURT FOR SOME TIME OF RESOULTION. JUDGE ISHII’S LAW CLERKS AND CURRENT DEPUTY CLERK RENEE GAMNITZ HAVE REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ME. HOWEVER, JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK RAY HORNG STATED, “OH…I SEE THE VISIT BY THE US MARSHALS DIDN’T SEEM TO DO YOU ANY GOOD.” THIS STATEMENT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT JUDGE ISHIIS’ LAW CLERK WAS WELL AWARE OF IMMENIENT THREAT THAT THE MARSHAL OFFICE WAS PREPARING. ANY DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT HAVE NOT BE PRESENTED TO JUDGE ISHII. HIS LAW CLERKS, MICHAEL SOWARDS AND HIS FORMER RETIRED DEPUTY CLERK HAROLD NAZAROFF BOTH HAVE WIVES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN A RELATIONSHIP/FRIENDSHIP WITH THE LEAD ATTORNEY SUSAN HATMAKER ON THE PLAINTIFF’S PERVIOUS COURT ACTION (JONES –VS- LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT 01:12-CV-0633-AWI).
THIS INFORMATION WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT AS THE PLAINTIFF AS NOW BEEN FORCED TO FILE A NEW ACTION WITH THE COURT AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS AND THE COURTROOM EMPLOYEES. THE PLAINTIFF ASKED THE COURT TO ALLOW HIS COMPLAINT TO BE HANDLED IN ANOTHER VENUE UNDER TITLE 18 US CODE 1404 (a). IT’S THE PLAINTIFF BELIEF THAT HE CANNOT AND WILL NOT RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT. THE PLAINTIFF IS AWARE THAT THE FRESNO DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES AND DEFENDANTS ACTIONS OCCURRED.
THE PLAINTIFF CURRENTLY LIVES IN THE KERN COUNTY AREA, HOWEVER I SHALL BE CHANGING RESIDENCES AT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. THE PLAINTIFF REQUEST THAT HE BE ALLOWED A CHANGE OF VENUE TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
Thanks Donna,I had forgotten about that. That should not have happened.
I moved away from Del Norte County primarily due to the levels and intensity of corruption and only came back to help a friend in time of need, but when that was over, left again, and for good. At every level of local Government there, it seems there are people abusing their authority and power on a near daily basis.
The big issue with having higher levels of government that has jurisdiction in “cleaning house” up there in Del Norte County is the simple fact that most people cannot seem to grasp the wide scope and depth of corruption perpetrated by various members of Government at each level of Government in Del Norte County. They think that’s just not going to happen. It’s a big county, but it has only one small city, so at face value, it seems large to an outsider. You’d think with all the various departments, you would have many people working in official capacities there. The reality is that of all the projects and departments there, a very limited number of people have direct influence or control over those projects and departments. There are plenty of instances where people in a position of power there have their hands in so many other projects, they personally and politically profit. Most of it goes under the radar because people in Del Norte are just not aware and haven’t awoken.
Of the people who ARE paying attention, their attempts to become part of the democratic process to resolve issues are thwarted time and time again. Like when my friends’ microphone was cut off at a City Council Meeting. When an officer of the law is inches away from being handcuffed, they move out of the state. They know it’s just a matter of time before they are in prison. Their time is running out and they know it.
In the case of Dave Egan, he is not a convicted felon, yet he was labeled as one in an effort to obtain a search warrant. They messed up bigtime in his case and probably could have offered an apology and maybe some cash, return his belongings including his guns collection. He instead has been dragged through a heart wrenching court battle spanning years now and is only trying to get his damn life back and his name cleared. He did no wrongdoing. There is a regime out there in Del Norte County, and sadly when Dean Wilson (the former sheriff) was replaced by the new Sheriff, Eric Apperson, not all of the corrupt officers left. One detective as i understand it was demoted, while another quit his job and moved to Oregon suddenly. Another was apparently forced to retire. I don’t know exactly why. I suppose we’ll never know. Mr. Egan’s case is reminiscent of many others over the years, where the basic rights of an individual are quite literally brutally violated with no legal justification. Yet, despite the mistake, law enforcement has utterly failed to deliver a simple apology and instead, decided to pursue criminal charges against their own victim, hurting him further. Mr. Egan has not bent over to take whatever “punishment” Del Norte County wants to offer him, but rather he has fought back and continues to fight for his rights, and his dignity. I applaud him for this. It is not wise to “settle” with something like this, because if it continues with Egan, it will continue with others.
Mr. Egan has been following the legal process as he’s required to do. Our government is structured so democracy works. When local government employees fail to let people follow the legal process, it taints the entire system and invalidates the need for local government and and such, civilians then are granted a very limited but very powerful alternative to solving the issue by forcing elected officials out of office and putting into place a replacement government.
If those people in Del Norte County are not able to follow the process due to the corruption of the government there, and pleas are not heard by higher levels of government to step in and help citizens address these issues, then my friends in Del Norte, need to step up and replace the government there. I want to be clear that this doesn’t necessarily mean violence is needed.
How many people up there are contacting the Federal Bureau of Investigations? State Attorney General’s office? Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. (ATF)? I helped with the process of reporting health hazard issues to the EPA which began an massive investigation. I urge people there to due the same with the other hazards of Del Norte.
If I were up there, i would begin forming groups who must legally sign confidentiality agreements and begin the process of investigating law enforcement, county clerk’s office, court records department, et cetera. Set up stings if you must, reporting any findings to the proper authorities having jurisdiction. Believe it or not, our higher levels of Government are generally good for us and when there is a demand for assistance, they will assist. The only thing not stopping corruption up there are the people who live and work there not doing what’s needed of them. You think local government will clean their own house? Think again.
And also, people need to understand their rights. They have a legal right to film interaction with ALL government officials and most records ARE PUBLIC RECORD. Begin posting everything online if you must. It is imperative that people exercise their rights and assert them whenever necessary, or even for fun. Do not let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, which is clearly a problem up there and has been for a very long time.
Weeding out corruption in a small city may result in trying to find replacements for their positions, but it will certainly make for a better community up there, wouldn’t it?
Mr. Maietta, Who is your friend and why was his mic. shut off at the City Council meeting. What was he talking about? When did this happen. I am a councilmember and I don’t remember it.
Councilman Enea; I’m responding since I was on the City Council at the time. The Mayor was Kathryn Murray. The speaker was Ginny Aland. She mentioned being allergic to fluoride and once she said the word “fluoride,” Mayor Murray told them to shut her microphone off and Ms. Aland was escorted out of the room by former Police Chief Doug Plack. This happened on May 21, 2012.
Donna Westfall
Thank You Donna for responding:
The article you posted was https://www.crescentcitytimes.com/?p=148.
I also retrieved a copy of the City Council meeting in question, because I believe like another video that vanished, this one had the potential to vanish as well. I will be re-posting this video online, including the snippet in question as soon as i have time.
@Mr Enea, Donna Westfall is right. My friend, Ms. Aland not only had her microphone cut off being under 3 minutes, she also had been mistreated by Kathryn Murray in a follow-up meeting request.