Saturday, December 17, 2011

Legal questions arise with interrogation tactics used on suspected gang members by our Santa Barbara County Law Enforcement and Distinct Attorneys Office.

 I was contacted by a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun News Paper recently because I challenged the Constitutionality of a "Ruse Affidavit" on my blog. Someone familiar with the defendants in this story came to me asking for help.
Here are some files that I have that pertain to this incredible story, including the original two versions that I altered in this previous posting. In the posting below I also give the exact page location of the two referenced passages. Please review and share these passages with everyone. I was sent these files by a very concerned citizen!
Last week I spoke with a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun Newspaper about the following passage he found on my blog."I just cannot believe the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office or County Law Enforcement. Here is a clear act of conspiracy by those for mentioned with what I am about to share. This case is far too hot and I will say dangerous for me to get involved with. But it does have relevancy in regards to the fact that the SB D.A. and Law Enforcement are willing to commit crimes , sign phony documents, commit perjury, in order to pick and chose who the punish with criminal offenses. The next passage was taken from the bottom of page 8 of the attachment.(not shared on my blog) Where a County law enforcement officer admits to perjury in order to obtain a false conviction.

I Sergeant X. XXXXN #xxx58 had previously prepared a ruse affidavit. The ruse affidavit contained details of Two crimes for which XXXXXXO was being investigated. Many of the details were true, and many were fabricated. The ruse affidavit contained details regarding the robbery that occurred in Santa XXXXXX, as well as a home invasion robbery involving XXXXX XXXXX.

This passage was taken from page three of the attachment lines 17,18, and 19. When confronted about using a judge's signature on a signed warrant with an untruthful affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, Sgt. Xxxxxn advised X, attorney for the defendant, that he received his instructions to do so from the 'District Attorney's Office"

Well Written. totally absorbed in reading this is amazing.

Magic said...
I was contacted by a reporter from the Santa Maria Sun News Paper recently because I challenged the Constitutionality of a "Ruse Affidavit" on my blog. Someone familiar with the defendants in this story came to me asking for help. The actions by the investigating officers as well as the prosecutors in this story are disgraceful. “Law enforcement cannot violate the law to enforce the law,” Santa Maria Superior Court judge Kuns said in her opening statement. So what is the public to think when the former acting District Attorney Ann Bramsen appears to be covering up the actions described in this story? Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney General’s office, told the Sun the office was “unaware” of such a ruse tactic, but declined further comment. So what is the public to think about the Attorney Generals reluctance in dealing with this highly alarming situation? The Southern California American Civil Liberties Union’s senior staff attorney Peter Bibring also weighed in from Los Angeles. “Deliberately creating false court documents undermines the integrity of the courts and our justice system, and is not something police or prosecutors should be doing,” Bibring said. More importantly, he added, “Police and prosecutors who falsely identify people as witnesses against a suspected violent criminal put those people in danger, likely in violation of not only the Constitution but also their basic duty to protect the public. An officer who deliberately put members of the public in danger to solve a case will likely be held responsible by courts for any harm that results.” The reporter obviously had a lot to consider here and I agree with the ACLU’S public safety issue, but I have another equally important concerns. Since there was no real witness for the investigating law enforcement or Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office to call on. They obviously never intended to try this case before a jury and here is why. “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.[1] The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings”. This information was found @ I close with this; how can the defense prepare to defend their client against a nonexistent witnesses or facts? The use and then pulling of the “Ruse Documents” seems to be without question, both illegal and Unconstitutional. The Men and Women in our military give their lives daily to assure us that our Constitution cannot and will not be abused by anyone under any circumstances. Because of this we all should be able to take comfort in knowing our way of life is preserved. That is unless you live in, are charged in, and finally prosecuted in Santa Barbara County California. WE HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTY AND ALL THE LANDS IT COVERS.

S.B.C.C.C. The place where COMMON SENSE never goes out of style!

No comments: